California Marijuana Clinics

In Febrary 2007, I wrote the below article in the opinion page of the Orange County Register in reply to a February 4 editorial by John Stossel attacking DEA's crackdown on California marijuana clinics.

As a retired DEA agent, I take issue with John Stossel's Feb. 4 column on our drug laws ["Drug legalization decisions are better off left to the states," Commentary]. Stossel's thesis is that drug laws, according to the Constitution, should be left to the individual states as opposed to the federal government. Stossel also opines that the current administration and "DEA goons" are "throwing that idea on the trash heap."

Well, not exactly. The fact is that under the 10th Amendment any laws not covered by federal law are left to the states. Thus, states are free to enact their own laws as long as they do not conflict with federal law.

However, we do have federal law that regulates the manufacture, transportation and sale of controlled substances, including both illegal drugs and those subject to a doctor's prescription.

In the case of marijuana, it is presently categorized as a Schedule I drug, which, among other elements, states that it has no recognized medical use. That means that states that attempt to allow "medical marijuana shops" are in conflict with federal law, as are doctors who prescribe marijuana.

It is not my purpose here to debate the pros and cons of marijuana. Suffice to say that those who want to legalize it or change its category to a lesser schedule can petition through the legislative system. We have the mechanisms in place to change our laws rather than snub our noses at them.

Stossel, as a libertarian, seems to be opposed to all drug laws, at least on the federal level. That is his right. However, leaving the decision to each state would create chaos and do nothing more than attract drug users to those states. It would also hamper law enforcement's efforts to investigate major drug-trafficking organizations that operate across state lines (indeed, national borders). That is a major reason why we have federal law enforcement agencies.

As for the so-called marijuana clinics, I am skeptical about their true purpose. Is it really to provide relief to ordinary citizens like you and me (who could obtain legally-prescribed medications that are much more efficient), or is it just a Trojan horse either to legalize marijuana entirely or at least provide access to the usual potheads? I suspect the latter.

If America as a nation wants to junk its drug laws, that can be done through the legislative process. But for state authorities to ignore federal law as it exists is illegal. The bottom line is that marijuana clinics in California are breaking federal law. If you don't like the law, petition your legislators to change it.

Cardinal Roger Mahony and the Pedophilia Scandal in LA

This week, the Los Angeles Archdiocese of the Catholic Church agreed to a settlement by which victims of sexual abuse by priests in the archdiocese would receive a total of 660 million dollars to be divided among them (and their attorneys). The agreement was announced on the day before a trial was to begin, in which Archbishop Roger Mahony would have been called as a witness under oath. The central figure in this scandal was Cardinal Mahony, who, for several years, had stonewalled the victims, their attorneys and the LA District Attorney's Office, who had been trying to obtain Church records relating to accused priests. Much like the recent case in the Archdiocese of Boston, in which Cardinal Bernard Law had been accused of resisting investigations and reassigning offending priests, Mahony has brought considerable discredit upon the Church.

It is not my purpose here to launch an assault on Catholics, nor upon the majority of priests who are truly performing God's work in the service of mankind. Nor is it my attention to attack Christian doctrine- I am myself a Christian. I have my own opinions on what is wrong within the Catholic Church that has led to these abuses. In the interest of fair disclosure, I grew up as a Protestant, married a Catholic, and attended Catholic services, raising our children as Catholics. Now, with my children grown and able to make their own decisions, I have chosen not to attend Catholic Church services any further in the light of the priest scandals-especially the Church's refusal to deal meaningfully with the issue overall.

The story of the Archdiocese in Los Angeles under the leadership of Cardinal Mahony is a disgraceful scandal. To be fair, not all of the cases in the above-referenced lawsuit occurred under Mahony's watch, but many did. It is beyond question that as the complaints mounted and the lawsuits were filed, Mahony threw up every roadblock imaginable to thwart the efforts of the plaintiffs to achieve redress. Private investigators were sent out to question and intimidate not only the victims, but their families and other witnesses as well in an effort to discredit the victims. Efforts to obtain Church records on accused priests were resisted, in many cases, until the statute of limitations expired or plaintiffs simply gave up. Subpoenas issued by the District Attorneys Office in LA were resisted to the bitter end. Finally, this week, it came to the point that the cases were going to come to court, and Mahony had to testify under oath. Then came the settlement accompanied with an apology by Mahony to the victims. But an apology for what? Mahony apologized to the victims for what was done to them and for their suffering. Yet, he did not apologize for the all the years of his own fighting their efforts to achieve justice. He did not apologize for all the pedophile priests that came to his attention and whom he simply sent out for treatment and/or reassignment to other parishes. He did not apologize for all the legal efforts he mounted to defeat their complaints. He did not apologize for fighting tooth and nail to keep Church records secret that would have revealed how he and the Church tried to cover up these crimes.

All of this will remind Catholics in Boston of the activities in recent years of their own former Archbishop, Bernard Law, who committed all of the above acts. Now, he is a major domo in the Vatican, most recently having come to public notice as a speaker at the funeral of Pope John Paul II (a great man, who must have been spinning in his coffin).

So now, the question arises-what will become of Cardinal Mahony? Will he resign his position, retire or be transferred by the Vatican to Rome or some other post? Will he be further investigated by Los Angeles DA, Steve Cooley? (I hope so.) Or will he simply survive in his current position. Several observers are already predicting he will come out of this whole affair intact, if not unscathed. Reason? Let us not forget that Mahony enjoys great popularity within the Los Angeles Hispanic community. Mahony is also noted for his support for the illegal alien community in southern California and the US as a whole. He has been very outspoken in favor of amnesty and the status of LA as a sanctuary city. As for the news media in LA, the conservative radio talk shows have been most critical of the Cardinal (especially KFI's talk show hosts, John and Ken). What remains to be seen is the reaction of LA's newspapers-including the Spanish language media- to the settlement. Will they join the call for the removal of Mahony?
That remains to be seen.

What is Wrong on our University Campuses?

Ward Churchill, former professor at University of Colorado, who called victims of 9-11 "Little Eichmanns".



In the interest of full disclosure, I am presently a part-time teacher of English as a Second Language at a major California university. (UC Irvine). I must admit that I enjoy working at UCI. After a first career of working for DEA, this new life is pretty relaxing. The students are congenial (coming from mostly Asian countries, where teachers are respected) and my colleagues are likewise. Some even share my conservative world view. However, one always has to consider what university department is involved. ESL teachers tend to be people who have traveled, lived in other countries, learned other languages, and , in many cases, have married foreign-born spouses. So they tend to spread out along the ideological spectrum. Likewise, teachers in the physical sciences and economics also tend to be more ideologically varied. It is in the humanities that you find an overwhelming presence of not just liberals, but far-out lefties who don't much care for their country. Unfortunately, these characters make the most noise, and thus, bring a lot of bad publicity to their schools. Add that to administrators who either sympathize with radical professors or are afraid to confront them, and you have a pretty sorry state of affairs on our campuses.

So where do I start? How about Ward Churchhill, of the University of Colorado? He's the guy who called the victims of 9-11 "little Eichmann's". How about the character who teaches at the University of Wisconsin who swears that the Bush Administration conducted 9-11? What about Duke, where the university, urged on by a letter signed by 88 professors, expelled the three Lacrosse players (who were later exonerated.) Then there is San Francisco State, where military recruiters were driven off campus by a mob of students, just part of a long tradition of student unrest at that "institution". Let's don't forget Harvard, the "most prestigious university in America", where the president, Larry Summers, was driven to resignation by his own faculty after he had the temerity to question whether women were as adapt at science as men. (Oh the outrage!) At my own school, UCI, each quarter is marred by anti-Israel events sponsored by the Muslim Student Union, a group that has a regular team of radical Muslim imam speakers who spout hatred not only for Israel, but America and Jews in general. Numerous other campuses, such as UCLA, also have activists Muslim Student Unions that warrant the attention of the FBI. Meanwhile, other universities, Like the University of Michigan at Dearborn, are busy installing foot baths for Muslim students.

In addition, while radical left speakers appear and speak freely on campuses across the nation, conservative speakers are met with protests, disruption and sometimes violence. Examples? How about former Justice Department official, John Yoo, when he spoke at UC Irvine a couple of years ago? Ditto for pro-Israel Middle East expert, Daniel Pipes at UCI a few months back. How about Ann Coulter, who had pies thrown at her at one university in Arizona? When President Bush was invited to speak recently at St Vincent's College in Latrobe, students and professors alike cried like spoiled children. In the free marketplace of ideas, pay attention to those who want to silence the other side. That will tell you much about who is right and who is wrong.

I could go on for the next 100 pages with anecdotal examples of far-left, anti-American activity going on at American universities, but you read these stories every day just like me. The question is why? How did you get to this point? I guess one reason is that many of these professors were university students during my generation-the good old 60s. Many of them never left that sad decade. Another reason could be that moderates and conservatives tend to get their bachelor's degrees and go out into the world to make a living and get some real life experience. They tend to become even more conservative during life. Meanwhile, what happens to the student who goes from a BS degree to a masters degree to a PHD and then enters teaching? By the time they have gotten their doctorate, they have been educated out of the last shred of common sense they were born with. They are still stuck in that cocoon of liberal university propaganda. They then take all that "learning" into their classroom and regurgitate the same stuff that they learned. However, where is their life experience, other than maybe getting married and having kids?

In my own case, after getting my BS in 1970 (interrupted by a 3 year stint in the Army), I went into federal law enforcement, first with Customs, then DEA. That job took me all over the world, including assignments in Thailand and Italy for a total of 8 years. In my final assignment at the Office of Training at Quantico, Virginia, I took advantage of a program run by the University of Virginia, where I was able to get a master's degree in Education, paid for by the government. This enabled me to qualify as an ESL teacher at the college level, further enabling me to retire at 50. I mention this only because I think that it allowed me to bring life experience to the classroom.

That does not mean however, that I was about to walk into a classroom and indoctrinate my students with my conservative philosophy. I think it is wrong. My job is to help young students improve their English, not to teach them what they should think about the world. Unfortunately, most leftist professors feel it is their mission to turn out a new generation of leftists. Not content to preach their doctrine in the classroom, many of them engage in protests against this or that outside the classroom, oblivious to any principle of free speech. Even more outrageously, many professors give poor grades to any student who strays from the professor's point of view. Sadly, many young students, concerned about graduating, have succumbed, remaining silent in the classroom and turning in papers in agreement with the professor's philosophy.

In contrast, my master's program was more of an example of adult education. The coordinator, from the University of Virginia, was able to relate to us since we were made up of DEA, FBI and Marines. He knew he was dealing with adults who had life experience and were not liable to be liberal. Where the fun happened is when he brought up young teaching assistants from Charlottesville to give lectures. On one occasion, a young lady in her 20s made the off-hand comment in class that she didn't think it was unpatriotic to burn the American flag! We let her know in no uncertain terms how we felt about that remark. The lady was nearly in a state of shock when she left-and never returned.

So what to do about this situation? Do we conservatives go to court or the Congress to demand a "fairness doctrine" for the universities? Tempting, but I say no. What I think is necessary here is the light of day. We need to make sure the public is aware of what is happening in our universities (and secondary schools as well). We also need to send emails or letters to the heads of these institutions when these outrages occur. They need to know the public is watching. If your alma mater is guilty of far-left bias, refuse to send contributions when solicited-and let them know why. If you are going to foot the bill for your kid's tuition, make sure that he or she doesn't go to one of the offending schools. (Unfortunately, that takes care of most state-run universities-you might have to look at a small private or faith-based school). Eventually, some of these schools will start paying attention to the bottom line.

You also need to counsel your children that it is up to them to decide what they think about the world, that they will be subjected to this indoctrination, and that they should never accept at face value what a professor says in the classroom. There is a bumper sticker that liberals are fond of that reads: "Question Authority". Why not question professors as well?

Ken Hubbs- A Real Sports Hero

Ken Hubbs (1941-1964)


The American sports scene has been badly polluted in the last several years by professional athletes who have been caught cheating with steroids and/or getting in trouble with the law. The phenomena has been particularly felt in the NFL and NBA. To a somewhat lesser extent Major League Baseball has also been hit hard. It seems all we read on the sports pages (besides the scores) are the latest transgressions of players who have been arrested for rape, assault, drug possession, gun possession or what have you. Meanwhile, many of the top home run hitters in baseball have apparently been using steroids to pump up their bodies and their statistics. Any day now, Barry Bonds will break Hank Aaron's home run record thanks to a variety of substances that he has (allegedly) put in his body. The American sports public is hungry for real heroes that they, and more importantly, their children can look up to. Well, there is one I have in mind. Unfortunately, he left us several decades ago. Many of you reading this will not recognize his name because his career was cut short by premature death in 1964. His name was Ken Hubbs. His records and accomplishments on the field never were able to rise to the level of greatness or Hall of Fame credentials. However, Ken Hubbs was a Hall of Fame human being.

Who was Ken Hubbs? In 1962, he was the National League Rookie of the Year playing second base for the Chicago Cubs. During his rookie season, he set a major league fielding record for consecutive errorless games by a second baseman. By February 1964, he was gone, killed in a private airplane crash.

Hubbs was born in Riverside, California in 1941. He was one of five sons in a Mormon family that resided in nearby Colton. He made his first splash at the age of 13 as the star shortstop of his Colton little league team that made it all the way to the Little League World Series in Williamsport, Pennsyvania in 1954. Coincidentally, I happened to be present at the regional playoff final game in Santa Monica, California. I was standing beyond the center field fence and still recall seeing the final out of that game. In Williamsport, Ken's team lost to Schenectady in the final game.

Ken's family accompanied their son and the team on the train ride to Pennsylvania. During a stopover in Chicago, they took in a Cubs game at Wrigley Field. Ernie Banks was still playing shortstop at that time, and he became Ken's idol. Little could anyone imagine that only ten years later, Ken's idol would be a pallbearer at his funeral.

After Little League, Ken went on to become a star athlete at Colton High School, not only in baseball, but he was also an All-American in football and basketball. He was also class president. Ken eventually chose baseball as his career and signed out of high school with the Cubs.

After a short minor league career, Ken joined the Cubs in the latter part of the 1961 team where he was put at second base. Of course, the Cubs in those days were a perennial loser, not having won a pennent since 1945. They were seemingly building the basis of a future with Billy Williams, Ron Santo and another prospect named Lou Brock (who would be traded away in 1964). Ken also fit into the future with the Cubs. He was a solid, smooth fielding second baseman who, with more experience, would have developed into a solid hitter as well according to the Cubs. In 1962, Ken hit 262. That respectable average plus his 78 consecutive errorless games led to his selection as the NL Rookie of the Year. His performance of 418 consecutive errorless fielding chances was also a new record.

It was in August 1963 that I visited Wrigley Field for the first time and became a Cub fan for life. Being an aspiring second baseman in college, I paid particular attention to Hubbs, who was then in his second full season. I saw him play a few weeks later in Los Angeles. That would be the last time I saw him play.

In 1963, Ken's batting fell off, his average dropping to 235. Yet, the Cubs were not concerned. With his solid defense, Ken was expected to be the Cubs' second baseman for the next decade or so. His hitting was expected to get better. Of course, for Ken Hubbs, there would be no 1964 season.

At this point, it is appropriate to turn to Ken Hubbs the person. This was no conceited, narcissistic young athlete. Example: When Ken first went looking for an apartment in Chicago to rent, he encountered a landlady who did not want to rent to a professional athlete. She considered them to be wild and high living. Ken asked her for a chance to prove himself. She gave him that chance and never regretted it. She quickly learned that Ken was a model tenant and a model citizen.

Nor was Ken standoffish. The neighborhood children could look forward to Ken coming home from the ballpark and playing catch with them. (Of course at that time, all games at Wrigley were played in the daylight.) In addition, Ken was known to readily sign autographs before games by the dugout and chat with Wrigley ushers and other employees. Among his teammates, he was universally popular. Everone loved Ken Hubbs.

Ken had suffered from a fear of flying, a definite handicap for a professional athlete. To conquer that fear, he confronted it head on, learning how to fly a plane himself. Subsequently, he bought his own private plane, a Cessna 172. He had had his flying license only a short time when he and his closest friend, Dennis Doyle, flew the Cessna to Provo, Utah for a Church-sponsored basketball clinic in February 1964. Taking off in poor weather for the return flight home to Colton, the plane crashed into frozen Lake Utah. Both were killed instantly. Ken Hubbs was only 22 years old.

The news hit Chicago and Colton especially hard. Ken was (and is to this day) Colton's home town hero. The funeral was held in Colton and attended by the Cubs team. Not only had a promising baseball career been cut short, but also the life of a young man who would have gone on to even greater things outside of baseball.

For the Cubs, a promising 1963 season (82-80) was followed by a disappoining 1964 season. Their other prospect, Lou Brock was traded and went on to a Hall of Fame career with the Cardinals. The Cubs reverted to their old losing ways for the next several years.

For Colton, Ken Hubbs became an icon, whose name lives on to this day. The high school where he starred renamed the gym in his name. The local little league is now the Ken Hubbs Little League. Ken's mother and one of his brothers still live in Colton.

For an older generation of Cubs fans, Ken's name is recalled with a mixture of fondness and sadness for what might have been. A few years ago, the Cubs and the city of Chicago invited the Hubbs family to a 40th anniversary commemoration of Ken's winning the Rookie of the Year Award. His older brother, Keith, told me in a telephone conversation not long ago of how he and
his wife were walking down a Chicago street when they passed a man wearing a White Sox shirt. Keith's wife asked the man why he wasn't wearing a Cubs' shirt. At this point, the man told her that he hated the Cubs and hoped they would lose every game they played. Yet, when he learned that he was in the presence of Ken Hubbs' brother, his tone changed. The man bowed before Keith and told him how much he loved Ken. He added that all White Sox fans, no matter how they hated the Cubs, loved Ken Hubbs.

At this time, there is a book being written on the life of Ken Hubbs by a Chicago writer, David Tenenbaum. When it comes out, I recommend it to any sports fan who wants to be uplifted by the life of a young athlete, who in addition to his sports skills, was also an outstanding young man.

Rudy Giuliani for President?

What about the current GOP frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani for president? Or a better question at this stage might be-what about Giuliani as the Republican candidate? While he presently leads in the Republican polls, many conservatives find him lacking in several areas.

In the area that I consider the number one issue-the War on Terror- I find him to be very appealing. The former New York mayor eloquently expresses the need to fight this war on all fronts. Yet, it should be pointed out that most all of his competitors for the nomination, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, share his view. Where Giuliani raises concern among Republican voters lies in other hot-button issues, such as abortion and illegal immigration. In short, Giuliani supports a woman's right to choose, and, with the latter, is less than hard-line on stopping illegal immigration. As mayor, he supported the idea of New York as a sanctuary city. That stance causes me concern.

Others are troubled by his marital history. He is now married to his third wife, with whom he began a relationship even while married to his former wife. If he ends up running for president against Senator Clinton. this would tend to minimize Hillary's disadvantage of being saddled with the history of her own husband's infidelities.

I consider Mr Giuliani to have been a great public servant as US Attorney for the Southern District Court (Manhatten), where he distinguished himself in the prosecution of the Mafia, as well as his term as mayor, where he cut down on crime and generally improved the quality of life in the nation's biggest city. Of course, he won the hearts of America in the aftermath of 9-11, as he showed himself to be totally involved in the tragedy of the city, attending numerous funerals of the victims. There is no question that, if he is nominated, that I would vote for him.

As for the primaries, I am as yet undecided. Like many others, I am still holding out for a more intriguing figure, with whom I can completely identify on both of the two most pressing issues of our time (terrorism and illegal immigration).

Al Gore, Dead Polar Bears and Live Earth

I am usually laughing too hard at Al Gore to actually sit down and write about him, but since he is being touted about as a presidential candidate, I might as well devote some attention to him just for yuks.

I have long since come to the conclusion that Mr Gore has serious issues, in other words, I think he is nuts. But unfortunately many people actually take him seriously even after years of jokes about him having invented the Internet, discovering Love Canal and being the model for the movie "Love Story".

Now, as we all know, Mr Gore is involved in the Environmental Movement, having won an Oscar for his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" and now awaiting the inevitable Nobel Prize for Something. One would have thought that with the revelation that Mr Gore lives in a Tara style mansion in Tennessee that uses about 20 times the amount of energy of a normal household plus the knowledge that the former Veep travels around the world in a Gulf Stream jet to promote his Green message that this boob would be totally discredited. Well, although conservatives have long ago laughed him out of town, a lot of young people and liberal Green-minded people actually take him seriously. (Did you see that movie producer sycophant hanging on Gore's collar at the Oscars? Good thing Al didn't make a sharp left turn on his way off the stage- You know the joke about the broken nose.)

Now remember, when, during the Oscars, he was asked about his own profligate life style, Mr Gore actually had the "huevos" to talk about his "carbon neutral lifestyle" and the carbon credits that he purchases to make himself "carbon neutral". Initially, we wondered what that was all about. But now we know. Seems that Mr Gore invests or pays into a company that promotes environmental issues around the globe, in this case a company called Generation Investment Management. You see, it works this way: If you, Gore or any of his high-living Hollywood friends are leaving a big carbon footprint by using a lot of energy, flying around in private jets or living in huge mansions, you can make it all good by purchasing carbon credits from companies like GIM. Kind of like in medieval times when the Catholic Church sold Indulgences to sinners to absolve them of their sins. Really no difference at all. (It was practices like these that inspired Martin Luther to launch the Reformation.) Such a deal! But wait! What is the deal with this outfit, GIM? Guess who founded the company and is a co-owner. AL GORE!!

So now you figure the whole world is laughing at Al Gore, right? Wrong! Now Carbon Neutral Man has launched a new venture, which stole the attention of the world this past weekend. Live Earth. That's right, multiple concerts held worldwide featuring singers like Madonna and other loons like Robert F Kennedy Jr. haranging audiences to save the planet by walking to work, getting rid of their SUVs, dismantling corporations and capitalism ad nauseum. Never mind the energy used by these turkeys flying in their private jets to venues all over the world. Never mind the fact that these people are not about to give up their own lives of luxury. Never mind the trash left by the thousands of concert goers. As long as you are Raising Awareness, that's all that counts.

Meanwhile, liberal teachers all over the country are forcing pupils and in some cases, even their parents to watch Gore's movie in class. Some parents are complaining that their children are coming home from school crying and having nightmares about drowned polar bears floating down Main Street.

Anyway, I'll keep laughing at Al Gore unless he actually becomes president. He may be a hero, prophet or a saint to some on the left, but to me, he is still "Weird Al". Every time I think about this blowhard, I keep wondering how many bodies he could have buried in that huge basement of his in Tennessee. Wouldn't that make a hell of a carbon footprint?

Antonio Villaraigosa- Fixing LA's Potholes

Antonio Villaraigosa, aka Tony Villar, LA Mayor and National Co-chair of Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign


A few days ago, word leaked out of City Hall in Los Angeles that embattled mayor, Tony Villaraigosa, was planning a series of initiatives to demonstrate that he was fully engaged in the business of running the nation's 2nd largest city in spite of the scandal surrounding his affair with Telemundo reporter, Mirthala Salinas. On Monday, July 9, the mayor reemerged in the public spotlight but not in the way he envisioned.

Yesterday (July 9) His Honor appeared in Eagle Rock (an LA neighborhood) to announce his great "pothole initiative". As the mayor attempted to describe the filling of 300,000 of the city's potholes, he was stunned to learn that no one cared. Instead, the mayor was inundated with questions about Salinas, which he proceeded to deflect. Today, he appeared in Chinatown to announce a summer jobs program, but once again, reporters only wanted to ask about Salinas and the mayor's love life.

In addition, a new name has surfaced in connection with Villaraigosa. Reporters are now asking about his relationship with Sabrina Kay, a Korean-American fashion designer that Villaraigosa had appointed to the LA City Planning Commission and who had accompanied the mayor on a junket to Korea. Villaraigosa has denied any improper relationship, and Ms Kay has issued a statement on her website vehemently denying reports, which had originated in a Korean-language tabloid.

As for the other embattled LA official, Rocky Delgadillo, it appears that at least one group is about to start a recall initiative against the City Attorney if he does not resign. Stay tuned-but don't hold your breath.

By the way, just as a footnote: One of the questions raised by the Villaraigosa scandal is the manner in which the news media has chosen to cover-or not cover the story. Example: This week, it was revealed that one of the names in the phone records of the so-called DC Madame, was none other than David Vitter, Republican Senator from Louisiana. Vitter also happens to be the southern regional campaign chairman for Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign. CNN's Wolf Blitzer wasted no time in asking Giuliani if Vitter will remain in the campaign. Meanwhile, Villaraigosa is the National Co-Chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Question: Has anybody asked-or will they ask Ms Clinton about Villaraigosa's remaining as Co-Chair?

Just a Few Questions

Of all the articles I have written on lately, I have a few questions remaining.

For Duke University: What has happened to the 88 professors who issued a public statement condemning the 3 accused lacrosse players prior to any trial and prior to their exoneration? Have they apologized? Have they been reprimanded in any way?

For LA Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa and LA City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo: Why have you both not resigned?

For Telemundo: Why place your reporter, Mirthala Salinas, on leave now? Why didn't you do it when you learned months ago that she was having an affair with Villaraigosa while she was covering him? Also, what broadcasting advantages did Telemundo gain from this relationship?

For the LA Times: How did you let your smaller competitor, the Daily News, beat you out of this story? Was it because you knew but chose not to report it?

For LA's other mainstream news outlets: Same question.

For LA's Spanish-language media: Same question.

For Bill and Hillary Clinton: Where do you get the chutzpah to criticize Bushes' commutation of Scotter Libby's prison sentence in the light of Bill's questionable pardons of fugitive, Marc Rich, drug dealers whose families gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary's brother, and the Hasidic Jews of New York, embezzlers whose community voted almost 100% for Hillary in her Senate campaign (among others)?

For John Conyers, who wants to launch a congressional probe of the Libby commutation: Where were you when Bill issued all those pardons?

For President Bush: After the Libby commutation, how about a similar commutation for Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean?

For Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham: Who is going to vote for your reelection after your efforts to push the Immigration amnesty bill?

For John McCain: Same question plus your presidential hopes.

For John Edwards: Which America do you live in?

Finally, for all the Muslims and their US supporters who want to see the destruction of Israel. What do you say after seeing all those Palestinians fleeing to the Israel border to escape the killing in Gaza?

Just a few lingering questions.

Newt Gingrich for President?

There are a lot of observers out there that don't think much about Newt Gingrich as a presidential candidate. To many, he is a tired, old-and not very attractive face. Others point out that Gingrich has a lot of negatives and high public disapprovals. All that is true, but to me, the idea of Newt jumping into the race is rather intriguing, and I think it would enhance the Republican field, especially during debates.

Gingrich, a former Speaker of the House, jumped into prominance in the 1990s as the architect of the Republican "Contract with America", that laid out his party's platform and priorities, enabling the party to take over control of Congress. Later, his star sank in Congress, especially during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, as his own personal failings started coming to light. Now out of public office, Gingrich contemplates jumping into the Republican race with no decision on the immediate horizon. What is he waiting for? Why the indecision? If he really wants the job, and he thinks he is the best person for it, why not make the decision and announce?

It seems to me that Newt, a Civil War buff (and author), is quite the strategician. This reminds me of the time he was Speaker of the House, one day going after Clinton and his scandals with a vengeance, the next day backing off, the day after, back on the hunt, much like a general deciding when to attack and when to make a strategic retreat. So now on the outside, he sits and watches the other candidates before he makes his final decision. In the meantime, he keeps himself in public view with TV appearances, conferences and other initiatives.

It is easy to ridicule Gingrich, especially since his marital failings have become public knowledge. Remember the ex-wife who was recovering in the hospital from cancer surgery when Newt asked for a divorce? If you have not heard about that one, you will hear plenty about it if Gingrich runs and becomes the nominee. That would also remove a key Republican advantage if Hillary is the Democratic nominee as most predict; that advantage being the public's fatigue with the Clinton marital soap opera.

Personally, I don't think Gingrich has a snowball's chance of being elected president or even getting the Republican nomination. However, I hope he decides to run, and here is why: Not only is Gingrich an experienced insider in Washington politics, which has its advantages. He is also a historian, former college teacher and a damn intelligent person. Most importantly, no one in the Republican field is as eloquent in articulating conservative principles as Gingrich. From talking about the War On Terror, Illegal Immigration, taxes or what have you, no one can match him for making his case in a manner that would appeal to both brain surgeons and blue collar workers. Whether he would always carry out his principles in office or do what is politically more prudent at the moment is another question.

At any rate, if Gingrich joins the race, he will be a forceful presence in any debate. Further, he will improve the quality of the debates, and force some candidates to better articulate their own plans for running this country. If for no other reason, I hope he will decide to get in.

"Mirror, Mirror on the Wall....." Hillary Clinton for President?

I've been holding off on writing on Hillary Clinton's candidacy for a simple reason. With so much to write about, where do I start? Her history as a political force in the US goes back to 1992 with her husband's election as president and her ascent to being the First Lady of the country. As her husband left office, she was beginning her own political career, being elected as senator for the state of New York, a clear case of carpetbagging if there ever was one. Now, as we have all predicted, she has launched for own bid for the presidency.

It would be senseless to try and recount Hillary's track record in public life, beginning as First Lady and then as a senator. The Health Care Plan, the White Water Law Firm scandal, the White House Travel Office, Vince Foster, the efforts to discredit all of the women in Bill's life, the charges of "vast right-wing conspiracy" when the Lewinsky scandal broke, the pardons her husband gave to imprisoned members of the New York Hasidic Jewish community in New York-that led that community to vote Democratic (for Hillary) for the first time in recent memory, etc. Anyone who doesn't know about this woman's history (as well as her husband's) probably should vote for Paris Hilton as a write-in in 2008. The fact remains that nobody is neutral on Hillary. You either love her or hate her. Every poll that I've seen suggests to me that 40-45% of the electorate would crawl out of their deathbeds to vote against her. Hard to overcome, unless, of course, you call out all the prison inmates, convicted felons, illegal immigrants and cemetery residents to vote for her.

But seriously, let's be honest. Watch this woman on TV. Pay attention to her body language, her non-verbal communication, and facial expressions. Does this woman really project sincerity to you? No. What she projects is insincerity, arrogance, ruthlessness and blind ambition to reach the pinnacle of political power at any cost, quite reminiscent of the evil queen in "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs". Watch the way she answers open-ended questions with a long monologue, eyes shifting all over the horizon. She is obviously making it up as she goes along. Of course, she has her true believers, but they know what Hillary is. They don't care about her character and veracity because they are counting on her to carry out their desired liberal policies once she is in the White House. If she has to shift to the center in the election to garner independent voters, well..., they understand.

At this stage, notwithstanding the challenge from Barack Obama, most observers concede that Hillary will win the Democratic nomination, in spite of her back and forth record on the Iraq War, which has cost her support from the left. Many observers think that given the public's disenchantment with George Bush and the Republicans over the war and their waffling on illegal immigration, Hillary will likely win it all in a general election. Maybe I am naive, but I still can't bring myself to believe that the majority of the American voters would vote to make Mrs. Clinton president. I could be wrong- her husband won two elections in spite of the fact that we all knew he was lacking in character. We know that Hillary is also lacking in character. Hopefully, in 2008, character will count.

Antonio Villaraigosa-LA's Mayoral Soap Opera

Antonio Villaraigosa, AKA Tony Villar, Mayor of Los Angeles


Last week, I wrote about the ongoing circus that is LA politics (Crime and Punishment on the Left Coast). One of the more interesting and entertaining aspects of that story is the ongoing saga of LA Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa AKA Tony Villar. During the past month, Villaraigosa held a press conference to announce the separation from his wife. (The next day, Ms Raigosa filed for divorce.) During that conference, a female reporter from one of LA's top radio stations asked in a round-about way if the mayor was involved in any relationships, to which the mayor replied that his personal life was private, pleading for the press to "respect the privacy of him and his family during this difficult time." By the way the reporter phrased the question, it could be inferred that she had the name of a particular person in mind, especially since rumors were flying that Villaraigosa was in fact having an affair with a Spanish-radio news personality.

Well, yesterday (July 3), the mayor finally came clean and admitted that he was involved in a relationship with Mirthala Salinas, a beautiful news reporter and substitute anchor with Telemundo, a Spanish language TV station in LA. The press conference only came about when it was learned that the LA Daily News, a small local newspaper, was about to break the story. In his conference, the mayor reiterated in both English and Spanish that his personal life should be considered private, and that it had no impact on his duties as mayor. "Courageously", the mayor took "full personal responsibility for his actions", quite admirable since there was no way the coverup could continue.

Coincidentally enough, Salinas had herself made the announcement to Telemundo's audience that the Villaraigosas were separating in the wake of the mayor's initial press conference. (Our favorite TV soap operas couldn't think up better plots than this one.)

Salinas herself was not immediately available for comment on July 3, but her boss, Manuel Abud, confirmed that Salinas had informed her superiors at Telemundo months previous of the relationship, whereupon she was assigned to other duties not related to political coverage. No harm, no foul according to Telemundo.

At this point, the local radio talk shows are full of callers demanding that Mr Villaraigosa resign. However, local politicians are remaining silent, probably thinking about their own hidden skeletons. The Spanish media, while having to report the story, have not as yet come out editorially condemning the mayor or demanding resignation. It remains to be seen how that aspect of the saga will play out.

Aside from the question of the mayor's conduct, there is a side issue, which is no less important. It appears that the LA news media was pretty much aware of the mayor's relationship with Salinas. Rumors had been swirling for some time. Yet, where was LA's prestigious newspaper, the LA Times, a paper known not only for its liberal leanings, but also for a long tradition of investigative reporting? How was it that their smaller competitor, the Daily News, was able to grab the scoop over the Times? What about the local radio news stations? Why were they not pursuing the story? (KFI's shock jocks, John and Ken excepted) What about the Spanish news media? Telemundo already knew that one of their reporters (who had been covering the mayor until she revealed the relationship to her bosses) was romantically involved with the married mayor. Why were all these mainstream news outlets silent until the Daily News was about to break the story?

The only conclusion one could reasonably draw is that the mainstream media, as has been long charged by conservative talk radio, reports or gives top play to what they want to publish and will ignore or downplay stories that do not fit into their agenda, especially when one of their own is involved in the scandal. In the case of Villaraigosa, we have a liberal minority mayor, touted as a comer in state and national politics, a person in whom liberals and certainly Spanish media have invested much in his success. The other player, Salinas, was herself a prominent member of the local Spanish news media. This is a damning indictment on our mainstream news outlets.

So the poor residents of LA debate whether Villaraigosa's personal life should count against his (lackluster) performance as mayor, and they wait for the next shoe to drop. Will Villaraigosa resign? Don't bet on it.

The Duke Rape Case

"Guilty!"


Being a retired law enforcement agent, the Duke Lacrosse rape case troubled me a great deal as it unfolded. In my entire 25 year career with US Customs and DEA, I had been involved in the arrest and prosecution of my fair share of drug traffickers. As part of that job, I necessarily had to deal with prosecutors, usually at the federal level, but occasionally on the state and local level as well. I can say with total honesty that I never participated in the prosecution of an innocent person. Moreover, I never encountered a prosecutor who was willing to prosecute a defendant whom he had any doubt as to his guilt. That is why the Duke case is so troubling. It is obvious at this point that Durham DA Mike Nifong pushed a prosecution that was screaming doubt. Now we know that not only was the case weak, but that the three young accused men were, in fact, innocent.

Without going into detail into the facts of the case (which are known all too well), it was seen right from the start that this was a doubtful case. The contradictory statements of the supposed victim, the contradictory statements of her stripper friend, plus the documented time line of one of the accused, which seemed to exculpate him, called out for a more prolonged investigation prior to indictments.

When I was working as a Customs/DEA agent, and we wanted to obtain indictments, it was necessary to coordinate with the appropriate Assistant US Attorney. Any current or retired agent can tell you that (at least on the Federal level) the last thing a prosecutor wants to do is lose a case in court. Therefore, it was normal for a prosecutor to review the evidence we brought forth, and, if he/she wasn't sure of a conviction, we would be instructed to gather more evidence. This represents another layer of protection against innocent people being prosecuted.

We often hear the phrase "rush to judgement", which is often abused by defense attorneys even when they know their client is guilty. In this case, the phrase applies. Nifong indicted the three boys, made public statements against them, ignored exculpatory evidence, allowed racial tensions in Durham to simmer, and pushed the case as far as he could until he could push no more. In the interim, the Lacrosse coach was forced to resign, the three defendants forced to leave the school while 88 Duke professors, who should have known more about "innocent until proven guilty", issued a public statement condemning the three young men. Jesse Jackson, as usual, jumped into the fray as did the "New Black Panther Party", which, led by the young racist, Malik Shabazz, held rallies in Durham, futher inflaming the situation. Talk about a rush to judgement.

For me personally, this was a setback in my faith in the fairness of our criminal justice system. Yet, ultimately, justice did prevail, but only after the defendants' families had to spend millions to exonerate their sons. Nifong has received his punishment, and may yet receive more. But what about the others who publically condemned the innocent? What about Jesse Jackson? Where is his public apology? Duke has now agreed to pay a large settlement to the young men. However, what about the 88 Duke professors who signed a statement condemning them before trial? Have they apologized? Have they been reprimanded by Duke for their actions? (I posed that question in an email to Duke president Broadhead. Of course, I never received a reply.)

This past week, I was in North Carolina to attend the funeral of my aunt. As I was leaving from Greensboro Airport to return to California, I bought a Duke Lacrosse T-shirt for my son. A real conversation piece, and I guess he will wear it in that spirit. I hope, however, that eventually, he will consider it as an important statement in support of justice.