Saturday, December 6, 2008

Obama's Second Mistake-Eric Holder


Eric Holder testifying before Congress

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

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric Holder should not be confirmed as Attorney General.

Of Presidents and Constitutional Republics

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

First, a short update on the Supreme Court Conference on the Leo Donoforio case challenging Obama's citizenship status. There's no news on what the Supremes plan to do, but WorldNetDaily has the best, easily understood discourse on what Donoforio is alleging. If you are confused about the issues and specifically about Donoforio's suit, this will be of interest.

The following, written by Alan Keyes, is a finely crafted look at our Constitutional Republic and specifically at the authority under which our President governs:

The events that mark the end of one form of government and the beginning of another are more easily perceived and understood in the aftermath than by those caught up in the events and circumstances that constitute the transformation. The passions and affections of the moment interfere with the detachment that makes it possible for the mind to see the true significance of issues and decisions. Some things that seem large and momentous are in fact the exaggerated mirages of transient passion; others dismissed as sideshows will be seen in retrospect as crucial to the main event.

At the moment, these different possibilities may be ascribed to the same occurrence. A great storm of interest and celebration rages at the prospect of the first "African-American" president, and the supposed implications of his election as a breakthrough in the history of "race" relations in the United States. Yet, because it centers on a man who has in his background and character no ties to the actual people and events of that history, historians will have to look elsewhere for the event that truly represents the denouement of the story whose greatest turning point remains the first American Civil War. By contrast, scant attention is being paid to the unfolding constitutional drama, also connected with his inauthentic personal history, even though it clearly represents a potentially fatal crisis for the regime of constitutional, democratic self-government that has heretofore determined the government of the United States.

Until now, the government of the United States has been a constitutional republic based on the sovereignty of the people. The Constitution of the United States, as the ultimate and permanent expression of that sovereignty, has been respected as the Supreme Law of the Land. Some people, myself included, would certainly argue that in some matters this respect has been a merely formal camouflage for actions and decisions that contradict, embroider or simply ignore the plain text of the Constitution, but until now this has been done with arguments (however groundless and illogical) that formally preserve its authority.

Now a question has arisen with respect to what may be in a practical sense the most critical allocation of power in the Constitution, that of the President of the United States. Though by election that power is in the gift of the American people, the Constitution clearly imposes two restrictions or conditions upon it. It cannot be extended to someone under 35 years of age. It cannot be given to anyone who is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

Evidence has emerged, including recorded statements by his Kenyan grandmother, that raise doubts as to whether Barack Obama is in fact a natural born U.S. citizen, eligible to be president. Whatever the facts are, there can be no doubt of the constitutional requirement, and no doubt that a conscious decision to ignore it involves open and destructive disregard for the Constitution's authority. If Obama is accepted as president of the United States in a context that sets aside the Constitution of the United States, by what authority will he govern?

Read Mr. Keyes article in its entirety at WorldNetDaily, along with the words of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. Note Keyes' comments about the the civil rights cause and the authority given to civil rights and citizenship, which depend solely on the Constitution.

Thanks to Thoughts on God for leading me to Mr. Keyes and other discussions of the citizenship issue. This is an amazing blog. Be sure to visit.

In the meantime, we must await the Supreme Court decision on a yay or nay for hearing Donofrio's case. You'll find some interesting commentary on that likelihood at America's Right.

Related:
More from Donofrio at Natural Born Citizen blog

And research on other possible ineligible Presidents, and the one who probably was ineligible, by virtue of a calculated lie: "President?" Chester Arthur et al - Why they aren't precedent for Obama's Eligibility

Taliban Momentum? Not so much...

We've been hearing a lot about the increasing power and success of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The media, never wanting to feed us more than we can digest, are content to distill the news into a few neutral terms like "Taliban winning" and "George Bush losing." NATO is struggling to keep the focus on the fighting of terrorism over there, but the American general David McKiernan has done an incredible job considering he's working with European intransigents who are more eager to debate than defeat terrorism. In fact, while naysayers like to chide America for hunting Taliban while the poppy crop blossoms uncontrolled, great strides have been made in that area without the help of Germany, France, Spain and Italy, who have refused to join in the operations. Right now there are 32,000 American troops under the general, with 20,000 more on their way, adding to the total of 70,000 foreign soldiers in the country. The news coming from the battle in that timeless land is good, regardless of what you read. Over at Strategy Page they've gone through some of the numbers:
Total Taliban related deaths in Afghanistan this year will probably be close to 5,800. About half of them Taliban and a third of them civilians (ten percent by foreign troops, over 70 percent from Taliban violence). The Taliban were not able to get an offensive going this year. It was not for want of trying. Taliban (and their al Qaeda allies) attacks were up by over a third compared to last year. Most of this was because of suicide bombers and roadside bomb attacks. These mostly killed civilians, even though they were primarily aimed at foreign troops and Afghan security forces. So far this year, 268 foreign troops were killed, with about 290 expected for the entire year.

Last year, 7,700 people died in Taliban violence, 58 percent of them Taliban, 26 percent of them civilians (mostly from Taliban violence) and most of the rest Afghan security forces. There were 232 foreign troops killed.

In 2006, there were 4,400 dead, with about the same ratios as 2007, with 191 foreign troops killed. In 2005, when the Taliban violence began to sharply increase, there were 1,700 dead, half of them Taliban, and a higher proportion among the Afghan police and army. Foreign troops suffered 130 dead.

The Taliban declare that their primary objective is to drive foreign troops from the country. In this, they have failed in a spectacular fashion, failing to kill many of them, and being slaughtered in great numbers when they confront the foreign troops directly.

If the Taliban expect to live long, they ought to consider a non-confrontational approach, like Obama's "Hope" strategy that has worked so well for him. But it's tough to hew to such a thing when you're forcing a medieval lifestyle on the people around you - people will only grovel for so long before the stick you're beating them with will be turned against you.

Let's Play, "Name That Bailout"!

Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


Which of the below Detroit firms do you think will get the next government bailout?







No Problem at UCI?


Amir Abdel Malik Ali




Alim Musa




Mohammed al-Asi


Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This letter may be shared with whomever deemed appropriate."

A Date Which Will Live in Infamy (satire)


Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Day of Infamy" Speech To the Congress of the United States:
(Satire)
[revised and updated]


[...] I also want to speak tonight directly to the Japanese people.
We respect your culture and your faith. Shintoism is practiced freely by many millions of decent Japanese. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Shintoism blaspheme the name itself. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack the peaceful religion of Shintoism. The enemy of America is not our many Japanese friends. Our enemy is that small radical group of Japanese fanatics who have hijacked the peaceful Japanese nation and declared war on humanity. (Applause.)

The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation. My friends, we must be strong in the face of adversity. The enemy wants to destroy our American way of life. We must not let this happen. We must not alter our day-to-day activities and our constitutionally-guaranteed right to the pursuit of happiness. If we change our way of life in anyway whatsoever, then the enemy wins. (Applause.)

A recent report on retail sales shows a strong beginning to the holiday shopping season across the country -- and I encourage you all to go shopping more. So, take the kids and get out the car and go out there and have some fun, my friends. Remember, our enemies are hoping that we will change our way of doing things here in America. We must not give them that victory. Good night, and God bless you all. (Applause.)


We will not change our way of life or the enemy will win.

In other news:


Antiwar activists busy at home


Antiwar widow, Mrs. Emily Ferguson, whose heroic Marine husband Homer was killed in April on Saipan writes another angry letter to President Roosevelt protesting our inhumane treatment of Japanese prisoners of war.

The fiery Mrs. Ferguson, the highly-visible symbol of the growing American antiwar movement WWAW (War Widows Against War) has opposed the War in the Pacific from the very beginning, referring to it as an illegal and unjust act of revenge. "Our treatment of our Japanese POWs is inhumane and unconscionable and goes against all that we stand for as a nation of principles," said Mrs. Ferguson at a recent Peace Rally in Philadelphia. Her message to America: "We should be ashamed of ourselves."


Antiwar rally in Chicago




Friday May 15


America First Committee decries war effort. Calls for tolerance and understanding.

Several speakers took to the podium in today's rally at the Grovesner Auditorium in southwest Chicago and accused the federal government of racism and unfair discrimination against Japanese-Americans. The AFC has repeatedly accused FDR of lying to the public in order to bring America into an unnescessary and unwanted war with Japan. "We have brought nothing but death and suffering to the innocent people of Japan," said an AFC spokesman William Connors. "We were attacked on December 7th because of the selfish imperialistic policies of this current administration. We cannot go around the world bullying other nations and not expect to make enemies. We should be ashamed of ourselves."



And from Washington



Washington DC

FDR appoints U.S. Envoy to Japanese Empire, repairing battered image and explaining ourselves


In a move which some critics describe as an effort to mollify the growing antiwar elements within his own party, FDR appointed Japanese-American businessman and philanthropist Yushido Osaki special envoy to the Japanese Empire. His mission, according to a senior White House spokesman, is to repair the fundamental misunderstandings between the Japanese people and the Americans. "It is hoped that by explaining our American culture and our long-term international goals that we can end this unfortunate atmosphere of suspicion and hostility which currently exists between our two great nations."

To some, this is seen as a move to appease some of his more vocal critics both within and outside of the administration, who have long argued for conciliation and dialogue with the Japanese government, rather than continuing military confrontation. We shall see what this latest effort produces.



Tomorrow's story: Rising American casualties in the Pacific. Is it worth it?



Note from Radarsite: Beginning in 1942, gas was rationed at five gallons per week; later that year, sugar and coffee were rationed, followed in 1943 by rationing of shoes, meat, cheese, fats and all canned goods. Over 95% of Japanese POWs survived the war, while only 49% of Allied POWs returned to their native lands.

Originally posted 3/11/08

The Simpson Verdict



Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today was a good day.