Senator John Ensign

Look familiar?


I regularly get emails from Michael Steele, the RNC Chairman, at least from his website. Addressing me as "Dear Gary", they alert me to the latest Democratic skulduggery or outrage. Of course, the message always ends with an appeal for money.

I don't know how I got on the mailing list since I am not a Republican. At any rate, I never send money.

I am reminded why every time a scandal comes along like Larry Craig, Mark Foley and now, Senator John Ensign (R-NV). This is partly why the Republican Party fell out of power-because of people like Ensign, who have used their positions of power to feather their own nests- in Ensign's case, perhaps not financially, but certainly to spice up his sex life.

Does this mean that senators are more prone to play around than the rest of us normal folks? I don't know, but certainly, their power leads to increased opportunities. At any rate, once again, those who have placed their hopes in a Republican Party that would stand for certain principles and policies, have to witness another hypocrite who poses in front of the cameras with his family and poses with the troops, etc. etc, who was just using his office for his own benefit-not to mention helping the husband of his mistress get jobs.

So, Mr Steele, as much as I respect you, I must say that I will not be joining the Republican Party or donating any money until this kind of mess is cleaned up. (You can start by calling for Ensign's resignation.) I continue to believe that the Democratic Party is much worse-and yes, much more corrupt, but the likes of John Ensign need to disappear-even at the cost of another Republican seat in the Senate.

Meanwhile in "Palestine".....

This video was shown at a Fatah event demonstrating the brutality of Hamas toward a member of Fatah (Viewer discretion advised).

I would heartily recommend this video to folks like;

Jimmy Carter
Norman Finklestein
George Galloway
Anna Baltzer
Cynthia McKinney
Amir Abdel Malik Ali
Mohammed al-Asi

And, oh yes, President Obama since he plans to send a few hundred million dollars of our tax money to Gaza and bring a several thousand of these characters to the US where they can foment more hatred on our soil.

Enjoy.

Here's a Scandal for John Conyers to Investigate

Monica Conyers (in grey) leaving her radio show where she asked her listeners to pray for her.

Why?


Congressman John Conyers (D-MI)has for years been trying to dig up any possible scandal that pertains to Republicans. The 80-year-old head of the House Judiciary Committee never ceases to be outraged by the skulduggery committed by Republicans that he sees going all around him in Washington. Now it seems that he has a golden opportunity to find a scandal in his own backyard of Detroit-or more specifically in his own bedroom. That's right. His own wife, Monica (44) a Detroit City Councilwoman is implicated in a major bribery scandal.

The Detroit Free Press and others are reporting that Mrs Conyers has been identified as the infamous "City Council Member A," in court documents, who received thousands of dollars in bribes to vote "yes" on a city waste contract with a company called Synagro worth over a billion dollars. She is now reportedly engaged in plea negotiations with federal authorities before they indict her.

Yes, it's serious. People are pleading guilty and cooperating with prosecutors. And they are naming Mrs Conyers. Consider the following:

"In former Synagro consultant Rayford Jackson's plea this week, Jackson's brother, Lennie (who's cooperating with authorities) is alleged to have carried thousands in bribes to Conyers and her former aide, Sam Riddle."

-Detroit Free Press

and this:

"In January, James Rosendall, the former Michigan vice president for Synagro, pleaded guilty to engineering the scheme to get City Council votes on a $1.2-billion sludge-hauling contract. Conyers was one of the alleged targets of that scheme."

-Detroit Free Press


Mrs. Conyers won't comment on the charges or the plea negotiations, but on her weekly television show this week, she told her listeners this:

"If you're not praying for me, you're just adding to the problem." Indeed.

What about Mr Conyers? No comment coming from him either. Of course, he's too busy getting to the bottom of Bush, Rove, water boarding and all that other stuff.

Or praying.

While no one has pointed any accusations at John Conyers in this matter, he can't escape suspicion since normally, husbands and wives tend to share assets, so to speak. So if Mrs Conyers is indicted or pleas to accepting bribes, does this call for an investigation by Congress (and the FBI) into what role or benefit was involved with Congressman Conyers? Surely those watchdogs who are always calling for this or that Republican to be investigated will call for an inquiry here. I'm talking about Democrats like Charles Schumer, Henry Waxman, Pat Leahy and, oh yes, Arlen Specter.

What do you think the odds are of a Congressional inquiry by the Ethics Panel into John Conyers?

Just wondering.

The Iranians and Their Government

The Iranian "election" -and the winner is.......
(Tip of the hat to the great Don Martin)


I must confess I have very mixed reactions to the happenings in Iran over the "re-election" of Ahmadinejad. That's because I vividly remember the hostage crisis thirty years ago, when our diplomats were held under threat of trial and execution while a feckless president named Jimmy Carter wrung his hands in helplessness. Like most Americans, I was outraged. I could not understand why we did not go to war and crush Iran. Yes, it would have probably meant the deaths of most if not all of the hostages, but America would not have been humiliated by a third-rate country run by fanatical mullahs.

I also remember the behavior of some Iranians living in the US at the time, especially the so-called Iranian students, many of whom supported the revolution. I was stationed with DEA in Los Angeles at the time and recall that we had a rash of heroin and hashish smuggling cases involving young Iranians whose funding for their stay in America had been cut off. In one case, we arrested several Iranians connected with the seizure of hash concealed in framed pictures of the Ayatollah Khomeini. I remember the satisfaction I felt as I tore apart the portraits to remove the drugs in front of the prisoners, who gritted their teeth in silent rage.

I also remember the day shortly after our diplomats had been taken hostage that hundreds of Iranians decided to march through the streets of Los Angeles in support of the Ayatollah. They had been denied a permit but chose to march anyway. We knew there was going to be violence, and I have to admit, a couple of my colleagues and I were tempted to take the day off and go "kick some ass". Fortunately, we decided not to put our jobs on the line and we stayed put. As it was, hundreds of counter-demonstrators, outraged Americans, lined the streets and jeered the marchers. The police were out in force, but could not prevent the melee that ensued as the Iranians were spit upon and attacked by the counter-protesters. A lot of Iranians were beaten up that day including women. Many others were arrested along with members of the Jewish Defense League and their leader, Irv Rubin, who were right in the thick of it. (I was not an admirer of Irv Rubin.)

How did I feel about what happened? I was giddy with joy.

Suffice to say, I did not care much for Iranians in those days, and that is putting it mildly.

I also cheered when Iraq, under Saddam Hussein launched a war against Iran. I knew Iraq under Saddam was no ideal nation, but they were fighting our enemy, and so I thought it was right that the US gave support to Saddam in that instance.

Was I wrong to feel those sentiments? I honestly don't know. I do know, however, that I don't feel those sentiments now. As I have told my Iranian friends (Yes, I have a few), eventually, one needs to let go of those kinds of feelings. (Of course, I am much more aware now of the numbers of Iranians I meet who are refugees from the present regime.) So, was it racism on my part? No-it was wounded national pride. I am a nationalist, and I don't like to see my country humiliated.

But how am I supposed to feel now as we witness a mass wave of rejection on the part of so many thousands of young Iranians toward their despicable government? Again, I have mixed feelings. For many years now, I have refused to feel bad for the Iranian people living under such a backward government. After all, they chose that government, didn't they? They threw out the Shah, brought in the Islamic Republic and shouted, "Death to America", so it was my feeling that they had the government they deserved. I was more concerned with the dangers that government posed (and poses) to the West and Israel.

However, I have to take into account that Iran is a young country in demographics. Most of its people were either very young or not yet born in 1979. They see the freedoms that the West enjoys and they want to join in. Maybe they have been swept up in the world-wide Obamamania and they want to join in that as well, who knows?

At any rate, it is no longer 1979; it is 2009, and things are stirring in Iran. What should be the response of the Obama administration? The President is choosing his words carefully-as he should. Obviously, while he supports the idea of more freedom in Iran, the US doesn't want to be seen as propping up the opposition. That would be counter-productive. Are we working behind the scenes to undermine the Iranian government? Hard to say with this administration, but I hope we are. If this government can fall without us or Israel having to go to war, the whole world will be better off.

I have to confess, I still am cynical when I hear American politicians pander about the "Iranian people having the democracy they so richly deserve", but hopefully, there will be another Iranian revolution- as peaceful as possible. If the Iranian people can somehow remove this odious regime and restore Iran to a positive position in that volatile part of the world, I will tip my hat to them.

So there is my confession. The statute of limitations is in effect.

The Case of IG Gerald Walpin-Change?

Kevin Johnson and Barack Obama




Kevin Johnson and Eric Holder



If you remember the furor of the Bush replacement of a number of US Attorneys (a political position), perhaps this will get you fired up. The Obama White House is giving the boot to the Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), Gerald Walpin, in whom Obama has supposedly "lost confidence".

I'll say. And according to sources, Michelle Obama may also be playing a role in the firing a'la Travelgate. Walpin was involved in the overview of Americorps, that boondoggle outfit that falls under CNCS, and which hands out goodies to community volunteer organizations. In this case, Walpin was checking into money in the amount of $850,000 given to St Hope Academy, an educational foundation which is connected to now-Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA player and Obama supporter. As a result of the investigation, the IG referred Johnson and another St Hope honcho, Dana Gonzalez, for criminal/civil prosecution for misuse and diversion of government funds. Subsequently, in exchange for the lifting of suspensions and disbarments of Johnson and Gonzalez, the academy agreed to repay about one half of the amount given, but apparently, Obama's friends in Sacramento (including the US Attorney, who complained about Walpin's investigation-I told you the US Attorney is a political plum) have prevailed on the White House to fire Walpin.

At a May 20 board meeting, Walpin reportedly criticized the agency's settlement deals with St Hope/Johnson/Gonzalez and City University of New York Research Foundation, the latter of which received massive funding that Walpin characterized as useless.

A few weeks later, on June 10, Walpin allegedly received a call from Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President in the White House, telling him to resign within 24 hours or be fired. Walpin refused because he has certain rights. Any firing of an IG must be given a 30 day notice period and Congress must be given the reasons for the firing-since IGs are supposed to be independent watchdogs.

When the firing was announced, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wrote to the White House expressing concern and asking for an explanation as to why the normal firing process was being circumvented. Now Special Counsel to the President, Norm Eisen has responded that Walpin was "confused", "disoriented" and "disruptive" at the May 20 board meeting leading to his dismissal. Walpin calls this a lie and charges that his firing is political.

In addition, according to those famous old anonymous sources, it has been leaked that the First Lady is playing a role in the management of CNCS. It has already been announced that Michelle's chief of staff, Jackie Norris, has been sent to CNCS as a senior advisor.

So here is my first question: If Walpin's findings were out of line as it pertains to St Hope Academy and Mr Johnson, why did the academy agree to repay half of the money involved?

Second question: If the reason for Walpin's firing was his behavior at the May 20 meeting, why did the White House wait until June 10 to can him?

Third question: If people are still pushing for an investigation into why President Bush replaced a bunch of US Attorneys-which is known to be a political appointment-what are we to think of the attempted summary dismissal of an IG-not supposed to be a political plum, rather one that is independent? Is the firing purely for the reasons given by Mr Eisen? Or is it because Mr Walpin was investigating the President/First Lady's friends?

Change?

Oh, yee suckers.

Senator Robert Menendez Speaks on Israel

It is not often that I agree with Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), but his statement yesterday on the floor of the Senate was spot on. Beginning with a reference to the Holocaust Museum shooting, Senator Menendez gives an overview of the State of Israel since 1948 and why the nation should be allowed to live in peace as a valued partner of the US.

Well stated, Senator.

Adam Gadahn's Anti-Jewish Video

Adam Gadahn


In the past few days, American al-Qaeda member and spokesman Adam Gadahn has issued another “communique“, this one in Arabic explaining his Jewish roots. He describes his Jewish-American grandfather, whom he characterizes as a Zionist, and who tried to influence him in that direction even encouraging him to visit Israel. He also talks about a book written by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was given to him by his grandfather.

He then goes on to speak of the “crimes” committed by Israel and America as is his wont. They need not be repeated here for the umpteenth time.

Having written previously on why Gadahn has turned against his country to the point of becoming a traitor, I also find it interesting as to why he has joined a long list of persons of Jewish ancestry who have turned against their Jewish identity. (Gadahn was actually raised by his parents in a Christian environment.) Many Jewish people with whom I have spoken, refer to this type of (Jewish) person as a “self-hating” Jew. I have heard the term applied to anti-Israel activists such as Norman Finklestein, Anna Baltzer and others. Not being Jewish myself, that is a judgment I choose to leave to others.

I don’t know whether Gadahn has a stronger hatred for his Jewish/Christian ancestry or his American nationality. Suffice to say, he has thrown in his lot with a force that wants to destroy all three. Eventually, I am certain that Gadahn will be held to answer for his treason. The reasons why he took the road he has chosen might be reserved for the psychiatrist’s couch. What Gadahn has overlooked about his country is its unique structural ability to right wrongs from within the system. The American Civil Rights Movement is the classic example. Yet, this misguided young man prefers to destroy our country and its system and replace it with Shariah law, which would take away all our freedoms in the name of religion. He has also overlooked the fact that contrary to some Muslim countries, America-and Israel guarantee freedom of religion. Even in the wake of 9-11, America has gone to great lengths to ensure the rights of Muslims under the Constitution and their freedom to follow their religion. Of course, that is a freedom that Gadahn and his cohorts would obviously deny to non-Muslims. That is why they must be defeated.

I know many of my friends and colleagues are hoping that someday we succeed in dropping a bomb on Gadahn’s head. I do not. I prefer to see the day when he is captured alive and brought back to the US to answer for his treason. I want to see him subjected to the whole battery of tests and interviews to see what really makes this guy tick. Let him have his rant in an open courtroom, and let him see first-hand how a true system of justice works. Who knows? He may even come to appreciate the Judeo-Christian heritage of this country.

Celebrity Endorsements: Sammy Sosa for Wheaties

News item: It has been revealed that in 2003, Sammy Sosa tested positive for steroids.

"Hey kids, if you wanna grow up to be a home run slugger like me-you better start eating your Wheaties."



"Here I am as a rookie-before I started eating my Wheaties."
(1989- 4 homers, 13 RBIs)




"Six hundred homers later, here I am after I started eating my Wheaties."

"So take it from Slammin' Sammy-you'd better start eating your Wheaties!"

Reverend Wright and the Muslim Protester in Arkansas-Why I Don't Ignore Them

Jeremiah Wright


One of my readers, who lives in Germany, has admonished me for my latest postings on the anti-Semitic rants of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and a Muslim woman who crashed a wreath-laying at the site of the murder of Pvt William Long in Arkansas by a Muslim convert. In my friend's view, both Wright and the woman are loons that should be ignored. Why waste time and words on them, she asks. Here is my answer.

In the case of the unidentified Muslim woman, not only was she arrogant to the point of demanding respect for her religion as citizens were trying to lay flowers on the site of Pvt Long's murder, which had occurred only hours earlier, she made anti-Semitic references to "the Jews who run the New York Times and Fox News. They are liars!" she shouted. This woman is not just some isolated loon; she represents a mind-set, one that has no place in civilized society, and one that must be confronted and defeated.

In the case of Wright, yet another regular reader took me to task and asked when I was going to write another piece on William Ayres. I understand the argument, but there is another side to this. Jeremiah Wright's relationship and influence on President Obama should never cease to be a topic for discussion. Now, after the "God Damn America" and "Rich white people" rants, we have this: "Them Jews ain't going to let him (Obama) talk to me". He then launches immediately into a discussion of "Zionist" Israel. In addition to hating his country, he also has little use for Jews. His coupling of American Jews with the alleged "crimes" of Israel is a common canard that shows how specious the claim is that there is no connection between "anti-Zionism" and anti-Semitism. They walk all too often hand in hand.

So the argument goes that Wright is old news. It has all been hashed out and found not to be sufficient for not electing Obama to the presidency. Wright is known to be a flake, and we should ignore him.

Wrong.

Jeremiah Wright still has an audience, and there are many who think like he does. When we ignore or pooh-pooh the anti-Semitic rants of Wright and the woman in Arkansas, we repeat the error that was made in the 1920s and 1930s when Europe and America were ignoring the rants of Adolf Hitler. (No, I am not equating either of these two people to Hitler). As I have said many times before, we are living in a time similar to Europe in the 1930s. Hitler's anti-Semitism (and talk of conquest)was not taken seriously. If we don't take the new anti-Semitism we see today seriously, then we are headed for another catastrophe.

So I respectfully disagree with my readers who say I should "move on" and ignore the above two purveyors of hate. No, they should be exposed for what they are, and their words must be countered. Shame on us as a people if we take a "so what" attitude to figures like Jeremiah Wright and that pathetic, arrogant woman in Arkansas.

More on the Arkansas Shooting-a Protester

Recorded by Secure Arkansas and cross-posted from Right in a Left World

This video tape is going around the Internet and is cross-posted from "Right in a left world" blog. It shows a young Muslim woman who shows up at the site of the shooting at the Arkansas military recruiter office where Private William Long was killed earlier the same day. As members of the public are trying to lay flowers at the site, this woman admonishes them for not showing her the proper respect as a Muslim. She goes on to say that 9-11 was an inside job. Even more disturbing is her claim about the New York Times and Fox News being owned by Jews-"They are liars".

I was hesitant to put this posting up but eventually decided I should. I don't know anything about Secure Arkansas and I wasn't really interested in the theologically-driven captions. (A look at their website indicates they are focused on illegal immigration.) I have decided that her words are so outrageous that she should be exposed.

I don't post this to incite. I would hope that leaders of this woman's Muslim community would call her in for a heart to heart chat and explain to her that actions and statements like hers at that time and that place can only increase negative feelings about the Muslim community. If the woman in question was seeking respect, she went about it in the wrong way. I would also like to see organizations like CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) publicly criticize her words and actions in the wake of this tragedy. Not likely since CAIR's website meakes no mention of the shooting, and the ISNA states only the following:

"ISNA Condemns Arkansas Killing Plainfield, IN 06/ 02/2009 - The Islamic Society of North America condemns the fatal shooting of Pvt. William Long which took place in Little Rock, AK. The use of violence to demonstrate opposition to war is unacceptable and morally reprehensible. Additionally, such use of violence is counter productive to the useful exchange of ideas and beliefs.

ISNA has and will continue working in partnership with law enforcement to deal with this unfortunate reality of violence on our American streets.

ISNA believes in the right of individuals to oppose war, but it strongly denounces the use of violence to do so. In a free democracy, citizens have a moral duty to use peaceful means to express their views and try to influence policy. The use of violence to make one’s point is unacceptable and must be condemned by all people of conscience.

The Islamic Society of North America extends its most heartfelt condolences to the family of Pvt. Long."

Fousesquawk comment; All well and good, but the article is misleading. There is no mention of the fact that the shooter was a Muslim convert who has publicly stated that he was acting because of religious reasons. To simply describe this an anti-war act by some unidentified perpetrator is avoiding an issue that ISNA should have addressed head on.

Testimony of a York University Jewish Student

This article is appearing on Jewish Action Online and is written by York University (Toronto) student David Elmaleh, who discusses how the college campus has become a hub of anti-semitism.

(Tip of the hat also to the Orange County Independent Task Force, from which this article is cross-posted.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Shouting, anti-religious slurs, evil glares and anti-Semitic rhetoric often get thrown my way as I walk through the halls during one of the countless anti-Israel demonstrations at York University. Am I a walking target? I often wonder if I am drawing a bull’s eye for myself when I dress in a way that identifies me as a Jew on campus. Indeed, the distinction between anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish is becoming increasingly blurred.

In several cases, these rallies have deteriorated into soapboxes for Jew bashing. I have been called names and been insulted for simply wearing my kippah. One day, while hurrying to a class, a few individuals stopped me in the hallway and began berating me about Israeli policies.

The campus newspaper has not been very helpful; it consistently presents editorials and articles that blast Israel, while very few pro-Israel pieces make it into the paper. Last year, after the fatal terrorist attack at the Mercaz HaRav yeshivah in Jerusalem, a York student wrote an op-ed for the campus paper entitled “Jewish Attack Not a Surprise,” which defended the massacre and called on continued resistance in order to end the occupation in Gaza. Jewish students of all walks of life felt outraged and hurt that their paper had printed such a hate-inspired editorial. It sparked intense debate among all factions of students, and, as usual, Jews were targeted.

Below is my response to the op-ed.

Upon reading the article “Jewish Attack Not a Surprise,” I was angered, frustrated and disappointed. At what price should freedom of speech be protected? Attempts to incite hate and demonize a minority group on campus are by no means welcome and should not be allowed to continue. The author [of the article] justifies the massacre of eight defenseless and unarmed students by stating that they were learning in a school that is connected to the Israeli military and that its graduating students are contributing to the fighting in Gaza. I wholeheartedly disagree with her analysis of the situation in Gaza. However, her opinion is her prerogative, and not my primary concern. I take issue with her justification of the “Jewish attack.”

I spent some time learning in the Mercaz HaRav yeshivah. . . . If somebody had walked up to me in the [York University] library while I was studying and shot me in cold blood, would the author justify that as well? Or perhaps she was referring to the hundreds of other Jewish students who have studied in similar seminaries before commencing their studies at York? Openly condoning a brutal, heinous and targeted attack on defenseless Jewish students because of their religious and political affiliations threatens the prospect of cohesiveness both abroad and here in our university.

Specifically targeting vulnerable civilians is never acceptable, and such justifications have no business in a university that prides itself on its diversity, acceptance and global interest in human rights. University newspapers . . . should not be used as a vehicle . . . for those who wish to incite hatred and hurt an important minority group on campus that greatly contributes to the academic and social aspects of York.

My response never made it into the paper. I wonder why. . . ."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Fousesquawk comment: It seems that of all the universities in Canada, York University has acquired the reputation as the worst when it comes to anti-Semitism inspired by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Jeremiah Wright: "Them Jews Ain't Going to Let Him Talk to Me"

On June 9, Jeremiah Wright spoke to a news reporter from Virginia's Daily Press at a ministers conference in Hampton, Virginia about his current relationship with Barack Obama. When asked if he had had recent contact with Obama, Wright responded; "Them Jews ain't going let him talk to me."

"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me .... He's got to do what politicians do. And the Jewish vote, the AIPAC vote that's controlling him, that will not let him send representation to the Darfur Review Conference, that's talking this craziness on Israel because they're Zionists, they will not let him talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is. Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza—the ethnic cleansing of the Zionists is a sin and a crime against humanity."

Leaving aside what a despicable character this sorry excuse for a man of God is, how many members of the elite media have asked President Obama about his reaction to Wright's words? Or is that simply old news that was addressed during the election? Note how Wright goes from the "Jews" who are keeping him and Obama apart to the Israel-Gaza-Zionism issue. Is this another example of how anti-Zionism is a thinly-veiled veneer for anti-Jew hatred? Is this another example of the "new anti-Semitism", an off-shoot of the opposition to Israel that spills over into condemnation of American Jews-simply for being Jews? In my view-yes.

Why is it that some forms of hate are block-buster news stories while other forms of hate "have no legs" as they say in the news business? Is it becoming acceptable once again to utter anti-Semitic words and talk about how the "Jews control America-control the world"?

Jeremiah Wright is a bitter old man who makes a mockery of his religion, a religion which I share. He is a disgrace, and his long relationship with President Obama should never cease to be an issue for public discussion.