The Phoenix Rape Case

There is a very disturbing story out of Phoenix this week involving that city's immigrant Liberian community. Four young Liberian boys between the ages of 9-14 are charged with gang raping an 8-year-old Liberian girl. The alledgedly enticed her into a vacant shed on July 16 with promises of chewing gum when thay attacked her. Witnesses saw the girl running and screaming from the scene with her clothes half-torn off. That is the first part of the story. What is really shocking is the response of the girl's family. They are refusing to take her back.

The father has told authorities he does not want to take the girl back because she has stained "the family's honor." The girl's 23-year-old sister is quoted in newspaper accounts as saying that she hoped the boys would be released because "they are from our (Liberian) community." As a result, the girl is thankfully in Child Protective Services custody.

Of course, we know that in certain parts of the world, this is nothing new. It is apparently true in Liberia, where rape is a common offense. According to varying sources, 50-75% of Liberian women have experienced rape, and it is only in recent years that rape is being treated as a criminal offense.

Before going any farther, let's clear one thing up. There is no mention of the family's religion. So this is not an exercise in Muslim-bashing. The Muslim population of Liberia is about 20%. What I am driving at here is a question of culture and values, and I am about to get very politically incorrect.

Without trying to paint a brush over the entire Liberian immigrant community, my question is this: While I understand the humanitarian angle of refugee resettlement, why are we actively bringing people here as refugees if they hold customs, values and beliefs that are so antiethical to ours? The Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration is involved in assisting tens of thousands of people from war-torn countries like Liberia and Somalia resettle into the US (and other countries) without any apparent regard as to how they may or may not assimilate into American culture. Once here, these immigrants receive assistance from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement. As I have said many times, I welcome immigration. I think it is a positive thing, but it must also come with assimilation. What gain do we achieve by importing thousands of people into a free and open society who think rape is OK and a mark of shame for the victim upon her family-who must now disown her?

I say folks like that need to stay in Liberia.

While I am on the subject, I would like to say a few words about the Somalis. Again, our State Department has brought about 80,000 Somalis into the US and dumped many of them in Minneapolis. Again, I don't want to paint the entire Somali immigrant community with the same wide brush-but- we've been hearing about these folks for a few years now:

Somali cab drivers who refuse to take passengers carrying alcohol.

Somali grocery check-out cashiers who refuse to check out customers purchasing pork.

Somali meat-packing plant workers in Greeley, Colorado engaged in conflict with their bosses and co-workers over having breaks for prayer time. (Granted, that seems like an issue that could be settled amicably, but such has not been the case.)

And now, we read about Somalis disappearing from the Minneapolis area and joining the jihad. Some thanks to the US for bringing them here as refugees.

Nevertheless, Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) wants to find a way to "bring them home so they can rejoin their families and integrate into American society." I say bull! They had their chance. Let them be killed wherever they are or brought back in handcuffs.

Here's the point: While I am sure some members of these communities will integrate and make a contribution, why are we importing so many obvious problems? That Liberian family in Arizona has no business in this country. In addition, it doesn't appear that we are getting much bang for our buck with the Somalis either. Besides, while we have historic ties to Liberia, which was founded by freed American slaves, what do we owe the Somalis? Isn't that the place we went to feed starving people and wound up with Blackhawk down?

And let me give a couple of other examples that are more politically-correct, just to calm down you libs. When we opened the doors to Russians being let out of the old Soviet Union, we got a lot of bad guys in the process; perhaps, you have heard of the Russian Mafia-or the Israeli Mafia, for that matter. We screwed up letting many bad apples into the country then.

I realize I will be called jingoistic or worse for pointing out these issues, but so be it. We need to use common sense in deciding who comes here and who doesn't. This is not a matter of skin color, religion or nationality. It is a question of values. This is where the great vaunted Multi-culturalism runs into a brick wall. Nobody cares about your native dances, food, or how you celebrate marriages or birthdays. But if you think rape is OK and want to disown your 8-year-old daughter for "dishonoring" your family by being raped-there is no place for you here. Period.

Pro-Palestinian Deshelving Vandalism at Trader Joe's

I wrote recently about the recent effort by a bunch of San Francisco Bay Area loons to intimidate Trader Joe's from carrying Israeli products. Fortunately, the effort fizzled and Trader Joe's and their Israeli products got an upsurge in sales.

Above is a video made June 20, at a Bay Area Trader Joe's.

So who are these yahoos with too much time on their hands who think they can bully and intimidate people? As I previously identified them, they are called the South Bay Mobilization.

Another "organization" is the anti-Israel Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDC). Take a look at them in the video. These are not 18-20-somethings. These are "grown-ups" and middle aged folks, probably academic types or just plain left-wing radicals looking for a cause du jour.

Many of these same yahoos are presently involved in the showing of the film, "Rachel" at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival this week-end. (See my previous post.)

As for Trader Joes, they will undoubtedly be subjected to more harassment since they have chosen to stand up to the bullies. So don't forget to support this store-and don't forget to pick up a few Israeli products while you're there.

San Francisco Jewish Film Festival Showing Anti-Israel Film

The below article is cross-posted from Frontpage Magazine and is written by Jamie Glazov. This weekend, the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival is featuring a film entitled; "Rachel", a film about Rachel Corrie, a Jewish-American activist with the International Solidarity Movement, an anti-Israel organization. Corrie was killed a few years ago in Gaza when she stood in front of a bulldozer that was trying to take down a house belonging to suspected terrorists. The film will be accompanied by a talk by Corrie's mother, Cindy Corrie, who, along with her husband, have continued their daughter's anti-Israel mission by lobbying and speaking against Israel-though the Corrie family is Jewish. The film and Mrs Corrie's appearance have been strongly opposed by various pro-Israel/Jewish voices.

With all due respect to the Corrie's, who appeared a couple of years ago at my university (UC-Irvine-sponsored by the Muslim Student Union), I feel that they are allowing themselves to be exploited by organizations like the MSU, who also sponsor radical speakers at UCI who are not only anti-Israel, but anti-American and anti-Jewish as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By: Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, July 23, 2009

Why is a Jewish film festival giving a platform to a documentary and to an individual that serve the cause of anti-Jewish hate?

"This Saturday, July 25, organizers of the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival plan to show “Rachel,” an anti-Israel propaganda film. The documentary is based on the life and death of Rachel Corrie, an anti-Israel, anti-American activist who was killed in Gaza in 2003 when she deliberately ran in front of an Israeli bulldozer to protect a home that was sheltering terrorists. And not just content with showing the propaganda film, the organizers have invited Rachel’s mother, Cindy Corrie, also an Israel-basher, to speak at the screening and to participate in a question-and-answer session after the viewing.

A closer look at who Rachel Corrie was – and what she represented – demonstrates why this event is such an outrage:


A native of Olympia, Washington, Corrie was a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a viciously anti-Israel organization that calls and works for the destruction of the Jewish state. The radical organization recruits activists to travel to the Palestinian territories to obstruct Israeli security operations. The activists intentionally put themselves in harm’s way to hamper Israeli soldiers in their efforts to fight Palestinian terrorists.


That is precisely how Corrie met her death. The twenty-three year old activist was fatally crushed in March 2003 when she tried to obstruct the path of an Israeli bulldozer that was preparing to demolish the house in Rafah where she was lodging.


Like her ISM colleagues, Corrie was knowingly abetting terrorists. A few months earlier, for instance, when Palestinian militants seized the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, it was ISMers who smuggled food to them.


Many of the homes in Rafah rested atop a network of ninety tunnels that were used by terrorists for smuggling rockets and other weapons from the Egyptian border to Rafah. It was impossible for Corrie and her ISM comrades to have lived in Rafah and not witness the activity connected with these tunnels.


That is why the bulldozer was in operation: The Israelis were trying to interrupt this tunnel activity. The rockets that have been, and are, fired into Israeli towns from Gaza are smuggled in this process. They are tunnelled into places like Rafah, under houses just like the one Corrie was defending.


Like so many fellow travellers of totalitarian death cults, Corrie was ever ready to give her life for “the cause.” She deliberately stood in front of the Israeli bulldozer and made herself a poster child for the leftist pursuit of martyrdom. She sacrificed her life to keep open tunnels that supplied terrorists with the means to kill Israeli civilians. And that is why Israeli professor and journalist Steven Plaut has legitimately called Corrie’s death a suicide.


One would know little of this from the film that will be shown in San Francisco this weekend. “Rachel,” directed by Simone Bitton, gives a sympathetic portrait of this terror-abettor and of her anti-Israel cause.


That portrait will be further embellished by Rachel’s mom Cindy Corrie, who will be speaking and fielding questions in the post-viewing session. Cindy Corrie is the founder of the Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice, a pro-Palestinian group that promotes the world-view of her daughter. Given her own background, it’s unlikely that Corrie will provide an objective presentation of her daughter’s life.

It is no surprise, however, that the Jewish Film Festival is giving a platform to those who hate Israel and who make every effort to help the forces who seek to destroy it. After all, two stridently anti-Israel groups, The Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) are listed as co-presenters on the website of the Festival’s Board of Directors. They support boycotts, divestment and sanctions against the Jewish State and they are closely associated with the ISM and other terror-allied organizations.

The JVP's Advisory Board, for instance, includes Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein. Chomsky is an infamous Israel-hater and has distinguished himself best by his travels to Lebanon to personally embrace the leaders of Hezbollah. Klein, meanwhile, put herself on the map in her 2004 column in The Nation, “Bring Najaf to New York,” in which she reached her hand out in solidarity to Muqtada al-Sadr and his Islamofascist Mahdi Army in the Iraqi Shi’ite stronghold of Najaf.

What’s next for the Jewish Film Festival? Screenings of Nazi and Islamist propaganda films? Holocaust Denial documentaries? Speeches and question-and-answer sessions by Hamas, Hezbollah and Muslim Brotherhood representatives? It’s impossible to rule it out.

A Jewish film festival worth its name might be expected to feature films that show the suffering of innocent Israelis at the hands of their tormentors and killers. At a minimum, it would expose the Rachel Corries of the world for the terrorist abettors they are. Directly complicit in the brutal deaths of Jewish civilians killed by Palestinian terror, Rachel Corrie will always have blood on her hands. Now, in a dark irony, Jewish civilians will be showing a film in her honor.

Editors' note: Jamie Glazov dissects the phenomenon of leftist Jews’ dalliance with Islamic terror in his new book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fousesquawk comment; All I can add is that during my time trying to expose the anti-Semitism that has arisen out of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, it never ceases to amaze me how fragmented the Jewish community is. In my view, if one group needs to come together, it is the Jews. They are faced with a resurgence of anti-Semitism and a force that wants to wipe them off the face of the earth. I don't expect all Jews to blindly endorse everything Israel does, but they do need to recognize the reality of those seeking Israel's destruction and that there is an anti-Jewish undertone to it as well.

Celebrity Endorsements- Henry Louis Gates for Brinks Home Security

Brinks gets their man


This is Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates (PHD) for Brinks Home Security. You've seen Brinks' commercials on TV, you know, the ones with all those pasty-faced white home invaders that are running loose in our neighborhoods. Well, here's the solution-Brinks Home Security. Let me tell you of a recent experience I had as a happy Brinks customer.

Just a few days ago, I was home after just having arrived from an overseas trip. Unfortunately, the door was jammed, so I had to break in. But Brinks was on the job. Within seconds-thanks to Brinks-and some white lady who happened to be my neighbor and called the cops, the police showed up. Of course, I assured the officer that there was no problem, that he was a racist, and what I was gonna do with his mama, at which point, he resolved the problem and arrested the bad guy.

(Me.)

Heh, heh, Well, it was just a practice run, you know-to see if Brinks was on the job-and they were. Now, all thanks to Brinks and that racist white cop, I am a celebrity and no less than the President of the United States, my pal, Barack Obama, is talking about me on prime time.

So if you want home security and instantaneous response time in the event of a break-in, you need to get set up with Brinks Home Security.

Tell 'em me and the white lady sent you.

Comedian Robert Gibbs "Clarifies" Obama's Remarks

"The President never called the Cambridge police stupid."


This morning on Air Force One, White House Court Jester (and part-time press spokesman) Robert Gibbs tried to explain to reporters why President Obama never called Cambridge, Massachusetts Police "stupid" for arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Here is the transcript below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q: Robert, some people thought it was a little unusual that the president waded into the matter between professor Gates and the Cambridge police -- a little uncharacteristic of him -- when the facts are in dispute. You know, this is the sort of thing he might ordinarily say, I don't -- you know, I don't know all the facts. Why do you . . .

Gibbs: Well, he did; let's go through what he did say, because he did say, one, professor Gates was a friend of his. He did say he didn't have all the facts. I think we've all read in the newspaper at least a baseline of fact that the president outlined first by saying you have an unidentified individual who jimmies open a door of a house, the police are called based on that, the police respond, which you would expect a series of those events to transpire like that.

I think what the president ultimately talked about was obviously there was a point at which, inside of the house, both parties involved, probably recognizing that the situation originally responded to wasn't what was actually happening, in terms of a crime being committed, and at that point -- at that point cooler heads on all sides should have prevailed. I think that's what the president was denoting in the ultimate arrest and the since dropping of those charges.

Q: Why do you think he wanted to weigh in on this, though? He obviously . . .

Gibbs: I appreciate your -- I appreciate the ability at nationally televised news conferences to pass on questions like it was a game show. But I haven't been afforded that -- I don't think the president has been afforded those possibilities before. But I will certainly pass along your suggestion.

Q: But he did go so far as to say that the police behaved "stupidly."

Gibbs: Well, again, I think -- again, as I just said, I think there's a point in this where it becomes clear that the situation as it was originally called in is not the current situation, right? At some point it becomes clear that the individual in the house owns the house.

And I think that's -- at that point, cooler heads likely should have prevailed on both sides.

Q: Robert, does the president feel that he, ever in his life, has been a victim of racial profiling -- pulled over, questioned for no obvious reason?

Gibbs: Let me check. I think there -- I think he mentions in his book an instance where that happens.

Q: Has the president . . .

Gibbs: And I know he certainly -- you know, I think he's mentioned, you know, being at the front of a restaurant where somebody hands him the keys to go get a car.

Q: That's a little different from a police action to . . .

Gibbs: Right, I don't know if he's ever felt; let me double-check on that.

Q: There was a Chicago Tribune story from 2003 that suggests that he did feel that way, but it didn't have any details.

Gibbs: I recall that, and obviously -- you know, again, I think the president also touched on the fact that working with all involved -- communities, police, and all stakeholders -- on legislation to develop a series of statistics that would allow the state of Illinois to evaluate what was going on and how best to address it -- again, I think, the important thing (is) working with all of those involved.

Q: Can I just ask you to clarify one quick thing that he said last night? When he was talking about "I would get shot trying to, you know, break into the house," he was talking about the White House or was he talking about his home in Chicago?

Gibbs: I assume he was talking about the White House. And as I said to him afterwards, having looked at a couple of them, the only people apparently not laughing at that joke were the Secret Service, at that point which, we were standing (next) to one of the guys from the Secret Service, and he laughed. So I think he was . . .

Q: He wasn't talking about Chicago or the Chicago police, is what I . . .

Gibbs: No, no, no. I think he was talking about the White House.

Q: Has the president spoken to professor Gates at all?

Gibbs: Not that I'm aware of, no.

Q: Has anybody from the White House reached out to him?

Gibbs: Not that I'm aware of. Not that I'm aware of.

Q: And when you say that cooler heads should have prevailed on all sides, you're saying professor Gates should have also handled it differently?

Gibbs: Well, look, again, I wasn't there; the president wasn't there. I think at some point, again, you have a situation that is not as it -- as not as it was called in. I think when somebody -- I think being arrested in your own home for being in your home -- I think the fact that those charges have been dropped denote that there clearly was a point at which this got far out of -- far out of control.

Q: But does he regret his use of language in saying "acting stupidly," because online polls show lots of people of Massachusetts were disappointed that he used those words while acknowledging that he wasn't in full possession of the facts.

Gibbs: Again, I think if you look at the fact that a situation got as far out of control at a certain point as it did underscores the fact that things were going in a direction that neither wanted it to go in.

After a series of questions about the timing of health care reform legislation on Capitol Hill, a reporter asked a final question about the incident.

Q: Robert, just to be clear, the president doesn't regret the language or his statement last night?

Gibbs: No, I think the president -- again, I think the president was clear in, again, denoting that at a certain point -- let me be clear. He was not calling the officers stupid, OK? He was ensuring -- I think, again, denoting that at a certain point the situation got far out of hand, and I think all sides understand that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shall we go to the tape, Bob?

Oh, I got it, Bob. You see, Obama used an adverb ("stupidly"). He never called the cops "stupid", which is an adjective. I know that because I'm an English teacher. Therefore, the President comes down squarely in the middle of this issue-fair and balanced.

How much do they pay this guy Gibbs?

The Gates Police Report

Did he really say......“Yeah, I’ll speak with your mama outside”?


The Cambridge, Massachusetts Police Department report on the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates is now on the Internet. Interestingly, the Boston Globe first put it on its blog-then mysteriously removed it. Here are excerpts from Officer James Crowley's report, which, if accurate, would paint an embarrassing account of Gates' actions leading to his arrest.

*The reason I am posting an excerted version is because the full version is on pdf, and I am too incompetent to paste pdf articles. (I'm still learning on the computer.) It appears there is some controversy with some blogs posting and removing or excerting the report. A full version, along with appropriate redactions -marked here as ()-may be found at Smoking Gun and the Drudge Report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the narrative of Sgt James Crowley of the incident from the official police report.

"On Thursday July 16, 2009, Henry Gates, Jr. - -, of Ware Street, Cambridge, MA) was placed under arrest at Ware Street, after being observed exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior, in a public place, directed at a uniformed police officer who was present investigating a report of a crime in progress. These actions on the behalf of Gates served no legitimate purpose and caused citizens passing by this location to stop and take notice while appearing surprised and alarmed.

...When I arrived at Ware Street I radioed ECC and asked that they have the caller meet me at the front door to this residence. I was told that the caller was already outside. As I was getting this information, I climbed the porch stairs toward the front door. As [reached the door, a female voice called out to me. I looked in the direction of the voice and observed a white female, later identified {} who was standing on the sidewalk in front of the residence, held a wireless telephone in her hand arid told me that it was she who called. She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of• Ware Street. She told me that her suspicions were aroused when she observed one of the men wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry. Since I was the only police officer on location and had my back to the front door as I spoke with her, I asked that she wait for other responding officers while I investigated further.

As I turned and faced the door, I could see an older black male standing in the foyer of {} Ware Street. I made this observation through the glass paned front door. As I stood in plain view of this man, later identified as Gates, I asked if he would step out onto the porch and speak with me. He replied “no I will not”. He then demanded to know who I was. I told him that I was “Sgt. Crowley from the Cambridge Police” and that I was “investigating a report of a break in progress” at the residence. While I was making this statement, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed “why, because I’m a black man in America?”. I then asked Gates if there was anyone else in the residence. While yelling, he told me that it was none of my business and accused me of being a racist police officer. I assured Gates that I was responding to a citizen’s call to the Cambridge Police and that the caller was outside as we spoke. Gates seemed to ignore me and picked up a cordless telephone and dialed an unknown telephone number. As he did so, I radioed on channel I that I was off in the residence with someone who appeared to be a resident but very uncooperative. I then overheard Gates asking the person on the other end of his telephone call to “get the chief’ and “whats the chiefs name?’. Gates was telling the person on the other end of the call that he was dealing with a racist police officer in his home. Gates then turned to me and told me that I had no idea who I was “messing” with and that I had not heard the last of it. While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me. I asked Gates to provide me with photo identification so that I could verify that he resided at Ware Street and so that I could radio my findings to ECC. Gates initially refused, demanding that I show him identification but then did supply me with a Harvard University identification card. Upon learning that Gates was affiliated with Harvard, I radioed and requested the presence of the Harvard University Police.

With the Harvard University identification in hand, I radioed my findings to ECC on channel two and prepared to leave. Gates again asked for my name which I began to provide. Gates began to yell over my spoken words by accusing me of being a racist police officer and leveling threats that he wasn’t someone to mess with. At some point during this exchange, I became aware that Off. Carlos Figueroa was standing behind me. When Gates asked a third time for my name, I explained to him that I had provided it at his request two separate times. Gates continued to yell at me. I told Gates that I was leaving his residence and that if he had any other questions regarding the matter, I would speak with him outside of the residence.

As I began walking through the foyer toward the front door, I could hear Gates again demanding my name. I again told Gates that I would speak with him outside. My reason for wanting to leave the residence was that Gates was yelling very loud and the acoustics of the kitchen and foyer were making it difficult for me to transmit pertinent information to ECC or other responding units. His reply was “ya, I’ll speak with your mama outside”. When I left the residence, I noted that there were several Cambridge and Harvard University police officers assembled on the sidewalk in front of the residence. Additionally, the caller, md at least seven unidentified passers-by were looking in the direction of Gates, who had followed me outside of the residence.

As I descended the stairs to the sidewalk, Gates continued to yell at me, accusing me of racial bias and continued to tell me that I had not heard the last of him. Due to the tumultuous manner Gates had exhibited in his residence as well as his continued tumultuous behavior outside the residence, in view of the public, I warned Gates that he was becoming disorderly. Gates ignored my warning and continued to yell, which drew the attention of both the police officers and citizens, who appeared surprised and alarmed by Gates’s outburst. For a second time I warned Gates to calm down while I withdrew my department issued handcuffs from their carrying case. Gates again ignored my warning and continued to yell at me. It was at this time that I informed Gates that he was under arrest. I then stepped up the stairs, onto the porch and attempted to place handcuffs on Gates. Gates initially resisted my attempt to handcuff him, yelling that he was “disabled” and would fall without his cane. After the handcuffs were property applied, Gates complained that they were too tight. I ordered Off. Ivey, who was among the responding officers, to handcuff Gates with his arms in front of him for his comfort while I secured a cane for Gates from within the residence. I then asked Gates if he would like an officer to take possession of his house key and secure his front door, which he left wide open. Gates told me that the door was un securable due to a previous break attempt at the residence. Shortly thereafter, a Harvard University maintenance person arrived on scene and appeared familiar with Gates. I asked Gates if he was comfortable with this Harvard University maintenance person securing his residence. He told me that he was."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I stress that this is from the Cambridge PD report. If it is accurate, President Obama might want to reconsider his remarks as to who "acted stupidly".

The Henry Louis Gates Incident

Professor Henry Louis Gates- A victim of racist cops?

I was going to pass on commenting on the Henry Louis Gates incident in Cambridge this week because I was not familiar with Gates and felt that I didn't really know the facts well enough to come to a conclusion. Last night, however, President Obama did come to a conclusion, which I feel was a mistake on his part.

Professor Gates of Harvard University was arrested this week when police answered a neighbor's call to a residence Gates was renting. It seems that Gates was returning from an overseas trip and his door was jammed, so he had to break the door, jimmy the lock, or whatever. At any rate, a neighbor apparently called the cops suspecting a break-in might be taking place.

As the story goes, when police arrived to investigate, Gates was already in his house and police asked to check his ID. According to the police report, Gates became verbally abusive and tumultuous, accusing the police of checking him out because he was a "black man in America". The exchange reportedly continued outside in view of neighbors, and at some point, Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct, a charge that has now been dropped.

Now the incident has become a cause celebre with academics and the mainstream media taking up Gates' side of the incident. CNN has reported it under their "Black in America" series on their website. The mayor of Cambridge has apologized to Gates, who is still claiming he was a victim of racial profiling and is demanding an apology from the responding officer, James Crowley. Crowley has publicly defended his actions and says no apology is warranted. By the way, take a close look at the photo of Gates in handcuffs. One of the arresting officers is black.

But now the President has weighed in. Asked about the incident by a reporter during his news conference last night, Obama admitted he had a certain bias since he and Gates are friends, then opined that the police "acted stupidly". He also left out any mention of Gates acting in a disorderly manner-only that after he identified himself, he was arrested.

So while admitting my own bias (I am retired from law enforcement), I will give a couple of opinions-again emphasizing that I was not there. First of all, the police had a duty to respond to the call and investigate to ensure that there was no break-in. They thus, had a duty to ask for Gates' ID and ascertain he was indeed the occupant of that property. So what was it that officer Crowley did or said that set Gates off? Did he pull a gun and throw Gates against the wall? No mention of that. Did he call Gates a racial epithet? No mention of that. From what I have read, Crowley's offense was checking Gates (a black man) out at what turned out to be his own place of residence, at which point, Gates launched a tirade.

The bottom line is this: when confronted by the police, you should cooperate, identify yourself and answer the questions. This incident surely could have been resolved quickly and amicably if all parties acted like adults. It appears that Gates became unruly because the police had come to his residence to check him out-because he was black-in his opinion.

Now can some cops be over-aggressive and act like jerks? Sure. If that is the case, you should simply follow the commands, and, if the cop is in the wrong, take down his/her name and badge number and lodge a complaint. If Gates chose to create a larger incident out of the one that already existed, shame on him.

President Obama last night raised the issue of the disproportionate stops of blacks and Latinos by police. Without going into the disproportionate crime rates, let's put that in some perspective. If cops are assigned to a predominantly black or Hispanic precinct, such as exists in Los Angeles or other major cities, virtually everybody they stop will be a minority. That is a simple fact. For example, stops by LAPD in East LA are invariably of Latins. Does that make them guilty of racial profiling? In some peoples' eyes, yes, but not in mine. (I assume the Gates incident was not in a minority neighborhood.)

What if the cops had not responded to the call, and it turned out that there was indeed a break-in or home invasion in progress? Who would be held responsible if someone, like Gates, wound up dead-the victim of a violent crime? Wouldn't the cops be guilty of gross negligence? Of course they would.

I suppose it all comes down to who said what to whom that exacerbated the situation. Maybe Officer Crowley did say something improper that angered Gates. So far, I have not heard it. It would have to be something more than Gates was checked out at his home and happened to be black. The impression that I am left with-at this point-is that Gates had a chip on his shoulder and acted like a jerk. Maybe I am being just as biased as President Obama in coming to a conclusion, but I am not the President of the United States. It may turn out that Obama owes the Cambridge police an apology.

Obama Fails to Sell Health Care

"See if you can hit this one, Mr President."


To borrow the old baseball metaphor that Washington types love to use, the President needed to hit a home run tonight in his health care press conference. The White House press corps did their best to help by lobbing up a bunch of inane softballs. Nevertheless, the President hit one foul ball after another.

I think the toughest (and most pertinent) question of the night was when one reporter asked, "What's the rush?" The President disingenuously explained that he keeps getting letters from private citizens about their health problems and that deadlines are necessary to get things done in Washington.

Of course, everyone knows that the real reason is because as more and more Americans learn more details about this plan, the fewer are in favor of it. The numbers are dropping rapidly, just like Obama's approval ratings. Already over 50% of the public has decided this is not such a good idea.

Obam's long winded answers drifted off into minutia that could hardly have succeeded in holding the viewer's attention, and that is exactly the problem. This plan consists of over 1,000 pages of minutia, and common sense says that in any venture that will have such a profound effect on our economy and society, time and scrutiny are what is demanded-just what Obama doesn't want.

One wonders why the vaunted White House press corps can't ask the same pointed questions that Obama got from a blogger this week about one feature of the House bill-that the president was not aware of and could not answer. Or why Obama couldn't get the same question that a member of a town hall meeting in Missouri threw up at hapless Congressman Russ Carnahan (D-MO):

"If it's so good, why doesn't Congress have to be in it?"

Or even the question from a young man in Maryland who pin-pointed Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) about why he would be fined $2,500 every year he didn't have health insurance.

How come nobody asked the President about the testimony this past week of Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, which refuted the administration's claims about the cost of the health care plan?

The sad fact is that Obama's minions are taking more heat from their common constituents than Obama gets from his fawning White House press corps.

To stop the public opinion slide, Obama needed to do something big tonight and explain in clear terms why Americans need this health care plan of his. In that, he failed, not because he committed a major blooper, but because he just did not rise to the occasion. Even MSNBC's Howard Fineman had to break it to a disappointed left-wing commentator Rachel Maddow on her show that Obama looked tired and missed an important opportunity. In the end, it was Obama's own fault. He sure can't complain about the pitches.

DEA Houston Raids Conrad Murray's Office-Where is Maxine Waters?

Conrad Murray


Maxine Waters


The Houston office of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and local police have raided the local office of Michael Jackson's doctor Conrad Murray this week. Undoubtedly, they are going through records that may help them prosecute the doctor. What DEA is looking for would be records as to Murray's prescriptions for various medications for Jackson. What is at the core for DEA is Murray's handling, prescribing or dispensing of controlled substances and whether he was acting within the legitimate doctor-patient relationship in providing Jackson with drugs.

The raid brings to memory another case in which DEA's Houston office was involved in in 1999. That involved an investigation into rap producer James Prince for alleged drug trafficking. Prince, however, was an old pal of the husband of Maxine Waters, congresswoman from California.

Notwithstanding the fact that Waters had no jurisdiction or constituency in Texas, she intervened in the case and summoned DEA officials to her office to "explain" their actions against Prince. The long and the short of it was that DEA shut down the case and transferred the lead agent to Washington. (See my posting entitled; The hypocrisy of Maxine Waters".)

So who knows? Perhaps, the race-hustling congresswoman from California will once again enter the fray and demand to know what DEA agents in Houston, Texas are up to. After all, what's a circus without Maxine Waters?

Selling The Health Care Plan

With President Obama now calling for a press conference to try and sell his case for the health care package to the American public, he might want to take a look at the below videos where his Democratic allies are having a tough time before hostile town hall meetings.

Here's Missouri Congressman Russ Carnahan (D-MO) trying to sell health care reform at a town hall meeting in Missouri.



And here is Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) at a town hall meeting in Largo, Maryland Monday:

"We're at the first stages of the discussion of health care reform," Cardin said.

(Really? But Obama wants this passed yesterday.)

Perhaps the most confrontational question came from Robert Broadus of Clinton, Maryland:

"I decided not to get the health insurance. That's working out for me because I'm able to save that extra money and give it to my family members and use it on myself. Senator Cardin, I want to know are you going to tell me an individual...that I have to buy health care or else you're going to fine me $2,500 every year I don't get it? Our founding fathers assured us we have a Bill of Rights and I want to see you uphold that,"

Cardin's response?

"You don't pay. You are part of the population that shifts its costs over to a person who does pay, and they're paying for you," Cardin said.

"I just think the overriding public interest is to require you and everyone in this country to have health insurance," Cardin said.

Actually, Cardin's response is not 100% accurate. Uninsured patients do get hospital bills and hospitals and doctors do take measures to get payment. Bills can also be negotiated with payment plans. It seems to me the real problem lies with many illegal aliens in places like California who flood emergency rooms for minor ailments because they don't have family doctors. That is something of another problem.


And here in New Orleans is Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sibelius, whose most notable feat as governor of Kansas was shutting down the state attorney general's investigation of late-term abortion doctor George Tiller:


It appears that the public's attention is now riveted on health care reform, and they don't like what they see. Over 50% now, according to the polls, don't want the plan. That number can only rise as time passes and more details come out on this monstrosity. That's why Obama wants this deal done ASAP.

That in itself is sufficient argument against the plan. Something this detailed and all-encompassing, a bill that consists of over 1,000 pages, which no one in Congress has fully read, at the very least, should be carefully scrutinized. To rush this thing through passage reeks of a con game.

See What Hillary Brought Back From India

Hillary Clinton went to India this week with a lot on her shopping list. This is what she came back with.







All in all, a most sucessful trip, I'd say. (She picked up the last item for me.)

Joe Biden in Ukraine

"I gotta bring Obama here!"

"All for you, Joe. Let's drink a toast to Ukraine's beautiful women."


Joe Biden's comment in a Kiev pub Tuesday to Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko about Ukraine's beautiful women reminds me of a couple of things, one of which being my own two trips to Kiev in the 1990s to put on a DEA training seminar. It is true, as Biden says, that there are many beautiful women in Ukraine.

The other story involved my former group-supervisor in Bangkok (God rest his soul), who back in the late 1970s, was attending a diplomatic function in Chiang Mai, which also happened to be attended by the Thai prime minister. Fred (my ex-boss) was a heavy drinker, and when the prime minsiter arrived, Fred was already in his cups and engaged him in conversation, much to the consternation of the American ambassador. As the story goes, Fred told the prime minister repeatedly how much he loved Thailand. Then he informed the PM that what he loved most was, "your whiskey and your women."

The ambassador almost had a heart attack and told DEA officials at the party to keep Fred away from the PM the rest of the evening.

What surprised me was the video of Joe Biden drinking Coca Cola at the pub in Ukraine. Usually, the Ukrainian hosts are trying to get you loaded up on vodka. Thank God, Joe was drinking coke instead of vodka. God only knows what he would have said.

And please don't send Joe to Thailand.