Translate


Thursday, March 13, 2008

Ready to Lead on Day One?


"I am ready to lead on Day One"


As the Democratic Primary, especially the Clinton campaign, sinks deeper into chaos, the refrain of Hillary that she is ready to lead on Day One is looking more and more ludicrous. Consider the following.

In the past few days, statements by Geraldine Ferraro have come to light that have exacerbated the racial aspect of this campaign. Ferraro has stated (and refused to back down from her statement) that the only reason Obama has come so far in the campaign is because he is black. Ferraro also added that the only reason she got the VP nod in 1984 was because she was a woman. (I could have told her that in 1984.) In other statements, Ferraro has implied that Mrs Clinton has been treated unfairly as a woman.

Obama and his supporters are crying foul-that Ferraro is injecting race into the campaign. Some imply that the lady is a racist. Ferraro, not backing down, says that it is unfair to apply the racist tag on her because of her statement. Hillary, for her part, has mildly distanced herself from Ferraro's remarks-not enough to satisfy Krazy Keith Olbermann, who editorialized on his show last night that Clinton must more forcefully reject the "awful" words of Ferraro (quotes mine). Indeed, Olbermann became so emotional, I thought he was going to pull a gun and take hostages right there on the set. Meanwhile, Ferraro has resigned from her unpaid position on Hillary's campaign.

Thus, goes the race and gender war that is the Democratic Primary. How ironic for the so-called "Party of Inclusion and Tolerance".

Meanwhile, Hillary has now seemingly lost one of her Superdelegates in the person of one Eliot Spitzer. Interestingly, our mainstream news media is largely ignoring the fact that Spitzer is tied to Clinton. As a matter of fact, they don't even mention that he is a Democrat.

Another one of Hillary's big supporters is LA Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa (National Campaign Co-Chair). If you are not from California, you may not know that this incompetent clown is fresh off a scandal involving the break up of his marriage and affair with Telemundo reporter, Mirthala Salinas. Aside from that, Villaraigosa has presided over the collapse of LA under the weight of crime, murder, gang violence, illegal aliens (LA is a sanctuary city),and now, financial collapse. Just today, the mayor, who can barely put a complete sentence together, held an embarassing press conference where he is now advocating unpaid leave days for city employees in an effort to save money (for services to illegal aliens, no doubt.) One of the reporters had the temerity to ask him if he would dock himself for all the time he has been away from the city while campaigning for Clinton. Of course, Villaraigosa skirted that question.

If Hillary succeeds in stealing the nomination from Obama, I would suggest she pick another woman as her running mate. Between Bill, Eliot and Tony, her taste in men is terrible.

On the Obama front, the Illinois senator, reacting to Hillary's teasing comments about a Superticket, asked ironically why, if he were not qualified to be president, should he be considered for VP.

However, Obama is now facing rising questions about his radical and racist pastor, Jeremiah Wright-especially now that videotapes are coming out showing the good pastor's sermons, which are vitriolic attacks on America and white people. (Let's see how the mainstream media handles this story.) Add that to the Rezko trial in Chicago and Obama's friendship with William Ayers, former Weather Underground member from the 1960s, who continues to defend his past actions, which included bombing, and what you have is a recipe for coming disasters for the Illinois senator.

Then there is the question of what to do about Florida and Michigan. What are you going to do, Dems? Are you going to enforce the rules you set and not count the votes of those two states? Or will you throw out the rule book after the fact and accept those delegates-possibly helping Hillary get the nomination? How about a do-over-or mail in?

And you want to turn over health care to these people?

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Will Spitzer Be Prosecuted?


It's all about the money


Now that Eliot Spitzer has resigned as Governor of New York, the big question is whether he will be charged for a criminal act. During the past two days since the story broke, speculation has run rampant that Spitzer might be using resignation as a bargaining chip against being prosecuted. From my own law enforcement experience, albeit drug law enforcement, I see a strong possibilty that Spitzer is in serious trouble.

According to published reports, the investigation arose when Spitzer's own bank alerted IRS to suspicious bank transfers (apparently to off-shore accounts). That led to a federal wiretap that identified the prostitution operation that involved the governor.

Those types of bank transfers have also been prominent in the drug trade, where traffickers used bank wire transfers to send drug proceeds or payments for drugs. The IRS, to their credit, educated banks decades ago as to what was happening and enlisted their cooperation in uncovering drug money movements.

Under federal law, financial institutions are required by law to report money transactions in excess of $10,000 to the IRS. Drug traffickers, aware of that requirement, resorted to sending smaller amounts under $10,000, often going to multiple banks and sending multiple shipments of funds. That is also a crime-called Structuring, in essence, attempting to circumvent the reporting requirements.

So now, the question is-what exactly did Spitzer do in sending money to a criminal enterprise in the amount of tens of thousands of dollars? Of course, many will argue that it makes no sense to prosecute a man for patronizing prostitutes, although others will argue-why prosecute prostitutes and not their customers? The Mann Act is also in play, but I think the money transfer to a criminal enterprise is Spitzer's most serious problem. At this point, it appears (though not yet proven) that the Governor of New York (and former Attorney General who prosecuted prostitution rings) has engaged in a conspiracy with a large scale criminal organization and violated currency transaction laws in order to cover up his illegal activity. Of importance is what quantities did Spitzer transfer to the Emperor's Club? Apparently, it was suspicious enough to cause the bank(s)in question to alert the IRS. If,in fact, the money transfers were illegal, and given the fact that they were sent to a criminal enterprise, then Mr Spitzer is in deep legal trouble.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Random Thoughts on the Democratic Primary Circus




top: "Hey Plaxico, wanna come to our victory party?"
left: Denver Convention 2008?
right: Eliot Spitzer's new movie


Did I hear the news right that Hillary Clinton is talking about asking Barack Obama to be her VP running mate? What gall! Sounds like the New England Patriots deluding themselves into thinking they won the Superbowl and inviting the Giants to their victory party. ("Sorry Pats- We have a previous commitment").

If Obama goes into the Denver Convention with a delegate lead, and leaves Denver without the nomination, how does one convince his supporters that he didn't get screwed? To my obsolete way of thinking, the only way Hillary wins the nomination fair and square is by overtaking Obama in the delegate count-without benefit of Florida and Michigan-and without the Superdelegates pulling it out for her in a smoke-filled room.

The way things look now, Denver may look like Chicago 1968-you know police batons, firehoses-and that's just inside the convention hall. Already, the ubiquitous Al Sharpton is revving up his motor and letting everyone know he won't stand for Obama getting jobbed out of the nomination. I can't wait.

It's been a bad week for Hillary's big supporters. Geraldine Ferraro is out there making statements to the effect that Obama is only a serious candidate because he is black-and refusing to back away in the face of a backlash. Result for Hillary? More embarrassment and more racial tension in the "party of inclusion and tolerance". Earlier, Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania and a Clinton supporter, had weighed in that a black candidate may not be able to get elected.

Then there is NY Governor (soon to be ex-Governor), Eliot Spitzer, one of Hillary's would be Superdelegates and proud member of the "Emperor's Club". Yet, even as more details leak out ($80,000 on hookers??), the Mainstream News Media bends over backwards not to mention that he is a Democrat, (unlike when Republicans get caught with their pants down). In addition, some Democrats are trying to rally around the now-disgraced governor. ("Prostitution should be legal". "It could have been a Bush wiretap", etc).

Speaking of Spitzer, I just checked out the Daily Kos and Moveon.org. Hardly a word about the Pride of Albany and only in passing.

Don't forget the names Bill Ayers (ex-Weather Underground), Jeremiah Wright (Obama's controversial pastor)and Tony Rezko (currently on trial in Chicago on racketeering charges). All three are close to Obama and could very well derail his campaign at any time-including before the Denver Convention if Hillary gets desperate enough. If the Clintons do indeed throw the kitchen sink at Obama, that will be it.

Monday, March 10, 2008

Eliot Spitzer


Eliot Spitzer- Love Client Number 9?


It may be too early to comment on this breaking scandal regarding Eliot Spitzer, but since I have no desire to make political points over this issue, I will go ahead and give my take as things stand now. I will not recount the details as they have been reported, rather try to put it into perspective.

First of all, it would not be fair to try and frame this in political terms-liberal vs conservative or Democrat vs Republican. Suffice to say that this story serves to prove the point that these transgressions by public officials cut across party lines. Today, we have a scandal by a Democratic politician, the Governor of the State of New York, Eliot Spitzer. In recent months or years, we have seen similar sexual scandals by Republican politicians, specifically, Mark Foley, Larry Craig and David Vitter. We have also seen the indictment of Democratic Congressman, William Jefferson of Louisiana, for bribery. Other bribery investigations are still in progress against both Republican and Democratic politicians. No doubt, many Republicans are cheering the news today. Spitzer is not regarded as a well-liked personality, and he has few defenders.

In today's press conference, Spitzer, while not going into details, all but confirmed that the breaking story against him has merit. Will he resign? He did not say, and speculation is strong that he is holding that option open as a bargaining chip against any possible indictment.

Should Spitzer be indicted if he, is in fact, involved in patronizing a high-priced prostitution ring? I will let the evidence dictate that. Is there a crime possibly involved? Very possibly- especially if the New York Governor participated in ordering that a prostitute be sent from New York to Washington DC (across state lines) for his use-as is reported.

More importantly, if all this is true, should Spitzer continue as Governor? In my view, unless this is all a big mistake or misunderstanding-no, he should not. Once a public official violates the law, he or she no longer belongs in public office. Let us not forget that, as New York Attorney General, Spitzer prosecuted prostitution rings-in 2004 holding a strongly-worded press conference in announcing prostitution indictments.

Am I morally outraged at Spitzer's conduct? No. He is hardly the only man who has cheated on his wife and utilized the services of prostitutes. But he is the Governor of New York and formally Attorney General. First of all, a man in Spitzer's position who engages in this activity, automatically leaves himself/herself open to blackmail.

In addition, sexual transgressions, may or may not violate the law, public sensibility, or what have you. Sometimes, with everyday people, it is no one else's business. Not so with elected officials. Is it too much to ask that an elected official reign in his/her desires when they could interfere with their public service? As for patronizing prostitutes, there are legal ways to engage in that behavior. For example, Spitzer could have gotten on a plane and gone to a legal brothel in Nevada, thus not violating any laws. He could have traveled to any one of a number of foreign countries where prostitution is legal. Had that been the case, then I might argue that he should not have to resign. Unfortunately, Spitzer chose to engage in an illegal activity-supporting a lucrative and illegal enterprise and opening himself open to blackmail in the process.

In the coming days, further developments are sure to come. What I don't think will change is the principle behind this posting. While not trying to portray this as some typical Democratic scandal, hopefully, people like Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean will think twice before talking about the so-called "Culture of Corruption" in the Republican Party. It affects both parties, and we as Americans, need to think about what is wrong with our system of politics that we are continually attracting people like Eliot Spitzer into "public service".

Sunday, March 9, 2008

Yes to multiculturalism. No to Multiculturalism


If the title confuses you, let me try to explain. There is one form of multi-culturalism that I am all for. There is another form that I oppose. Today, our society is tying itself up in knots over this issue, and it is the Multiculturalists, the folks on the far left and in our universities who are doing the tying.

As someone who has lived in three different foreign countries (Germany, Italy and Thailand)for a total of 11 years, who has learned several languages, visited over 50 other countries and is married to a Mexican immigrant, I consider myself to be a very multicultural person. It is not a question of being "tolerant", rather I genuinely like and am attracted to numerous different cultures. My wife and I have a circle of friends that probably consists of more than 50% of people from other countries. One of the great things about living in Southern California is the variety of nationalities, foods and languages.

In spite of all that, I remain firmly committed to the old concept that those who immigrate to America should assimilate into our culture and accept our values and traditions. If they don't, their children and grandchildren traditionally do.

I also think that, instead of focusing on our differences, we should focus on what binds us together as Americans-common values, freedoms and language (English).

Yet, there has been a movement in this country for the past couple of generations to move away from the old melting Pot concept and "celebrate our diversity". It is largely championed by the those on the far left-especially in our universities. It is called Multiculturalism. Ostensibly developed to combat racism and to get us all to love each other, it has accomplished neither. Instead, Multiculturalism has contributed only towards a form of Balkanization of Americans into competing tribes; whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, Native Americans and Arab-Americans, many of whom are Muslim-now a distinct minority group. So now we have observances like Black History Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, Asian-Pacific Islander Month and on and on. Indeed, the concept of Multiculturalism has become an industry in itself, with Diversity Consultants, Diversity Seminars and what have you.

Further, where once integration was the goal we strove to achieve after coming out of the darkness of enforced/de facto segregation, now it seems that in some quarters, integration is an outmoded concept. Go onto any university campus, and you will see Black Student Organizations, Mecha (for Mexican-American students, Muslim Student Unions and so on. The result is that Americans-especially young Americans are withdrawing into their own tribes. Is that a worthwhile goal? Not in my view. Yet, it is the goal and design of many on the far left. Why?

To me, the far left in America has a goal to tear this country down and rebuild it in their own image. What better way than to divide Americans-especially when they are young. Make sure that everyone identifies first and foremost with their "Group". Tell them they are victims in a white racist country that will never let them succeed no matter how hard they try. When people come along who prove that idea wrong, (Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Ward Connolly for example,) they are castigated as sell-outs.

In addition, the emphasis on Multiculturalism has not done much to bring minority groups together. In places like Los Angeles, black and Hispanic gangs conduct armed warfare on the city streets, while their counterparts in prison are also killing and maiming each other. Mention Multiculturalism to them and they will laugh in your face.

It is especially ironic that, at a point in our history when we face a grave threat in the form of international Islamic terrorism, we would want to be divided. More than ever, we need to come together as Americans under a common threat. There are many aspects of our identity that we share as Americans. We cannot afford to forget about them. The Multiculturalists can talk all they want about "celebrating diversity". The fact is that if we really consider ourselves as part of different tribes-and competing ones at that- we will act like it. Do we really want to go in the direction of places like Rwanda, Kenya or Sudan? Oh, but that could never happen here, you say. I revert your attention back to the mean streets of LA and our prisons.

Ironically, today we see a major political party in America, one that boasts of being the party of inclusion and diversity, on the verge of a rupture over race and gender-all because their two remaining candidates consist of a white woman and a black man (Clinton-Obama). Not surprisingly, but sadly, their support-to a large extent-is breaking down along racial and gender lines, while most Hispanic Democrats are going to Clinton.

It may be naive to say so, but our ultimate goal has to be to achieve a common identity as Americans, drop the hyphens from our consciousness and our lexicon, and stand together as one people. That is not to say that we cannot respect the ethnic differences or old mother country heritage. However, if we are to survive as a people and a great nation, then those differences have to recede into the background.

The term multiculturalism is actually not a bad word in of itself. When I look at my own life (as a white male), multiculturalism has been and still is a central point of my being.

I just don't spell it with a capital "M".

Saturday, March 8, 2008

"I am not a Monster!"

The "Drug Wars" (10) Bangkok, Thailand 1975


The infamous case in the 1990s, when Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband's (John)penis in Virginia, drew national attention and got a lot of laughs. For me, it was a case of deja vu since we had witnessed a similar incident in Bangkok when I was stationed there in the 1970s. The incident, which involved a duck, gave rise to a new joke in the Thai lexicon that lives to this day.

One morning at about 4am, a Thai husband came home from a night of carousing and jumped into bed. Soon, he was fast asleep. His wife, up to here with all his playing around, took a knife and cut off the man’s penis, then threw it out the window into the garden.

Of course, the man’s screams brought neighbors who whisked him off to the hospital. The doctor told the man’s neighbors to go back to the house, find the organ and bring it back so that he could try and re-attach it.

So the neighbors rushed back to the house, by now accompanied by news reporters and photographers. Searching the yard, they found that the penis had been scarfed up by a duck. What ensued was the neighbors chasing the duck around the yard, while the photographers took pictures. As a result, photos of the scene and the duck with the organ in his bill appeared in all of Bangkok’s newspapers. I personally saw the picture in the Bangkok Post.

From that day, a legend was born, and to this day, a reference to a duck will bring laughter to any Thai.

Support Colombia


The flag of Colombia


If you are confused about which nation to support in the tense confrontation between Colombia on one side and Venezuela and Ecuador on the other, I would like to make the case for Colombia.

In recent decades, Colombia has had a negative image on account of the drug industry and the violence it has engendered. Colombian citizens traveling around the world have aroused scrutiny from Customs officials wherever they go. Yet, what many outsiders may not know is that many Colombian police, soldiers, political leaders, journalists and prosecutors have risked their lives and those of their families to fight the cartels and the successor to the drug trade, FARC, the revolutionary army that is trying to overturn Colombia's government-using drugs and kidnappings as a source of finance.

Unfortunately, Colombia, an ally of the US, has two unsympathetic neighbors in Venezuela, under the rule of Hugo Chavez, to the east and Ecuador, now under a leftist president in Raphael Correa-an ally of Chavez-to the southwest. In fact both countries have allowed FARC rebels to operate on their territory across from the Colombian border, using those sanctuaries to launch raids into Colombia.

The situation reached a crisis last week when Colombia launched a raid into Ecuadoran territory and killed a top rebel leader. A laptop that was seized showed that funds were going to FARC from Chavez to the tune of 300 million. According to Colombian President, Alvaro Uribe, he had become frustrated after having, on a half-dozen occasions, passed intelligence to Ecuador on the locations of FARC, only to have them disappear after being tipped off. Nevertheless, the reaction from Chavez and Correa was one of outrage. Correa followed Chavez's lead in breaking diplomatic relations and moving troops to the border. (Nicaragua, under Daniel Ortega, also broke relations with Colombia.)

At this point, the situation has been diffused somewhat by a meeting between the three leaders this week at a Latin American political conference. Yet, the problem of FARC operating in Venezuela and Ecuador, with the apparent support of the two presidents, is still a ticking time bomb that could lead to war.

If that should unfortunately come to pass, my sympathies are with Colombia. Of course, the US has no quarrel with Ecuador nor the people of Venezuela (We, of course, do have a quarrel with Chavez.) I have visited both Colombia and Ecuador and like both countries and their people immensely. I would hate to see any war break out in that region. However, both Ecuador and Venezuela are acting irresponsibly in allowing FARC rebels to operate from their territory. Colombia has a right to defend itself from attacks. Its current president, Uribe, is popular in Colombia and with good reason. He is courageously standing up to the rebels and drug trafficking in general. He has been a good ally to the US-even though he was snubbed in a disgusting manner by Democrats during a recent visit to the US. (Democrats seem to think that Uribe has human rights skeletons in his past.)

So we should hope that war does not break out, but, if it does, Colombia is the "good guy".

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Palestinian Terror-When Will the World Wake Up?


9-11- Palestinians celebrate


In the wake of the latest massacre of innocent Israeli civilians at the hands of a Palestinian terrorist, I think it is time that we as Americans, and, indeed, the rest of the civilized world come to some pretty hard conclusions about the Palestinians.

For decades now, the US has tried to achieve some sort of a diplomatic balance in the Middle East and achieve a peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. A noble goal, perhaps, but I don't think it is possible.

For all of my adult life, I have been reading about one Palestinian act of terror after another. There were the plane hijackings after the 1967 war. There was the Munich Olympics massacre. There were terror attacks on the Rome and Vienna airports, in which innocent Europeans were killed. There was the Achille Lauro boat hijacking in the 1980s in which Leon Klinghofer, an elderly American Jew in a wheelchair, was murdered and dumped overboard. Why was he singled out? Because he was an American Jew.

As the years passed,there were more plane hijackings, including one in Lebanon in which an American servicemen was killed in cold blood. There was the bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut and the Marine barracks in Lebanon.

In the past few years, we have witnessed the suicide bombings in Israel that have killed so many innocents on buses and in pizza parlors.

On 9-11, Palestinians danced in the streets, just as they are dancing in the streets at today's news of 8 seminary students being murdered in Israel.

In addition, Palestinians cannot even live peacefully with each other, as one faction kills the other over control of "Palestine".

I could write all night about the long list of senseless violent acts by Palestinians, and I would still leave out numerous outrages.

Tonight, I am asking myself- why does one American administration after another try so hard to bring about peace between Israel and people who do not want peace? The fact is that Palestinians do not want peace. They do not want a two-state solution. They want it all, and they want Israelis/Jews either killed or driven into the sea or exile. They, like their Arab brethren in neighboring lands, cannot accept the idea of a Jewish state in the region. What they want is for all of the area to become Palestine.

But if there is a two-state agreement, what kind of state would this Palestine be? A sovereign entity that will work to undermine its neighbor inch by inch? A state that will make deals and alliances with Iran, Libya and Syria? Will it be, in effect, a terrorist state that will conspire with America's enemies even while we pour in aid? I think the answer is clear.

The truth is that the Palestinians are no friends of ours, and we should stop pretending they are.

Sorry folks, you can call me a racist all you want, but I have concluded that these people are not capable of running a responsible and peaceful country. If I am proved wrong, I will apologize.

The truth is that the Middle East could have had two states back in 1948. That was the UN plan. It was rejected by the Arabs, who quickly went to war-and were defeated. They tried again in 1967 and 1973 and failed. So the Palestinians resort to killing innocents-women, old men and children. How courageous.

And what is the reaction of the World? The Europeans tremble in their boots, held hostage by their already volatile Muslim populations and their need for oil. The UN is openly hostile of Israel and condemns every act of self-defense or retaliation carried out by the Israelis. When Israel retaliates against this latest act of terror-as it will and should, the UN will pass another resolution condemning the Jewish state. To most of the Europeans and the UN, the Jews are always the "inconvenient people", standing in the way of friendly relations with the oil producing countries. Ironically, the Germans, given their unfortunate history, are probably Israel's best friend in Europe.

Here at home, we are allowing new generations of Muslim immigrants and their anti-American anarchist allies on college campuses to stir up racial hatred, not only against Israel, but against Jews-and against our own country as long as we support Israel's right to exist. On university campuses, Muslim Student groups hold regular rallies and bring in hate-filled speakers to denounce Israel, Jews and America, glorifying suicide bombers. My own campus at UC Irvine is a classic example. Just this week, the MSU is sponsoring yet another anti-Israel event with the usual suspects of radical speakers like Amir Abdel Malik Ali and Mohammed Al-Ali-documented anti-Semites. They are being joined in their tirades by a few radical professors. Meanwhile, the administration and faculty hide under their desks and talk about free speech-also taking verbal shots at those who dare to criticize.

So what do we do? Do we in the spirit of expediency, allow the Israeli people and nation to be thrown under the bus and ignore the murderous outrages? I say no.

It is time that the US, Europe and all nations who care about common decency and civilized behavior take a stand for Israel. No cause can justify the slaughter of innocents.

Personally, at this point, I don't care much what Israel does to protect its people against this wanton murder. I will support them. If and when the Israeli Defence Force succeeds in wiping out the terrorists, once and for all, I will be dancing in the street.

For the Democrats-Iceberg Dead Ahead


The USS Democrat- "Land-ahoy! It must be Denver! Full Speed Ahead!"


Now that Hillary has had her big night Tuesday, winning Ohio and Texas (and cutting only about 8 delegates off Obama's lead), the Democratic Party is heading for a possible disaster.

First of all, Hillary's campaign is pushing for the Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated. That, of course, would represent a changing of the rules in the middle of the game. Is a compromise in the works? That may come in the form of a do-over, letting the primary be repeated, the reasoning here being that Obama did not really compete in those primaries. Also not yet decided is who would pay for the repeat primaries? No one seems to be stepping up on that front.

Then there is the matter of the Superdelegates, who have the option of voting however they wish in Denver regardless of which candidate has won the most primary delegates. How does Hillary justify that action? Easy (according to her). The New York Senator argues that the momentum is now going her way and she has won most of the big states, like New York, California and Texas. Thus, the superdelegates should vote for her even if Obama goes into the convention with the lead.

Like Rush Limbaugh, many conservatives (including me) are enjoying the sight of the Democrats rushing head-long toward the yawning crevice. As things appear now, Obama will, in fact, enter the convention with a delegate lead. If Hillary somehow succeeds in recapturing those delegates from Michigan and Florida, that will not sit well with Obama supporters. To use a football analogy, let's say that one team had two touchdowns negated by penalties in the first quarter. Then in the fourth quarter, with that team down by 10 points, the refs decided to reverse those penalties and give those touchdowns back. Would that be fair? Hardly. If the Democratic voters of Florida and Michigan have their votes negated, they should direct their anger at their state political leaders who broke the party rules and caused the problem. Even with Florida and Michigan reinstated, Obama will still probably enjoy a delegate lead.

That leaves the Superdelegates, elected Congresspeople, senators and party hacks. Will they really adjourn to a smoke-filled room and overrule the voice of the Democratic voters who voted for Obama-especially the African-American voters? For Hillary to get the nomination in such a fashion will leave one-half of the Democratic voters furious and disillusioned. Will they just get over it and turn out for Hillary in the general election? I don't think so.

And most importantly, what will be the reaction of the African-American voters who voted for Obama? For decades, they have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, believing that only the Democrats would represent their interests. Will they conclude that they have been residing on the Democratic "plantation", as many observers, black and white maintain? Will they decide that black interests would be better served by making all parties compete for their votes-and giving real consideration to other parties?

Nevertheless, the Democrats appear unable to avoid the disaster on the horizon. From listening to Clinton and her supporters, it appears that the Clintons will do what they have always done; they will fight tooth and nail to the bitter end. That means if they have to twist arms, make deals and blackmail Superdelegates in Denver, then that is exactly what they will do. For the Clintons, it is not about the party; it is about them.

Monday, March 3, 2008

The "Drug Wars" (9)- Toronto, Canada 1982


While I was stationed in Milan, Italy in 1982, I was called to testify at a trial in British Victoria, Canada in connection with a case I had been involved in at my previous duty station in Los Angeles. It was a joint case with the RCMP, in which arrests were made both in California and Canada. At the conclusion of my testimony, I took a couple of days to visit my Mom in Los Angeles before returning to Italy.

Since my travel was paid for by the Canadian Government, I was required to fly on Air Canada. Thus, I flew to Toronto to make my connection back to Italy. While in Toronto, I took the opportunity to visit with one of my old Canadian RCMP colleagues (Tom), with whom I had worked in Bangkok when he was the Canadian Narcotic Attache in the 1970s.

Upon arrival at Toronto Airport at about 5pm, I was picked up by his son, whom I had known in Bangkok when he was a young boy. Now a young adult, he was in training to become a Mountie. The plan was for me to check into my hotel, pick up Tom at the RCMP and then go to their house for dinner.

"Mom's making a big dinner for you. We'll stop by the office, pick up Dad and then we'll go home for dinner," Tom's son told me.

By 6 pm, we were at RCMP Hqs, where Tom greeted me.

"Great to see you, Gary. The wife's got a great dinner planned for you. We'll stop in the mess (RCMP pub), have a quick beer and then go to our house."

"Sounds like a plan," I answered.

The mess was full of Mounties. They were having a national drug training conference, and there were Mounties from all over the country. I was introduced to everyone from Toronto and we ordered a beer.

Then another beer, and another. After each round, Tom said, "Let's have one more beer, then we'll go."

Soon it dawned on me that, like Australians, Canadians, especially cops, tended to put drinking first. Other things tended to be shoved to the side. As the hours passed, I realized that we were not going home for dinner that night. At one point, one of the other cops told me that (after one more round) he would show me some of the wonderful bars in Toronto.

"Sounds like a plan," I answered.

So one more round became several more rounds (each one supposed to be the last.) By now, Tom was going nose to nose with a Mountie from Nova Scotia who was giving his son some lip. In one corner of the room, a couple of Francophone Mounties were arguing with Anglophone Mounties. I thought about Tom's wife stewing at home with that great dinner.

Finally, at about midnight, realizing that no one was going anywhere, I gave up on the whole thing. I got up and walked out the door, passing Tom's son, passed out on the floor and missing one shoe. I jumped in a cab and went back to my hotel. I had a flight to catch the next day.

A couple of years later, I heard that Tom and his wife had...well,...divorced.

Empty Suit Press Conference in LA


Bratton, Delgadillo, Villaraigosa
"Yeah, we're really crackin' down now."


There was a big press conference in LA today that centered around illegal alien gang members. Attending were representives from local and federal law enforcement as well as LA political leaders. More specifically, LA Mayor Tony Villaraigosa took a break from running around the country trying to get Hillary Clinton nominated (He is her national co-chair and has drawn local criticism for not being around), City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo (a master of misappropriation of city resources). Police Chief William Bratton, who throws his own officers under the bus when they lay their hands on rioting illegal immigrant demonstrators, and Sheriff to the Stars, Lee Baca. The FBI was there as well as ICE. In addition, there was a representative from El Salvador's Ministry of Justice.

The main topic of concern was illegal alien gang members, especially MS-13 of El Salvador, a particularly vicious and murderous bunch that operates back and forth between our two countries. This week, LA is hosting a week-long conference of federal/state and local agencies plus officials from Central America, Spain and Canada. During the press conference, it was announced that LAPD and the Salvadoran National Police will exchange 4 liaison officers from each entity to help train and advise their counterparts.

CNN's outspoken commentator, Lou Dobbs, was less than impressed, noting that the above number represented half of the assembled dignitaries at the press conference.

I am all for state/local/federal and international police agencies working together to combat this problem. That is precisely what I spent many years doing as a DEA agent fighting drug trafficking. I am all for LA working together with the Salvadorans (and Mexicans). What I think would be especially helpful is for LA to cease being a sanctuary city for illegal aliens and cooperate more fully with ICE and other federal agencies. I think that ICE should have representatives in the LA County Jail to monitor the status of foreign arrestees. International agreements dictate that when a foreign national is arrested, his or her consulate must be notified. Why not notify immigration authorities as well? That's what virtually every other country does.

Unless there is a genuine effort to turn over law-breaking illegal aliens, especially gang members) to ICE, it is hard to conclude that this is anything more than window dressing. LA's leaders from the Mayor to the Chief of Police have made it very clear that they are not inclined to combat illegal immigration in their city. Thus, LA is a sanctuary city. The federal officials participating in the press conference must have been biting their collective lips at hearing the likes of Villaraigosa and Bratton talk about cracking down.

Meanwhile, the same day in Washington, an advocacy group for illegal aliens (People Without Borders) was holding their own press event to demand legalization for the "13million undocumented workers in the US". As their name would indicate, this group doesn't believe that our nation should have enforceable borders or enjoy any degree of sovreignty. One of their spokespersons delighted in pointing out that none of the remaining presidential candidates will be strong on illegal immigration.

Sadly, it was probably only the latter group that really believed the words they were uttering.