THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

I will not be dealing with the resignation of Dennis Blair today. It is very important, but I want to wait until more facts come in. It would be easy…and irresponsible…to lambaste the president on this one until we know more.

Besides, an event over a week ago is on my mind.

Better late than never, for the event itself and my reporting of it.

The hacker got shellacked.

Now shackle the hacker’s feet and hack the hacker’s hands off.

Obstruction of Justice: Guilty

Unauthorized access to a computer: Guilty

Wire fraud: Not guilty

Identity theft: Deadlocked.

The jury had four charges to contemplate against 22 year old leftist criminal Mr. Cornell. They obviously deliberated very carefully and thoughtfully, given the split verdict.

Finally, a leftist monster gets punished.

This was not a college prank. A leftist thug hacked into Sarah Palin’s private personal email account and disseminated her emails.

This was a white collar equivalent of rape.

I say this kid should have his own emails violated in prison, and those emails should be located under his clothing. Maybe his keyboard can be shoved up his (redacted).

No, leftist apologists. Both sides don’t do it.

Conservatives do not key cars or steal lawn signs. Conservatives do not run over liberal politicians with their cars as a liberal did to Katherine Harris.

The left is so desperate for moral equivalence that they are manufacturing violence against them. They are carrying hateful signs to tea parties and pretending to be tea party attendees, so desperate are they for their self-described narrative to be true.

In the name of peace and tolerance they threw bottles at a rally in Arizona. In California, they defiled churches.

Both of these occurrences were because they did not like a democratically elected law that was passed.

Conservatives are the party of laws. Liberals are the party of fairness. If something is unfair, they feel justified to break the law.

Being a conservative makes one evil. Therefore, the ends justify the means. Had the hacker found a racist email or something along those lines, he would be a hero.

He is not being abandoned by the left for committing crimes. He is being hung out to dry for failing to bring her down.

Some will say that the system worked because he was convicted.

No it didn’t.

Sarah Palin cannot get the privacy of her emails back. Like a rape victim, she will be looking over her shoulder forever. Nobody on the left will consider her feelings because in leftyworld, she has none.

I want to know who else encouraged this kid. He did not act in a vacuum.

Did a college professor help him? His father is a liberal fat cat. Who else was involved?

Most importantly, will one leftist scumbag have the decency to condemn this kid?

Of course not. He is a symptom of a much larger disease.

Also, why is this not a hate crime? He is a liberal who hates conservatives. We know this. He acted because he hated Palin. Why does she not get covered under hate crimes laws?

Does anybody think this would be tolerated if Barack Obama had his email hacked?

Of course not. Halliburton would be audited the next day until they gave up Dick Cheney.

Yes, Sarah Palin got a small belated slice of justice.

It is not enough.

A pound of flesh needs to come out of every liberal bully that contributed to this kid being the way he is.

Monsters are not born. They are created and raised over time.

This was not “no big deal.” This was a very big deal. The right to be left alone in peace, even for public figures, is a very big deal.

I say that every email Mr. Cornell has ever sent or received should be made public. I want to see evidence of scruffy college kids laughing about what he did.

At least one of them will not be laughing anymore.

If James O’Keefe can get arrested for doing nothing illegal, then Mr. Cornell deserves the maximum for breaking the law and actually being guilty.

I hope Barack Obama is asked to pardon this kid. That would be fun to watch.

Until then, the judge needs to throw the book at Mr. Cornell.

Make an example of him, and restore law and order to society.

eric

At lunch I speak to the Lakeland GOP ladies in Tampa, Florida. Then I take a plane to Texas, since I speak in the evening to a GOP group in Galveston.

While I am in the air, the left is abusing our freedoms on the ground.

Ari David is running for Congress in Los Angeles against Henry Waxman. Ari is a friend of mine, and I am enthusiastically backing him.

However, I did not expect to be covering him twice in one week. Yet this is a very important story, and it is chilling for anybody who values free speech. Ari and I have both personally been attacked by thugs working for Waxboy, and now Ari has been attacked again in a different way.

I will be outsourcing my column today and let Ari tell his story, which has also been picked up by Gateway Pundit.

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/05/apple-denies-free-speech-refuses-app-by-republican-candidate-challenging-henry-waxman/#comments

http://www.aridavidforcongress.com/RecentNews/tabid/67/vw/1/ItemID/13/Default.aspx

“APPLE DENIES
FREE POLITICAL SPEECH
TO REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE
ARI DAVID
BY REJECTING
I PHONE APP
A few weeks ago I hired a company to create an I Phone Application for my congressional campaign. My designers told me when we started that Apple would take about two weeks to approve the app after they finished the design and coding.

They submitted the app and then we waited and waited and waited.

Recently the designers contacted Apple to find out what was taking so long.

A couple days ago Apple responded and told us that they were rejecting the submission and told us that they were doing so on the grounds that content in the app is defamatory of my opponent, incumbent Henry Waxman.

Here are the statements Apple found defamatory.

HENRY WAXMAN…

SUPPORTED Cap & Trade legislation that would have brought us $7 a gallon gas and as President Obama has stated would make electricity rates “necessarily sky rocket.”

This one is well known considering that Waxman sponsored the bill in the House and President Obama is famous for making the statement about the need under his plan for “skyrocketing” electricity rates.

VOTED TO CUT Medicare spending by a half a trillion dollars which would severely hurt seniors. Time to go Henry!

This one is also well known since the Health Care Reform bill just passed a few weeks ago.

VOTED AGAINST missile defense funding, which jeopardized the US and Israel.

Waxman is famous for voting against missile defense program funding going all the way back to 1983 when Reagan first proposed the SDI system.

TRIED to make over-the-counter vitamins and supplements prescription only.

On this one, Waxman’s original bill was defeated a few years ago but last week, lo and behold, Waxman inserted this language into the House version of the Financial Reform Bill AFTER IT HAD ALREADY PASSED!

TRIED TO STRANGLE family farms with insane Soviet-Style regulation.

Many people have not yet heard about this one so here is the documentation on it. My only problem with calling it “Soviet Style” is that even the Soviet’s would have been challenged to come up with something so stupid to do to our farming industry.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3878/pub_detail.asp

Here is an excerpt:

As proposed by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, H. R. 2749 will grant the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate all farms and farm produce in an attempt to purge America’s farmland of E. coli O157:H7, a lethal, food-borne bacteria.

Here is a small portion of how the bill would attempt to purge our country of E. Coli

Under the terms of the bill, crops must be grown in sterile areas, surrounded by 450 foot buffers, so that they are not exposed to other vegetation, runoff water, birds, beasts, or wildlife of any kind.

To create such sterile farms, ponds will be poisoned; wetlands drained; and streams re-routed to safeguard the crops from untreated water.

Trees will be bulldozed from agricultural corridors to protect the fields from bird droppings.

Fields will be lined with poison-filled tubes to kill rodents.

All children under five will be prohibited from stepping foot on farmland or tilled soil for fear of leaking diapers.

A crow landing in a cornfield will mandate the destruction of the entire corn crop.

Sounds crazy but it’s true. Such protocols are already in place throughout California. They were implemented by leading corporate agribusiness to offset the possibility of lawsuits erupting from a new breakout of E coli in supermarkets and food chains.

As you can see not only are none of the statements defamatory, they are all factual

By denying me this application Apple is now making an in kind contribution to Henry Waxman by denying his competitor of a modern tool for political communication. They are stifling my right to free political speech and they are carrying water for the Obama administration perhaps out of fear because Obama criticized Apple last week in his speech at the graduation ceremony.

It is also relevant to note that Apple pulled all of their advertising from the Fox News channel.

http://galiberal.com/?p=8939&cpage=1

Clearly people who work at Apple are likely to be the kind of creative people that may tend to vote Democrat and hold liberal views but this goes far beyond that. This experience with Apple clearly shows that there is a political agenda going on within the culture of the company and business decisions are subject to Apple’s political views.

If as Apple claims, my statements about Henry Waxman are defamatory, it would be interesting to see what I Phone Apps Apple has approved for Democrats in which negative statements about Republicans are made and what standard Apple has held those statements to before approval. In the name of full disclosure, here is the legal definition of Defamation.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d021.htm
DEFAMATION
An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in ‘defamatory language’. Libel and slander are defamation.
Although defamation is primarily governed by state law, the First Amendment safeguards for freedom of speech and press limit state law. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 264 (1964); Masson, 501 U.S. at 510. The scope of constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion. Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 (rejecting categorical exemption of all statements in form of opinion; statement that may imply verifiable assertion of fact is actionable).
To determine whether a statement implies a factual assertion, courts examine the totality of the circumstances in which it was made. First, they look at the statement in its broad context, which includes the general tenor of the entire work, the subject of the statements, the setting, and the format of the work. Next they turn to the specific context and content of the statements, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the audience in that particular situation. Finally, they inquire whether the statement itself is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false. See Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir.’94) (applying three-factor test as the starting point for analysis); Unelko Corp. v. Rooney, 912 F.2d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.’90), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 961 (1991).
‘[T]he First Amendment requires that the courts allow latitude for interpretation.’ Partington, 56 F.3d at 1154 (quoting Moldea v. New York Times Co., 22 F.3d 310, 315 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 202 (1994)).
The speaking slanderous words of a person so as to hurt his good fame.
In the United States, the remedy for defamation is by an action on the case, where the words are slanderous.
In England, besides the remedy by action, proceedings may be instituted in the ecclesiastical court for redress of the injury. The punishment for defamation, in this court, is payment of costs and penance enjoined at the discretion of the judge. When the slander has been privately uttered, the penance may be ordered to be performed in a private place; when publicly uttered, the sentence must be public, as in the church of the parish of the defamed party in time of divine service, and the defamer may be required publicly to pronounce that by such words, naming them as set forth in the sentence, he had defamed the plaintiff, and therefore, that he begs pardon, first of God, and then of the party defamed, for uttering such words.

Considering that I AM trying to cause Henry Waxman to lose his employment and salary as a US Congressman, maybe my statements about him are defamatory but if this is the case, does that not mean that all political discourse is? Does this mean that Apple thinks our political system is just too divisive and all would be right with the world if Republicans would just give up and stop running for office?

Ari David
Candidate for Congress
California 30th District
P O Box 163
Malibu CA 90265
http://www.AriDavidforcongress.com
Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/aridavidforcongress
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/AriDavid2010
(310) 456 3202 Office”

If we do not stand up for Ari David, then we will only have ourselves to blame when freedoms are suppressed. This is exactly what the left wants, and it must be stopped.

eric

Today is Short Shrift Election 2010 Wednesday. This is where I half-heartedly try to interpret the results knowing that I don’t know any more than everybody else that knows nothing.

With that, let’s ring the starting bell and get to the incoherence.

Kentucky: The Republican primary should be of deep concern to Republicans. Rand Paul won. This may or may not be a disaster. The establishment candidate backed by Mitch McConnell lost badly.

I do not know enough about Rand Paul to conclude that he is as awful as his father. What I do know is that the Paulbots are trying to hijack Republican central committees around the country. If they succeed, the Republican Party is dead. The Paulbots are not Constitutionalists. They are Isolationists. This is a global world, and retreating back to a WWI mentality is not the answer.

Some will say that the Tea Party won something, but winning a primary is not winning a general election. The Tea Party has the same record as the Netroots. Ned Lamont won a primary, but not the general. The problem is not that a candidate backed by the Tea Party won. The problem is the Paulbots. Rand Paul should be monitored very closely.

Arkansas–Blanche Lincoln is in deeper trouble than the Blanche from Streetcar Named Desire. Yet the Stanley Kawalski who smacked her around was the Lieutenant Governor. Keep in mind, she was ahead in the last count. However, to even have a primary opponent get 40% is a loss of confidence similar to LBJ decades ago. A runoff between these two will only weaken Lincoln. The Republicans have a golden opportunity to pick up this seat.

Pennsylvania–Joe Sestak took down Arlen Specter, but Republicans should not be celebrating about this. Sestak may be wrong on virtually every issue from a GOP standpoint, but at least he has principles. He stands for something. Personally I feel the American people deserve more races with clear distinct opponents. Pennsylvania gave us that with Harris Wofford and Rick Santorum, and has done so again with Joe Sestak and Pat Toomey.

The Democrats may have saved this seat. People can debate whether the mood is anti-incumbent or anti-Democrat. However, even if people are angry at the Democrats, Sestak can say that he was not part of the problem. He was not there. Barack Obama had the luxury of not having voted either way on the Iraq War. Sestak did not vote either way on the bailouts. Pat Toomey and Joe Sestak will run a close nailbiter.

Yet if Arlen Specter runs as an independent, all heck could break loose. The man has been a Democrat, Republican, and Democrat again. Being an independent is perfectly within his character. For political junkies, it certainly be a fun race. Compared to Robert Byrd, Specter at 80 is a Spring chicken.

The special election in Pennsylvania for the congressional seat of the late John Murtha was won handily by the Democrat. The left will trumpet this as a major victory, but the fact is this was a long time Democratic seat, and they saved it temporarily. Had the Republicans snagged it, it would have been similar to the May 1994 wins in Kentucky and Oklahoma that led to the GOP tidal wave.

One question about this special election is…why even bother? I know they can’t keep the seat vacant, but in 6 months both men will do it again. It just seems so pointless to waste money on 2 elections so close together.

In Indiana, a special election will take place because another GOP congressman got caught with his pants down. For the love of God will Republicans either:

1) Keep it in your pants…or…

2) Be like me and admit upfront you like to ball women. It is not the sex. It is the hypocrisy. Do not run on a family values platform if you are going to be a letch. This is a safe conservative seat, and if Republicans lose it, they deserve to lose. I have had it with Republicans behaving like me on Spring Break in Miami. I am single and a private citizen. One day I will be married and not be allowed to screw other women. That is how it works.

By the time people are done dissecting the results, the special election in Hawaii on May 22 will be ready for analysis. That would be a major pickup for Republicans. Rep Abercrombie gave up a safe Democratic seat to run for Governor against Duke Aiona. Linda Lingle is retiring, and this election will tell if she is a trend or an aberration. In the congressional seat, Republican Charles Djou is benefiting from two Democrats killing each other. Neither one will back down, and they may split the Democratic vote just enough to elect Djou. The media will portray this as tragic, since only Republican infighting is good for America.

This concludes Short Shrift Election 2010 Wednesday. In 6 months we get to do it all again on a much larger scale.

eric

For those who have not been paying attention the last 860 billion years, ultra-liberal Congressman Henry Waxman is a thug and a bully. His staff has harassed me personally for being a Republican and breathing.

For that and other reasons, I am eagerly looking forward to a Republican firing him. In the 2010 climate, anything is possible.

He has Hollywood money, allowing him to ignore the rest of his constituents.

Not everybody is enamored with him, and a couple of hundred people attended an event at the Beverly Hills High School that was dedicated to his firing.

Five Republican candidates for the 30th Congressional District in Los Angeles, California, held a debate.

Calling it a debate would be a mislabeling the event. The candidates were friendly and polite with each other, even slapping each other on the back after a good comment. Not one nasty remark was made by any of the candidates at each other. This was a lovefest, with the exception of the ire directed at Waxboy.

My friend Larry Greenfield was the moderator. Larry is the Executive Director for the Reagan Legacy Foundation and a fellow at the Claremont Institute. While Larry is known for his speaking abilities, he would freely admit that he gave himself a very limited role at this event. The candidates were all so well behaved that he simply did not need to intervene. A good moderator does not substitute himself for the candidates. Larry let the event flow, and it did seamlessly.

The event was put on by Gary Aminoff of the San Fernando Valley Republican Club and Rob Pederson of the Westside Republican Club. Gary is also the Vice Chair of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County.

The five candidates in alphabetical order are David Benning, Ari David, Robert Flutie, Chris Colski, and Chuck Wilkerson.

(Full Disclosure: I normally stay out of primary fights. I am backing Ari David. He is a friend, and I believe in him. The other candidates know this.)

David Benning spent 25 years in the technology industry. He is also a licensed pilot.

Ari David was a software engineer who is now in the entertainment industry. He is a stand-up comic.

Robert Flutie runs a media management business, and is also a volunteer firefighter.

Chris Colski was an engineer and an educator.

Chuck Wilkerson served in the Marines in Korea, and then became an aerospace executive.

Rather than do a complete recap, I will offer notable comments.

The candidates all gave brief opening statements.

DB: Change should be for the better. We used to try and cure people with leeches. We just sucked the life out of them. That is happening now.

AD: I am the only Jewish candidate in this race. 14% of the electorate is Jewish. Henry Waxman is no friend of Israel.

RF: I will fight for a balanced budget amendment.

CC: I am a Polish immigrant. Unlike Arnold, I can pronounce California. I campaigned for Proposition 13.

CW: 1/2 the country is pulling the cart and half the country is riding in it.

Foreign policy dominated the discussion early on.

CW: Gitmo is the mot POW friendly facility in the world. Obama didn’t go to the same school as JFK.

CC: When screening for terrorists, we must use profiling. Hooray for Nevada!

(He meant Arizona. This may have been the only “gaffe” of the evening.)

RF: I didn’t think we had a foreign policy.I was in NY on 9/11, my first instinct was to rush in and help people.

(He incorrectly mispronounced John Boehner’s name as “Bonner,” although the audience and the other candidates found it inconsequential. It is not pronounced “Boner” either. Phonetically, it is “Bayner.”)

AD: It is better to be respected than liked. Waxman is more interested in being liked by Obama than to support Israel. Iran wants nukes to direct at Israel. What if a nuke was smuggled in here from Mexico?

DB: Haiti is a legit interest because people are interested. We need to wean other nations of of foreign aid. Americans will still give to places like Haiti. Nobody can have a veto over us. Imagine the UN without the US veto.

CW: The big problem is the U.S. credibility in he world today.

CC: Only congress can declare war. Don’t go to war unless you intend to win.

RF: We have the technolgy. We should be shooting the bad guys out of the sky with lasers.

AD: What we do to our enemies is our business and their problem. The UN is a criminal enterprise. We should find Ahmadinejad and kill him.

DB: The defense budget should be more than the current 4% of GDP. We have to stay in the UN or it will be completely owned by Arab nations.

The conversation then turned to domestic policy.

DB: I am a technology guy. At age 8, I was tracking gophers. Others had lemonade stands. I was interested in solar panels. I understand that health care is not paid for when you have 10 years of taxes but only 6 years of benefits. It is harder to bring pork home when the children get the bill.

AD: Those claiming that greed caused the financial crisis are like those who blame plane crashes on gravity.

RF: I am a middle child. I know what it is like to get overlooked. I sold donuts during the 1970s gas crisis.

(He made an analogy of hard work during tough times.)

CC: Socialism is already here. Pelosi must be terminated. Recycle congress. Liberals and Neocons have destroyed America.

(The room gasped when he bashed Neocons. After the event I wanted clarification to make sure I did not mishear. He reiterated the sentiment. This was the only remark of the evening that had the crowd upset.)

CW: Cap and Trade is based on science that has been totally debunked. It is a fantasy that humans can affect the Earth. People count more than fish.

DB: The stimulus came to 400k per job. 400k creates a business, not a job. Obama says nothing on Fannie and Freddie. China is building 100 nuclear plants.

AD: My moral compass points true north. Like Reagan, we must cut taxes and grow the economy.

RF: I remember my childhood as a child of immigrants. My family came here legally.

CC: Eliminate the income tax, most programs, entitlements, and departments.

CW: California is worse off than Greece. Portugal was once a model of the EU.

Larry then asked the candidates to spend more time discussing Waxman remaining silent on Obama’s treatment of Israel.

AD: Waxman never spent one penny of political capital to help Israel. He is owed a favor by Obama and doesn’t ask for it. Obama is hostile to Israel. He didn’t criticize Pelosi’s Syria trip. He votes against missile defense. If Israel is reduced to ashed, Waxman is culpable.

DB: One of our finest allies can’t trust us. What does that say about us?

RF: Israel allows us to keep our pulse on the Middle East. Hamas and Hezbollah are the worst thing for Arabs.

(CC added nothing of consequence.)

CW: The Obama State Department killed peace to make them adversaries. Remember what happened with the Strait of Hormuz. Air defense has been modernized by Russia. Pretty soon we will be saying OBE: Overcome by events.

Larry then asked the candidates to comment on Arizona and the new immigration law.

DB: The AZ bill was bipartisan. We don’t need crazy racist claims. It has 60-31% support nationwide. We should do the same thing in CA. We need a documented guest worker program.

AD: There is no illegal immigration. There is an illegal alien invasion. AZ is free to pass a law if they choose. Democrats can’t win unless there is amnesty and illegals are all turned into Democratic voters. The USSR asked for papers, not Nazi Germany. The left ignores this. Guest workers should pay a fee at the border, and maybe they can recoup it if they leave on time.

RF: What part of illegal doesn’t make sense?

CC: The AZ bill is a backlash over the abdication of Federal responsibility. Call us racists, we don’t care.

CW: The opposition uses La Raza style Alinsky tactics. We’re pushing back. Many Hispanics have conservative values. I also favor a guest worker program. Round them up and dump them all back in Mexico is a non-starter.

Larry then asked the candidates to discuss taxes, entitlements, and fiscal responsibility.

RF: When the government has no money, they just take it from Joe Smith or Joe the Plumber. There are now more 100k earners in government than the private sector. Start by reducing the 176k Waxman gets.

CC: Eliminate the income tax. The Department of Energy produces no energy. The Department of Education teaches no one.

CW: Forget too big to fail. Bush and Bernanke should have let them fail. Government jobs produce nothing.

DB: 3 1/2 decades of deficit spending is choking us. Artificially low interest rates will increase. We should fold labor into HHS.

AD: I liked the Department of Energy when they made Nukes. At least then they did something. The Democrats use social engineering to lead to electoral dominance in perpetuity. The tax code cannot be used to pit the poor against the rich.

Larry asked the candidates about offshore oil drilling and climate change.

CC: Climate change is nonsense. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

DB: I believe in partnerships between business and the environment. I am a scuba diver. I care what’s in the water. Oxygen can be toxic. Don’t let congress find out or there will be a bill for that.

AD: If the community wants drilling, the Feds and the EPA can’t say they can’t have it.

RF: No to green jobs using taxpayer funds. I was a firefighter. I did search and recovery. In NY at one point there was a lack of regulation, but nowadays costs should not be passed on to the taxpayer.

CW: The EPA is using numbers from the IPCC which turned out to be bogus. The EPA went ahead anyway. They had to save themselves, so they made up something called a CO2 tipping point. It doesn’t exist. Hearings should have us hear from all scientists, not just the IPCC.

Larry brought up the heavy Democratic registration advantage in the district, and asked if the candidates could pull a Scott Brown and get crossover votes.

CW: We have to appeal to Democrats. However, we don’t need to end partisan bickering. We need artisan bickering. It is speech. We disagree.

CC: Waxman is a liar, global warming is a lie, Waxman wrote the cap and trade bill.

RF: We are all here in unity to get Waxman out. It will be a tight race, his election is not a fait accompli. Waxman blacklisted me and my clients.

(At the beginning of the event, Larry pointed out that this was a free event, and that Waxman charges $50 to hear him speak. Larry also mentioned Waxman’s habit of targeting political opponents. Ari David and I have both been targeted. Apparently Robert Flutie has been as well.)

AD: Massachusetts had a 3 1/2 to 1 Democrat to Republican registration ratio. Los Angeles is only 2 1/2 to 1. These are better odds than Scott Brown. Democrats still think they are voting for FDR. Democrats appeal to emotional self interest, not intellectual self interest. We need to appeal to emotions, not just taxes and spending. Waxman wants vitamins and supplements to be prescription only. He wants to ban locally grown produce. These are emotional issues.

DB: Everything bad in the last 2 years, Waxman has been involved with. For 3 1/2 decades Waxman has allowed the debt to grow.

The candidates made closing remarks.

AD: We are breaking our contract with our children. I am the only candidate who can defeat Waxman. I will never get sucked into letting Waxman control the debate. I am Jewish. I will expose Waxman on Israel.

CC: We need to form groups to reduce and then eliminate the income tax.

CW: We don’t need another congressman to toe the party line and be part of the ruling class.

DB: This unsustainable fiscal policy is unacceptable. I am not abrasive. I can win over Democrats.

RF: Now the gloves come off. Every person here is 117k in debt. Even in Beverly Hills, that is lots of money. We bought US cars and helped Detroit. Obama, we don’t need your help.

I offer analysis of the 5 candidates.

David Benning: I have always had a bias toward loud people, and have seen quiet people as lacking passion. I know I am wrong about this, and have tried to catch myself. I used to think David Benning was boring and passionless. I was wrong. He expresses himself in a calm, thoughtful manner, and is much funnier than I remember. He did very well in the debate, and is a legitimate candidate.

Ari David: He is loud, a great speaker, and has the best attack lines. He is fabulous tossing out red meat to guys like me, but would have to tone it down in a mixed audience to get crossover votes. However, he is well aware of this, and is tough enough to take on the Waxman attack machine. He did very well in the debate, and is a legitimate candidate.

Robert Flutie: He is Decent, thoughtful, and self-effacing. His firefighting is commendable. However, he failed to distinguish himself in this debate. He did nothing wrong, but was overshadowed. He sat in the middle, which he remarked was a metaphor for his middle childhood. He did ok in the debate, and is a legitimate candidate.

Chuck Wilkerson served his country, and I honor his service. While nobody should say he is too old, he was slow to respond. He speaks slowly and thoughtfully, but I suspect in the modern television era he may have a tough time with Henry Waxman. It is tough to argue Waxman has been there forever when his opponent is older. Fairly or unfairly, Waxman will use this like he did when attacking John Dingell to get the Energy Committee Chairmanship.

Chris Colski is a non-starter. Abolishing the income tax is fantasy, and the Neocon remark disqualifies him. He was not seen by the audience as a serious candidate.

David Benning and Ari David did the best, Followed by Flutie, then Wilkerson, and Colski way behind.

Besides Colski, I could support any of them.

I am backing Ari David.I still see him as the Republican to fire Waxboy.

His main competition appears to be David Benning, with Robert Flutie a possibility. Chuck Wilkerson seemed to have much respect and little support, which was still more than Colski.

I asked the candidates whether they would all promise to support the eventual nominee if they were not the nominee. All 5 candidates agreed to the pledge of support without hesitation.

The California Primary is June 8th, 2010, one month away.

eric

From Iran to Arizona, Attorney General Eric Holder has been engaging in very strange behavior.

First he rejected the very concept of Radical Islam, since that does not fit a leftist narrative as pleasantly as the fictional lunacy that would be an 80 year old grandmother in a wheelchair bombing New York City due to her unhappiness with everything from reduced Medicare to reduced flavor in packets of Sweet n Low.

Then Mr. Holder spoke passionately against an Arizona law before conceding that he had not read or been briefed on it. He believes that the law will have unintended consequences. This would be revolutionary except that every law has unintended consequences. This is definitional.

I have now come to the conclusion that Eric Holder is suffering from a debilitating illness. I have not determined what his affliction is, but I have narrowed it down to four suspects.

1)    Glaucoma

2)    Diabetes

3)    Tertiary Stage Syphillis

4)    Self-love addiction below the waist.

(Regarding #4, this blog has a policy of not discussing stuff like that. It is just something people should not talk about. Only twice has it ever been a political issue, first with the enthusiastic support of Jocelyn Elders, and now with Mr. Holder. This is not to be confused with the metaphorical version of self-love that infects many liberals including the Clintons and the Obamas.)

All of these illnesses have the same tragic effect in many victims: blindness.

Eric Holder is blind.

Buy the man a cane and a guide dog. He cannot see the forest for the trees or the jihadists for the bombs.

It might not be his fault. Perhaps he had a laundry mishap and inhaled the bleach. That is certainly better than what happens when one gets what rapper Biz Markie calls “the vapors.”

There could be a musical element. It can’t be breakdancing, which in the 1980s did plenty of damage to the skulls and vision of kids spinning on their heads. Mr. Holder was most likely coming of age long before “Breaking 2 Electric Boogaloo” came out.

Mr. Holder is not going to have any improvements in his vision. Obamacare does not cover elective procedures such as vision restoration or cranial-glutial extraction surgery.

So why does this matter? Why should we care if Mr. Holder is found on the street corner with a tin cup and a dog with a sign that reads “will ignore common sense?”

It matters because Mr. Holder is entrusted with the top law enforcement job in America. If he lacks credibility, he cannot effectively do his job.

The American people do not trust or believe in him. He thinks that if he ignores the words “Radical Islam,” that swaths of Americans will as well.

Hoping and praying is not a game plan.

Mr. Holder and Mr. Obama want to take the fight to an enemy without acknowledging who or what the enemy actually is. Trying to insist that a rum and coke is made of Vodka and apple juice is about as sensible as insisting that crimes committed by Radical Islamists were really tea party reactions from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh watchers worried about excessive government spending.

So why do Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder persist?

They are ideologues. Mr. Obama indignantly insisted that he was not one. Richard Nixon insisted he was not a crook. Bill Clinton waved his finger and swore that he did not have sex with “that woman.” Getting self-righteous means the charge is usually true.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder have predetermined liberal opinions. They speak in a moderate tone, but discount opposing views. I challenge people to find examples of Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder incorporating significant viewpoints into their tone and speech.

It is one thing to have an ideology. I am a conservative. It is quite another to be an ideologue, where one is “reflexively” ideological.

Acknowledging opposing points of views allows people to grow and resharpen their focus. The Obama approach is to be static in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.

Radical Islam is the problem. Mr. Obama and Mr. Holder know this, but will not publicly admit it. They clearly see the problem.

Then again, maybe they are truly blind. The only question is what causes willful blindness. Is it syphilis or self-love down there?

Is this a canker problem, a shanker problem, or a wanker problem?

Whatever it is, I am not interested in the root cause of Mr. Holder’s malady.

This illness of his does not require penicillin or therapy or surgery.

Mr. Holder needs to simply snap out of it. For those not blind or dead from the neck up, it really is that easy.

Liberals become conservatives when they get mugged. Radical Islam opened our eyes on September 11th, 2001. Only those with their heads in posterior located clouds cannot see this.

Come to think of it, having your head up your hide also causes blindness.

We can get Mr. Holder better once we figure out where to administer the thermometer.

eric

I finally have evidence that Barack Obama is an anti-Semite.

In the past I offered the Obama anti-Semitic sex tape, and proof that Obama is anti-Caucasoid.

The evidence is overwhelming, and I now have proof.

Barack Obama spent 20 years in the church of Jeremiah Wright.

Now some people can dismiss this. After all, if Barack Obama is a typical politician, which he absolutely is, then the church is just a means to an end. For all we know he slept in church. Many Christians have told me that church can be boring, especially if the equivalent of Reverend Lovejoy is giving the sermon. I have been to many synagogues, and some do cure insomnia.

Yet Reverend Wright is delightfully insane. This guy is not boring. Nobody could sleep through his sermon. Sleeping in New York City during construction hours is easier.

Yet Jeremiah Wright is a bigger problem for Mr. Obama.

Jeremiah Wright believes in Black Liberation Theology.

Some people say that Black Liberation Theology is racist. Some say it is anti-white bigotry. Some say it is anti-Semitic. I say Black Liberation Theology is a secret code.

The answer is in the acronym.

The initials for Black Liberation Theology are B.L.T.

What else is a BLT?

That’s right…bacon…lettuce…and tomato.

There you have it! I have just proved my case. Mr. Obama is anti-Semitic.

Some of you are puzzled. It’s ok. You are slow. I will connect the dots of bread crumbs for you.

Barack Obama has eaten a BLT before.

(In his defense, this proves he is a Christian and not a Muslim since Muslims cannot eat pork. If he was Muslim, religious Muslims would condemn him for it. He could also be a self-loathing Jew, but if that were the case he would have more death threats. He is not Jewish. He eats pork proudly, so he is a Christian.)

By flaunting his dietary habits, he is letting the Jews know that he will do as he d@mn well pleases. Forget Jewish traditions. He has no interest in respecting the people of the book.

He has eaten pork products in New York City and Los Angeles, which both have large Jewish populations. Try eating pork in Dearborn, Michigan and see what happens. Try bringing it in a Minneapolis cab and see what happens.

Not only that, every aspect of his leftist agenda can be found in this sandwich.

What color is lettuce? That’s right. Green. He is an environmental nutcase.

What color are tomatoes? That’s right. Red. He is a communist.

What happens when one mixes lettuce and tomatoes, combining the red and green?

That’s right. An administration with Van Jones, an environmentalist commie.

It was so obvious. I can’t believe none of you saw it.

Now some of you may say that eating a sandwich seems like a pretty benign activity, even if it is a sandwich with potential sinister overtones. So why make a big deal out of it?

Because I was doing my impersonation of a liberal.

Everything is racist. Everything is offensive. Black “leaders” called for a ban on vanilla extract, even though it is the same color brown as chocolate extract.

Eating deviled eggs is offensive to everybody because it contains white, black, yellow, red, and satanic references. It might be the only food that offends all 7 billion people. It can even contain green in the form of cilantro, which makes sense since the greeniac vegans don’t eat eggs. They would be offended by the deviled eggs as well.

Barack Obama has eaten a BLT with a side order of deviled eggs.

He hates all people everywhere.

Or he truly is the greatest uniter in the world. Everybody in the world who does not eat these items are racist and anti-Obama.

Somebody get some matzoh ball soup to the president. Just make sure the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld is not serving it.

There is enough bigotry by leftist Obama supporters without having to resort to dredging up old wounds of anti-Semitic broth servers…in New York no less.

I am off to eat a sandwich without bacon. It will be on white toast. I hope the president does not consider that an act of aggression.

eric

In looking at the accusations against Goldman Sachs, it is important to do logical analysis beyond the leftist hyperventilating.

I keep saying that Goldman Sachs is above the law. They will not be punished because Goldman Sachs is our federal government. Congressman and the president will huff and puff, but they don’t want anybody who could roll over on Timothy Geithner, Jon Corzine, or Robert Rubin getting in trouble. Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd want to look tough and accomplish nothing (in keeping with their entire careers).

Nobody at Goldman Sachs will get into trouble.

Yet for those burning with rage, can you at least admit that unless you have Wall Street experience, that you probably have no idea what Goldman Sachs actually does?

Do you know the difference between being a stockbroker, financial advisor, financial planner, money manager, financial analyst, investment banker, or underwriter?

Do you know what a syndicate is?

If not, learn about Goldman Sachs before bashing their skulls in.

These leftists going after Goldman Sachs are the same ones that were convinced that Enron and George W. Bush were the same thing because they were both from Texas. Dubya was connected to oil. Too bad Enron was an energy company, not an oil company.

Dick Cheney led Halliburton, which had something to do with oil. Yet most people have no idea what Halliburton actually does. “Something with oil” is not an answer.

Now as for Goldman Sachs, depending on what actually happened will determine if they did anything wrong.

This is called relying on facts rather than raw emotion at “evil Wall Street.”

Let’s start with the basics. It is completely legal to bet that the market will go up. It is also legal to bet that the market will go down. That is called short-selling.

In some countries, short-selling is illegal. Richard Nixon called it unpatriotic. I used to hold that view. I was wrong. If I believe that the market is going down, I have every right to take that bet.

(It is also easier to make money on the downside because fear is more powerful than greed. Stocks do not go straight up, but they can go straight down. Even the “big boys” fear trying to catch a falling knife.)

If Goldman Sachs believed that the market was overvalued, and decided to place big bets against it, there is nothing inherently illegal in this behavior.

So what actions would be illegal?

A broker (or firm) is not allowed to “split their book in half.”

This means that they cannot make buy recommendations to half their clients and sell recommendations of the same securities to the other half. Two separate brokers can make different recommendations if they disagree.

With all rules there are exceptions. The key with trades is that they have to be justified. The burden of proof is on the firm. If a broker recommends that most of his clients buy shares of XYZ (a generic name used in examples similar to “widgets,” not an actual company), he will be questioned if his biggest client is selling XYZ. Perhaps that client already has a profit and wants to lock in the profit. Again, the explanation must be reasonable.

Being wrong is legal. What is illegal is not having a reasonable basis for making a trade.

A broker cannot take the opposite side of the trade of their clients. Analysts cannot go against their own recommendations. They cannot downgrade a stock to buy it at a cheaper price or upgrade it to sell at a higher price.

Trading on inside information is illegal.Information must be available to the general public before insiders can transact.

If Goldman Sachs had inside information that a certain market was going to collapse, and they transacted on that private information, they have broken the law.

If the firm recommended that their clients buy the very securities that insiders were selling, this must also be punished.

What we as Americans cannot do is rail against some undefined cliche of “Wall Street greed.”

Yes, there has been illegal behavior on Wall Street. However, every industry has bad apples. Plenty of Wall Street professionals are hardworking and honest.

It is possible that even the best and brightest on Wall Street got some very big bets wrong. In that case the firm is a victim of market risk, as we all are if we invest.

Yet if the game was rigged in their favor, and they played the rigged game against their own customers, then heads need to roll.

Before jumping on Goldman Sachs, remember that a firm is made of individuals.

Which individuals are being accused?

What are the exact charges?

What is the firm’s defense?

Was there criminal behavior, honest mistakes, or nothing illegal at all?

We should let the process play out.

It is difficult to breathe deeply and be patient when people are losing money.

Goldman Sachs is not an easy firm to defend from a sympathy standpoint.

Yet these are the reasons why we must be patient and find out exactly what happened and why.

Shooting first and asking questions later is not the solution.

eric

At the risk of shocking some, I do have liberal friends. In the Jewish community, shunning liberals can lead to a lonely existence.

A woman I went to college with is married to a staunch liberal. He is a good guy, and the other night I went out to dinner with them and their two children.

She is fairly apolitical, and when the kids got tired, she took them home. Her husband and I talked politics.

Naturally we disagreed about most issues.

He felt that the Iraq War was wrong, and I felt it was totally the right thing to do.

Yet the real difference came in our attitudes toward Iran. I feel that we should immediately turn Armageddonoijad’s palaces into a 50,000 hole golf course. He doesn’t.

When he tried to bring up the issue of sanctions, I pointed out that there will be no sanctions. It was not going to happen. Any sanctions that did pass that would be so watered down that they would be meaningless.

(I am already right on this point. President Obama wants to exempt Russia and China from sanctions. This turns the idea of sanctions on its head. Sanctions are dead.)

Many on the left claimed that they wanted sanctions because it was seen as a “middle ground” between doing nothing, and using military force. Now that sanctions have evaporated as a credible option (the left still refuses to admit this. Again, sanctions are dead.), the left has to either be open to force or truly do nothing.

(I would be willing to consider sanctions if there was any chance they would actually work. I know they don’t, so I choose force over impotence.)

At this point my friend offered up a rationale why doing nothing (not that he called it that) would be acceptable.

He believes that there is no way that Iran would attack Israel. Because Israel has nuclear weapons, an attack by Iran would lead to Israel obliterating Iran. Iran knows this. Therefore, any saber rattling by Iran is pure bluster. They are bluffing.

I have heard this argument many times. I don’t buy it. When the left tries to say the same about Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or North Korea, or other conflicts, I point out the situation is not analogous.

Saddam Hussein was a Muslim, but he was secular. He liked Cuban cigars and Frank Sinatra records. His top deputy Tariq Aziz was a Christian. The Hussein government was based on Marxism. It was a secular government. Religious Shiite Muslims were murdered because Saddam saw them as a threat. He feared Iran, and waged war with it because he believed they wanted to kill him. He was right.

Russia has nuclear weapons, but nobody of any sound mind believes that the Russians want to blow up the world. Ronald Reagan understood this. We knew that we did not want to die, and they knew they did not want to die. Once both sides realized that neither side wanted Armageddon, peace talks came quickly. Russia was crumbling, and they just wanted to appear as strong as America.

China has nuclear weapons, but they have zero interest in eliminating America. They want to kick our hides economically. China is the equivalent of J.R. Ewing from Dallas. They do not want to end the world. They want to own it. They do not want to kill America. They want to buy it.

North Korea does not want to blow up the world. Yes, their leader is mentally unstable. Yet his people are starving. He wants attention, and they want food. They do not want to kill people. They just want to eat.

Iran is different. President Mahmoud Armageddonijad believes that the 12th Imam will return when there is a cataclysm. Then Islam will reign supreme.

Some will say that Armageddonijad is not the true leader of Iran, and that the mullahs control things.

The Mullahs are also “12ers.”

To illustrate how crazy our of their mind insane 12ers are, they were too crazy for Ayatollah Khomeini. Too crazy for Khomeini? Is that even possible?

Apparently so.

To understand how insane these Radical Islamists are, look at the way the left views the mythical concept of “Radical Christianity.”

They believe that Christians are zealots who want to make everyone Christian. While this is untrue, it is shocking that they refuse to see the same capabilities in Islamists (or environmentalists for that matter).

The Islamist true believers are willing to die. 9/11 is proof of this. So are the myriad of suicide bombings. The world is littered with Radical Muslims willing to lose their own lives for 72 virgins. We know this because it is not theory. It is actually happening.

This is why the friendly disagreement I have with my friend is so important. He believes that the Mullahs do not believe their own nonsense. I believe they do.

So in determining what action to take, the answer is to look at a cold, logical, matrix of consequences.

If I am wrong, there are no consequences. Everything turns out fine.

If he is wrong, Israel gets wiped off the map. After Little Satan is eradicated, the Great Satan America is next.

When I pointed this out to him, he had no answer.

He was “pretty sure” he was right. He “hoped” he was right.

I hope he is right.

Yet hope is not enough. This is my main problem with the left, from President Obama to the liberals in congress.

When the question of “what if they are wrong?” is brought up, they have no answers.

One can argue whether the left is taking a blind gamble or a calculated gamble, but it is a gamble nonetheless. Get the risk wrong, watch the world burn.

I cannot take this gamble. I believe the mullahs want to kill us all because we are infidels. They want a Caliphate. They want the cataclysm to bring back the 12th Imam.

I believe they are willing to die.

A president who upholds his oath to protect and defend the Constitution and also to defend our allies must be willing to do something.

Doing nothing is not the answer.

Sanctions are not going to occur.

If somebody has a solution beside military force, I would truly love to see and hear it.

If they cannot offer a viable alternative, then war is the answer.

War is hell.

Getting eradicated is worse.

Iran cannot be allowed to have the bomb. China, Russia, and North Korea have leverage because the bomb gives them that leverage. Those nations can do whatever they want, and we have no say. Iran must not get to that point of defiance.

I am not willing to be blown to kingdom come because leftist peaceniks played Persian Roulette with Armageddonijad.

It is time to take military action against Iran while we still can.

eric

The UCLA Middle East Studies Department may have decided recently to take a break from symposiums that preach hatred of gays, Jews, and America itself. A recent symposium took a barely more subtle approach by merely supporting those who advocate and financially fund the hatred of gays, Jews, and America itself.

The column itself was published at Campus Watch and Front Page Mag.

https://tygrrrrexpress.com/2010/05/ucla-supporting-islamist-terrorist-charities/

(Editors Note: Neither organization has any affiliation with this column today, which are additional musings unrelated to the official events I covered for them.)

Here are some other observances from this terrorist sleeper cell blocks from my home.

The title of this symposium was “Critical Perspectives on the Criminalization of Islamic Philanthropy in the War on Terror.”

The title was odd given that the analysis was fawning, not critical. Additionally, in keeping with the tradition of the UCLA MES, only one perspective was represented. Anti-Islamist sentiment was absent.

The thrust of the symposium was very simple. The War on Terror has led to a crackdown on Islamic charities, which has led to a chilling attack on Muslims by rendering them unable to engage in Zakat (charity), one of the five pillars of Islam.

Unmentioned throughout this eight hour Islamist infomercial was the notion that the charities in question were guilty of financially aiding terrorism, and that decent Muslims are capable of giving to charities that do not foment bombings, beheadings and other behavior that only UCLA MES professors could ignore.

The professors had a diverse lack of skill sets, and a unique desire the day after April 15th to waste taxpayer dollars and poison the environment with wasted breaths.

Boston attorney Malik Ghachem spoke of an “organicism between church and state.” Perhaps he likes piano music during his religious services.

He also stated that the U.S. remains in a “Hobbsian state of nature, unable to engage in dialogue and international rules of law.”

Americans are so unreasonable the way we try to stop gunrunning, drugrunning, and terrorism being carried out through Islamist charities.

“The United States takes a sledgehammer approach while Britain takes a scalpel approach.”

This is why Londonistan is now part of the Europistan part of the Caliphate, while America remains (largely) Sharia free.

Akil Vohra is the Counsel for Muslim Advocates. He lamented that the U.S. crackdown on terror has “prevented Muslims from donating to health clinics, soup kitchens, and domestic violence shelters.”

If Islamists truly cared about ending domestic violence, they could have donated to the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign. The Bush administration freed 50 million women in the Middle East from savage beatings at the hands of Islamists. As for soup kitchens, some soups are Kosher, which means that soup is a Zionist plot to infiltrate Islam through broth and lentils.

“Jews and Christians tithe. There is a disproportionate attack on American Muslims.”

Jews and Christians do not tithe to murderers.

Several of the panelists praised Barack Obama’s July 14th, 2009 Cairo speech just because he spoke.

St. John’s University Law School Professor Nina Crimm pointed out that “Pre-9/11, there was very little problem in Muslim charitable giving.”

Apparently she fails to see why 3000 murdered Americans would lead to a reevaluation of lax policies.

She lamented that “Muslims needed to redirect to legitimate domestic charities or secular charities like the Red Cross.”

What is the world coming to when Islamsts cannot fund their holy war in peace?

She also stated that we needed a “new humanitarian relief model, to get to the root causes of terrorism.”

I don’t need a PhD to know that the root cause of terrorism is that whacked out Islamofascists want to murder all non-Muslims.

Even the few students still awake seemed surprised that the bulk of the questions went to faculty.

The speaker everybody seemed to be fawning over was ACLU Human Rights Employee Jennifer Turner.

She should change her name to Jennifer Turn-on. She is one hot piece of Islamist @ss.

I love it when sexually repressed Muslims get together and brag about how pure they are while having their lead speaker show up in a miniskirt that would get her killed in the very Islamist nations she admires.

Personally, I think she needs a good Republican Jewish spanking. She may be offended by the fact that I want to paddle her and play volleyball with her backside, but it would be nice if she took more offense at Arab Muslim nations that beat women like her for dressing like that in public.

It was a delight watching these repressed Muslim boys do everything but sing Sir Mixalot’s “Baby Got Back” during her presentation.

She was there because sex sells. Period. It is not offensive to point this out. It is offensive to prop her up as an expert on anything. So what if I pointed out her grade A top quality choice piece of rumpus? The university brought her in, not me. In her next life she will be a belly dancer for Islamists. If she knew any less about the Middle East, she would be a Middle East professor.

Unlike the academics, at least she inadvertently admitted her lack of qualifications. I am now promoting myself to the head of the Norwegian Life Council, despite not being from Norway, speaking the language, knowing anything about the culture, and making up the fictional NLC.

She was critical of the “FBI infiltration of Mosques, and the use of informants in Mosques. The FBI interviewed donors and issued subpeonas.”

I am outraged that law enforcement personnel would conduct investigations using law enforcement techniques. Perhaps the FBI should give up the use of informants and just ask the terrorists to identify themselves.

Dearborn, Michigan Professor Sally Howell actually found oppression in increased giving. So increased and decreased giving is oppressive.

“Since 2001, there have been 14 new mosques, and 17 mosques have doubled in size. This is proof that people are not donating overseas.”

Even by the rigorously low bar set by academics, this is idiocy. Shall we shut down more mosques domestically to help giving overseas? Maybe many Muslims prefer America to the countries they fled. This bizarre notion was not broached.

She also said that the “CAIR leader is a very effective spokesperson.”

If one leads a terrorist movement, they should be effective. Being ineffective is bad for the genocide business.

“The Arab charity LIFE had their board resign one year after Israel invaded Lebanon.”

I ate a McDonalds hamburger in 2002, only months after 9/11. Therefore, McDonalds is a terrorist organization that forced beef on people while innocent Americans were grieving. McDonalds is not Kosher, which proves that Israel is to blame. If it was Kosher, it would be proof of the Zionist conspiracy.

“As a result of restrictive policies, one Al-Marabbat board member embezzled $10,000.”

As a result of inconvenient and restrictive securities laws, Bernie Madoff was forced to steal. It was all America’s fault.

“Does government get to decide what is good Islam and what is bad Islam?”

Actually, yes.

“The FBI has to show results or lose resources.”

I wish the UCLA MES had such a rigorous standard. The results are the convictions in courtrooms of the worst Muslim “charities.” Then again, the convictions were based on facts and evidence, which might make them invalid in the UCLA MES.

Erica James of MIT offered proof of…nothing, actually.

“I have an anthropology background. I am here to theorize what is happening.”

I wish I could get a cushy six figure tenured job to contemplate my navel.

Perhaps she can analyze the fossils employed by the UCLA MES. I believe they were from the era connecting the Cretaceous Period to the Cretinous Period.

What was her solution?

“Defiant giving.”

Given that she advocated criminality, perhaps somebody can have her arrested.

The Chairperson of Kinder USA said that “Hamas helps Palestinian children in Gaza. I don’t consider Hamas and Hezbollah as threats to me and my family.”

As a Jewish person, I was never threatened by the Irish Republican Army or their Protestant counterparts. Therefore, they were all delightful fuzzballs.

As Islamists go, University College of London Professor Jonathan Benthall was the highlight of the event (not counting Jennifer Turn-on).

Benthall was like a Jon Cleese caricature of a Jon Cleese caricature.

He spoke some British dialect of the Queen’s English. Utterly incomprehensible, his brief criticism of Israel and America was the only thing that made me think that he was not discussing Julia Child recipes or announcing the Masters.

“You have to mix the sauce into a thick paste. Then grab a five iron, or perhaps a lob wedge and a lemon wedge, and make sure to add a slice of lime but not slice the shot away from the green. Mumble, mumble, Israel, mumble, mumble, America, mumble, mumble, Phil Mickelson tastes great when mixed with cilantro.”

Who could possibly disagree with that?

What little I could decipher accurately was when he said that “The United States is the key to the problem.”

He also said that “there is little hard evidence that Hamas provides life insurance for suicide bombers.”

There is little evidence that coherent thought exists between his spacious luxury cranial condominium.

“See the minority report by Judge Rovner in ‘Boym vs. HLF.'”

I think I will stick with the majority opinion that is established law.

“The proposition that political motivations dominate Islamist movements is highly debatable.”

I was wrong. They are upset that they do not have cable television including a premium package with HBO.

“Hamas hospitals? Should they be shut down?”

If the KKK builds roads and schools, they are still the Klan. Besides, Hamas does not need hospitals. If they would do their job properly they would be dead. Inefficient murderers should not be rewarded with warm beds.

“The Israelis have been designated as the worst of the worst. We need an undivided Palestine.”

It already exists. It is called London.

“Not all Islamists are members of Hamas. Some are Fatah. There was coopetition.”

Now I know what the British invasion represented when the Beatles sang “Come together.”

“Hamas is so important to the social fabric.”

Pass the fabric softener.

Mona Atia of George Washington University said that “Egypt has been a model of fighting terrorism.”

Khalid Medani of McGill University said that “Somalia is a place where Islamic terrorism is not possible because they are not organized.”

ACORN will help them community organize so they can get up to speed.

“In Egypt, there are no charitable organizations, only welfare institutions.”

No wonder I favor welfare reform.

When asked if the definition of a terrorist was hard to prove, he responded “You’re right. I try to critique them based on their own terms. I’m not a lawyer.”

Then he analyzed what Jeff Foxworthy thinks makes somebody a redneck.

Despite eight hours of groupthink, I was able to finally cut through the leftist clutter to determine why the United States is investigating Islamist charities.

It seems that 9/11 did happen, and the Islamist charities accused of funding terrorism actually did it.

Only a UCLA MES conference could deliberately fail to grasp this.

The only thing that would have made this conference tolerable would have been a threesome video between Jennifer Turner, Yassir Arafat, and a goat. Jonathan Benthall could narrate the video, because nobody listens to narrators of porn videos anyway.

Jennifer Turn-on does the Gaza Strip.

Hey, it beats the real life pornography passing for education at the University of Crooked Lying Arabists in their Middle East Studies Department.

eric