"We Don't Have the Resources"

I was listening to a tape of the hearings on Capitol Hill this week in which the big 3 automaker CEOs were testifying before Congress and asking for their bailouts. It was pointed out in their testimony that all three of them flew from Detroit to Washington in their corporate jets. In the testimony I was listening to, GM CEO Rick Wagoner couldn't even tell an inquiring congressman how much money he needed.

Think of the irony of that; three CEOs flying into Washington on corporate jets to beg for money because they are going broke, but at least one of them can't even say how much money he needs and when he needs it.

No wonder this country is going broke.

Also think of the bailouts going to these Wall Street fat cats; companies like AIG (who promptly blow it on boondoggle getaways to super-expensive resorts). Think of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and all the other financial companies who went bankrupt through inept management. These companies are getting 700 billion of tax-payer money to keep them afloat. Now, the automakers (who for decades have been producing cars that are only 10 years and 50,000 miles from the junkyard) are trying to get a piece of that pie.

No wonder this country is going broke.

Yet, when it comes to spending money for honorable purposes, we hear the same old line. We don't have the resources.

We don't have the resources to adequately control our border with Mexico.

We don't have the resources to deport illegal alien gang members and criminals as they get out of jail after having committed crimes. Thus, they hit the streets and continue to commit crimes. Take the case in Los Angeles, when an illegal alien gang member senselessly gunned down Jamiel Shaw Jr. The killer had been released from jail less than 48 hours earlier.

Think of the Bologna case in San Francisco, where an illegal alien gang member, who had been arrested previously and never turned over to ICE, killed two innocent people, a father and his son. Of course, both of those cities are unapologeticly sanctuary cities who refuse to turn these criminals over to ICE.

Think of the recent case in Arizona where an illegal alien from Afghanistan with a criminal record, whom ICE had been trying to deport for 14 years, killed two girls in a car crash. Why was he still in the country?

Well, here comes the answer; either the specific locale is a sanctuary city, which refuses to notify ICE or-

"We don't have the resources."

It is true that we don't have the resources to round up 12 million illegal aliens and deport them. It is not going to happen. Since most of them are poor, hard-working people from Mexico who simply need to work, we can afford to be humane here.

But there is no excuse for turning a blind eye to the criminal element, especially violent street gangs.

In another area, we don't have the resources to build new prison facilities to lock up our huge criminal population. Thus, judges issue orders to release criminals out onto the streets due to "prison overcrowding".

(I have a solution for that. Let 'em sleep on top of each other; they do anyway.)

Whether you are Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, we all must admit that over the past several decades, our government has served us horribly. This latest bailout mess is just the latest example.

So now, while our government figures out how to distribute at least 700 billion to companies that should be bursting at the seams with money, our real needs go unaddressed because, "we don't have the resources".

No wonder this country is going broke.

Where is the Change?

"And when I'm President, there will be change...Hillary, Podesta, Emanuel, Gates, Holder...you know, real change we can believe in."


Isn't it great to see all these fresh new faces coming into Washington? If you read Time Magazine, Barack Obama is the reincarnation of FDR. Newsweek is now comparing him to Abe Lincoln. NBC News, which everyone knows was in the tank for Obama during the election, has now come out with a DVD on Obama called, "Yes, we can". How about, "Wir folgen unserem Fuehrer!" (We follow our leader in German).

One would expect that on inauguration day, the temperature in Washington will be balmy 75 degrees with lots of sunshine. Yes, a new day is dawning. CHANGE is in the air. Why, just look at the people Obama has named or is about to name to his cabinet.....

Uh,.......

First, it appears that Obama will retain Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who would be a holdover from the Bush Administration.

White House Chief of Staff- Rahm Emanuel, former Clinton hatchet man, who is now a representative from Illinois.

Head of the Transition team- That would be John Podesta, another Clintonista who spent much of his time in the Clinton Administration defending Bill from one scandal or another.

Today, it has come out that Eric Holder is the top choice for Attorney General. Holder, who was Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, was mixed up in the infamous Marc Rich pardon. He was apparently the only one in the Justice Department who thought it was a grand idea to pardon a man who was still a fugitive from justice. It may even be that Holder was the only person in the Justice Department who had any knowledge of the pardon. Great choice.

And finally, it appears that none other than Hillary Clinton will probably be our next Secretary of State. Hey, why not? Hillary has now had her ticket punched as Senator, so now she can add Secretary of State to her "impressive" resume:

1992-2000 Wife of President of US (well, sort of)
2001-2008 US Senator for New York (a state where she had never previously lived).
2009- Secretary of State

(Boy, I can hear those striped-pants boys at State shaking in their boots right now.)

But what does this do for Obama? What it does is make the presidency a triumvirate between Obama, Hillary and ....BILL!!

Is this what Obama really wants-to have TWO loose cannons with their own agendas at his side? And what about the probable conflicts of interest that will arise when Hillary engages in diplomacy and negotiation with countries who have poured millions into Bill's library and other endeavors (UAE, Kazakhstan, etc)? And what administrative experience does Hillary have to run a huge government department like State?

At any rate, as the posts start to fill up, the question begs; with all these Clinton people in the top tier of the Administration, will Obama be his own man?

More importantly, where is the Change? Joe Biden certainly doesn't represent Change. What we are now seeing (so far) is, to borrow a phrase, just more of the same.

So what's next Mr Obama? Are you going to appoint Bill Clinton as President?

Press Release from Project Meridian Foundation

Per the request of Nathan Wilson, CEO of Project Meridian Foundation, I am pleased to post the below press release. I have written about Project Meridian Foundation recently. They are truly doing God's work in helping save the victims of child sexual abuse.

Press Release: 11/18/08
Contact: Project Meridian Foundation
Tel: (202) 257-0987
Email: Nathan.Wilson@projectmeridianfoundation.org
Website: www.projectmeridianfoundation.org


JEFFERY “JEFF” S. WILLIAMS JOINS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF PROJECT MERIDIAN FOUNDATION, INC.


.Jeffrey (Jeff) S. Williams

We welcome Mr. Williams his expertise in communication and leadership in government and the non-profit arena will be great asset to Project Meridian Foundation as we move forward with the Board of Directors.

Jeff is currently the Program Development Consultant for the Virginia Department of Social Services Division of Licensing Programs (Licensing). He has worked for Licensing since 2000. During that time he has been a licensing inspector, operations consultant, and information technology specialist. He brought to Licensing a great deal of experience and education in the area of human services and human development. His professional experience ranged from directing religious and secular child care programs to managing the educational and general programming of a large church.

Jeff obtained a Masters in Communication (with an emphasis in mass media and culture) from Regent University in 2005 and a Bachelor in Social Science (with an emphasis in education and psychology) from Virginia Wesleyan College in 1993. Jeff continues to increase his knowledge and experience in the field of human services by attending numerous trainings. Because of his skills and accomplishments, he was recently selected to attend the Virginia Social Services Leadership Academy. He has found the program to be extremely empowering and fulfilling.

Because of his experience and education, Jeff has been asked to service in numerous capacities in a number of different not-for-profit organizations. He has led a large number of church committees, planning and visioning retreats, and training on organizational communication and technology. Because of his personal experience with adoption and work with Licensing, he has been asked to sit on several state committees to improve the services to foster care children and to increase the quality of childcare in Virginia.

Jeff and his wonderful wife Angie have one teenage daughter. They live in Henrico, Virginia where Jeff serves as a director for his neighborhood’s home owner association. Angie is the Director of Youth, Young Adult and Single Adult Ministries for the Virginia United Methodist Church.

We are grateful to have Jeff Williams serving on our board and value her expertise in helping our foundation’s own cause in helping bring victims and awareness of human trafficking in the world. We are welcoming him to the Board of Directors.

The Despicable William Ayres

Distinguished Professor William Ayres


Now that the American voters have decided that Barack Obama's ties to former Weather Underground bomber William Ayres was no big deal, I think it is time to put Professor Ayres himself in perspective especially since he has decided to go public after the election with an interview on "Good Morning America".

By now, the American public pretty much knows who Bill Ayres is. Had it not been for Fox News and talk radio, this guy might have sailed completely under the radar with assistance from the mainstream media, who chose to ignore him until they no longer could.

During the turbulent days of the 1960s-70s, Ayres was a main figure in the Weather Underground. During the 1970s, he was a fugitive, along with the woman who is now his wife, Bernadine Dohrn. During their fugitive years, Ayres was involved in bombs that went off in the Pentagon, the US Capitol and New York City Police Hqs. Though no one was killed, there were injuries. There was also a 1970 bombing in New York at the home of a prosecutor who was involved in the trial of some Black Panthers. Not only was the prosecutor home, but his wife and 9-year-old son were as well. In the early morning hours, three bombs went off, two under the front porch and one under the prosecutor's car, which was parked in the driveway. Fortunately, no one was injured. This bombing was found to be the work of the Weather Underground as well. In addition, three of Ayres' co-conspirators were killed in 1970 when a bomb accidentally went off in a Greenwich Village neighborhood damaging several other residences in the process. One of those killed was Ayres' girlfriend at the time. It was then that Ayres and Dohrn went into hiding.

Eventually, in 1980, Ayres and Dohrn came in and surrendered themselves after several years on the run. Because of the suppression of evidence due to illegal eavesdropping by the FBI, Ayres walked a way a free man, saying, "Guilty as Hell, free as a bird. What a great country."

Indeed.

Dohrn for her part, made a plea deal and was given probation.

So what became of Ayres as he walked away from his legal difficulties? Well, as you might guess, Academia welcomed him with open arms. Ayres and Dohrn went on to get their advanced degrees and became professors in the Chicago area (Ayres is presently a "Distinguished Professor of Education" at the University of Illinois at Chicago while Dohrn teaches law at Northwestern and is director of the Children and Family Justice Center in Chicago.

Since leaving the life of terrorists and bombers in favor of working within the system, neither has shown any remorse for their past acts. On the eve of 9-11, Ayres told a New York Times interviewer that he did not regret his past-only that they "didn't do more". A few years ago, Ayres was photographed by Chicago Magazine standing in an alley, an American flag underfoot.

As for his activities in the field of education, Professor Ayres reportedly has been active in trying to indoctrinate young inner-city youth with the spirit of leftist activism. It was in connection with this goal that he served together with Obama on the Woods Foundation, funneling money to leftist activist groups in the Chicago inner-city. (Both Ayres and Dohrn admit they are still radicals.)

And finally, in the "Good Morning America" interview with Chris Cuomo, Ayres refused to express remorse for his past acts-only saying that they may have crossed the line of "common sense". For Ayres, the real terrorists were the forces of the US Government that was waging the war in Viet Nam. Was he a terrorist? Not at all insists the good professor. The targets of the bombings were always government targets-not innocent civilians.

There is a man named John Murtagh who would disagree. He was the 9-year-old son of that New York prosecutor who was awakened early one morning when 3 bombs went off in front of his residence. He has spoken out lately about how he feels about Ayres and the Weather Underground. What words would Professors William Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn have for John Murtagh? To date-none.

William Ayres and his wife may live the rest of their lives embraced by the academic community. Already there is a petition going around the academic world asking for people to lay off Ayres. I simply hope that everyday Americans remember the names William Ayres and Bernadine Dohrn as they do Jane Fonda. Until they come forth with a sincere public apology to their country and to their victims, they should be shunned by decent society.

Article by Shelby Steele

As I frequently do, I am posting an article by the National Black Republican Association-specifically an essay by Shelby Steele on Barack Obama and white guilt. Steele, whom I consider one of the most brilliant thinkers in America, gives a thought-provoking perspective on the election of Barack Obama and what it means for African-Americans and racial relations in America. The article was published by the LA Times.


THE END OF WHITE GUILT

White Guilt Emancipation Declaration

We, black American citizens of the United States of America and of the National Black Republican Association, do hereby declare that our fellow white American citizens are now, henceforth and forever more free of White Guilt.

This freedom from White Guilt was duly earned by the election of Barack Hussein Obama, a black man, to be our president by a majority of white Americans based solely on the color of his skin.

Freedom is not free, and we trust that the price paid for this freedom from White Guilt is worth the sacrifice, since Obama is a socialist who does not share the values of average Americans and will use the office of the presidency to turn America into a failed socialist nation.

Granted this November 4, 2008 - the day Barack Hussein Obama was elected as the first black president and the first socialist president of the United States of America.

__________________________________

Los Angeles Times
Opinion
Obama's post-racial promise
Barack Obama seduced whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation.

November 5, 2008

By Shelby Steele

For the first time in human history, a largely white nation has elected a black man to be its paramount leader. And the cultural meaning of this unprecedented convergence of dark skin and ultimate power will likely become -- at least for a time -- a national obsession. In fact, the Obama presidency will always be read as an allegory. Already we are as curious about the cultural significance of his victory as we are about its political significance.

Does his victory mean that America is now officially beyond racism? Does it finally complete the work of the civil rights movement so that racism is at last dismissible as an explanation of black difficulty? Can the good Revs. Jackson and Sharpton now safely retire to the seashore? Will the Obama victory dispel the twin stigmas that have tormented black and white Americans for so long -- that blacks are inherently inferior and whites inherently racist? Doesn't a black in the Oval Office put the lie to both black inferiority and white racism? Doesn't it imply a "post-racial" America? And shouldn't those of us -- white and black -- who did not vote for Mr. Obama take pride in what his victory says about our culture even as we mourn our political loss?

Answering no to such questions is like saying no to any idealism; it seems callow. How could a decent person not hope for all these possibilities, or not give America credit for electing its first black president? And yet an element of Barack Obama's success was always his use of the idealism implied in these questions as political muscle. His talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America -- and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.

Obama's special charisma -- since his famous 2004 convention speech -- always came much more from the racial idealism he embodied than from his political ideas. In fact, this was his only true political originality. On the level of public policy, he was quite unremarkable. His economics were the redistributive axioms of old-fashioned Keynesianism; his social thought was recycled Great Society. But all this policy boilerplate was freshened up -- given an air of "change" -- by the dreamy post-racial and post-ideological kitsch he dressed it in.

This worked politically for Obama because it tapped into a deep longing in American life -- the longing on the part of whites to escape the stigma of racism. In running for the presidency -- and presenting himself to a majority white nation -- Obama knew intuitively that he was dealing with a stigmatized people. He knew whites were stigmatized as being prejudiced, and that they hated this situation and literally longed for ways to disprove the stigma.

Obama is what I have called a "bargainer" -- a black who says to whites, "I will never presume that you are racist if you will not hold my race against me." Whites become enthralled with bargainers out of gratitude for the presumption of innocence they offer. Bargainers relieve their anxiety about being white and, for this gift of trust, bargainers are often rewarded with a kind of halo.

Obama's post-racial idealism told whites the one thing they most wanted to hear: America had essentially contained the evil of racism to the point at which it was no longer a serious barrier to black advancement. Thus, whites became enchanted enough with Obama to become his political base. It was Iowa -- 95% white -- that made him a contender. Blacks came his way only after he won enough white voters to be a plausible candidate.

Of course, it is true that white America has made great progress in curbing racism over the last 40 years. I believe, for example, that Colin Powell might well have been elected president in 1996 had he run against a then rather weak Bill Clinton. It is exactly because America has made such dramatic racial progress that whites today chafe so under the racist stigma. So I don't think whites really want change from Obama as much as they want documentation of change that has already occurred. They want him in the White House first of all as evidence, certification and recognition.

But there is an inherent contradiction in all this. When whites -- especially today's younger generation -- proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation. They think and act racially, not post-racially. The point is that a post-racial society is a bargainer's ploy: It seduces whites with a vision of their racial innocence precisely to coerce them into acting out of a racial motivation. A real post-racialist could not be bargained with and would not care about displaying or documenting his racial innocence. Such a person would evaluate Obama politically rather than culturally.

Certainly things other than bargaining account for Obama's victory. He was a talented campaigner. He was reassuringly articulate on many issues -- a quality that Americans now long for in a president. And, in these last weeks, he was clearly pushed over the top by the economic terrors that beset the nation. But it was the peculiar cultural manipulation of racial bargaining that brought him to the political dance. It inflated him as a candidate, and it may well inflate him as a president.

There is nothing to suggest that Obama will lead America into true post-racialism. His campaign style revealed a tweaker of the status quo, not a revolutionary. Culturally and racially, he is likely to leave America pretty much where he found her.

But what about black Americans? Won't an Obama presidency at last lead us across a centuries-old gulf of alienation into the recognition that America really is our country? Might this milestone not infuse black America with a new American nationalism? And wouldn't this be revolutionary in itself? Like most Americans, I would love to see an Obama presidency nudge things in this direction. But the larger reality is the profound disparity between black and white Americans that will persist even under the glow of an Obama presidency. The black illegitimacy rate remains at 70%. Blacks did worse on the SAT in 2000 than in 1990. Fifty-five percent of all federal prisoners are black, though we are only 13% of the population. The academic achievement gap between blacks and whites persists even for the black middle class. All this disparity will continue to accuse blacks of inferiority and whites of racism -- thus refueling our racial politics -- despite the level of melanin in the president's skin.

The torture of racial conflict in America periodically spits up a new faith that idealism can help us "overcome" -- America's favorite racial word. If we can just have the right inspiration, a heroic role model, a symbolism of hope, a new sense of possibility. It is an American cultural habit to endure our racial tensions by periodically alighting on little islands of fresh hope and idealism. But true reform, like the civil rights victories of the '60s, never happens until people become exhausted with their suffering. Then they don't care who the president is.

Presidents follow the culture; they don't lead it. I hope for a competent president.

Shelby Steele is an author, columnist and senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

Please check here for more information about the National Black Republican Association

Incident at UC Berkeley

"Heard ya had a little dust-up up there in Berkeley."
"No big deal. Just boys bein' boys."'


On the evening of November 13, there was a violent incident at the University of California at Berkeley involving students from two student groups; the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Zionist Freedom Alliance (ZFA). The event occurred during a ZFA hip hop concert promoting Israel Liberation Week. During the event, members of the SJP showed up carrying Palestinian flags on a balcony of Eshleman Hall overlooking the event. It appears that a confrontation ensued on the balcony between members of both groups. At this point, there are different versions of how the fight started or who assaulted whom. What is known is that a fist-fight ensued and a handful of students were charged with battery, apparently on both sides.


Below, I have put up the competing versions from both groups' websites. First is the ZFA version, followed by the SJP version. Finally, I have posted the up-dated version by the Daily Californian (UC Berkeley's campus newspaper).


Members of Students for Justice in Palestine Attack Jews at UC Berkeley Hip-Hop Concert
(Berkeley, CA- November 13, 2008)

"We, the Zionist Freedom Alliance student group at Cal, are deeply concerned by the latest in a series of attacks on Jewish and pro-Israel students at UC Berkeley perpetrated by members of Students for Justice in Palestine. On the night of November 13, 2008 at around 6:00 PM, members of Students for Justice in Palestine disrupted our hip-hop concert that celebrated the Jewish connection to the land of Israel. Then they attacked students who asked them to stop their disruption.

Three members of the Students for Justice in Palestine illegally draped large Palestinian flags behind the stage of the concert, which was part of Israel Liberation Week. Yehuda De Sa (one of the performers), Cal alumnus Gabe Weiner, and current ASUC Senator John Moghtader walked to the balcony from which the flags were hanging and asked the students to remove the flags as they misrepresented the concert's message. The SJP members immediately became hostile at this request and current SJP leader Husam Zakharia instigated a physical altercation by striking Weiner on the head. As Weiner and the performer tried to defend themselves, Moghtader stood away from the scuffle and then made a successful effort to break up the fight.

Members of Students for Justice in Palestine shouted anti-Semitic epithets referencing the Holocaust throughout the ordeal. Zakharia and others from SJP were detained by the police and charged with battery. Citizens' arrests were filed against SJP members who took part in the altercation.

The violence, intimidation, and harassment exhibited by members of Students for Justice in Palestine at the concert is only one act in a pattern of similar behavior that they have exhibited towards Jewish and pro-Israel students on this campus. Last year, multiple charges were filed against SJP and some of its members citing harassment, violence, intimidation, and violation of numerous other campus rules. These charges all went ignored by Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard.

We call on state officials, the President of the University of California, the Chancellor, the Dean of Students, faculty, and the student body to take a unified stand against the continued harassment of Jewish and pro-Israel students on this campus, particularly by members of Students for Justice in Palestine."


Here below is the Students for Peace and Justice in Palestine version on their website:


"SJP is extremely concerned about a violent attack on three Arab Palestinian students on the evening of November 13, 2008 around 6:00PM, and calls upon campus administrators and authorities to immediately investigate the incident and bring those responsible to justice.

According to dozens of witnesses on the scene, three organizers for the “Zionist Freedom Alliance” attacked one male and two female Arab students who stood nearby the event holding a Palestinian flag. The assailants were identified by the Daily Californian to include current ASUC student senator John Moghtader, Cal alumnus Gabe Weiner, and performer Yehuda De sa. The paper also reported that all three had been cited by the UC Police Department on several counts of battery (Update 9:00AM 11/14: The Daily Californian now identifies only Gabe Weiner as having been cited. We are unsure what the status of the other two individuals is).

The three Arab students had decided to display the flag as a silent statement after hearing offensive anti-Arab remarks at the concert. They did not attempt to interfere with the event. Shortly after they put their flags on display, the assailants were seen angrily rushing into Eshleman Hall and disturbing several meetings to reach the protestors who were located on the 2nd floor balcony. Students on the scene report that the men were yelling racial epithets directed at Arabs and Palestinians.

When the assailants arrived at the balcony, they attempted to push the protestors aside and take their flags away. Witnesses claim that the assailants eventually knocked one protestor against the balcony railing, with a scuffle ensuing where two Arab students, one male and one female, were hit several times. Within a few minutes the assailants began to rush away, though a small group of their supporters had followed them upstairs. Throughout the process the assailants and their supporters were also overheard making remarks like, “we’re about to take care of some f***ing Palestinians,” and “you Arab dogs, we will kill you.”

The group of assailants was eventually pushed away by a crowd of students who were waiting for the police to arrive and collect statements. One of the assailants accused his victims of assaulting him, causing citations to be issued on the victims despite the testimony of several witnesses on the scene refuting the claim. Fortunately nobody was seriously hurt during the ordeal.

SJP is concerned by the willful and concerted escalation to violence by these individuals, who are members of student organization Tikvah. SJP disagrees with the Daily Californian’s characterization of the event as the result of “tensions between Palestinian and Jewish students.” In fact, the incident was isolated, and the assailants are not representative of the Jewish community at Cal. After a series of similar threatening encounters with a handful of individuals this semester, SJP members began to document these incidents. Two of the attackers, John Moghtader and Gabe Weiner, were involved in another outburst at a campus lecture last month that led the Jewish Student Union to place Tikvah on probation [1, 2].

SJP calls upon campus administrators to pursue the incident immediately, and for students to remain committed to resolving their political differences through peaceful dialogue and discussion."


Here is the report by the UCB Student Newspaper, the Daily Californian:


By Will Kane and Vincent Quan
Daily Cal Staff Writers
Friday, November 14, 2008 | 3:10 am
Category: News > City > Crime

"A previous version of this story was removed by editors after we became aware that some facts in the story were incorrect. That story has been replaced with this updated version.

The Daily Californian holds itself to high journalistic standards and always strives to produce objective and accurate content. The Daily Cal follows the ethics policy laid out by the Society of Professional Journalists, which is available at http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.

If you have any comments or questions regarding this article or our policies, please contact me at editor@dailycal.org."

-Bryan Thomas, Editor in Chief & President

"Tensions between Palestinian and Jewish students on campus ran high Thursday night after a fight broke out on an Eshleman Hall balcony overlooking a concert promoting Israel Liberation Week.

At about 5:45 p.m., as rap artists performed on Lower Sproul Plaza, three Palestinian students hung up two Palestinian flags on the building's second floor balcony, witnesses said. The students said they were responding to the anti-Palestinian lyrics they heard.

Upon seeing the flags, ASUC Senator John Moghtader, former senator Gabe Weiner and Yeduda De sa, the concert's opening act, went up to the balcony in an attempt to remove the flags. All three men are Jewish.

At that point, a fight broke out, police said. Witnesses added that the fight prompted up to half a dozen members of the audience to run up to the second floor. Police said two students and one non-student were cited for battery. Weiner was one of those students.

"I went up to the second floor because the message they were sending was an abomination to our national rights," Weiner said.

Senior Husam Zakharia, who was hit in the face during the altercation, said the rap lyrics he heard spurred him to hang up the Palestinian flag.

"We're going to go up and we're going to put up our Palestinian flag in silent protest-exercising our freedom of speech to say we're here and we exist," he said, adding that he was surprised by the violent reaction.

A number of UCPD officers and Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard spent at least two hours interviewing students and witnesses, attempting to piece together the series of events.

According to police, the fight was related to incidents of vandalism earlier this semester. In September, a bus stop sign outside Eshleman Hall promoting Israel was vandalized. That vandalism was followed by pro-Israel graffiti in a classroom in Dwinelle Hall, increasing tension among Israeli and Palestinian advocacy groups on campus.

As the altercation on Thursday night took place, Eshleman Hall's second floor was full of ASUC officials including President Roxanne Winston.

Many senators who saw the fight expressed shock that such an incident could happen among students, most notably former and current ASUC senators.

"I'm very strong now in my sentiments in that there should be immediate disciplinary action," said ASUC Senator Kifah Shah. "If it culminates to violence where three members of SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine) are hit ... then that's just ridiculous."


So who actually instigated this violence? At this point it is not clear. I am not familiar with either organization. Therefore, I am going to withhold judgement until more information emerges.

I do know one thing, however. The UC system, especially UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz, and UCI (where I have taught part-time for 10 years) has been plagued for some years by tension between Jewish and Muslim students due to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I have repeatedly written about the hate speech being brought to UCI by the Muslim Student Union, so I won't go over that here.

What this incident illustrates is that the leadership of these universities has been negligent in putting the lid on this situation. One would think that the so-called leaders at these universities would have opened their eyes and realized that they have a volatile situation on their campuses. Their defenders tell us that the chancellors at UCI and UCSC (Michael Drake and George Blumenthal respectively) have spoken out strongly against hate speech. Where they are wrong is that statements condemning "hate speech" in general don't suffice. When has the Chancellor of UCI, Michael Drake, or the Vice Chancellor of UCI, Manuel Gomez, ever publicly stated that the words we have heard over and over at UCI by the likes of Amir Abdel Malik Ali glorifying suicide bombers in Israel or Momammed al-Asi calling Jews "low-life ghetto-dwellers" constitute hate speech and are to be condemned? When has the chancellor of UCSC, Mr Blumenthal, made similar statements?

And what about the President of the UC system, Mark Yudof? President Yudof (himself a practicing Jew and strong supporter of Israel), though newly-installed, knows the reports that have emanated out of UCI and UCSC. He has heard the complaints about the tepid responses from those campuses' leaders. Yet, he talks of "free speech" and defends his chancellors. Will he now take a fresh look at what is going on in his own university system?

One day, on one of the UC campuses, there is going to be a tragedy. Instead of a fist-fight, someone is going to be seriously injured-or even killed. And then, everyone will ask, "How could this have happened here-on our campus?" I won't be asking because I will know.

It is time for a thorough housecleaning in the UC system.

The Proposition 8 Backlash

Last week, voters in California passed Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. It was the second time in recent years that voters had passed such a measure. The first time, the California Supreme Court overturned the will of the people and ruled same-sex marriage as legal in the state.

The reaction by the gay and lesbian lobby has been swift and ugly. Churches and Mormon temples in California have been targeted for noisy and disruptive demonstrations (the Mormon Church gave financial backing to the measure). In one Church in Palm Springs, a man grabbed a large styrofoam cross out of an old lady's arms and stomped on it. Demonstrations against churches have also been held in other states like New York and Colorado. People of faith are being insulted for their faith without any regard for who voted for or against the measure. Those who voted for Prop 8 are now labeled as "haters". Now that it has been revealed that some 75% of black voters also favored Prop 8, they are being targeted for insults. Rosanne Barr and Rosie O'Donnell, two of the most ignorant "celebrities" on the planet, have both come out and insulted black voters for their "ignorance" in voting in favor of the measure. Interesting however, that no demonstrations are being held in front of inner city black churches-only in white neighborhoods. I wonder why.

Here is my take, and I'm not going to parse words. I have previously written on gay marriage, and I won't repeat everything here. Suffice to say that while I believe in treating homosexuals as equal human beings, I oppose the idea of gay marriage (I voted yes on 8). I don't care who lives with whom, who has sex with whom or who loves whom, but I fail to see why an institution that has stood all over the world for thousands of years needs to be stood on its head because in the past decade or so, gays have decided that they have a constitutional right to marry.

I also feel that gays and lesbians are doing their cause no service by engaging in these tactics. We all know that Prop 8 will be challenged again in the courts and the liberal judges in California will probably once again overturn the will of the people, as is their wont. Disruption, intimidation and taking over of churches, however, will not win friends and influence people just as many of these "Gay Pride" parades in places like San Francisco, where people parade down the street in various forms of nudity and engage in public sex acts, offend a lot of people-and not just religious people.

Or "haters".

The Carona Trial- Haidl Finishes Direct Testimony

Mike Carona (R)in better days


Today, Don Haidl finished his direct examination in the Mike Carona trial. Among the additional details that came out was that Carona was taking credit (in tape recorded conversations with Haidl in mid-2007) for setting in motion the investigations that led to the indictments of ex-Astt. Sheriff George Jaramillo and lawyer Joe Cavallo (both of whom are now convicted felons and scheduled witnesses against Carona.) The motive was apparently to discredit Jaramillo and Cavallo in case they ever wound up testifying against Carona (at the point, Carona knew he was under investigation.

In answering final questions from the prosecutor, Haidl stated that his motive for all he did for Carona was to have full access to the Office of the Sheriff.

As the cross-examination began, the defense lawyer got Haidl to admit that he was an independently wealthy businessman. Haidl also admitted that he was "acting" and lying when he engaged in taped conversations with Carona, the man who had placed his trust in Haidl. It was the old, "why should we believe you now when you were lying then" line of cross-examination that is always used when a snitch is testifying.

Stop! I have the answer to that question. It lies in one word-corroboration. The prosecution and the judge themselves will underline the fact that Haidl, Jaramillo and Cavallo are unsavory characters, whose testimony should not be accepted by juries-in the absence of corroboration. It is the job of the prosecution to corroborate their testimony as much as possible.

One big form of corroboration is the tapes themselves-Carona's words out of his own mouth. It is the government's corroboration of three sleazebags that will win or lose the case against "America's Sheriff."

Haidl resumes cross-examination tomorrow. As yet, there is no word whether "The Little Sheriff" will testify for or against Carona.

The Carona Trial-More Babes, More Scams

Government Exhibit 1- "The lines and boxes under column A represent Sheriff Carona's schemes. Those under column B represent Sheriff Carona's love affairs."


Listening to the testimony of ex-Mike Carona crony, Don Haidl is starting to remind me of the old black sitcom from my childhood, Amos and Andy. (Good luck trying to find any old episodes-they've been blacklisted as racist.) In a typical episode, George "Kingfish" Stevens always had a new scam going that he would try to drag Andy into. Such is the life and career of former Orange County Sheriff ("America's Sheriff") Mike Carona, who is on trial for bribery. It seems that (according to Haidl's testimony) Carona was careening from one love affair to another and from one scam to another.

Haidl was back on the stand today for the 4th day testifying about his relationship with Carona and explaining taped conversations that he secretly recorded with the ex-Sheriff. In one of their get-rich-quick schemes, Haidl, co-conspirator ex-Asst Sheriff George Jaramillo, and Carona were planning to make a deal with some unidentified doctor that made body scan machines. In the deal, Carona would require every one of his deputies to take an annual body scan and the doctor or his company would kick back money to Carona, Haidl and Jaramillo.

In another scheme, Haidl testified about plans to get an LA Sheriffs Deputy to refer cases to their favorite crooked attorney, Joe Cavallo.

And then Haidl testified about their plans to make a deal with somebody who wanted to set up a paintball amusement park in Orange County (I'm not making this up, folks). Under this scheme, Carona would go to the Orange County Board of Supervisors to arrange zoning permits for the land and, in return, get a payment of 25,000 from the paintball proprietor.

But wait! There's more! Haidl further testified about a scheme to have some Orange County prisoners transferred to a private jail facility run by some guy named Rod Cedillos-in return for.....you guessed it-cash. According to Haidl, the relationship went sour because Carona suspected that Mr Cedillos was hitting on Carona's mistress-co-defendant, Debra Hoffman. Haidl also added that Carona intended to run away with Ms Hoffman, who he (Carona)got appointed to a state juvanile board in Sacramento and hired her husband, Robert Schroff, so he could keep an eye on him. (if you are getting confused refer to the above flow chart.)

But wait! There's still more. Haidl further testified about a scheme whereby Carona got illegal campaign contributions from a businessman named Charles Gabbard, who wanted Carona to promote legislation that would have required every police car to be outfitted by an anti-police pursuit device, made by Gabbard's company, naturally.

Speaking of which, Haidl also described Carona's concern about a sexual harassment complaint that had been filed by a Sheriff's female employee against Jaramillo because he feared it might come out that he (Carona) had been having a relationship with the lady.

It seems one would need a flow-chart to keep track of all of Mike's girlfriends.

Then there was the infamous gang-rape case a few years back against Haidl's son, Greg and two other punks (they were convicted). It was this case and the resultant scandal of Don Haidl's relationship with Carona that fueled the investigation into the whole mess in the Sheriff's Dept. In this case, the Newport Beach PD Chief wrote an angry letter to Carona complaining about Jaramillo coming into his jurisdiction and trying to dissuade witnesses from cooperating. This reportedly led to a meeting between Jaramillo and OC DA Tony Rackaukas, in which Jaramillo reportedly threatened Rackaukas. According to Haidl's testimony, Carona was concerned that Rackaukas would go directly to the Justice Dept.

Finally, Haidl has testified about his gift of a water-ski boat to Carona. This was camoflaged by Carona writing a check to Haidl to make it look like a purchase. Haidl then gave the money back to Carona in cash. Unfortunately, there were witnesses to the cash handover, so he and Carona manufactured a bogus conversation in front of the witnesses to make it look like Haidl was reimbursing Carona for needed repairs on the boat.

Haidl is expected to finish his direct testimony tomorrow, at which time, he will be cross-examined. The defense has been saying from the outset that Haidl is not a man who can be trusted. True enough, but this is the man that Mike Carona chose to be his Asst. Sheriff and friend.

Random Shots in the Dark (8)

US Government cheeseburger



Introducing the 2009 US Government People's Car



Here is another month's worth of bad news, folks.

Lindsay Lohan, Hollywood's top scholar, last night referred to Barack Obama as "America's first colored president". Ms Lohan must be prepping for a 1940s style film noire when that term was in vogue. Yet, if she had said "America's first president of color, no one would have blinked."

Are the stories about Israel-hater Robert Malley (former asst. to Sandy Berger) being sent to the Middle East by Obama to reassure the leaders of Syria and Egypt that Obama will be more supportive really true? Wasn't this guy canned once by Obama for meeting with Hamas? And is it true (as says Hamas) that they have had pre-election secret meetings with Obama reps, which no longer need to be secret since the election?

The Israelis must be feeling real good right now.

And there are rumors that none other than Jamie Gorelick, is being considered for Attorney General. Yes, the same lady who, as Asst AG under Janet Reno, set up the so-called firewall that kept the CIA and FBI from sharing intelligence. The same Jamie Gorelick who sat on the board of Fannie Mae, and the same Jamie Gorelick who most recently was defending Duke University against a lawsuit brought by their former Lacrosse players who had been falsely accused of rape.

That Jamie Gorelick.

Of course, Obama is the same guy who called in LA's playboy mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, to advise him on economics. Maybe "Fast Tony" will be our next Treasury Secretary. At least that will get him out of California.

Speaking of AGs, news comes in that SF DA (now there's a contradiction in terms) Kamala Harris is running for California State Attorney General, citing, "tough and smart" strategies to fight crime. Like vowing never to seek the death penalty under any circumstances. Ask Danielle Bologna, whose family was murdered by an illegal alien gang member in SF if she supports Harris.

Is there any reason why John McCain cannot come out and publicly defend Sarah Palin against these unnamed attacks on her by his staffers? No wonder he lost the election.

The news say today that some deranged fan of Paula Abdul was found dead in front of Abdul's house. Makes sense to me. First of all anybody who is a fan of Abdul doesn't have a life to begin with and is obviously deranged by definition.

Is there a more dispicable person in this country than (Professor) William Ayres?

As I was following the news of Al Franken stealing the Senatorial election in Minnesota, they were playing a film clip of Al haranguing some crowd. Sitting behind Al was Bill Clinton, himself. In back of him were a bunch of wild supporters jumping up and down waving Obama signs as Al was getting the crowd all stirred up. And there was Bill sitting there with his eyes closed, probably dreaming about the after-the-speech party. Classic.

And Hillary? Probably sitting in her house alone with the shutters closed thinking about what should have been.

Speaking of Bill Clinton, did you catch O'Reilly last night when he showed a clip of his debate with ex-newscaster and Professor Marvin Kalb of Harvard, which was filmed September 27? In one exchange in front of Kalb's students, the learned professor asked Bill the following:

Kalb: "Do you believe that a President who avoided military service himself should be sending young men and women to fight in what are called ‘wars of choice’?"

O'Reilly then asked Kalb if he were referring to Bill Clinton (because Bush served in the National Guard) as the students cracked up.

I see Mark Foley has "broken his silence" on his page boy scandal. Bummer. Foley, predictably, is wallowing in self pity and parsing his words about just what exactly he did. In one colossal statement, he says, "Well, they were 17 years old." And then, there is this, "Well, I didn't actually have sex with them." Shades of Bill Clinton.

I see where the Court of Appeals in Richmond upheld the indictment of Rep. William "Cool Cash" Jefferson, which clears the way for his trial. Hurricane Gustav delayed the primary in Louisiana's 2nd District until November 4, and the general election will be held December 6. Safe to say, however, that Jefferson will be tossed out on his ear by the good voters in New Orleans........

What? You say Jefferson won the primary and is favored to win the general election?

Silly me.

After all, I'm the same guy who thought that America would never elect a one-term senator and ex-community organizer who had ties to Tony Rezko, William Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger.

Silly me.

I'm also the guy that thought that Bill Clinton would surely be driven from office when it was disclosed he was playing "hide the baloney" with a White House intern-in the Oval Office, no less.

Silly me.

And Larry (I am not gay, nor have I ever been gay) Craig is still in the Senate?

Silly me. Why should being busted in a men's room get in the way of a senate career.

So now, we are bailing out General Motors? If you want to know why Detroit is going belly-up (the auto industry-not just the city)......Look for the union label. So now that the US Government is going to pump our money into the auto industry, will they impose new quality standards so the cars don't fall to pieces after 50,000 miles? And what's next? What happens if Burger King goes under? Bailout? I've heard of government cheese, but I've never heard of government cheese burgers!!

That's it for now. Pass the Tylenol.

The Demise of the USSR-Could the USA Be Next?

Some readers may dismiss the title of this essay as silly and hysterical, but I think the question-absurd as it may sound-is work considering.

As I was growing up in the Cold War, it seemed a set fact of life that our chief adversary, the Soviet Union, was a fact of life that was here for the long haul. It was hoped that the Cold War would never end in a nuclear war, which was considered a real possibility.

Then, suddenly, the Soviet Union imploded under the weight of its inner weaknesses. Welcome as it might have been, it was shocking. Within a few short years, the USSR saw its client states in Eastern Europe break away, followed by their own non-Russian republics.

Only a handful of years later, having had the chance to visit many of the former Soviet Republics with DEA's International Training section, I was inspired to write a book on the languages of the former USSR. (The Languages of the Former Soviet Republics-Their History and Development). It required a lot of research, not only into the various languages, but also the history of the region itself. What I learned, in my opinion, is worthy of review since it could be relevant to what the US is going through today.

Prior to the Russian Revolution, the area was under the centuries-long control of the Russian tsars. When Lenin came to power, he became a cult-like figure, in whom the masses placed great hope. Lenin had grown into adulthood as an opponent of the tsars. He was expelled from Kazan University for his agitation activities while his own brother was executed by the tsarist regime for his alleged role in a plot to assassinate the tsar. Of course, one of his first acts was to order the execution of the Tsar Nicholas and his entire family, who had been kept in custody after Nicholas' forced abdication.

Yet, in the history of the Soviet Union, Lenin was something of a reformer when compared to his successor, Stalin. Lenin declared an end to ethnic discrimination including that against the Jews, who had been severely restricted under the tsars, subject to occasional pogroms while being forced to live in the western fringes of the Russian empire (Pale of Settlement). Under Lenin, discrimination against Jews was ended-a development that led many Jews to embrace the new government. All were considered equal in the new nation.

In the non-Russian republics of the newly-created Soviet Union, native languages and cultures were encouraged under the policy of korenizatsiia or indiginization. Within those republics, the native languages were emphasized. Local leaders were placed in charge of the republics.

Of course, we also know that things like education and health care were all controlled by the government-for better or worse.

After Lenin died, Stalin, his eventual successor, gradually ended korenizatsiia in favor of Russification. Centralization in Moscow became the norm. Of course, that was the least of Stalin's changes as he became one of history's worst dictators.

Then, as we know, under Gorbachev, the USSR collapsed under the weight of its own weaknesses and the desire of many non-Russians (especially the Balts) to be independent.

So is there a parallel to be drawn with recent events in the US? There is no question that our new president has big changes in mind. It would seem that the country, in electing Obama and solidifying his Democratic support in Congress, has chosen to try the road of greater governmental control. It has to be assumed that the electorate has opted to turn to government to help them get through life. There is a price to be paid for that. One fact must be kept in mind by those who have chosen to place their economic well-being in the hands of government; that requires something in return. For example, more money has to go to government, and more power has to go to government. Do most people in the US really want the government to take over things like health care and the economy? Is the public really in favor of income redistribution that would bring most of all of us in the same economic class? Given the election results, it would seem that they do.

It could also be argued that Obama's charisma and speaking skills, aided by a compliant press, have elevated him to something of a cult figure. Will that continue once he becomes president? Or will events and his lack of experience bring him back down to normal level? What will the media do when Obama makes errors? Will they criticize him? Will they investigate scandals? Or will they ignore his shortcomings? Now that the media has the government it wants, will they play the role of watchdogs, of which they are so proud? The answer remains to be seen.

So, is it so preposterous for conservatives like me to fear that our government is poised to take greater control over our lives-in the name of serving us? At the risk of angering some of my fellow conservatives, I would argue that the establishment of the Soviet Union was based on mostly good intentions in the interest of the people. However, it went terribly wrong.

The collapse of the USSR demonstrates that what seems to be stable in the world can suddenly collapse given the right conditions. Could it also happen to us, say within my own lifetime? Here are my fears:

The US becomes increasingly socialist in nature, which I feel would destroy the economy as well as our culture of free market capitalism and individualism that made our country great in the first place. To borrow a line from someone (I don't know who), we are going from "Ask not what your country can do for you..." to "Demand what your country can do for you". This attituide is not what made America the greatest nation in the world.

I also fear that we will gradually lose certain freedoms incrementally until we wake up one day and realize that we are no longer the freest nation in the world. If that seems crazy to you, consider the so-called Fairness Doctrine applied to talk radio and the card-check system being planned for labor unions. Consider what was done to Joe the Plumber by state officials in Ohio. Consider the damage done to our electoral process by ACORN. Consider the suspicious senatorial election re-count being done in Minnesota as we speak.

I also fear that the US will unilaterally disarm to the point that we are no longer the world's only superpower. There is little doubt that Obama will cut military spending-according to Barney Frank (who himself has done so much damage to our economy), we can expect a 25% reduction in military spending. The same thing happened under Carter, and the same thing happened under Clinton. The implications of all this are terrifying since who would stand against tyranny and terrorism if not us? That is not to say I want us to be the policeman of the world-I don't-but at a certain point, you have to have a free, democratic superpower that will stand up to the Hitlers, Stalins and now, Islamic fascists who would take away everyone's freedoms. Say what you want about our use of the military over the last several decades. Were it not for the US, and specifically, the US Military, how many nations would be living in freedom today?

None.

Another fear I have is that under the incoming government, the US will shift its favor from Israel to the Arab nations and increasingly radical Muslims that want to destroy our greatest ally-and only democracy in the Middle East. Indeed, the pressure is growing to the point I fear that within 20-25 years, Israel may cease to exist. We already have reached the point that we have more Muslims in the US than Jews. Unfortunately, many young Muslims are increasingly militant and devoted to the destruction of Israel. Obama will be under pressure from the left to favor the Palestinians at the expense of Israel-which I fear he is inclined to do anyway.

I also fear that the US will now defer more and more to the inept and corrupt United Nations, an organization which, in my view, has outlived its usefulness.

At home, I also fear that the new administration will only increase and feed the growing feeling of tribalization that exists in our society. Obama has convinced many that he is the one man who will bring together black and white. Yet, he comes from a church where the pastor has achieved notoriety for his outbursts against whites and America in general. I am not convinced that anyone coming out of that church is going to bring anyone together.

I also fear that Obama's election is resulting in overblown expectations about our racial issues. With all due repect to the emotions of African-Americans at seeing a black man elected as president, this does not cure the myriad of problems that exist in inner city communities. It does nothing to reduce a 70% illigitimate birth rate among African-Americans. The inner city, crime-ridden slums are still there. What happens when people wake up to the fact that symbolism aside, the realities of life have not changed? How many American cities (Detroit, Washington DC, Philadelphia) have we seen that are now solidly entrenched in black city governments, but have done nothing to change existing problems? I hear white voices already that say Obama's election should mean the end of any excuses for black underachievement. I can only partially agree with that statement. But the question begs; what will an Obama presidency really mean for black Americans. We shall see.

During the election, voters chose to overlook the long history of associations that have formed Barack Obama's life from Jeremiah Wright, to Tony Rezko to William Ayres. Yet, here was charismatic figure who promised "change", notwithstanding the fact that he came up in politics from the old Chicago machine, arguably the most powerful and corrupt in the nation. Here was a young man also seemingly influenced by the philosophy of Saul Alinski. Yet millions of voters have placed their trust in him. For many of us, suspicion as to Obama's inner mind still exists.

Eventually, I suspect that the whole issue of gay marriage, which has only arisen in the last decade or so since we began to recognize that gays should be treated as human beings, will be resolved in their favor. I am against it since I think that marriage, an institution that has endured for thousands of years between a man and a woman, is being turned on its head without much thought. Nevertheless, with the current mood in the country and the courts-especially the judges that will be appointed by Obama will push it through in short order.

The issue of judges is another fear since I saw first-hand the damage liberal, activist judges appointed by Carter and Clinton did to federal law enforcement efforts in the courts. As much as Obama may pose as a centrist, watch who he appoints, and watch the judges he puts on the bench.

So now, the great American experimentation with the Left begins. Hopefully, the public, after four or even eight years of Obama's changes will turn in revolt against him at the polls. Whether the Republican Party will be viable at that point is open to question. They have to find their own way. As we speak, the party is divided between those who want to chart the conservtive course as a matter of principle and those who want to compete with the Democrats as to who will give the people more goodies. There is doubt they can even be competitive in the next decade. Do we benefit from having only one viable party? Ask Mexico. Ask Russia.

Things are changing fast in America and in the world. I may sound crazy, but why couldn't we collapse just as suddenly as that other superpower?

Robbery in Progress-In Minnesota

News report: "We understand that more ballots are coming in from one Hennepin County precinct. They were reportedly found in the trunk of a precinct official's car, but she insists that she always maintained secure custody, so they will be counted. Back to you, Bob"



In the Minnesota Senate race between incumbent Norm Coleman and the despicable "comedian" Al Franken, with 100% of the vote counted on election night, Coleman came out with a narrow 725 vote victory. Yet, in the past week, election officials have "discovered" additional ballots, including 32 absentee ballots in the trunk of one official's car (ALL going to Franken), "clerical errors" and "typos" that have gone disproportionately to Franken, thus reducing Coleman's lead to 206 votes. Now, there must be a hand-recount which will probably begin November 19.

It is interesting that in an election that was divided 50-50, Franken has benefited from the disproportionate share of the new ballots. By one study, Franken has befitted 2.5 times as much as Obama did with the new ballots. It appears that the proportion of questionable ballots (which have already been added to the count), have gone over 90% to Franken. (See Megyn Kelly interview with Tim Pawlenty, posted on Hot Air November 11, 2008)

Could it be, with three Senate races still hanging in the balance, that the Democrats are trying to reach that 60 vote filibuster majority in the Senate-by any means necessary? Remember, we are talking about the Democratic Party that is in bed with ACORN.

It appears to this not-so-paranoid observer that we are witnessing voter fraud in action right before our very eyes, the same type of operation we saw in Florida in 2000 (keep counting until we get the result we want). Fortunately, Team Bush was able to fight off the Dems attempt to steal Florida. Will Coleman also be successful?

If Franken manages to pull off this heist, all you Democrats can celebrate. But think what it is you will be celebrating; another nail in the coffin of honest elections.

Another nail in the coffin of our democracy.