Right Wing Nut House

Before Norman Hsu became a household name and right around the time his Ponzi scheme that would eventually lead to his being sentenced to 3 years in prison began to fall apart, he found himself in fear for his life in the back seat of a car with Raymond Kwok Chow, alias “Shrimp Boy,” and a known lieutenant of perhaps the most powerful gang leader in Chinatown; Peter Chong.

Chong came to American in 1989 from Hong Kong with the sole purpose of establishing an American off shoot of the powerful Wo Hop To Triad in which he was one of the major figures. Upon his arrival, he sought out Chow who headed up the Hop Sing gang and was eager to attach himself to one of the major criminal organizations in China. Chow’s gang had been chased out of Chinatown a decade earlier when the Wah Sing gang, run by Danny “Ah Pai” Wong, claimed the streets for themselves.

On the day that Norman Hsu was either being kidnapped or, if you believe Chow, was in the car as the result of a call from Hsu for help because extortionists were after him, the Foster City police stopped the vehicle for running a red light. The story Hsu told the police is interesting:

Hsu told police he had been kidnapped.

“There was a 12 hour ordeal where there was discussions, arguments. Mr. Hsu claims he was assaulted several times and threatened,” said Capt. Matt Martell, Foster City Police Department.

Hsu told police he had business dealings with Chow and there was a dispute over money.

“And what that dollar amount was, different dollar amounts ranged between $300,000 and a $1 million worth of claims,” said Capt. Martell

Chow says Hsu lied, and claims it was Hsu who called him for help that night because he owed people money.

“I met him because he was in trouble, and at that time, I helping him out a lot,” said Chow. “The way he told me, I mean, he being extortion, he being a lot of people tried to hurt him.

Chow and the others were arrested, but charges were later dropped when Hsu became uncooperative with prosecutors.

What was Hsu doing borrowing money from Chow? What was a seemingly respectable businessman doing business with Wo Hop To?

Wo Hop To, according to the US government, is one of several dozen loose knit Asian criminal enterprises investigated by the FBI in the United States. In Hong Kong, where the Triads are illegal but nevertheless retain a high public profile and are very powerful, Wo Hop To is known for its ties to gambling, prostitution, and most notably, protection rackets. If Hsu was being pursued by investors into the very Ponzi scheme that landed him in trouble, he could do no better than seek out the protection of a powerful Triad gang.

Just what kind of “service” would Chow provide? Hsu evidently approached Chow himself:

This was when Chow says he met Norman Hsu. He says Hsu dabbled in clothing, import and export and real estate. He adds Hsu was also in trouble.

“I guess he into a lot of financial problem back then and I loaned him some money,” said Chow. “And I help him with my knowledge and with my strength. That’s all there is.”

Helping Hsu with his “strength” could very well mean that Hsu asked Chow to intimidate investors into not going to the police about his Ponzi scheme. We saw above what a little intimidation could do when Hsu refused to cooperate into the investigation in his own kidnapping.

And if the Triad loaned $1 million to Hsu (reading this long profile of Chow makes it clear he personally did not have that kind of money), what were they expecting in return? If Hsu needed it to pay off investors in order to keep the Ponzi scheme running a little longer, surely the Triad would want a piece of any future action Hsu was able to drum up as far as new investors. In short, it appears that Hsu had gone into business with the most powerful Triad in the United States and a gang that the FBI said rivaled the mafia in sophistication.

So the “kidnapping” could be as Raymond Chow described it; they were protecting Hsu from angry investors, some of whom may have been trying to extort money from him in exchange for their not going to police about Hsu’s con games.

What relevance does all this have to Hsu’s fundraising activities for Democrats?

Either coincidentally or by design, following the fund raising scandals of the 1990’s, the Chinese Communist party forbade the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) from engaging in any business activities. Previously, the army seemed to have a piece of every commercial pie and extracted profits in which they enriched themselves and Chinese officials who were paid to turn the other way with regard to some of the shadier dealings.

As part of those dealings, the Chinese military evidently tried to influence the Clinton Administration to go lax on export licensing agreements that didn’t allow certain sophisticated technology to be transferred to a potential enemy like China by funneling money to the Democratic party through several conduits. There also appeared to be an effort by the Chinese government to influence legislative and state elections as well.

Now that the PLA is prevented from owning businesses that could lobby for relaxed restrictions on high tech items they might like to buy, how would the military go about replacing that influence?

But previously, the Chinese army, like the queen of England, did not need the triads’ crooks to conduct its dirty business, it could do it itself. Any state conducts covert operations through its secret services, performing a vital role for national security, but these activities, conducted by agents and sanctioned by the top political leaders, are for the good of the state, not for that of a small gang.

For practical purposes it is important to distinguish between “dirty activities” conducted directly by a political institution and “dirty activities” conducted indirectly by a political institution through professional independent crooks. Without this difference everything is crime (or vice versa nothing is crime) and we get nowhere: crime overwhelms us. We need clear-cut, reachable objectives, which must be limited in scope and thus in time, otherwise the Mafia stops being a law-and-order issue and becomes a metaphysical force spanning thousands of years of history, as the Mafiosi and triad members like to describe their organizations.

Several authors and investigators have linked the PLA with the Triads for so-called “dirty activities” including the funneling of money to American campaigns.

Thus, Hsu’s flight to Hong Kong makes sense. In that city, and with his connections to Chow and Peter Chong, it would have been easier to set himself up in business by tapping sources like Wo Hop To. Otherwise, how would one explain a bankrupt, nearly penniless businessman landing on his feet in the most expensive city in the world? And how would Hsu repay the Triads their generosity? By moving funds into American campaign for one of the Triad’s major customers, the PLA perhaps?

Interesting speculation - which is all it is. But I don’t think the Triad connection to Mr. Hsu can be dismissed at this point. He probably did business with them in the past. And given the fact the sources of his money remain a mystery, it could very well be that he is doing favors for them today.

Good Rex or bad Rex?

It was midway through the second quarter of the preseason match-up with the 49′ers and it appeared all doubts regarding Rex Grossman could be laid to rest. He had marched the Bears up and down the field, throwing for nearly 200 yards and was pinpoint in his accuracy.

Then, in a matter of minutes all that changed. A fumbled snap in one series and an interception returned for a touchdown by the Niners in the next brought back a flood of memories from the previous season where Wonder Dog’s troubling inconsistency and bonehead plays at the wrong moments made him the target of the media and fans alike who believed he could never take the team to the Super Bowl. Grossman proved them wrong - to a degree. But his sub-par performance in The Big Game brought all the questions and criticisms back in a rush.

Rex “The Wonder Dog” Grossman will be playing his last year in a Bears uniform. The standard of performance has been set so high for him by fans and the media that he will inevitably fail and be booed out of town. Nothing less than a near perfect season and Super Bowl victory is what the fans are demanding of Grossman - something he cannot possibly deliver; certainly not with the Bears having to play a first place schedule and the prospect that every team in the league will now be gunning for them. If the team manages 9 wins this year, they will be fortunate indeed. That still may be enough to get them into the playoffs considering the weakness of the NFC North Division. But it won’t be enough to save Grossman’s job or his career here in Chicago.

It is a shame. Grossman is the most talented Bears quarterback in a generation, perhaps longer. With all the injuries he suffered early in his career, last year was his first full season as a pro. It seems a little unreasonable to expect such perfection from a player with that kind of limited experience but there it is. This is the reality Grossman must deal with this year.

Coach Lovie will not be as patient with Grossman either. A couple of bad games for Wonder Dog and we will probably see Brian Griese. The former Michigan standout who spent 5 productive years early in his career in Denver only to see his fortunes plummet in Tampa Bay and Miami is a solid, serviceable pro. And that’s the best you can say about him. He will set no one’s hair on fire nor has he shown the kind of talent and leadership in his career that would give people the idea that he is anything except what he is now; an excellent back-up quarterback.

But in the end, Lovie may believe that Griese gives the team the best chance to win because the 10 year pro will be able to take care of the ball and not make game-altering mistakes. Griese, in other words, won’t win any games for you. But he won’t lose many either. That may be the determining factor by season’s end as to whether the Bears stick with Grossman or not.

As for the rest of the team, the defense should be better, the offense has been, on paper, marginally improved. And Special Teams may be down a notch or two.

OFFENSE

Gone is durable and dependable RB Thomas Jones, replaced by the sometimes injured but hugely talented Cedric Benson. While the Bears thrived with the two backs under contract, the guys didn’t get along very well and it was proving to be more and more difficult not to make a guy they drafted higher than any Bear since 1975 (#4 overall) and who they are paying $35 million over 5 years the number one back. Benson didn’t win the job based on his performance but rather on the economics of football. Now he must deliver. He must carry 25-30 times a game, punish defenses with his size (225 lbs), catch the ball out of the backfield, and block like a tight end. In the pre-season, he looked improved as far as the latter two requirements. But his durability will be key. There simply isn’t any other NFL quality running back on the team.

The offensive line is back intact. A veteran unit anchored by perennial pro bowler Olin Kreutz at center, they must give Grossman (or Griese) time to set and throw. And a big part of that passing game will now be placed on the shoulders of the tight ends.

In the modified West Coast Offense the Bears are running, the tight end is key. He is the first option on many passing plays and an outlet receiver on many others. Desmond Clark is an adequate blocker but was never a huge part of the offense. The Bears believe they have solved that problem by drafting Greg Olsen out of Miami in the first round. The kid can play. He gives Rex a nice, big target between the hash marks and has proven to possess a good pair of hands. He also has some speed which means that Lovie will be able to slot him on occasion, putting him up against a DB rather than a LB.

Unfortunately, Olsen has a sprained knee at the moment and they will probably hold him out of the opener today against San Diego. But word is that offensive coordinator Ron Turner has a slew of special packages where they will utilize Olsen’s talents to the fullest. This is just the kind of thing that will take pressure off of Grossman and improve his performance. Wonder Dog has proven in the past that when he looks for the TE, the offense thrives. Having a huge talent at that position can only help.

The other addition to the offense is moving return phenom and reserve nickle back Devin Hester to the offense as a receiver. This is a dubious move for the simple reason that the kid is liable to get dinged up at WR which will slow him down when he goes back on punts (Lovie will evidently not use him on kickoffs). And there is always the chance for serious injury as well. Hester won’t duplicate his 6 return touchdowns from last year. But if he can get a handful of TD’s catching the ball, then the experiment will prove to have been worth it.

DEFENSE

Gone is problem child Tank Johnson (cut for bad behavior) as well as DT Alfonso Boone and Ian Scott lost to free agency. But the Bears replaced that trio with three other excellent defensive linemen in Anthony Adams, Dusty Dvoracek, and veteran Darwin Walker. Adams is a load at NT and should be an excellent run stuffer at 300 lbs. Walker was a fixture for 7 years on the Eagles D-line and is one of the best in the business. And Dvoracek, last year’s 3rd rounder for the Bears who was forced to sit out the entire year with a knee injury, is being whispered as a potential Steve McMichael clone. Mongo was a fan favorite and there are some at Bear’s camp who are saying the kid reminds them of him.

Back from injury are DT Tommie Harris and FS Mike Brown. When Brown went down early in the season, the Bears defense was ranked number one in football. By year’s end, they had dropped to fifth. This was no accident. As good as Brian Urlacher and Lance Briggs are at LB, it was Brown who was quarterbacking the defense. It was he who called the coverages and would audible so effectively at the line of scrimmage. Clearly, if Brown stays healthy, the defense will be improved.

Harris will give Lovie the flexibility on the D-Line to keep running 8 or even 9 linemen out there during the course of the game. This has a telling effect on the opposing O-Line and by crunch time, the Bears can dominate the line of scrimmage late in the game. Rookie sensation Mark Anderson (12 sacks) has been moved up to a starting position at the end which may help Adewale Ogunleye. Teams can’t double team both ends at the same time which will leave one or the other with single coverage.

LB Lance Briggs is a wildcard. Will he let the bitter feelings of being slapped with the “Franchise Player” tag affect his play? After swearing he would never play another game in a Bears uniform, Briggs signed late in July and was doing fine - until he wrecked his $150,000 car and left the scene. Hopefully, that is not a harbinger of things to come as the Bears need the talented OLB - especially in pass coverage.

The defensive backfield was bolstered with the addition of SS Adam Archuleta who played well for Lovie in St. Louis but was a bust when he signed a huge free agent contract with the Redskins last year. A hard hitting run stopping and blitz specialist, Archuleta will be shuttled between SS and nickel back. The guy had a nose for the quarterback in St. Louis and he may be one of the big, pleasant surprises of the season.

The Bears are deep and talented on defense. They will probably be called upon to win games by themselves as they did last year.

PREDICTIONS

Who knows?

Which Rex will show up on any given Sunday will determine the success or failure of the team this year. But more than anything, Wonder Dog must take care of the football. I think Lovie will put up with sub par performances as long as he doesn’t turn the ball over - and the team is winning.

Can Benson stay healthy and beyond that, fulfill his enormous promise? Much depends on that too.

Can Mike Brown and Tommie Harris come back from injury and lead the defense back to dominance?

Can Lance Briggs grow up and play ball?

Will Archuleta continue to be a bust? Or will he regain the form that made him one of the best defensive players in the league 3 years ago?

Questions that can only be answered on the field. What we are sure of is that My Beloveds have a killer schedule, playing the Chargers, Eagles, and Redskins on the road while hosting the Cowboys, Broncos, and Saints at home. And with divisional opponents Green Bay and Detroit much improved, the division will be no cakewalk either.

I’d love to see the Bears back in the Super Bowl but recent history shows that teams who were runners up in The Big Game rarely even make the playoffs the following year much less return. But if the Bears remain reasonably healthy, they have a good chance of beating the odds and winning the division.

And in the playoffs, anything is possible.

TODAY’S GAME

The Chargers had 11 pro bowlers last year and feature the best offensive player in football, RB LaDanlian Thomlinson as well as perhaps the best defensive player in football in LB Shaun Merriman. They may be the best team in football as well.

The Chargers are playing at home and are hungry. Expect a close game for at least a half or perhaps two and a half quarters before the Bears defense wears down and San Diego runs away with it.

Final: San Diego 31 Bears 13.

I had some fun with this post yesterday, postulating that Osama Bin Laden would feel right at home blogging at Daily Kos. It’s silly, of course. The confluence of interests between radical jihadist kooks like OBL and the Democratic left has more to do with talking points than ideology. Once a Democrat is in the White House in 2008 and the left controls Congress, the leaders of the party (and, presumably, the netroots) will be confronted with the exact same situation that a Republican would be faced with if he should, despite all the signs, win through to victory and grab the presidency.

That situation boils down to one, overarching reality: We are at war. We have been at war for 30 years. If the netroots want to parse the definition of war or even try and pretend that this is not so, it hardly matters. Radical Islamists believe they are at war with us. They believed it before there were netroots, before there was an internet. And they will continue to believe it no matter who is president, no matter what foreign policy we espouse, and no matter what their apologists and appeasers here and abroad would have you believe.

This then, is The Long War - a struggle against an ideology that threatens more than our complacency, more than our sense of security, and more than the illusions we have of our invincibility. It is a war against the secular, nebulous, undefinable freedoms we enjoy in the west versus the dogmatic holy writ of the Koran and those who warp and twist its teachings for their own murderous ends.

How big a threat is the global jihad being waged against the United States and the west? I agree with the left that the threat should be kept in perspective. I do not agree with the left when they attempt to minimize it.

Fred Thompson’s take on OBL and The Long War is just about right:

“Bin Laden being in the mountains of Pakistan or Afghanistan is not as important as there are probably al-Qaida operatives inside the United States of America,” Thompson said.

Bin Laden is considered the man behind the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. The former Tennessee senator and actor argued that “bin Laden is more symbolism than anything else. I think it demonstrates to people once again that we’re in a global war.”

Thompson said the al-Qaida leader and the Iraq war must be seen as part of the larger war on terrorism.

“It’s one that bin Laden and people like him are heading up and we need to catch him and we surely need to deal with him, but if he disappeared tomorrow we still have this problem. If Iraq disappeared tomorrow, we’d still have this problem,” Thompson said.

GOP presidential candidates jumped on Fred’s “symbolism” statement like starving dogs who are tossed a slab of prime rib:

“He’s more than a symbol,” McCain told ABC News when asked about Thompson’s comments. “He’s motivating and recruiting using the internet as we speak. He’s a threat. He’s a threat.”

McCain said bin Laden poses an enormous threat to Americans because of his ability to communicate, motivate and recruit people who are dedicated to the destruction of the U.S.

“It’s very important that we get him. I’ll get him,” McCain said.

Another Thompson rival, former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., suggested the al-Qaeda leader is a real threat.

“Osama Bin Laden is the face of evil,” Romney said in a statement reacting to the bin Laden tape. “His stated goal is conversion by compulsion, the surrender of liberty to terror and the abandonment of the foundations of a free society.”

The last two National Intelligence Estimates have made it clear that al-Qaeda - the parent organization that planned and executed the 9/11 attacks as well as other operations against our citizens and interests - is a shadow of its former self. Their financial networks are shattered. Their cells have been smashed in city after city, country after country. Their leadership caught or killed - except Osama himself who even Romney admits is a symbol, being “the face of evil.” What McCain, Romney, and other candidates are doing is what the Bush Administration was accused of doing for the last 6 years; ratcheting up fear of al-Qaeda and terrorism in order to score political points with the public.

Al-Qaeda may be smashed but, as the NIE’s made very clear, they have spawned dozens of smaller, less capable, but very deadly offshoots such as al-Qaeda in Iraq and Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon. Their connections to the “old” al-Qaeda may be more spiritual and ideological in nature. But that doesn’t lessen the threat they pose to the US and the west, given that they are plugged in to a loose but very real network of jihadists worldwide who share conduits for funding, arms, and even expertise in the planning and execution of terrorist attacks (the 7/7 London bombings are an example).

It is impossible to look into the mind and hearts of men and glean important truths. Inevitably, our perceptions regarding the actions of others are colored by our own biases, our own prejudices. I have no doubt that on occasion, the Bush Administration has stooped to using the tactic of deliberately overstating the threat of terrorism in order to scare people into voting Republican. Former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has said as much. But to extrapolate from the political use of the terrorism issue to the idea that The Long War is some plot to establish a permanent Republican majority is just plain daft.

The Long War is as much a part of politics in America as social security, welfare, health care, or any other issue. This can’t be helped anymore than the Democrats can help their time honored tactic of scaring old people into believing that if they elect Republicans, their social security benefits will be cut, or even disappear. In a free society, all public matters become political matters. We created a political world so that there would be a framework where decisions on national issues like war and peace could be discussed by the representatives of the people. It should not surprise us or disappoint us, or anger us that The Long War would be affected by the political tug of war between those who jockey for power in Washington.

The threat is real, it is serious, and has the potential (given the fact that someday it is a dead certainty that terrorists and WMD will marry up in a nightmare few liberals seem willing to confront) to destroy our society. Jihadists may not invade and take over the White House. But a couple of nukes detonated in American cities will accomplish most of OBL’s goals. Far beyond the damage to the cities themselves would be the resulting chaos, refugees, economic catastrophe, and the probability that our response would be to nuke a target of choice - even if that target had little or nothing to do with the strike itself. Choose your nightmare scenario to follow that action.

Fred Thompson’s response to OBL’s statement shows that there is at least one Republican who gets it. Romney, on the other hand, wishes to fall back on playing the fear card in order to score political points. It’s time we moved a little closer to the moderate left on the issue of The Long War and begin to place the struggle in a realistic, historical context that will beget policies that give us the opportunity to confront the threat without allowing politics to either diminish or exaggerate it.

It may not be possible given the current state of the political culture in Washington. But it would certainly start us on the road to defeating the terrorists, thwarting their designs, and perhaps even allow for the recognition that we fight the ideas of jihad with other, more powerful ideas; that freedom is better than slavery, liberty is better than tyranny, and knowledge is better than ignorance.

I just got this from my super secret source over at Daily Kos; Osama Bin Laden has agreed to post a daily diary over at the founding netroots web site.

Why, you might ask? The master terrorist made clear in the transcript of the soon to be released tape that he agrees 100% with the netroots about the cowardly performance of the Democratic party when it comes to Iraq:

“People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven’t made a move worth mentioning. On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there.”

Visit just about any netroots blog and peruse any post since the beginning of the year and you’ll find almost the exact same criticism using pretty much the same words.

Then there’s the “Haliburton angle” brought out by some (not all) lefty bloggers - certainly many other Kos diarists:

According to the transcript, bin Laden says there are two ways to end the war:

“The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you.”

The second is to do away with the American democratic system of government. “It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations.”

Sounds like Osama is the perfect lefty revolutionary to me. I’m sure he’d have some insightful things to say about changing our system of government in order to blunt the interests of major corporations.

Maybe Osama and Al Gore can team up to write a climate change entry:

He also speaks to recent issues grabbing headlines in the United States, referring to “the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes…”

Sounds like he could do a duet with John Edwards as well.

And here, Osama gives full rein to Bush Derangement Syndrome:

He says to the American people, “you made one of your greatest mistakes, in that you neither brought to account nor punished those who waged this war, not even the most violent of its murderers, [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld…”

“You permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term, which gave him a clear mandate from you — with your full knowledge and consent — to continue to murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then you claim to be innocent! The innocence of yours is like my innocence of the blood of your sons on the 11th — were I to claim such a thing.”

Bin Laden says President Bush’s words echo “neoconservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Richard Perle.”

At least he kidney punched the 9/11 truthers by taking responsibility for the attack - not that those loons believe him anyway.

But everyone else will recognize the words and phrases - exact phrases - used by lefties from the start of the war. The desire to charge Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld with war crimes. The criticism of the American people for re-electing Bush. And like most of the left, Bin Laden wouldn’t know a “Neo-con” if one came up and bit him in the ass.

Yes, Osama would fit right in with the folks over at Kos. Of course, they’d have to ignore the “religion thing” but I’m sure they’ll make some allowances just so they can grab a leading political personality like Bin Laden.

I can’t wait to see some of the comment threads on those posts…

Norman Hsu is a fugitive no longer.

Taken ill on a train outside of Grand Junction, Colorado, Hsu was whisked away to a hospital with an undisclosed ailment. Somehow, authorities found out about it and Hsu was taken into custody:

Authorities received a request for medical assistance at the train station at about 11:15 a.m., but the exact nature of Hsu’s condition was unclear, Chavez said. Staff at St. Mary’s Hospital declined to comment.

FBI spokesman Joseph Schadler said Hsu will be returned to California on the 1992 conviction once released from the hospital.

Hsu’s attorney told state prosecutors that Hsu had been on a charter flight that arrived at Oakland International Airport at about 5:30 a.m. Wednesday and then dropped out of sight, said Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for the state attorney general’s office.

Amtrak’s California Zephyr train offers service from nearby Emeryville to Grand Junction before heading to Denver and Chicago. The Zephyr left Emeryville at about 7:10 a.m. Wednesday and was scheduled to arrive in Grand Junction before noon Thursday.

Hsu’s disappearing act seemed to be a reprise of a move he pulled 15 years ago, when he failed to show up for sentencing in the same grand theft case. Hsu was facing up to three years in state prison, a $10,000 fine and restitution payments after pleading no contest to a single count of grand theft in what prosecutors described as a $1 million fraud scheme.

But while free on bail after his plea, Hsu dropped from sight for 15 years, apparently spending time in Hong Kong, the Philippines and Taiwan, only to emerge in recent years as a seemingly wealthy New York resident who donated generously to Democratic political campaigns, regularly attended fundraisers and was photographed with party leaders.

What are the chances that our little Hsu bird will sing?

The feds are going to drop the charge of fleeing prosecution immediately upon his return to California. I’m no expert but isn’t that kind of dumb? Wouldn’t you want to hold that over his head in exchange for some answers on his federal fundraising activities? Of course, there are the state charges, but that depends on the California authorities agreeing to cooperate - not a foregone conclusion by any means. One would think there would be a lot of pressure from Democratic politicians not to look very closely at Mr. Hsu’s work on behalf of the Democratic party. If so, then the California prosecutors would be less than enthusiastic to cooperate with the feds in some kind of plea arrangement where Hsu gets a reduced sentence in return for telling the feds all he knows.

Highly speculative at this point but what this guy has in his head may not only affect the race for President but may also have foreign policy implications. If, as many suspect, Hsu was acting as a bagman for a third party - perhaps the Chinese or even the Taiwanese - the major question we would want to know the answer to is what this third party was going to want in exchange for these contributions.

Then there’s the possibility that Hsu is pretty much what he says he is - a guy with lots of money who likes to make contributions to Democratic politicians. Where did he get the money? He could be, as his record indicates, a professional con man, a grifter who worked his way across Asia for 15 years taking down one mark after another. The article in the Chronicle reports he was known to have been in not only Hong Kong, but also the Philippines and Taiwan. Were overseas authorities aware of his ponzi schemes and perhaps other con games?

You can bet before Hsu opens up about the source of his wealth as well as any possible quid pro quos he may have had with politicians, he will have an ironclad deal signed, sealed, and delivered by the US attorney. That aspect of the case will probably take a while so I would expect it will be a few weeks before the inevitable leaks and off the record reports of what Hsu has to say will be forthcoming.

In the meantime, the Democrats will probably be on pins and needles as much as the Republicans were in the Abramoff scandal.

UPDATE: SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED

The Washington Post has some interesting background on Hsu and has dug up some possible sources for the money he gave to Democrats:

Facts about Hsu are hard to come by. Twenty-year-old clippings from apparel industry publications say he was born and raised in Hong Kong and arrived in the United States in 1969 to attend the University of California at Berkeley. The computer science major went to the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School for an MBA. In 1982, with a group of Hong Kong-based partners, he formed Lavano Sportswear.

The business went bankrupt. Describing that time to a Bay Area newspaper, Hsu said he was young and “made a lot of stupid mistakes.” But Hsu moved on to form a series of new clothing ventures before going back to Hong Kong, from 1992 to 1996, for unknown reasons. Returning to the United States, Hsu invested in several new wholesale apparel and import ventures that collectively generate about $2 million a year, according to Dun & Bradstreet estimates.

Nice business pedigree. And that raises the question of why a Wharton MBA would be pulling ponzi schemes to defraud investors?

Also, the Post story only takes Hsu’s foreign travels into 1996. He evidently returned home just in time to become tangentially involved in the Johnny Trie fundraising scandal whereupon he once again disappears only to emerge in 2003 hosting an event for John Kerry.

What the Post article does is show that it is possible Hsu is, if not a legitimate businessman, someone who was donating his own money to campaigns and not acting as an agent for anyone else.

But it is also possible that the opposite is true as no evidence has been found that he could have amassed the kind of cash necessary to invest in businesses here in the US that would be bringing him $2 million a year in income.

The votes are in from this week’s Watcher’s Council and the winner in the Council category is “NYT: Analogies Are Meaningless (Unless They Favor the Left)” by Big Lizards. Finishing second was “Separate But Unequal” by Soccer Dad.

Coming in first in the Non Council category was “Like a Suppository, Only a Bit Stronger” by The Dissident Frogman.

If you would like to participate in the weekly Watchers Council vote, go here and follow instructions.

Full Disclosure: I am paid by Michelle Malkin.Com to moderate comments.

Some may question my motives in defending Michelle Malkin against her critics who are becoming more vulgar, more unreasoning, and yes, more dangerous as her public profile increases as a result of her continued success on the internet and TV. Believe what you will, I really don’t care. The fact that I work for her website is, to me, completely immaterial to the matter at hand. I don’t need to “suck up” or curry favor. And if you believe anyone connected to MM.Com encouraged or directed me to write this post, I’ve got some great news; I think I saw Elvis last night at the Piggly Wiggly buying some peanut butter and bananas.

If you haven’t been following the shocking story of Geraldo Rivera’s nauseating threat to assault Malkin the next time he saw her, allow me to fill you in. In an interview in the Boston Globe on September 1, Rivera made this jaw dropping statement:

“Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I’ve ever met in my life,” he says. “She actually believes that neighbors should start snitching out neighbors, and we should be deporting people.

“It’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in New York,” Rivera sneers. “I’d spit on her if I saw her.”

Even the interviewer couldn’t resist the adjective “sneers” when talking about the way in which Rivera delivered his threat to physically assault Malkin. And while I won’t be dealing with the “substance” (more accurately, the vacuousness) of Rivera’s critique of Malkin, I would just like to point out the fact that the law requires deportation of those who are here illegally. As is typical of the open borders crowd, they advocate ignoring the law when it suits their argument. Let an illegal immigrant get into trouble and all they can do is spout chapter and verse of the US Code at you, throwing the law in your face as Rivera wants to spit into Malkin’s. But for anyone who advocates enforcement of the law that runs counter to their beliefs, such trivialities can safely be ignored.

Beyond what Rivera said, is the venue he chose to say it. This was not, as Malkin points out, an accidental aside made by Rivera in an unguarded moment:

Now, can you imagine the uproar if any other female journalist/commentator had been on the receiving end of Geraldo’s rhetorical spittle? This wasn’t an off-the-record comment at a cocktail party or a private remark in a green room. It was on-the-record smear to a Boston Globe reporter.

And the message over the past week has been: This smear/attack/threat is acceptable.

This is what has me worried. And not just for Malkin who, while perfectly capable of taking care of herself, nevertheless brings out the “brother” in me. For I must confess that Malkin’s success in what has overwhelmingly been a male dominated industry - political and social commentary - reminds my very much of the success realized by my older sister who broke through the glass ceiling years ago to become a partner in one of Washington’s most prestigious law firms.

Both Malkin and my sister share many similar traits that endear them to their supporters while sending their opponents over the edge. Both are whip smart, tough, ambitious, not shy about expressing an opinion (even if they know it’s unpopular) and challenge convention at the drop of a hat. Their exterior beauty, which cause many to underestimate them, masks a backbone made of tempered steel. “Feminists” in the real sense of the word, neither one bitches or moans about anything life has dealt them - least of all their gender. They simply go out and achieve, making no apologies and asking for no favors.

If that sounds like an unrealistic portrait think again. There are millions of women like them who share many of those traits to one degree or another. And I’m sure that many of these women have met someone like Geraldo Rivera at one time or another in their career. The “sneer” on Rivera’s lips when threatening Malkin is familiar to many women who meet men threatened by their brains, ambition, and yes, beauty. Rivera does not get as nasty when dealing with males who disagree with him. One could easily conclude that for all his bluster, he is little better than a bully who thinks he can push those weaker than him around when he senses a physical advantage.

If Rivera had said something like that about my sister, he would find seven aging but husky brothers lined up in opposition politely requesting he eat those words by chomping on the newspaper they were printed in. And since we were all of us brought up as gentlemen, we would be more than happy to supply Mr. Rivera with whatever condiments he would need to make his repast as palatable as possible under the circumstances.

But Malkin’s gender only answers part of the question as to why her commentaries draw the over the top, unhinged hate and loathing of so many on the left. Her opinions are no more inflammatory than many seen on the internet. And while she runs one of the largest blogs in the conservative sphere, size alone cannot explain why she regularly receives the nastiest, the most obscene, the most vulgar hate mail imaginable.

The mystery deepens when you consider the fact that there is no blogger - right or left, large or small - who does more to promote worthy causes than Michelle Malkin.

I can attest to this as fact since for the last 3 months, I have been engaged in re-categorizing all 7,400 posts ever written on Malkin’s blog. The breadth of charities, foundations, memorial funds, and special requests for assistance that she has highlighted over the years and asked her 150,000 daily readers to support is absolutely astonishing. Can you imagine Gawker or Kos or any of Malkin’s most vehement tormentors giving that much space over to charity? You can disagree with Malkin on the issues. But you cannot fault her public spiritedness. Wounded soldiers, disaster relief, even individual families who have a loved one with some rare, debilitating health problem have all been featured on her site and her readers pressed into service.

Does that count for anything with Malkin’s uncivil critics? Of course not. And Malkin herself has brought the ugly truth out in the open time and time again as to the true nature of her critics incivility. They don’t try to argue the merits of the issues. They rarely address the specific points of Malkin’s arguments in their critiques. Instead, they routinely use Malkin’s race as a way to personalize their reprehension.

Malkin does not fit into the little political and intellectual boxes the left reserves for each grouping of Americans they see fit to categorize. Their (un)reasoning goes something like this: Asians are minorities. Minorities are oppressed and need the tender ministrations of liberals to save them from white America’s depredations. All real Asians believe everything that liberals believe. If they don’t, they are not “authentic” minorities but rather “sell outs” to white America.

To try and patiently explain to liberals (as I have many times) that believing members of a minority should think a certain way simply because they are a member of that minority group is as racist a point of view as someone who burns a cross on that minority’s front yard does absolutely no good. Their linear thinking on matters of race is as set in stone as their belief in the efficacy of government to solve social problems. And this kind of miasmic thinking about race and politics comes through loud and clear when reading what others write about Malkin and her positions on the issues.

First and foremost is the charge that she is just a tool of others - her husband, the Bush Administration, a secret right wing cabal - and that she has prostituted herself, selling her race to the highest bidder in order to get ahead.

To answer that, I’ll simply direct you to this post of hers that I came across in my re-categorization project. Short version: “This is not a right-wing conspiracy. This is marriage.” I’ll let that stand as the definitive answer to those insulting, outrageously hateful charges.

The second major race-hating meme advanced by Malkin’s critics is the charge that she loathes herself and her race so much that she allows her self-hate to color her politics, advancing ideas like support for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and strict enforcement of laws against illegal immigration.

The left usually isn’t happy unless they get their opponents on the couch so that they can analyze them in their own special way. Witness Glen Greenwald’s “A Tragic Legacy” which has been dubbed “a character study” of George Bush. And John Dean’s “Conservatives Without a Conscience” that purports to show the psychological attraction authoritarianism has for conservatives. This penchant for amateur psychoanalysis manifests itself in Malkin’s case when the left tries to explain how it is possible a member of a minority can possibly disagree with them on any issue of consequence. Since Malkin breaks the mold by being a conservative, she is obviously mentally unbalanced.

I’ll leave it to real mental health professionals to diagnose whatever disorder afflicts people who believe such nonsense.

Finally, there are is the simple vulgarity of the unmasked racists who routinely refer to Malkin as a “wog whore” and much worse. If this kind of true hate speech (not the fake variety the left routinely accuses the right of making) were vigorously denounced by leading bloggers on the left, it would certainly help to mitigate some of the disapprobation I and most conservatives heap upon lefty bloggers on a regular basis. After all, Malkin herself has taken conservatives to task many times for out of bounds behavior. Is it too much to ask that the favor be returned when the ultra-personal slights, insults, and obscenities are tossed her way?

Evidently so. In fact, top liberal bloggers join in the racist name calling with a relish that would be shocking if we weren’t used to it by now. No one on the left calls them out for it. No one on the left calls for a halt to the vulgarities. Instead, they gleefully pile on in an orgy of the most nauseating racism, each trying to top the other in coming up with the most vile racist venom they can scribble.

Somebody, somewhere on the left has to stand up for simple decency. The response to that plea is usually pegged to Malkin’s not mincing words to expose the hypocrisy of liberals. Somehow, Malkin’s derogatory language aimed at the left gives her critics the freedom to riposte with whatever they feel is appropriate - or can get away with.

The idea that if Malkin calls someone a “moonbat” it is fair game to use a derogatory racial slur to describe her is perhaps the most unsettling aspect of this matter. Proportionality doesn’t seem to enter into the discussion. Malkin tosses a knife and the left goes nuclear. Something is wrong with that picture and unless people start to focus on the true nature of this grossly unfair and dangerously incendiary rhetoric, there will be nothing left of American politics except an unlivable wasteland where there is no hope that the two sides can ever unite when this country faces its next crisis.

Keith Olbermann made Malkin his “Worst Person in the World” last night. But it wasn’t for anything Malkin did. Rather, it was so that Olbermann could approvingly quote Geraldo Rivera’s spitting threat to a national audience. To realize that Olberman was, in effect, encouraging an assault on Malkin made me inexpressibly sad. The left is running toward a gasoline dump with a lit match. And nobody on their side seems willing to yell at them to stop.

I must confess to being something of a closet Fredhead. Long before Thompson was even thought of as a potential candidate for president, going back to the late 1990’s, I had been impressed with the Tennessee Senator’s thoughtful, measured approach to the issues and the fact that he seemed willing to buck the GOP establishment at times.

It’s not a surprise that he’s running for president. It is something of a puzzle as to how he’s gone about it. I realize that there were sound, tactical reasons for his delay in entering. But I think it only served to make his long shot candidacy even more difficult.

But that doesn’t lessen my admiration for a man who I consider one of the more interesting and thoughtful men to come along in public life in recent years.

Catching him on the cable news nets and the occasional appearance on the Sunday morning talkies, it was clear that there was an intelligence and depth behind the folksiness and the aw-shucks, good ‘ole boy demeanor he carefully cultivated. Besides, he was the political protege of a man I considered one of the great and honorable public servants in my lifetime. A former Minority and Majority Leader, candidate for President, and another thoughtful, serious conservative, Howard Baker saw something in Fred Thompson as far back as 1972 when he asked the young attorney to manage his re-election campaign. And it was Baker who finally convinced a reluctant Thompson to run for the Senate in 1994, overcoming his objections by appealing to his loyalty. It seems the Democratic candidate had defeated Baker’s daughter in a House race and Baker wanted a little payback.

More likely, the canny Baker simply knew what buttons to press in order to get Thompson out on to the hustings. But for me, if Fred Thompson can impress Howard Baker, then he’s already got a leg up on the rest of the field.

There has been great turmoil in the Thompson campaign of late. Part of that is no doubt the fact that he had to go from a standing start in May when the buzz around the candidate first became pronounced to a full blown, national organization less than 90 days later. Mistakes were made. Mistakes are still being made if you believe Jim Geraghty (and Jim is one of the sharpest observers of campaigns out there).

Time has telescoped and magnified Thompson’s staff problems compared to other campaign organizations. Other campaign shakedowns occur over several months, even a year. For Thompson, he’s had to work out the kinks on the fly over a matter of weeks. It remains to be seen whether this will doom his candidacy before it starts or whether his moves to hire on experienced campaign hands rather than go with the eager but relatively untested people they are replacing will help him regain some of the momentum he has lost over the last month.

Does he have a chance? Realistically, no. He’s too far behind in too many states. And he is woefully outgunned financially and organizationally by both Romney and Giuliani. I haven’t read much about what his strategy will be but I think we can make some educated guesses. For Fred, he must be able to emerge on the morning of February 6 still within spitting distance of the leader who will probably be Rudy Giuliani. For that to happen, he has to hope that neither Romney or Giuliani are able to dominate the early contests, either one never getting more than a third of the delegates in any one state, while Fred is hitting threshold numbers everywhere (most states have a minimum percentage of the vote requirement in order for a candidate to get any delegates). He must also hope he can win a few primaries in the south and border states on the 5th by hefty enough margins so that he can walk away with the lion’s share of delegates.

I think he will raise enough money to carry him through those Super Tuesday primaries on February 5. After that, if it is a 3 man race, people may start to look very carefully at what they are about to do by nominating a northeastern moderate Republican for president. It is still a long slog for either a Romney or Gillian to get the support of 50% of Republicans. So it is possible in this scenario that Fred will emerge as a consensus conservative candidate and begin to attract the money and endorsements necessary that would allow him to have a fighting chance at the nomination.

But the problem is that more than half the delegates will have been selected by February 6 and unless Fred is within a couple hundred delegates of the leader, he will have no chance of making up the lost ground, not with delegates being apportioned according to the percentage of vote in the primaries. Fred could win most of the remaining primaries and never catch up if his wins are narrow enough.

I think this is the most realistic scenario for a Thompson candidacy. Then again, Fred could surprise everyone by showing up Romney in Iowa, Giuliani in New Hampshire, and sweeping Super Tuesday. I just don’t think that is in the cards considering the deep pockets of both Giuliani and Romney. But stranger things have happened. Just ask Howard Dean.

For a look at the Thompson announcement video and some choice cuts from his appearance on Leno last night, Allah has it for you. And he adds this critique of the 15 minute announcement piece on YouTube:

Re: the web announcement video, that’s a lot of talking, son, and a lot of talking points, all of it synced up with head-bob choreography. I thought he’d start with a minute or so of addressing the camera and then segue into 10 minutes of video biography, a la McCain’s recent Vietnam ad, but on and on he goes. Clearly he’s trying to leverage the success he’s had with his radio commentaries: no frills, just a straight shooter calling it like he sees it, sans gimmicks — a neat trick for a Hollywood actor delivering a 15-minute oration with stagy head turns at key moments built in. The sheer volume of information and the pace at which he runs through it is daunting, though. God, family, peace with honor, secure borders, small government, a frisson of horror at the thought of another Clinton administration — it’s all in there, but it’s a lot to digest in one go and he seems to be rushing to shoehorn it all into the time available. How many people will sit through the whole thing?

Doesn’t much matter. He’s trying to make an impression and an extended Reaganesque soliloquy does that, at least. Thank god he’s in a den in a suit and tie, too. If he tried this in a denim shirt with the pick-up truck in the background, I’d be heading for the lifeboats.

Yeah, it was long. But it was just folksy enough to keep me interested. And it won’t be long before that head bobbing shows up in impressions of him on Saturday Night Live.

BTW, Allah - don’t give up on that denim shirt and pickup truck quite yet. The campaign may yet find a way to incorporate it into some of his appearances.

It’s no longer a question of “Who is Hsu” but rather “Where in the world did this guy escape to?”

California businessman Norman Hsu, a former New York apparel executive and major contributor to Democratic candidates and causes, failed to appear for a bail reduction hearing Wednesday, leading to speculation that he again is a fugitive from the law, FOX News has learned.

Hsu’s attorneys say they do not know his whereabouts, and that their client did not surrender his passport.

A little more from the LA Times:

Hsu’s attorney, James Brosnahan, explained that he had lost contact with Hsu and that the financier had failed to deliver his passport as promised.

“Mr. Hsu is not here and we don’t know where he is,” Brosnahan said outside court. “We expected him to be here.”

Brosnahan told Foiles that a legal assistant for his law firm went to Hsu’s New York City condominium last week and spent 90 minutes searching for Hsu’s passport.

Well, that’s just peachy. His defense team has known for a week that his passport is missing and didn’t bother to tell authorities? Especially given this guy’s past history of skedaddling when the heat is on?

That leaves the investigation with basically nothing. The Paw family - who acted as a blind for Hsu’s numerous contributions - probably don’t know much even if they were in a mood to talk. Investigators may track down other donors but it is equally unlikely they could be any more helpful than the Paws.

So the story will die and Hillary is safe. Funny how this kind of thing always happens to the Clinton’s just in the nick of time.

Malkin has updates and reaction.

I feel obligated to warn you not to read this post if you have just eaten. That’s because swimming in this pool of sickly sweet, syrupy slop written by Politico’s Roger Simon may give you cramps - or cause you to blow your lunch:

Looking into Bill Clinton’s eyes is like falling into a swimming pool.

His eyes are deep and blue and comforting and, as person after person will tell you, when his eyes lock onto yours, you feel like you are the only other person in the world.

Margarida Perreira, 48, of Manchester, N.H., can stand it no longer.

“Can I give you a kiss?” she asks him.

“Sure you can,” he says.

She hugs him fiercely.

Holy Christ! If the guy got any gushier, he’d have to register himself as an off shore oil well.

It gets worse:

Somewhere around here, his wife, the junior senator from New York, is campaigning for president. They started out at the fair together, but she has her pace and he has his.

They both have entourages: staff, Secret Service, local police, press. But Bill wanders freely, never letting anybody really get between him and the crowds. Most politicians like serving far more than they like campaigning, but Bill Clinton loved doing both.

“He wanted to win the voters one by one,” his former spokesman, Mike McCurry, once told me. “He would have gone to all 250 million of them if we could have figured out a way to do it.”

I think that Politico should put a warning label on this guy’s columns: “Reading this column may be hazardous to your gastro-intestinal tract.”

Or maybe they should simply supply free barf bags with each subscription:

Whenever there are groups of children, Clinton bends down so their parents can get a picture of them with the former president. Whenever he sees people in wheelchairs who cannot get through the crowd to him, Clinton moves through the crowd to them.

Many people are too nervous or excited to initiate a conversation, but they soon learn that is not necessary.

“Where are you from?” Clinton asks a woman.

“Cologne,” she replies.

It is like turning on a switch. “Beautiful town,” he says. “I have been there many times. The first time was December 1969. I crossed the Rhine at midnight and walked up the hill to the cathedral. It was breathtaking. You must be so proud of it.”

Is there a hackneyed political cliche this guy has missed? Clinton loves children. Clinton showing off his smarts. Clinton, the rock star. Clinton, the kindly.

What’s next? Clinton as - dare I say it - God?

He talks about pumpkins and watermelons — are you surprised that he knows about pumpkins and watermelons? — and how these competition fruits cannot have any holes or breaks in the skin.

“It’s seeds plus soil plus care,” he says. “Too much water and the skin breaks and you are eliminated. Use too little, and somebody beats you. It is about constant judgment. Like the presidency. Make it as big as you can without breaking the skin.”

I guess there wasn’t a lake nearby where he could walk on water but perhaps we can petition to have the above added to the bible.

“The Parable of the Mustard Seed.” Big things come in small packages.

“The Parable of the Prodigal Son.” Lost sheep are best.

“The Parable of the Pumpkins and Watermelons!” And Clinton said: “Thou shalt not break the skin of thy watermelon lest thou presidential judgement be tainted like bad water .”

Inspiring, yes?

I can’t recall ever reading such drivel on a serious political website. If this is a parody then I admit to being taken in. But it’s not. The writer is dead serious.

I’m actually jealous. Simon is getting paid to write this stuff? Give me a shot and I’ll write the most glowing and adoring piece on Bush you ever saw. By the time I was finished with him, there’s be a movement to canonize him. I would write things that would make you think someone had sprayed cotton candy all over you, so lovable I could make him.

But then, if I did that I would lose all credibility as a serious writer - something Roger Simon should know after this piece of sybaritic claptrap that Politico should be ashamed of publishing.