Biden in Maui: A Total Disgrace

Gary Fouse

I have been watching videos of President Biden's arrival in Maui and his remarks. I am completely dumbfounded at what I have watched and heard. Flanked by Hawaiian officials, he starts by making inane remarks designed to produce chuckles but totally out of place with the event. Then he later compares a minor house fire he had several years ago that was caused by lightning to what has happened in Maui. A simple kitchen fire that was extinguished in 20 minutes. When talking about the Lahaina fire, the destruction, the dead, and the missing, he had to read from a sheet of paper.

And it appears he's already gone. According to Sean Hannity on his Fox News show tonight, Biden has flown back to Lake Tahoe to resume his vacation. Of course, he just finished his vacation in Rehobeth Beach, Delaware. 

It just staggers the imagination.

This man, whose corruption in the Ukrainian Burisma scandal has just worsened today with the disclosure of State Department documents that strongly indicate that his demand to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Burisma and his son, Hunter, was not based on US policy, but his own personal interest. The documents revealed by investigative reporter John Solomon on Hannity's show tonight indicate that State and other agencies had urged the administration to go ahead with the billion-dollar aid package to Ukraine because it was their opinion that the government was making progress on corruption. This story will surely be expanded in the coming days. 

Joe Biden has neither the cognitive ability nor the integrity to serve as president. Everybody knows it whether they will admit it or not. And to make matters worse, his resignation (or impeachment) would only make Kamala Harris our president, another scary thought.

God help this country in such a troubled time.

US Loses to Sweden in Women's World Cup (Soccer)

Gary Fouse



I hardly follow the sport of soccer at all, let alone, women's soccer, but I have to make a short reference to the elimination of the US women's soccer team by Sweden on Sunday.

As one who considers himself a patriotic American, I confess that I am pleased.

In my mind, this group of young ladies-with a handful of exceptions- has done nothing to merit the support of the American public. For several years now, we have put up with Megan Rapinoe's refusal to stand for our National Anthem before matches, coupled with her condemnation of her own country even before international forums. Then I saw a video clip of their recent match where most of the players stood around looking uninterested as the Anthem was played. A couple of the ladies placed their hands over their hearts, and a couple appeared to be singing, but for the most part, they appeared bored and uninterested.

So I say to myself, "why should I support this team?" If that is the attitude that the majority of this team appears to have about their own country, the country they are representing on the world stage, I have no interest in supporting them. So I am happy they lost. 

Now I can go back to ignoring the whole event.

Are the Walls Closing in on Joe Biden?

Gary Fouse

This article first appeared in New English Review.

(L-R) IRS agents Gary Shapely and Joseph Ziegler

History may record that the Republicans taking back the House of Representatives in 2022 was a landmark event in bringing about the downfall of Joe Biden. At the risk of getting ahead of myself here, the House hearings into the Biden family misdeeds seem to be bearing fruit. At appears about half a dozen FBI and IRS whistle-blowers have come forward to tell House Republicans how their investigation into Hunter Biden’s business dealings with China, Ukraine, and other questionable entities, coupled with his tax problems, was thwarted by the Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick Garland.

IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapely and Joseph Ziegler have now publicly testified under oath that their investigation into Hunter Biden was obstructed by DOJ. They claim that the US Attorney for Delaware, David Weiss, told them that he was not given permission by DOJ to fully investigate Hunter Biden’s business dealings. Garland has denied this allegation to Congress. In a letter to the House, Weiss basically supported Garland’s claim. This is a matter that needs to be clarified fully and in detail because somebody is lying to Congress here. As everyone knows, Hunter Biden has been allowed to plead to a sweetheart deal that fails to serve the cause of justice given the huge amounts of money he has reportedly failed to pay taxes on.

In addition, after much wrangling, Congress has finally obtained a copy of an official FBI report (FD-1023) that outlined allegations made by a confidential informant, whom they have described as highly trustworthy, one who has had a long association with the Bureau as a source of information. This informant told agents that he or she had met with Mykola Zlochevskythe head of the Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, in Kiev and was told by him that he had 17 tape-recorded conversations with Joe (2) and Hunter Biden (15), as well as text exchanges discussing payments to the Biden family in exchange with then-Vice President Biden’s (successful) efforts to get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired who was investigating Burisma. This occurred while Hunter Biden was serving on Burisma’s Board of Directors. According to what the source heard from Zlochevsky, ten million dollars was paid to Joe and Hunter Biden, evenly divided. Others were reportedly at this meeting including Oleksandr Ostapenko, who reportedly traveled to Ukraine with the informant. If true, it would mean that Joe Biden had another reason to get the prosecutor fired aside from protecting his son-cold hard cash.

At this point, I should point out that this is an allegation made by the confidential informant. It may be argued that it could all turn out to be another Steele Dossier, which contained unverified and false allegations against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. What is needed here is corroboration by Zlochevsky (and any others present) backed up by his producing and authenticating the recorded telephone conversations and texts. In addition, the payments need to be documented as well. I would assume that the appropriate travel documents for the source and Ostapenko are readily available for purposes of partial corroboration.

I have no idea whether Zlochevsky or the others present would be inclined to furnish this evidence and testimony, and given the huge military support we are giving Ukraine, I would not discount the possibility of international big-power politics getting involved here.

The task at hand for the House Republicans (because DOJ and the FBI cannot be trusted to follow this trail) is to corroborate what is alleged by the FBI informant through direct evidence-both testimony and documents- and to reconcile the contradiction between what the whistleblowers are telling Congress vs what Congress is being told by Garland and Weiss regarding alleged obstruction. If all that can be accomplished, the House Republicans can at least send a very strong referral for indictment to DOJ, not to mention a move toward impeachment. Of course, the difficulty of charging a sitting president also comes into play, added to the fact that DOJ has allowed the statute of limitations to pass on many of these alleged crimes, seemingly by slow-walking the whole investigative process.

Compared to the treatment of former President Donald Trump, it does not speak well for what was once the fairest system of justice in the world. 

A Look at BDS on College Campuses-With a Special Look at UC Riverside

Gary Fouse

Hat tip Legal Insurrection

David Lloyd
UC Riverside

I am cross-posting an article in Legal Insurrection, which in turn, cross-posts a report by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) on the BDS campaign on college campuses (Boycott, Divest and Sanctions) against Israel and its effect on free speech and academic freedom. The author of the report is Dr. Ian Oxnevad. It can be accessed here.

In the part of the report that deals specifically with UC Riverside, the name of English Professor David Lloyd is mentioned prominently since he is one of the campus leaders when it comes to BDS. In January 2014, per his invitation, Omar Barghouti, a co-founder of BDS, spoke at UCR. I attended and asked a question during the q and a. In describing Barghouti's presentation as one-sided, I asked the school if and when they might invite a pro-Israel speaker to campus to give students an opposing view. (Barghouti's appearance was officially sponsored by the school.) Lloyd personally responded and called my question "preposterous". Lloyd also referenced the 2010 appearance at UC Irvine by then-Israeli ambassador Michael Oren (I was also present for that event) and noted that Oren was never asked to debate pro-Palestinian voices. What Lllyd neglected to mention was that Oren was repeatedly disrupted by members of the Muslim Student Union, eight of whom were UC Irvine students and three of whom were UC Riverside students. All in all, 11 students had to be removed by campus police and were subsequently prosecuted and convicted.

But imagine that: Asking for some degree of balance of opposing opinions for university students is "preposterous". 

Omar Barghouti

I also videotaped the entire 2014 event at UCR which can be viewed here

Katie, We Hardly Knew Ye

Gary Fouse

Katie Porter (D-CA)
Doing the math for a non-existant bank employee

This morning, while driving to the gym, I was listening to the John Phillips Show on KABC (Los Angeles). Phillips, a conservative talk show host, was going off on Katie Porter (D-CA), our local House of Representatives congresswoman in Orange Country. Katie is a former law professor at The UC Irvine School of Law, which is little more than a legal training ground for leftwing activists. She is now running for the Senate seat being vacated by Diane Feinstein. (Porter announced her candidacy even before Feinstein announced that she was retiring. Porter will be opposed by Adam Schiff and Barbara Lee, both Democratic Congress persons. Between the three of them, they are all awful.

It seems that the Daily Mail, a noted UK tabloid, had gotten ahold of divorce papers from when Katie and her former husband, Matthew Hoffman, split up a few years back. In the court documents, Hoffman alleged that Katie had a ferocious temper and would scream, drop f-bombs, and physically abuse him. (Porter denies all this).

Below is the Daily Mail article about Porter. The article is based on court documents. To my knowledge, DM has not interviewed either Porter or Hoffman.


To be clear, Porter and her ex-husband are giving diverging accounts, and I cannot say who is telling the truth. As the DM article describes, others have come forward to complain about how Katie treats people. The only thing the DM left out is when Katie was grilling the JP Morgan bank president in Congress in 2019 and made up a fictitious woman named "Patricia", who was supposedly a struggling single mom working as a teller in the JP Morgan branch in Irvine and making a very low salary. Only later, did Katie admit in an interview that she had made Patricia up. 

Will this latest flap hurt Katie's political career? Who knows? After all, she is a Democrat. But if it does, the UC Irvine School of Law can keep that seat warm for Katie.

The SOTU-Why Bother?

Gary Fouse

Watching the overly-long State of the Union Last  Night, I thought back to last week's NFL Pro Bowl, an absurd flag football affair preceded by various skills competitions-everything but a swimsuit competition. The obvious question is why do they continue having the Pro Bowl-as well as the State of the Union? You see one State of the Union, you've seen them all. It's the same old script.

Much has already been said by the talking heads about the SOTU, and there's little I can add. I could ask how many times President Biden said, "Folks....", but I don't know the answer without having to sit through a replay. What I would like to do is simply point out that there were two elephants in the room last night in the nation's Capitol, and it took Biden about an hour to even mention them in passing. Those were China and their Beautiful Balloon and our broken border with Mexico.

Finally, when Biden started talking briefly about China, his only reference to the balloon that had just crossed our country from sea to shining sea, was that the US had been tested and had reacted strongly (I am paraphrasing). Had he reacted strongly, he would have ordered that balloon to be shot down as soon as it was detected somewhere out West. Nor would he have allowed his military advisors-as he claims they did- to say they would wait until it had reached the Atlantic coast. Even then, instead of having strong words for CHinca in his SOTU, he was conciliatory. There must be a reason Biden won't get tough with China. Could it be that he knows China has him and his wayward son, Hunter, in their pocket? They have bought the Biden family. Enough said about that.

When it came to the border, Biden started giving talking points as to how many apprehensions had been made, blah blah, blah. He said nothing about how many illegals had entered the US during his presidency. Nothing about how an over-taxed Border Patrol had been taken from their normal duties of securing the border to simply processing illegals and sending them on their way.

It is true that Biden talked about the fentanyl epidemic. He wants to "crack down" on fentanyl, but he doesn't want to secure our border with Mexico, over which fentanyl enters the US in the first place after the precursors are sent to Mexico from China. Fentanyl alone is more than sufficient reason to secure our border-something Biden and his feckless DHS chief Alejandro Mayorkas refuse to do. Then Biden added insult to injury by insisting on "comprehensive immigration reform" and a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers etc. 

In short, it was disgusting. Sarah Sanders, the Governor of Arkansas, said it best in her excellent response when she said that this man was unfit to serve as president.

Euthanasia in the Third Reich

Gary Fouse

This article first appeared in New English Review.

Heil und Pflegeanstalt, Erlangen in 1890

Amid all the horrors of the Third Reich, including World War 2 and the Holocaust, one atrocity that is often overlooked (at least outside of Germany) was the program of euthanasia of mentally and physically handicapped people instituted by Hitler in 1939 when the war broke out. In Hitler's own terminology, these people were classified as "useless eaters". This program was referred to as "T4", named after the address of the office set up to oversee the program nationally (Tiergartenstrasse 4 in Berlin).

Under this program, patients in nursing care facilities around the country (Heil und Pflegenanstalten) were identified and their cases reviewed by doctors indoctrinated in Nazi philosophy. Once approved, these unfortunates (regardless of age) were transported to centers set up for the purpose of killing them by gas. It was sort of a dress rehearsal for the eventual gassing centers such as Auschwitz. This program also included children.

This went on without consultation with relatives of the patients, and these families were eventually notified by mail that their loved one had died in the nursing care facility of various natural causes or illnesses. The remains were generally cremated.

Yet, the public gradually became aware, and curiously enough, as complaints mounted, the Nazi government discontinued the program in 1941, but then reduced the patients' diets to the point that they gradually died of malnutrition.

While researching my book on the history of the German town of Erlangen (Erlangen: An American's History of a German Town), I became aware of the tragic history of their own Heil und Pflegeanstalt   This information was included in the chapter on the years 1933-1945.

With all that as a background, I happened to find a 2019 German YouTube documentary on the topic of the Heil und Pflegenanstalten of Ansbach and Neuendettelsau, two towns near Erlangen in Middle Franconia (Bavaria). In watching the video, I learned that many, if not most of the doomed patients in these two clinics were transferred to the facility at Erlangen before being shipped on to the infamous Hartheim Castle in Austria, which had been transformed into a euthanasia center. It is estimated that over 900 patients from Erlangen were euthanized in killing centers such as Hartheim and another 1,500 were allowed to starve to death.

Hartheim Castle in Austria

In the video, Als hätte es sie nie gegeben (As if they had never existed)there were clips of an interview with medical historian, Hans-Ludwig Siemen, as well as clips from his presentation on the topic, which took place in Erlangen. Siemen and Christine-Ruth Müller are co-authors of a book entitled, "Warum sie sterben mussten: Leidensweg und Vernichtung von Behinderten aus den Neuendettelsauer Pflegeanstalten im "Dritten Reich(Why they had to die: Suffering and extermination of the disabled in the Neuendettelsau nursing homes in the Third Reich), published in 1991.

While watching the video, I happened to see a good friend of mine in Erlangen in the audience attending Siemen's presentation. I contacted him by email this week, and he quickly replied that indeed, it was him in the audience. With his permission, I am reposting what he emailed me:

Yes, that's me in the audience, Gary! Amazing coincidence! An act of providence really. I was there when Dr. Siemen spoke about the matter in the Volkshochschule Erlangen some years ago (before Corona). The reason is that in my mother's family, there were two physically (deaf and mute by birth) and finally probably mentally handicapped elderly women who died in the Bezirksklinikum Ansbach in the 1940s after they had been transferred from Neuendettelsau (Lutheran homes for the handicapped) to Ansbach where the Nazi physicians had total control. One of them died presumably due to the scanty "Hungerkost" diet, and the other one died in 1946, i.e. after the Nazi regime.

 I have been researching about their case in archives for years and will definitely write something about them because I feel they belong to our family although they have been more or less forgotten over the decades. Thank God both my grandmother and my mother told me frankly about them during their lifetime. I'll watch the video tomorrow in quiet. I'll touch base again with you afterward. Thanks a lot, Gary! Again I needed you to show me this. Wonderful connection!

All the best,


The site of the Erlangen Heil und Pflegeanstalt is now part of the University of Erlangen Psychiatric Clinic. Recently, the city of Erlangen tore down some of the old buildings, but some of it has been left standing as part of a memorial to the victims. It is one of many examples of sites related to the Nazi years that have become the subject of debate. Should they be torn down, erased, or preserved in an appropriate context so as to remind future generations of a time that must never be repeated. Just a few miles south of Erlangen, the city of Nuremberg is wrestling with what to do with the surviving (but crumbling) relics of the Nazi Party Rally grounds.

As a side note, when Erlangen fell to the US Army in 1945, a World War 1 memorial to Germany's fallen was partially torn down by the Americans. While they left standing concrete blocks with the names of Erlangen's war dead, a huge statue of a seated soldier, shirtless, with a helmet, was removed as being overly militaristic.

My personal opinion is that in the case of Germany, these sites should be preserved in some manner as a memorial to the victims. In the US, we are having a somewhat similar debate over the preservation of Civil War memorials. History, good or bad, cannot be erased. It is there. All we can try to do is put it in an appropriate context and learn from it.

What Will Biden Say to Border Patrol Agents Sunday?

Gary Fouse

 So President Biden has announced that at long last, he will visit the border on Sunday, specifically El Paso, which is swarming with illegal migrants. He will meet with Mexican president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Biden says he wants to assess the situation. At the same time, he is announcing new measures to try and get a handle on the crisis. I assume he will be accompanied by his feckless vice president (Kamala Harris-the supposed "border czar") and his feckless director of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas. My question is whether he will meet with rank-and-file Border Patrol agents and look them in the eye. If so, what will he say to them?

Will he tell them that illegal migrants are comparable to "Jews fleeing the Holocaust", echoing a statement he made this week?

Will he tell them they "they are going to pay" for the so-called whipping that agents on horseback supposedly administered to Haitian migrants coming across the Rio Grande in 2021? That was a statement he made at the time and a charge that was proven to be false. Or will apologize for his past statement?

As he is talking to Border Patrol agents (if he talks to them at all) will Mayorkas be lurking over his shoulder ready to jot down the names of any agents who dare to speak frankly to Biden about the situation?

Frankly, I am getting ahead of myself because I frankly don't know how Biden can look those agents in the face.

Biden and Simple Possession of Marijuana

Gary Fouse



President Biden has made his pitch for the pot-smoking vote this week by announcing that he is issuing pardons for anybody who has been convicted on the federal level for simple possession of marijuana. This raises a lot of interesting points.

As a retired DEA agent, I did have occasions to work marijuana cases. Actually, most all of those cases were when I was a US Customs agent prior to joining the newly-created DEA in July 1973. With Customs, I was assigned to a group exclusively investigating the smuggling of large, commercial quantities of marijuana by aircraft, something that was quite prevalent at the time in the Southwest area bordering Mexico.

As my career continued in DEA from 1973-1995 when I retired, marijuana understandably became a lesser priority compared to heroin, cocaine, and later drugs like methamphetamine. The biggest priority now for DEA is fentanyl, of course.

At this point, I would like to introduce the federal drug law dealing with simple possession of controlled substances (drugs requiring a prescription or simply drugs that are illegal on their face, like heroin). The federal laws regarding drugs are under Title 21 of the US Code. These were the laws I enforced as a Customs and DEA agent. The statutes we were most concerned with and most often charged were smuggling, possession with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to do the same. There is a statute for simple possession. It is 21 USC 844.

It is important to note that no federal prosecutor would accept a case that involved someone arrested for simple possession of a personal quantity of drugs, especially marijuana. I cannot speak for every state and local jurisdiction, but at a federal level, we only cared about commercial quantities. That means that we didn't care about some guy smoking a joint in his home. But if his home contained 500 kilos of marijuana, that was not for his personal use. That was clearly what we called a commercial quantity. He was trafficking.

So now you might ask why is this 21 USC 844 on the books? In practice, it is used for plea bargaining purposes. Pleading to a lesser charge. It is especially handy when a defendant has cooperated with law enforcement to a great degree and deserves a big break. Let me give you an example. Let's say DEA arrests a guy transporting a load of cocaine in his vehicle, let's say 20 kilos. It turns out that he is just a "mule" who is being paid to carry the drugs from one place or one person to another person or place. The driver agrees to cooperate. He names the person who gave him the drugs and the name of the person he is supposed to deliver the drugs to. He also agrees to go through with the delivery to the intended recipient, which he does under the control of the agents. To make a long story short, everybody is arrested on both ends, and the driver testifies in court. In return, he is allowed to plead to a lesser offense (21 USC 844 in many cases).

That's what we are talking about. Nobody at the federal level is chasing pot smokers and throwing them in federal prison for having a personal supply of marijuana or any other drug. The US Attorney's office would never accept such a case. So this is no great act of mercy by President Biden. 

Biden also wants the government to review whether marijuana is properly classified as a Schedule One drug, like heroin. On its face, it seems ludicrous that marijuana and heroin would be in the same classification or schedule. The reasoning is-you can agree or disagree- that like heroin, marijuana is judged to have a high potential for abuse and has no medically recognized use. You can read the list of schedules under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 here. Interestingly, cocaine and fentanyl are listed under Schedule Two because they do have certain legal medical uses.

The bottom line is that virtually all the beneficiaries of this pardon are people who actually committed more serious offenses, but were allowed to plead to the lesser charge of 21 USC 844-simple possession either because they cooperated with law enforcement and/or simply agreed to plead to the lesser charge.

You are not going to see Cheech and Chong walk out of federal prison where they have been serving time because DEA agents found them smoking marijuana on a street corner.

Austrian President Wants All Austrian Women to Wear Headscarves

Gary Fouse

-"Mommy, why are we fleeing Austria?"
-"So I don't have to wear a fricking scarf"!

Notwithstanding recent events in Iran, the president of Austria, Alexander Van der Bellen, thinks that it is about time to ask all Austrian women to wear headscarves out of solidarity with Muslims. Fortunately, the position of president in Austria is largely ceremonial, and most political power rests with the chancellor.

How about defending the right of Muslim women in Austria not to wear a head scarf if they so choose? How about solidarity with Mahsa Amini, the young Iranian woman who recently died in police custody after being arrested for not "properly" wearing a head scarf? How about solidarity with the people in  Iran who are protesting Amini's death and being killed by Iran police and Revolutionary Guards?

From an American perspective, I would defend the right of Muslim women in the US to wear a headscarf if they feel it is their religious duty. I would also defend their right not to wear it if they don't want to. But the bottom line is that this foolish Austrian president is misdirecting his "solidarity".

Mahsa Amimi
The below article from Unzensuriert (Austria) is translated by Fousesquawk.


Caption: Federal President Alexander Van der Bellen asks Austrian women to wear headscarves out of solidarity with Muslims

Federal presidential election  29 September 2022 16:24

Van der Bellen: "Will have to ask all women to wear a head scarf-out of solidarity".

"Beloved Austria", "Austria with all my heart" is written on the ad posters of Federal President Alexander Van der Bellen, with which he campaigns nationwide for his reelection. But how much credibility are his messages? Can we trust a federal president and really elect him as head of state if he asks women to wear a head scarf out of solidarity with Muslims.

"Not just Muslims, every woman can wear a head scarf"

Many, perhaps, have already forgotten, but when Alexander Van der Bellen was hardly in office, he said verbatim on the ORF-Broadcast, "Report":

"It is the right of a woman to dress however she wishes, that is my opinion on this. Incidentally, not just Muslim women, every woman can wear a head scarf. And if it continues with this Islamophobia actually spreading, the day will come when we will have to ask all women to wear a head scarf. All in solidarity with those who do it for religious reasons."

Why doesn't Van der Bellen wear a head scarf?

When the federal president made this statement, he had been in office almost one hundred days. In social media, there was a lot going around because of the call for solidarity. Die Presse pointed out a few critics.

"Does anyone know if (Van der Bellen wanted to make a joke?" Peter Bussjaeger, Professor of Federalism at the University of Innsbruck, subsequently asked. Manfred Juraczka, former club chairman of the Austrian Peoples' Party in Vienna, likewise used the statement for critique via Kurznachrictendienst (Headline Service). "So much for the election claim that hashtag vdB (Van der Bellen) is a man of the middle." Another user also immediately made another suggestion to the head of state: "Mr Van der Bellen, why don't you set a good example and wear a head scarf?"