Translate


Saturday, December 6, 2008

Badges For Sale In Orange County Under Carona


"Hey boys and girls! Now you can have an official Orange County Sheriff's Deputy badge just like Mike Carona wears! Just have your Mom and Dad send $5,000 to Gabe Nassar (in $1,000 increments). Be the first in your neighborhood."


In another blow to all the honest Sheriff's Deputies in Orange County, California, Friday's testimony revealed yet another sordid scheme by Mike Carona and his sidekicks, Asst Sheriffs, George Jaramillo and Don Haidl. This one involved selling OC Sheriff's badges-for cash.

The witness who testified to this was businessman Ghaby "Gabe" Nassar of Lake Forest, California in Orange County. According to his testimony, he wagered (and won) $100 in cash from Carona and Jaramillo that he could raise $25,000 for Carona's re-election campaign by selling Deputy badges at $5,000 per badge. This little operation occurred in 200-2001.

Nassar testified that he contacted several individuals who he persuaded to contribute $5,000 dollars each. The checks were written in increments of $1,000 due to the legal campaign limit law of $1,000. Each was told they had to contribute $5,000 to get a badge. The checks, each for $1,000, were made out to the "Friends of Mike Carona". Nassar said he collected 23 checks totaling about $23,000, which he gave to Lisa Jaramillo, George's wife, who was the campaign fundraiser.

To show his friendship, Carona appointed Nassar as a reserve and gave him a concealed-weapons permit. In October of 2000, following media reports of Nassar's background, the permit was taken away. Nassar testified that he threatened Jaramillo that he would disclose the badges-for-money scheme if he didn't get the permit back. He did not indicate whether he got the permit back.

One of the contributors, businessman Mehdi Hatmanian, also testified Friday that he contributed $5,000, which had been collected from himself and 4 other people. He also testified that he received a badge.

What must the Orange County deputies, the overwhelming majority of whom are good, honest cops, be thinking as all these revelations come out?

Obama's Second Mistake-Eric Holder


Eric Holder testifying before Congress

Senator Fousesquawk: "I just have a couple of questions for Mr Holder....."


Recently, I wrote a piece on President-elect Barack Obama's first mistake in nominating Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. At this point, I assume Clinton will sail through the confirmation process. I am not so optimistic-if that is the right word- about Obama's choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder.

Holder was appointed to the post of Deputy Attorney General in 1997 to replace Jamie Gorelick. It was in that position that Holder had oversight over the pardon process. In that capacity, he was involved in two controversial pardons issued by former President, Bill Clinton, one in his last days in office.

First was the infamous pardon of fugitive financier, Marc Rich, who had illegally done business with Iran even as they were holding our diplomats hostage. Rich was living in luxury in Switzerland, but with an international arrest warrant hanging over his head, was restricted in which countries he could travel to.

As Clinton's 2nd term was winding down in late 2000, it was Deputy Attorney General, Eric Holder who was asked by associates of Rich if he (Holder) could recommend a good attorney for Rich. Holder recommended Jack Quinn (former White House Council under Clinton), who eventually became Rich's lawyer in attempting to secure a pardon.

From November of 2000 to January of 2001, Quinn reportedly contacted Holder several times in his attempts to get Rich's case on the President's desk. In the end, Holder gave his famous recommendation to the White House that he was, "neutral but leaning positive".

Problem was, no one bothered to get the OK from the FBI, the agency that was trying to capture Rich. No one got the OK from the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, which was waiting to prosecute Rich. Seems nobody in the Department of Justice had any say so in the matter. Just little old Eric Holder and his buddy Jack Quinn giving the nod to Clinton to go ahead.

Of course, that is not even considering the role of the comely Denise Rich, Marc's ex-wife, who seemed to be hanging around Bill Clinton at various events and who arranged a big contribution to the infamous Clinton Library.

Hopefully (if there are any Republican senators around when confirmation hearings begin), they can ask Eric a few questions about the whole disgraceful pardon of Marc Rich. Maybe they can even subpoena Bill Clinton and Denise Rich to testify about how this pardon circumvented the normal pardon procedures. Jack Quinn should also be invited to the party.

While they are at it, they can also ask a few questions about the pardons of 16 Puerto Rican terrorists (FALN), who had never even asked for pardons in the first place. These lovely individuals were serving long sentences for setting off about 120 bombs around the country in the cause of independence for Puerto Rico. When the subject came up (pushed by Democratic politicians like Nydia Velasquez of Brooklyn, Luis Gutierrez of Chicago and Jose Serrano of New York), the idea was opposed by the US Attorney's Office in New York, the FBI, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

In spite of that, Eric Holder favored the pardons, which were graciously offered by the White House in 1999 even in the absence of a formal request by the prisoners. The sentences were commuted in August 1999.

In February of 2001, Holder testified before Congress. When asked about the pardons, he invoked "Executive Privilege".

So I would hope that someone on the confirmation committee will ask Holder about his role in these pardons as well. Again, Bill Clinton himself should be subpoened. In addition, how about bringing in Hillary, who was involved in her Senate race in New York? Was there any consideration and discussion about the pardons possibly helping get that big Puerto Rican vote in New York City? Maybe Nydia Velasquez or Jose Serrano can shed light on that question-under oath. At any rate, all three of the above representatives should be asked about their meetings with Holder regarding the matter.

Thanks to Barack Obama for helping bring all that old dirt from the Bill Clinton administration back into the public spotlight.

Eric Holder should not be confirmed as Attorney General.

There is No Problem at UCI?


Amir Abdel Malik Ali




Alim Musa




Mohammed al-Asi


As my regular readers are well aware, I have written extensively about the situation at the University of California at Irvine, where I teach, and where the local Muslim Student Union repeatedly brings in speakers who believe in the destruction of Israel. Many of them also tend to be anti-American and anti-Semitic. I speak specifically of people like Imam Amir Abdel Malik Ali, Imam Alim Musa and Imam Mohammed al-Asi, all of whom have spoken at UCI on behalf of the Muslim Student Union. Their message is one of poison and hatred.

While many Jews, both students at the university and interested organizations, have protested the anti-Semitic words spoken at UCI, the university's administration continues to defend the right of free speech, and, beyond condemning all hate speech in general, they have never, to my knowledge, spoken out in response to specific words of hate by specific speakers on their campus. In addition, even some Jews and Jewish organizations have stated that there is no problem of anti-Semitism at UCI and that the administration is doing a great job in this area. It is claimed that "outsiders" with their own agenda are just stirring things up.

Well, I am not an outsider. I have taught at UCI for ten years and have personally witnessed and heard the words of hate. I have been asked by one of my associates to write a letter for public dissemination to interested persons and organizations. Below is that letter, which is already being disseminated.


"My name is Gary Fouse, and I have taught English as a Second Language at the University of California at Irvine Ext since 1998 until the present. I am retired from the US Drug Enforcement Administration and have been employed part-time as an ESL teacher since retirement.

In the past few years at UCI, I have become aware of troubling developments at UCI involving the Muslim Student Union (MSU). On numerous occasions, the MSU hosts a week of events on campus, in which several speakers appear. The usual theme of the speakers is the Israel -Palestinian issue, in which, not surprisingly, speakers defend the Palestinian side and condemn Israel.

There is nothing wrong with this per se. While I defend Israel, I recognize that there are two sides to this issue, and it is entirely proper for both sides to be aired. What I find troubling is the virulent tone of many of the MSU-sponsored speakers, who not only criticize Israel, but call for its destruction and defend and glorify suicide bombers, as well as terrorist organizations like Hizbollah and Hamas. Even more disturbing, some of these speakers have engaged in what I can only term as anti-Semitic (anti-Jewish rhetoric). In addition, many of the speakers are clearly anti-American.

One of the speakers who has appeared at UCI on at least two occasions that I am aware of is Imam Mohammed al-Asi from the Washington DC area. He is an open supporter of Hamas and Hizbollah. On a past visit to UCI, he referred to Jews as “low-life ghetto-dwellers”. He is also quoted as saying that , “you can take the Jew out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the Jew“. Last May, al-Asi again appeared at UCI. I was present during this speech. On this occasion, he warned Jewish students in the audience that they were increasingly facing the wrath of the entire Islamic world-a thinly-veiled threat of violence in my view.

The most notable MSU-sponsored speaker is Amir Abdel Malik Ali, an Oakland-based imam who appears at virtually every MSU sponsored event. This man has glorified suicide bombers in Israel as “heroes” and “martyrs”. He speaks of a fight to the death in the Holy Land between Muslims and Jews over Israel. Like many of his cohorts in the MSU, he will deny he is anti-Semitic-only anti-Zionist. Yet when you listen to his words, he often spits out the term, “Zionist Jew” repeatedly.

Of course, like al-Asi, Malik Ali has nothing but contempt for America, as he throws out vile insults to his own country and government. But that is not the issue here. Anti-American sentiment on American university campuses is sadly not uncommon.

In his last appearance at UCI in November, I listened to his words and answers to questions (including my own). When one student asked him about President-elect Barack Obama, he laughed contemptuously and mentioned that Obama had as his three top advisors, “Rahm Israel Emanuel, Madelyn Albright and David Axelrod-a Zionist”.

I would like to direct the reader’s attention back to May 2008, the week MSU hosted its “Palestinian Holocaust Week”. As Mohammed al-Asi was spouting his venom in front of the flag pole area, a group of middle school or high school students were standing about 30 feet away. They were on a tour of UCI and were waiting to board their bus. As they stood there, they were exposed to the hateful words of al-Asi. There were several UCI deans in the crowd who were monitoring the event, making sure walkways were clear, and keeping Jewish student protesters from getting too close to the speakers. No one seemed to notice or care that younger students were within easy earshot of this anti-Semitic hate monger, al-Asi.

That same week, MSU students erected a mock wall near the flagpole depicting the wall Israel had erected to keep out suicide bombers. On that wall, were a number of pictures, drawings, photos and quotes. Among them was a drawing of Ariel Sharon, which was drawn in the old style of the anti-Jewish Nazi paper, Der Stuermer, which was published during the Third Reich by Nuremberg-based Gauleiter Julius Streicher. The caricature of Sharon featured him with a big hooked nose, thick lips and a leering expression on his face-typical of the Nazi caricatures of Jews. That drawing sat on that wall the entire week. Numerous school officials, including deans were near the wall during the events. They must have seen it. Yet, no one objected.

In addition, from time to time, there have been incidents of Jewish students who monitor these events and try to film them being subjected to verbal and/or physical intimidation. One Jewish former student I am aware of once had her camera shoved in her face by a Muslim student. No action was taken by campus police or the administration. Last May, after an evening speech by Malik Ali, a Jewish female student who had filmed the talk, was reportedly followed back to her car and accosted by a group of male MSU students who surrounded her car. The incident was reportedly witnessed by a South African woman, who tried to report it to Campus Police but was reportedly met by indifference. (I say “reportedly” because I have no personal knowledge of the incident. I referred the information to the UCI EEO Office for them to follow up on.)

That leads me to my next point. What has been the reaction of UCI’s administration to this on-going problem? It is true that Chancellor Michael Drake has met with Jewish community leaders and expressed his disapproval of hate speech in general terms. Yet he and other top university officials constantly refer to the right of freedom of speech-even offensive speech in not reacting to these expressions of anti-Semitism.

I also believe in free speech. I have never advocated that these speakers be dragged off to jail for what they say. I would hope, however, that at the least, someone from the university would step forward and say that “the words of speaker X when he said X constitute hate speech and we condemn it entirely“. I am unaware of any time that anyone from UCI has uttered such a specific condemnation of the words that have been spoken at UCI-which are hateful and inciteful. Generic condemnations of “hate speech” are, in my view, insufficient.

Yet many-even Jews- defend the university and say that the administrators of UCI are doing a great job in this area. This was the reaction when I wrote to the Director of the Orange County Human Relations Commission, Rusty Kennedy. In response, he lambasted me for my criticism of the university. ( I have also outlined my concerns in writing to the UCI EEO office.) The university has other defenders as well, such as at least one Jewish campus organization and many Jewish students at UCI who say there is no problem, and that they do not feel intimidated. I have heard many say that the controversy is all caused by “outsiders”. I would like to address these points.

First of all, I am not an outsider. I have taught at UCI for 10 years. I have attended many of the MSU-sponsored events. I have listened to many of the speakers, and, on several occasions, confronted them with questions. As a retired law enforcement officer of almost 30 years service, I think I can recognize hate speech and volatile situations.

As for the everyday situation at UCI, I have always stressed that 99% of UCI’s students are not involved in this ugliness. Most of our students are Asian-American, and they are there to study and enjoy their university experience. I see absolutely no anti-Semitism coming from them or the vast majority of the other students. Yet, two or three times a quarter, the campus is faced with this hateful rhetoric-aimed at Israel, America and Jews.

If many Jewish students see no problem at UCI beyond these periodic events, that is fine. However, if there is no problem, why did Anteaters for Israel take the trouble to protest the speeches of al-Asi and Malik Ali with posters warning students about “hate speech”?

So there is the problem as I see it. What are my ideas for a solution? I think for one, any further expression of anti-Semitic speech by MSU speakers should be immediately countered by a strong statement of specific condemnation by university officials.

Secondly, in the wake of the much-heralded “Olive Tree Initiative”, I think it would be fitting that UCI (which provides funding to MSU) let them know that it is time to find more moderate speakers-or tell the Malik Alis to tone down their rhetoric. Of course, I have stated more than once that if it were my university, the Malik Alis would not be allowed on campus. Most of my colleagues tell me I would lose that case in court. Perhaps so.

I also strongly believe that, as long as this situation continues to exist at UCI, the public should be made aware of what is taking place on the campus. The public has every right to know what their tax dollars are being used to support.

A couple of weeks ago, there was a brawl at UC Berkeley between Jewish and Palestinian-sympathizer students. Without taking sides on who was at fault, I feel strongly that UCI is potentially the scene of a far worse incident. I pray that it doesn’t happen, but if it does, I will not be one of those asking, “how could it happen here?” History has shown that hateful actions are preceded by hateful words. I feel strongly that the groundwork is being laid for a tragedy at UCI. Our campus has acquired the dubious distinction of being considered the most anti-Semitic campus in America according to many observers. In many respects, I would agree that is an unfair characterization. However, in other respects, it is not so unfair.

Finally, I should add that I myself am not Jewish. I am, however, an amateur scholar of the Third Reich and have spent almost three years of my life in the Nuremberg, Germany area. I have also written a book about the history of that area (specifically, the town of Erlangen). I think just the word, “Nuremberg” is sufficient to explain why I have become sensitive to the issue of anti-Semitism-and can recognize it when I see it. I mentioned above the name of Julius Streicher, the so-called “Jew Baiter of Nuremberg“, who was hanged as a war criminal after the Second World War. When Imam Mohammed al-Asi appeared at UCI and called Jews, “low life ghetto-dwellers“, the only difference between him and Streicher was the languages they spoke in.

This letter may be shared with whomever deemed appropriate."

Friday, December 5, 2008

The Correct OJ Verdict


13 years later


In the summer of 1995, shortly before retiring from DEA, I was in Riga, Latvia doing a drug training course for a class of Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian cops. Our team was staying at the newly-built SAS Radisson Hotel, and we were able to follow world news on CNN. On the first day of our school, the students were asked if they had any questions. The first guy who raised his hand asked, "Who in the Hell is OJ Simpson?"

Today, I watched OJ Simpson sentenced to a long term in prison for his armed robbery caper in Las Vegas. Thirteen years earlier, I had watched the outrageous verdict in Los Angeles when a predominantly black jury ignored an avalanche of evidence and pronounced him, "not guilty". The shocked reaction of most white observers, mixed with the jubilant reaction of most black observers set race relations back in this country for a while.

Today, it seems that America has moved on from OJ Simpson. I think most blacks realize by now that the guy is a bum-and a murderer to boot. Simpson pretty much stands alone today aside from his family and lawyers.

After Simpson and his co-defendant, Clarence Stewart, gave their statements, the judge took a tortuously long time in making her statement before pronouncing sentence. There was a reason for that; Judge Glass was "protecting the record" as they say-especially when she reiterated that Simpson's murder case was playing no role in this case and her sentencing. (That removes any serious hope of Simpson's lawyers appealing the conviction or the sentencing on grounds that their client was being punished for the murder case in which he got off.) By the way, Stewart, who stands to be the answer to a trivia question, got 15 years.

Even after Simpson's sentence was pronounced, in which the most serious count got 15 years, there was confusion as to how long he must actually serve since there was a consecutive sentence imposed. It appears that Simpson will have to serve a minimum of 9 years before being eligible for parole and could serve as long as 33 years.

Once again, Fred and Kim Goldman were seated in the courtroom watching Simpson get his justice. They can take grim satisfaction from the fact that it was their never-ending campaign to hound Simpson with their civil judgement in Santa Monica that was a factor in pushing him to commit the deed for which he will now serve time in prison.

Fred and Kim Goldman are people I greatly admire. They were abused by the system in the murder trial. I will never forget the scene of shock and grief as the Goldmans heard Simpson being pronounced, "not guilty" by a clearly biased jury, Kim crying in the courtroom and Fred with a completely shocked look on his face. It was truly heartbreaking.

Yet, they continued to work within the law trying to find some measure of justice for their murdered son, Ron. I don't think I could have followed the course Fred Goldman followed. For that, he is a greater man than I. If it had been me, I guess I would have been in jail these past thirteen years. I'll leave it at that.

Today was a good day.

The OJ Verdict


"Great News, OJ! Nevada has no state income taxes!

......Whoops, wrong verdict. Stand by.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Son of California State Assembly Speaker Arrested for Murder



I have written previously on the shenanigans that go on in the California State Capitol in Sacramento, specifically the profligate spending and high-living of political figures like State Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. Fortunately, Nunez's term in office has come to an end this year as he has been termed out. Yet, as his political career has been put on hold, Nunez is now faced with a new problem. His son, Esteban Nunez, 19, (pictured above) was arrested for murder this week.

It seems that the younger Nunez, who lives in Sacramento, is a member of a gang called "THC" (pictured above). In October, according to the complaint, Nunez and a few of his "homies" drove to San Diego. According to the complaint, on the evening of October 3-4, four of them were drinking and checking out the San Diego State University area for parties. Trying to crash a fraternity party, they were asked to leave. They then allegedly drank some more, worked up their anger, and went out looking for a fight.

What ensued was that Nunez and three of his buddies encountered a group of 4 young males, with whom they picked a fight. The fight ensued and when it was over, one of the victims, Luis Dos Santos, was dead of stab wounds. Three other victims and at least one of the attackers also received cuts.

According to the complaint, Nunez and his friends hastened back to Sacramento. Within days, the San Diego cops arrived in town to conduct their investigation as they had already identified suspects, including Nunez. Interviews were conducted, and additional evidence was collected.

To make a long story short, Nunez and three others have been arrested this week and charged with murder. According to the complaint, one defendant told police that Nunez had made a statement to the group that he would take the rap if necessary because his father could get him off.

Fabian Nunez has come out with a statement describing the family's grief about their son and expressing confidence that he will eventually be cleared.

The complete affidavit in support of an arrest warrant referenced above can be read at:

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/12/03/21/declaration_in_support_of_arrest_warrant.sources.prod_affiliate.4.pdf

Rabbi Marvin Hier Speaks on Mumbai


Rabbi Marvin Hier


In response to the barbaric atrocity in Mumbai, Rabbi Marvin Hier, the founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center has made an angry speech this week in Westwood, California. It lasts 10 minutes. It can viewed on YouTube below.



I recommend everyone view this speech. Rabbi Hier minces no words. He says what CAIR will not say: that the attackers were Islamic fundamentalists who had no regard for human life. He demands that the UN make the problem of suicide terror a priority. Yet, knowing the failures of the UN, he derides their willingness to call special sessions over a myriad of lesser issues as they ignore what is the most serious issue facing the world today.

In addition, Hier also points out the culpability of Muslim imams who preach hatred to their congregations, hatred that leads to acts of barbarism like what occurred at Mumbai.

Hier also referred to the Holocaust and pointed out that the children of Jewish victims did not seek vengeance by blowing up hospitals, schools, restaurants and hotels in contrast to those who take out their grievances by killing innocents.

Ignoring the rules of political correctness, Rabbi Hier angrily compares the light that emanated out of the Chabad House in Mumbai and the goodness of Rabbi Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka with the ideology that spurred the killers. Hier closed with a vow that Jewish life will continue and prosper long after the ideology of the terrorists has been consigned to the dustbin of history, where it belongs.

Well spoken, Rabbi Hier.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Carona Trial- Joe Cavallo Takes the Stand


Witness Joe Cavallo- former attorney, former pal of former Sheriff Mike Carona


Yesterday, the biggest development in the federal corruption trial of ex-Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona was the fact that his co-defendant (and ex-mistress), Debra Hoffman was separated from the case. Her attorney, Silvia Torres-Guillen, made a motion that Hoffman be separated from Carona's trial on the grounds that if Carona did not testify in his own defense, she could not effectively cross-examine him in defense of her client. A valid legal point, but one wonders-as did the judge, Andrew Guilford, why didn't she bring it up before the trial started as it would have been a valid issue at that point.

At any rate, Hoffman left the defendant's table and took a place in the viewers' gallery a couple of seats from Carona's wife, Debbie, who will be tried later next year.

Today, following up on the testimony of ex-Carona friend and sleazebag Don Haidl, another ex-Carona pal and sleazebag, ex-attorney Joe Cavallo. took the witness stand to tell jurors how he arranged illegal campaign contributions to Carona's 1998 campaign for OC Sheriff. He also testified as to the relationship he had with Carona by which Sheriff Mike would refer cases to him-and get an under-the-table commission after the judgements were made.

I have previously described the shameful arrangement when OC Sheriff Brad Warner, who died from complications from a knee surgery, by which Carona persuaded his widow, who was in a hospital with cancer (she later died)to hire Cavallo to sue the hospital. According to the charges, Carona got part of the settlement as a "referral fee".

Cavallo also described another similar incident. He said Carona introduced him to the widow of Deputy Steve Parsons during a fundraiser near South Coast Plaza. Parsons died of severe brain injuries in June 2000 after a car ran a red light and struck him in Aliso Viejo. Cavallo testified that Carona introduced him as "the Sheriff's attorney". In the end, Cavallo never represented Parson's widow.

After sleazebag Cavallo finishes testifying, he will be followed by former Asst Sheriff and sleazebag, George Jaramillo.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Moshe Holtzberg


This is a picture of Moshe Holtzberg. He is two years old. If anyone from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) happens to be reading this post, I would like you to study this picture carefully. The same request goes out to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and all Muslim Student Association (MSA)chapters on our university campuses around the nation.

Do you know who this little boy is? Maybe you don't know. Maybe you don't care. After all, it is clear from his name that he is a Jew. Perhaps, you have been taught that he is no better than an ape or a pig. However, you all need to know something about this child. He is the son of Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg.

Do you know those names? Maybe not. They are two of the Jewish victims who were murdered by Islamic terrorists last week in Mumbai. Not just murdered, mind you. The Jewish victims were taken hostage at the Chabad House, bound, and tortured. Then as Indian commandos stormed in, they were murdered in cold blood. Little Moshe only escaped the same fate because a nanny managed to carry him to safety.

What kind of people tie up innocent victims, torture them and kill them in cold blood? Can any of you at CAIR explain why this happened? How about the ISNA or any of our myriad MSAs? Maybe you can explain to me why a Jewish center was chosen by Islamic terrorists in India.

Why? That is what millions of people around the world are asking in the wake of this barbarity. I am asking you. I know that ISNA and CAIR have put out generic statements condemning Mumbai-without mentioning anything about Islamic perpetrators or Jewish victims, by the way. If any MSA has put out a statement, I am not aware. At the University of California at Irvine, where I teach, the local MSU (which is a radical group)insists that they are not anti-Jewish-just anti-Zionist. Yet, this same organization invites speakers to campus like Imam Mohammed al-Asi, who has stated at UCI that, "Jews are low-life ghetto-dwellers" and "You can take a Jew out to the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of the Jew." My question to them is why Jews were singled out for murder in Mumbai. What in God's name did that have to do with fighting Zionism? Don't you ever imagine for a minute that the words of Imam al-Asi contribute to the mind-set that commits such horror?





While you are reading this, take another look at Moshe. Do you really believe that he is just a pig or an ape? Had he not been whisked to safety during the attack, would those Islamic terrorists have tortured and murdered him also? You bet they would have.

I would like to ask my Muslim readers if they were really taught that Jews (and Christians) were nothing more than pigs or apes. It is clear that many, if not most Muslims believe this or some shade thereof. Isn't this what young schoolchildren are taught in the madrassahs of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and who knows where else in the Muslim world? Isn't that also in the Qu'ran? Is it any surprise that when children are taught to hate in this manner, that they grow up to be barbaric killers of Jews? Isn't it really true that the whole dispute over Israel is not about land, rather about religion?

I know that you people at CAIR are very sensitive to the issue of Islamophobia-sensitive to the point of filing lawsuits whenever a Muslim is discriminated against or Islam is "disrespected" even while your co-religionists living in Europe threaten native people who "disrespect" Islam with death by beheading-in their own countries. But do you really wonder why so many people have become "Islamophobic", as you call it? Americans and Europeans were not brought up to fear or hate Muslims. Our school books didn't teach us that Muslims were this or that. No, Islamophobia has been created by your religious brethren who have carried out atrocity after atrocity after atrocity in the name of a God who is supposed to be the same God that I and Jews also worship.





Finally, I ask you to take one last look at Moshe. I hope you never forget his face. Think what he experienced last week in Mumbai. Think what he witnessed happening to his parents. How do you think this horrific experience will affect him as he grows up and goes through life? Maybe you don't care. Maybe you will consider him just another "Islamophobe".

Monday, December 1, 2008

CAIR Statement on Mumbai


Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR


For the past several days, I have been checking the website of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Today is the first time I have seen any mention of the events in Mumbai. The below post is dated November 27, so I could be in error as to exactly when this item appeared on the website.


"CAIR Condemns Mumbai Attacks
Posted 11/27/2008 12:44:00 PM

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/27/08) - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today condemned attacks on a number of sites in the Indian financial capital of Mumbai that left at least 100 people dead and many more injured.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also called for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages taken during the attacks. Witnesses say the attackers sought out American and British citizens.

SEE: Dozens Die in Mumbai Attacks (Washington Post)


In a statement, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said:

“We condemn these cowardly attacks and demand that all hostages taken by the attackers be released immediately and unconditionally. We offer sincere condolences to the loved ones of those killed or injured in these senseless and inexcusable acts of violence against innocent civilians. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens of all faiths in repudiating acts of terror wherever they take place and whomever they target.”

SEE: CAIR’s Anti-Terrorism Campaigns


The Washington-based group also asked the Indian government to protect all its citizens from the type of retaliatory attacks that have taken place following similar incidents in the recent past.

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

- END -

CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787


In addition, I have been checking other regional CAIR sites in Los Angeles, Chicago and Cincinnati. I have seen no other references to Mumbai. I have also checked a couple of Muslim Student Union sites (UC-Irvine and UCLA) and have seen nothing mentioned. Of course, there could be many other MSU sites at other universities that have spoken on the issue.

I do want to say something about the CAIR comment. First of all, it is right that they make some comment condemning what happened in Mumbai. CAIR's official position is that they condemn terrorism. What I find lacking is that CAIR feels the need to skirt around the fact that most terrorism in the world today is being carried out by Muslims and usually in the name of Islam. Note that the above statement makes no reference to the identity of the culprits. Were they Swedish extremists trying to gain the independence of Lapland? CAIR also makes no mention of the Jewish victims at Mumbai's Chabad House, who were obviously singled out by the Muslim attackers because they were Jewish.

CAIR does make a point, however, to urge Indian authorities to protect people from "retaliatory attacks". Yet, since CAIR neglected to mention the Muslim perpetrators, they also didn't specify which people should be protected from retaliatory attacks. Of course, they mean protecting Muslims in India from any such attacks. (I also hope Indian authorities will protect Indian Muslims from being attacked.)

It seems to me that CAIR walks a very careful line when it comes to this issue of Islamic terrorism. They will, of course, condemn acts of terror publicly. Yet, they will not come clean and acknowledge that Islam is afflicted with a cancer called hatred, intolerance and terrorism, a cancer that must be excised. They cannot publicly state that they are ashamed at the acts of Muslim killers who act in the name of Islam. Indeed, in browsing through a couple of Islamic blogs, what I see as a trend is condemnation of Mumbai but a refusal to be apologetic for Islam itself.

That is clearly understandable. When I read about the Inquisition, I condemn that in the strongest terms. It doesn't make me ashamed to be Christian because it happened centuries ago, and Christianity went through a Reformation. (I am Protestant.)

In contrast, Islamic terrorism is now, and it threatens everyone in the world today. It must be dealt with. Why is it that organizations like CAIR and so many Imams cannot openly confront the cancer? Is it because the cancer exists in the Qu'ran itself? Is it because to emulate the life of the Prophet Mohammed is to follow the path of Jihad?

CAIR, which likes to think of itself as the Muslim equivalent of the NAACP (maybe today's NAACP-certainly not the NAACP of the Civil Rights era), stands ready at a pin-drop to sue anybody who they think may have discriminated against a Muslim. Their websites are quick to publish any perceived slight or hate crime-real or made up (witness the recent Elmhurst College hoax). When Muslims are arrested in the US, CAIR can be counted upon to take the position that an injustice is being done. Their philosophy seems to be that they can litigate their way to acceptance by the American people in spite of the continuing scourge of Islamic terror. They are mistaken.

CAIR's statement on Mumbai is woefully insufficient. Instead of making generic statements about condemning terrorism in all its forms, CAIR and millions of Imams should be calling for a worldwide movement to call a halt to hatred toward Jews and other "non-believers". If that means re-evaluating certain passages in the Qu'ran or making some critical judgements about the Prophet Mohammed, or simply issuing Fatwahs to the effect that Islam needs to accommodate itself to a modern and diverse world, then so be it.

Of course, that will not happen. Instead, what we see is CAIR looking for the next "Islamophobe" to expose or drag into court while their allies at the United Nations try to pressure free democracies into taking away the right of free speech and outlawing any criticism or "defamation" of Islam.

Of course, CAIR itself is under suspicion in many quarters. The organization was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the recent Holy Land Foundation trial. If, as many charge, CAIR is linked to Hamas, then how far can you expect them to go in trying to "fight" Islamic terror?

Another UN Resolution


Is this the UN General Assembly?


On November 24, the UN General Assembly added to its legacy of uselessness with the infamous "Defamation of Religion" measure. The vote was 85 in favor, 50 against with 42 abstentions. The draft measure, which sounds great on the surface, calls on all nations to alter their legal and constitutional systems to ban "defamation of all religions". The problem is that the measure only refers to one religion being "defamed". That, of course, is Islam, which, according to the UN, "is frequently and wrongfully associated with human rights violations and terrorism." (like Mumbai, perhaps?)

The measure, which was sponsored by Muslim nations with the support of Belarus and Venezuela, has drawn protests from various human rights and legal groups. It seeks to force nations (including ours) to crack down on any criticism of Islam and any speech that links Islam to acts of terror. That is the intent. In reality, the UN and the sponsors of this resolution could care less about anyone criticizing Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism or Judaism (which to the UN of course is part of the whole racist problem anyway-they call it "Zionism".)

You might ask which nations voted for this resolution. Well, to begin with, the Islamic nations all voted in favor. Virtually all of the Western European nations abstained-being the moral cowards that they are. Most Latin American nations abstained with the notable exception of America's greatest Latin American ally, Colombia, which voted against. The US, Australia and Canada all voted against.

So what is the intent in this resolution by the UN? To silence those who speak out against Islamic terror, of course, but how specifically? What this means is that all free nations would turn their constitutions and laws upside down and prohibit any "defamation of Islam". Danish cartoons? Illegal. Geert Wilders' film about Islam entitled "Fitna"? Illegal. How about international arrest warrants issued for Wilders and the Danish cartoonist and his publishers?

You laugh.

Already, judges in places like Syria have issued arrest warrants for Danish cartoonists. Dutch authorities have been diplomatically requested to file charges against Wilders for blasphemy against Islam.

What about talk radio commentators who are already referred to by the left as "Hate Radio" and are threatened by the Fairness Doctrine that the Democrats in Congress want to impose? What about conservative bloggers, especially those who regularly write about the outrages of international terrorism, correctly identifying its perpetrators?

What about me?

Actually, I consider my language to be much more temperate than many when it comes to this issue. I doubt, however, that I could convince the talk police at the UN of my sincere intentions.

Have you heard the term, creeping Shariah? (you can even link from here to a blog by that name). That is precisely what this is. It is directed at the West-those nations like ours which defend freedom of speech-even when it is offensive.

I myself have spoken out many times about defamation of the Jewish religion and pointed out that the speakers are invariably Muslim speakers sponsored by the Muslim Student Union at the University of California at Irvine. I have never, however, called for the speakers to be arrested. What I have called for is that the leadership of the university follow up anti-Semitic hate speech with their own condemnation of such speech. I have also called for hate merchants to be re-directed from the university to a local park soapbox to conduct their discourse.

But for the UN to try and pass an international law aimed directly at those who speak out against Islamic terror and try to get free nations to throw out free speech altogether is just another concrete example of why the United States has no business being in this organization.

Obama's First Big Mistake-Hillary Clinton


Hillary Arrives at the State Department

"Mine are on the bottom. Bill's are on top."


Now that it's official, it's prediction time. Barack Obama will rue the day he appointed Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State. I have already mentioned the main reasons before, so no need to go into great detail here. Suffice to say, the last thing this position needs is someone with an agenda, especially one that is likely to be at odds with that of the President. Another thing that Obama doesn't need is a guy named Bill Clinton hovering in the background, especially with all of his questionable dealings with foreign governments and interests.

According to the Obama team, Bill has come clean with all of his financial dealings, something that others tried for 2 decades to get to the bottom of. Bill has also agreed to wear a leash when it comes to taking money for his library and foundation from foreign sources. I still feel there is an inherent conflict of interest here that will rear its ugly head soon after Hillary takes up residence at Foggy Bottom and starts engaging in critical diplomatic negotiations with some Middle East country (like the UAE or Saudi Arabia) that has poured millions into the Clinton bank accounts. Don't think for a minute that Israel will overlook such conflicts.

Still unanswered is what management qualifications Hillary brings to the job though obviously, there will be someone in the number two position to run the day-to-day operations at State while Hillary struts back and forth across the international stage. Probably, after four years, Joe Biden will dutifully step down and allow Her Majesty to rise to VP in preparation for a 2016 accession to the White House-even at age 68.

As I said before, I still smell a back-room deal here-quite unseemly for a position as vital as this.