The Carona Trial-More Babes, More Scams

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Random Shots in the Dark (8)

US Government cheeseburger



Introducing the 2009 US Government People's Car



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

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

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

The Israelis must be feeling real good right now.

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

That Jamie Gorelick.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silly me.

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

Silly me.

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

Silly me.

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

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

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

That's it for now. Pass the Tylenol.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robbery in Progress-In Minnesota

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



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

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

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

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

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

Another nail in the coffin of our democracy.

What will be George W Bush's Legacy?

Now that the Bush Administration's time in office is down to its last couple of months, it is way too early, in my view, to predict his historical legacy. That will probably take at least a generation and largely depend on how Iraq and Afghanistan play out. I do think it appropriate, however, to contribute a few words on the president who is leaving office.

George Bush, from the moment he was sworn in following the controversial election in Florida, was greeted with hate from the left. Indeed, his motorcade was the target of a few eggs as it proceeded from the Capitol to the White House. The hate has never ceased-though he did enjoy a huge spike in support following 9-11. Except for that, the Democrats have done everything in their power to undermine and demean Bush even though he tried to reach out to them. The media also has spent most of the last 8 years contributing to the demonetization of the President, which he could never overcome.

To be sure, many conservatives have also been disappointed with some of Bush's policies. His lax stand on illegal immigration and border security-even after 9-11, angered many on the right. The aggressive prosecution of two border agents who shot a Mexican drug smuggler caused many (including myself) to believe that the Bush Administration and its Justice Department was not supportive of the Border Patrol.

In addition, Bush, who came to office proclaiming himself a "compassionate conservative", did nothing to reduce the size of government and cut government spending. As Congress (Democrat and Republican) was having an orgy of earmarks, Bush set aside his veto pen and let it roll on. History will also have to judge his share of the blame for the financial crisis. Though he was, indeed, president, I see a lot more culpability in Congress-especially when it comes to the mortgage-lending fiasco. Yet, the Democrats succeeded in steering public attention toward Bush (and his "tax cuts for the rich") and away from people like Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer, who were prime culprits in the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac scandals. To me, there was nothing wrong in Bush's cutting taxes. It was the right thing to do.

One unfortunate aspect of Bush is his inability to be articulate in front of a microphone in the absence of a prepared text. This hurt in two respects. First, he was unable to articulate his convictions. Secondly, it led to the public image fed by the late night comedians that he was a dolt, which he is not.

One area that Bush has done well in is the appointment of federal judges. In spite of unconscionable Democratic obstruction, he has managed to put two outstanding conservative judges on the Supreme Court (notwithstanding the Harriet Miers fiasco), as well as on the federal bench.

But it was his aggressive response to 9-11 that eventually sent liberals and Democrats over the edge. While Afghanistan was and is mostly supported, his invasion and occupation of Iraq sealed his doom. America has few allies in this endeavor, and the establishment of Gitmo and the NSA intercepts have led to the further demonetization of a president who, in my view, was trying to prevent any further
9-11s. To hear the left describe it, we have all lost our freedoms in the past 8 years.

As far as Iraq is concerned, if Bush was lying about weapons of mass destruction, then so was Clinton. The fact is that everyone believed Saddam was building WMD. The CII believed it. The UN believed it. All the major intelligence agencies in the world believed it. Saddam did everything in his power to make the world believe it. And why shouldn't we have believed it? Saddam, in fact, used chemical weapons against Iran and against the Kurds in the north after the first Gulf War-in one instance, killing 5,000 Kurds in one village with poison gas.

Yet, whether or not they ever existed in terms or amounts we believed-or were dismantled or taken out of the country prior to the invasion, Saddam's continued rule of Iraq was a world-wide scandal. As he and his sons terrorized an entire nation, major nations were being secretly bought off with oil vouchers to oppose any invasion. There was nothing principled in their opposition to an invasion. It was all about greed. Meanwhile, innocent Iraqis were being dragged off to torture centers, rape rooms and mass graves-by the tens of thousands-as the world sat by and twiddled their thumbs.

Say what you will, George Bush will go to his grave with two things on his resume that any world leader would envy. He removed two of the worst regimes in recent memory and gave some 50 million people an opportunity to live in some measure of freedom. What do the Jacques Chiracs, Gerhard Schroeders, Kofi Annans or Vladimir Putins have on their resumes?

In terms of fighting the war on terror, Bush has also drawn condemnation for the establishment of Guantanemo Bay as a detention center for captured terrorists-a center that will almost certainly be shut down by President Obama when he takes office. Many argue that the prisoners should be afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention-even though these terrorists represent no nation, wear no uniform, have signed no such accords, have targeted innocents as victims and do not abide themselves with any of the Geneva accords-preferring instead to torture, murder/behead their captives.

Others argue that we should overburden our federal court system with these terrorists even though the courts are not equipped to handle them in large numbers and may require the disclosure of classified material to prosecute them. Have we forgotten the German saboteurs who landed on our shores during World War II intent on wreaking havoc here? They were captured, brought before a military tribunal and most of them were executed as spies.

My point here is that these prisoners do not fit into any neat little category of law-breakers or prisoners of war. If you want to consider them as POWs-then they stay in captivity until the "war" is over. In this case, that will be a long time.

As to the NSA intercepts. I still cannot perceive any rational objection to these intercepts. In the wake of 9-11, these intercepts seem to be a perfectly rational response to the threat of mass murder being carried out here at home. If the NSA abroad has identified a terrorist telephone that they are monitoring and that telephone places a call to the US, what in God's name is the problem with listening in and setting up a tap on the US phone? True, we have a normal procedure for wiretapping phones being used for criminal purposes using the normal court-authorized process. However, and I am speaking from personal experience (as a retired DEA agent), it is a cumbersome process that takes time and resources. The FISA court process is also available in cases of national security, but in the wake of 9-11, when speed may save thousands of lives, even that process was deemed to be insufficient to deal with the threat.

If George Bush has erred in the case of Gitmo and the NSA intercepts, he has done it for one reason-to prevent any future 9-11s on American soil-to save innocent lives. While much of America has gone back to sleep, Bush has remained vigilant. And to this point, he has succeeded (knock on wood). For that, George W Bush deserves our gratitude.

President Bush will leave office with an abysmally low approval rating, much as did Harry Truman, who today is regarded as one of our finest presidents. Many Republicans will blame him for the dire straits their party finds itself. Some of the criticism will be fair-some unfair. Through it all, however, Bush has withstood the hatred directed toward him with grace, which tells me that he is a good and decent man.

Bush's final legacy will not be determined for a long time. Perhaps it will be that he foolishly believed that bringing democracy to a region that had never experienced it would remove the terrorist threat in the long term. Much of it will depend on the success or failure of Iraq. After 4-8 years of Obama, perhaps, Bush will look wiser to us. I do feel, however, that in a couple of generations, Bush's reputation as president will be much higher than when he leaves office.

Islam Awareness Week at UC-Irvine

Amir Abdel Malik Ali


Mutah Beale aka Napoleon


Recently, I wrote a piece based on a letter I sent to the Orange County Register. The letter was in response to their article on the UCI Olive Tree Initiative (15 students, Jewish and Muslim who visited Israel had reported back on their findings to a packed hall at UCI).

The initiative seems to have given rise to hope that Jewish and Muslim students at UCI might better understand each other's feelings and positions after having gained insight based on on-the-scene observations. I opined at the time (my letter was never published by the Register) that the proof of the pudding would be the next MSU-sponsored week of activities. In the past, MSU has hosted a parade of vitriolic speakers who shout their hatred of Israel. Most of these speakers don't seem to care much for "Zionist" Jews-or the US-their own country either. Typical of these speakers is Oakland-based imam, Amir Abdel Malik Ali, who is always invited to spew his venom at the UCI campus. Anyway, many people hoped-perhaps naively, that the MSU might decide to go in a different direction.

So, from November 17-20, will be Islam Awareness Week, and guess who will be one of the featured speakers? You got it- Malik Ali. Like a bad dose of Herpes, this guy just keep coming back and coming back. His two topics sound innocent enough; "The one God" and "My story". We don't know what he will actually say, however, until he shows up. Once this guy gets on a roll anything can happen. Ali is a gifted speaker although someone needs to tell him about introduction, body and conclusion.

Also appearing will be some former rapper named Mutah Beale aka Napoleon, who left the world of rap behind him when he started taking Islam seriously (he was born to a Muslim father). Not being a rap follower, I had to do some Googling on Beale. From what I can find out so far, he speaks all over the world on the dangers of the rapping lifestyle, which certainly sounds good to me. What he thinks about other issues, I don't know yet. His topics are "From Outlawz to outlawed-My story" and "Changing my game: My view of women before and after Islam.

It is hoped that the MSU-"newly inspired" by the Olive Tree Initiative- will tell Ali to keep his hate filled statements about "Zionist Jews, Israel, America and President Bush under wraps in the spirit of friendship and reconciliation between two groups of people who, for the most part, are Americans after all is said and done.

But, on the other hand, I was also hoping for a Cub pennant this year.

Project Meredian Foundation

When you read about prostitution busts, you think of prostitutes, pimps and johns. You think of undercover cops arresting hookers and johns, and Date Line NBC helping cops catch men looking for underage sex on the Internet. Yet, there is another form of prostitution that is expecially insidious; that is forced child prostitution. Usually, we read about child sex slavery in Third World countries, where enforcement is lax, and corruption allows the child sex-trade to flourish-aided by Western men who travel to these countries to engage in activities they know they would go to prison for here. Shockingly, however, it is going on right here in the United States, sometimes even involving the kidnapping of young children for sexual slavery purposes. The statistics show that forced child sexual exploitaion is formly rooted right here at home. Aside from the cases of child sexual abuse within the home and those involving runaway children who are preyed upon by pimps, many cases of child sexual abuse involve organized criminal activity such as gangs and ethnic organized crime organizations. Many of the child victims are brought to the US from other countries for sexual purposes. Young women and children are being forced into the sex slave trade every year. Now nearly 1,000,000 American children in the United States alone have been victimized and trafficked across state lines to include Richmond, VA To L.A. Califorina and every small town and big city across the United States. These represent true crimes against our children and young women.

One organization that is devoted to help fight this scourge is Project Meridian Foundation Inc. The founder and CEO of Project Meridian Foundation is Nathan Wilson, who is based in Richmond, Virginia, which, surprisingly enough, is part of a region where much of this activity goes on. Wilson interacts with countless organizations to help bring a public awareness to the problem, help in the rescue of child victims, and assist in sheltering and helping them recover from their ordeal. One of the organization's present goals is to establish an initial secure facility (safe house) where rescued children could be housed, given medical treatment and counseling under 24 hour security. Such a facility would have the capacity to serve 100-120 children per year for a three month period before moving to a step-up facility. In addition, the organization is seeking funding for an operational office/victim call center and an updated website.

In addition, Wilson makes numerous speaking appearances to bring public awareness to this problem. I myself will be making inquiries next week at UC-Irvine, where I teach part-time, to see if we can bring Mr Wilson out to our campus.

Without question, such an undertaking requires funding. If you are looking for a worthwhile organization to send a check to, please consider Project Meridian Foundation. Their website can be found at http://www.projectmeridianfoundation.org and is linked on this blog. Project Meridian Foundation is a non-profit IRS 501 c3 organization.

I will be giving periodic updates on Project Meredian Foundation's work.

Update on Fairness Doctrine

"He was out!"

"I know, but we gotta keep it fair."


The below is cross-posted from Maggie's Notebook and Radarsite:

The Fairness Doctrine-What you may not know

"Democrat dominance in Washington, D.C. guarantees the reinstitution of some type of policy to control the balance of Conservative and Liberal radio talk shows.

Barack Obama announced the appointment of radical, far-left lawyer, Henry Rivera, to head the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Rivera, a former FCC Commissioner who resigned during Reagan's term is believed to be a strong supporter of a Fairness Doctrine, and a seeker of his version of media justice on the airwaves.

Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Dennis Kucinich Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter are all on the record as wanting "Fairness" in radio. Slaughter introduced failed legislation for a Fairness Doctrine in the House in 2004 and 2005.

With a Democrat in the White House, the five-member Commission board-balance reduces in June 2009 to two members of the minority Republican party. Through the FCC, The Fairness Doctrine can be reinstated, or can be newly drafted, without laws, without Congress...just a majority vote of a Democrat majority Board, imposing the Doctrine as an FCC regulation.

If you are unfamiliar with The Fairness Doctrine...and perhaps "fairness" sounds like a good thing, here is an example of what such a doctrine, more commonly known today as a "censorship doctrine," would require: if Rush Limbaugh has a 3 hour daily program, that station must allow a 3 hour daily program with an opposing viewpoint - think the failed Air America, Al Franken, Randi Rhodes. If sponsors do not want to advertise on an unpopular show, because no one listens, then what? I don't think we know.

The original Fairness Doctrine is squarely at odds with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing the people's right to free speech and free press, and guaranteeing that Congress will make no laws lessening, diminishing, depriving, cutting off or as the Amendment says, "abridging" such rights.

A background article from The Museum of Broadcast Communications says this on page two, regarding the dissolution of the Fairness Doctrine by the FCC in August 1985:


"The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it." To read the entire document by Val E. Limburg and to find a reading list, go here.

Should the FCC fail to resurrect a Fairness Doctrine, Congress can pass laws to mandate it, and are willing to do so.

Stiffle dissent...any and all judgement of The Obama Years, and the Pelosi House and the Reid Senate - that's the goal. The only way to do it is to hush Rush, and Hannity, and Ingraham, and Boortz, and O'Reilly, and Levine, and the list goes on.

Will the FCC, under Rivera, attempt to resurrect a Commission Fairness Doctrine? We don't know the answer, but consider this:

Here's what you may not know about the Fairness Doctrine: In January 2007, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps unveiled a new American Media Contract at a gathering of the National Media Reform Conference in Memphis.

The text of the speech appears to have been removed from the web, although I have found several links to it, one titled Copps Unveils New American Media Contract, which then takes the reader to the 2008 Conference speech. Just a typo? I don't think so. Maggie's Notebook reported on this on January 27, 2007 and is likely not the only webpage documenting the words of Michael Copps.

Here are portions of the American Media Contract 2007:

We expect these:
1. A right to media that strengthens our democracy
2. A right to local stations that are actually local
3. A right to media that looks and sounds like America
4. A right to news that isn’t canned and radio playlists that aren’t for sale
5. A right to programming that isn’t so damned bad so damned often
Who decides what America "looks and sounds"like?
Who decides if the news is "canned" or not"
Who decides what strengthens our democracy?

Copps said this about the state of television in 2007:

And what do the American people — who own the public airwaves, by the way — get in return? Too little news, too much baloney passed off as news. Too little quality entertainment, too many people eating bugs on reality TV. Too little local and regional music, too much brain-numbing national play-lists. Too little of America, too much of Wall Street and Madison Avenue...."
An immediate red flag: "...too much baloney passed off as news." I think Mr. Copps' baloney is not my baloney.

Other speakers for the event were well-known leftists Jane Fonda, Danny Glover, Geena Davis, Senator Bernie Sanders, Bill Moyers, Helen Thomas and Jessie Jackson.

Henry Rivera is said to see "communications as a civil rights issue," and my research bears that out. As current Chair of the Minority Media & Telecommunications Council, he has proposed to:

1) funnel more "federal advertising" to minority media [39]

2) allow foreign ownership; relax U.S. trade barriers to provide "overseas capital," for minority broadcasters [17]

3) develop "constitutionally permissible yet non-dilute method of defining" the class [race] of licensees, i.e., "an applicant's race would be one of the numerous factors considered when the Commission reviews a license application." [30]

4) change the FCC Commission to a more diverse Commission - it should look like America [38]

In addition, Rivera wants a blue-ribbon panel discussion, now, to bring Communications to the table by creating a White House Cabinet position, and he advocates for "localism" to prevail when issuing broadcasting licenses - a position to be seen in Copps' comments above.

The above is taken from Rivera's Minority Media & Telecom Council pdf, page numbers are in brackets.

To date I've found nothing in Rivera's own words directly calling for a Fairness Doctrine, however, in a January 2008 news release, Rivera and a law partner, Richard Wiley, discuss the issue of "localism," - requiring TV stations to "cover local news," Mr. Wiley added, "Are we going to return to the broadcast regulations of the past? That's the question."

I believe this may speak directly to a Fairness Doctrine, which is particularly difficult for smaller local stations to implement. Limited cast and crew find it difficult to allow equal time ON EVERY ISSUE. It's costly, often not pertinent, and history shows that that the stations just give up and don't report controversial issues.

It is reported that Obama is not interested in a Fairness Doctrine, but if you take a look at his press secretary, Michael Ortiz', statement, it not reassuring:

He [Obama] considers this debate [Fairness Doctrine] to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.
When it comes to "fairness" in media, we have nothing to feel good about in an Obama administration. Team Obama attorneys:

1) asked the Department of Justice to remove TV ads produced by American Issues Project

2) threatened individual TV and radio stations airing NRA ads even "intimidating cease and desist letters...threatening their FCC license if they run the ads" according to the NRA

3) at the direction of a Team Obama email, deluged the Milt Rosenberg's Chicago radio show interview of Dr. Stanley Kurtz, by jamming phones during the live show, sending copious emails, and gathering outside the studio. ALL at the command of the Obama campaign.

Obama does not bode well for free speech.

The SayAnything Blog put it this way:

...only liberals would think that “fairness” is something that can be implemented by government mandate. but that speaks to how they see the world. This country was founded up on the idea that all men are free, and that all should have equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness. But rather than equality of opportunity, liberals are only interested in equality of outcome."

Still think it's not going to happen?

Will There Be a Fairness Doctrine Now?

"It's time for Rush Limbaugh, Honey."

"Shhh-not too loud. The neighbors might hear"


Now that the Democrats are in firm control of Washington, there are rumblings that they plan to re-institute the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", which would dictate that all radio talk shows provide opposing points of view. Since talk radio (often called "hate radio" by its critics), is dominated by conservatives, it it is a prime target for liberals. Note that there is no call for a "Fairness Doctrine" which would apply to newspapers or TV news networks, which are dominated by liberals and have become de facto wings of the Democratic Party.

I have written before on the Fairness Doctrine, so there is no need to repeat my arguments here. I would add, however, that the practical effect of such a regulation would lead most radio stations to do away with political talk shows altogether and switch to a different format, like say country music, rather than put up with the hassles. A Fairness Doctrine would in effect be the death knell of conservative talk radio. It would not make much difference to liberals since they have not been able to achieve any measure of success in talk radio. People aren't listening.

When I wrote the above-referenced post, I sent it directly to Rep Henry Waxman's office since he is one of those who believed to be in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, and since he is the current Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. In short, he is the guy who would lead the charge.

The post, which was sent to Waxman's office can be found here:

http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2007/10/henry-waxman-goes-after-hate-radio.html

I subsequently received a letter from Waxman dated 10-24-07, which reads as follows:

"Dear Mr Fouse,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about rumors you have heard that the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which I chair, is investigating conservative and Republican talk radio hosts. The news story that began this rumor was fictitious and I welcome the opportunity to clear up any confusion that this story caused.

On October 8, 2007, The American Spectator printed a fictitious story alleging that the Oversight Committee was investigating talk show radio programs. This report is completely false and was written without any documentation or attribution. There is not now nor has there ever been any investigation of this subject.

I believe that The American Spectator should retract its report and apologize for the confusion this fictitious report has caused. If you share my concern about false reporting, you may contact The American Spectator at (703) 807-2011 to register your views.

To learn more about the investigations that are currently being conducted by the Oversight Committee, please visit www.oversight.house.gov.

Again, thank you for contacting me and I hope you will continue to keep in touch on issues of concern,

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,

Henry A Waxman
Member of Congress"

Waxman, as you can see in his letter, denied allegations that he was going to investigate talk radio hosts, an issue which I had also raised. He did not address, however, a point I also raised about rumors he was tasking the FCC into reconsidering the Fairness Doctrine.

So the question begs; are the Democrats, flush with power, now prepared to go after talk radio with the so-called, "Fairness Doctrine"? I say it's time to make a fresh inquiry with Rep Waxman, so I will send this to his office this weekend.

Obama's Planned Community Service- Goal or Requirement?

I am posting the below from my friend and colleague, Roger Gardner at Radarsite. It concerns Barack Obama's plans for national youth service. Specifically, it concerns the words "require" vs "setting a goal" (for 50/100 hours of community youth service). It seems that the original wording ("require") which appeared on Obama's website was replaced by "setting a goal".

As for the photo above, calm down, folks. I am not comapring Obama to Stalin. Time will tell, however, if this planned youth service will take on aspects of hero worship and indoctrination. (Will they call it, "The Obama Youth"?) In addition, the question begs: Will such service be required or not-even for those who don't go to college?


Note from Radarsite: "This morning I received the following comment to our previous article about Obama's announcement on his official website."


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "And You Thought We Were Exaggerating":

"Except for, you know, you totally misquote it. Here is the quote from the website:"

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

Notice the total lack of the word "require"


Radarsite: So I went back and checked Obama's website, and here it is.


America Serves

"When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That's why it's called the American dream.

"The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start."


Radarsite: "The following paragraph has just disappeared."


"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."


Radarsite: "It has now been replaced by this one."


"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free."


Radarsite:

"Take note my friends, because this is just a sample of what we are going to be dealing with in our turbulent future. The highlighted text that was the subject of our previous article is just gone. Gone. Gone without explanation or acknowledgement. Furthermore one of their minions writes in a comment telling us that it was never there in the first place, that I misquoted it. Is it really going to be this easy to manipulate the truth, to manipulate us? Evidently they think so.

We can not, we must not accept this totalitarian manipulation of the truth. We must fight back against each and every one of these outrageous attacks on our freedoms. We warned you and you ignored us, and now it is here." - rg

"Another update: Read this new comment. Now they are accusing me of altering the original document. Take your pick readers. Is Radarsite lying? Or are the Obamaites lying? There is no middle ground here."

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "And
You Thought We Were Exaggerating":

"If you are going to alter what you copied, it's not a good idea to link to it. Per the source:"

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

Unjustified fear is one thing, altering meaning to feed fear erodes your credibility and left me wondering if you lack morals and ethics."



"[Update-Susan Duclos] The original wording was caught as a screenshot by hillaryclinton forum, bless their hearts and I am adding it here for those claiming the word require was never there."


https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEim-dBJFsDzRL-o0rptB4CGC1odT_nxOMzTrS9_6quZ26nWKJgCzDcSVhTQ4dfdpUABSacyV0p1blWcaUcEIcOzF_Q-Ms5-QlsVpXhQLUFx2VhwKEf6PrJ-k1qOrhV3A24kG581_1C4sQ/s1600-h/Obamarequire1.jpg

You be the judge.

"America's Sheriff" on Trial (Cont.)

Yesterday, Don Haidl continued his testimony against ex-Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona in the on-going corruption trial in Santa Ana. Haidl, who earlier pleaded guilty and secretly tape recorded conversations with Carona under the guise of having been subpoened to the Grand Jury, had been elevated by Carona from wealthy businessman to Asst. Sheriff in charge of the Reserve Division (1998-2004). Haidl's testimony concerns his activities in funneling bribes to Carona.

In his testimony of Friday, Haidl described how 86 contributors to Carona received Sheriff's badges in return, badges that were designed to look identical to those carried by actual deputies. Many also received concealed-gun permits in exchange for their contributions.

In what has to be the most disgusting allegation against Carona, Haidl also described the arrangements by which he and Carona directed cases to local attorney Joe Cavallo (previously convicted), a character who puts a completely new meaning into the age-old term, "sleazebag attorney". This thug obtained notoriety a couple of years back when he defended Haidl's son Greg and two other punks in a gang-rape trial (they were convicted). During the whole ugly process, Cavallo insulted and mocked both the victim and her family in crude terms both in and out of the courtroom.

Not only did Carona and Haidl direct cases to Cavallo, but, according to Haidl's testimony yesterday, they managed to convince the widow of a highly decorated deputy (Brad Warner), who had died unexpectedly after knee surgery, to have Cavallo handle the resultant lawsuit against the hospital involved. According to Haidl's testimony, Cavallo handled the suit and subsequently gave Haidl $28,338 as his cut. Haidl further testified that Carona and ex-Asst Sheriff George Jaramillo were supposed to split $5,000 from the case-though he did not personally witness that payment.

Below is an excerpt from a recorded conversation between Mike Carona and Don Haidl on July 15, 2007 (source: OC Register, 11-8-08):

Carona: "And I'm not looking for sainthood. I, you know, I never thought I'd go to jail for (expletive) around. Apparently, that's, you know, you know, the new current practice. It's the new state law."

Haidl: "Well, like I said, what I'm dealing with, it's, I'm trying to keep focused on the facts. What we know (expletive) the rumors. I don't know what's going to happen."

Carona: "I don't either, Don."

Obama's Economic Advisors-Antonio Villaraigosa??

Antonio Villaraigosa

"We must 'invest' in toilet brushes!"


It sure is comforting to see that Barack Obama is surrounding himself with a "solid" team of economic advisers. The president-elect has gathered an all-star team of experts in Chicago to help guide him through the mysteries of the American economy. Some have solid credentials, some I think are to the left (like Robert Reich). Among the luminaries are Paul Volcker, Larry Summers, Warren Buffett, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (who has run that state into the ground economically) and.....drum roll, please..............

LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa!!

Yes, there was Tony Villar (his real name before he married his wife, who was named Raigosa before he had an affair with a Telemundo TV reporter, and his wife divorced him and left Tony with her name, and.....well never mind.)

Where was I? Oh yeah, there was Antonio Villaraigosa, LA's playboy major, who knows as much about economics as I know about oceanography, standing behind Obama for the press conference and photo ops. Somewhere tonight, Tony is sampling the nightlife of Chicago much as he does in LA.

Aside from his lovelife, Tony is perhaps most noted for his memorable "We clean your toilets" speech at one of those big immigration protests in LA a couple of years ago.

But the question begs: Why in the world would Obama bring in Tony Villaraigosa to advise him on economics? The only thing that Villaraigosa could tell Obama is how to raise taxes, lie about why you are raising taxes, and how to pick up dates on the cheap. Beyond that, he knows nothing about economics.

Maybe, Obama is trying to put a Hispanic face on his transition team since Hispanics did not support him in the primaries but did in the general election. But if Obama needs a Hispanic as window dressing, I would suggest Manny Ramirez, who does have some skills and knows how to MAKE money.

It never ceases to amaze me how the Democratic Party can continue to pump this guy (Villaraigosa, I mean) up when he has been such a joke as Mayor of Los Angeles. But at least, he's not the Mayor of San Francisco.