Newest Farrakhan Rant: Jews Control Black Entertainers
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
All Smiles as Obama Meets with Saudi King
A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS
CAPTION: Obama is so cozy with the Saudi King, he forgot to tell the King to "Go Home" to Saudi Arabia and get his facts straight as to why Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights crises in the world. Oh and on another note, Obama canceled his lunch plans with his wife to meet with the Saudi King. After all, the Saudi King has more value to the President than a Jewish Prime-Minister.
CAPTION: Obama is so cozy with the Saudi King, he forgot to tell the King to "Go Home" to Saudi Arabia and get his facts straight as to why Saudi Arabia has one of the worst human rights crises in the world. Oh and on another note, Obama canceled his lunch plans with his wife to meet with the Saudi King. After all, the Saudi King has more value to the President than a Jewish Prime-Minister.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Kagan Not Qualified for the Supreme Court
Elena Kagan has had many notable stops along the way in her legal career. Namely, she was a University of Chicago Law School Professor, Dean of Harvard University Law School, Associate White House Counsel, and most recently Solicitor General of the United States.
However, no where in her impressive career will you find Elena Kagan in a Judicial position. Other than Judicial clerkships, Elena Kagan has never been a Judge. Not only has she never been a Judge, she has never tried a jury trial in her whole career. In fact, she only gained experience in federal appellate practice litigation when she was appointed the Solicitor General in January of 2009 by President Obama.
How can we be assured that Elena Kagan will be a competent Supreme Court Justice when she has never been a Judge and only has limited actual litigation experience? Will her academic career be enough to provide her with the foresight to effectively serve on the Supreme Court?
These are the questions that Elena Kagan will have to answer in her confirmation hearings which began on Monday. She will have to respond effectively to questions from Republican Senators who want to know where she stands on the most pressing judicial issues of the day.
At the end of the day, Kagan will likely be confirmed because the Democrats have the Majority in the U.S. Senate.
But, this should not be a partisan issue. Prior Judicial experience should be a prerequisite for serving on the Supreme Court. You could argue about President Bush's nominees Justice Samuel Alito and and Chief Justice John Roberts' judicial philosophies. You could also argue about President Obama's first nominee Justice Sonia Sotamayor's judicial philosophy.
But no one could ignore the fact that both Alito, Roberts and Sotamayor all had several years of prior judicial experience which seems to me should be a requirement to even be considered for the Supreme Court.
Now, the Senators and the rest of the legal profession will only be in the position to surmise the kind of Judge Elena Kagan will become rather than have a past record to base its decision on whether Kagan has the credentials to be on the Supreme Court.
This flimsy evaluation that the Senators now have to rely upon because of the choice that President Obama has made in picking Kagan does the American people a disservice because it potentially could put someone on the Supreme Court who does not have the background to adequately assess the most important issues of the day.
The Supreme Court is the deciding factor on issues raging from civil rights, political controversies, criminal rights, abortion, marriage, among other hot topics.
For all we know which is scarce at this point, Kagan could rely on her liberal philosophy rather than any judicial framework when serving as Supreme Court Justice which is a frightening proposition.
We therefore should at the very least expect that the President of the United States will select a nominee who knows how to be a Judge to avoid any attempt by the nominee to wholly push his or her political philosophy on the American people. That should be the very minimum requirement. Otherwise, the Supreme Court will become another Congress rather than the distinguished judicial institution that it is now.
Unfortunately, Obama chose again to put his own liberal agenda ahead of the desires of the American people.
However, no where in her impressive career will you find Elena Kagan in a Judicial position. Other than Judicial clerkships, Elena Kagan has never been a Judge. Not only has she never been a Judge, she has never tried a jury trial in her whole career. In fact, she only gained experience in federal appellate practice litigation when she was appointed the Solicitor General in January of 2009 by President Obama.
How can we be assured that Elena Kagan will be a competent Supreme Court Justice when she has never been a Judge and only has limited actual litigation experience? Will her academic career be enough to provide her with the foresight to effectively serve on the Supreme Court?
These are the questions that Elena Kagan will have to answer in her confirmation hearings which began on Monday. She will have to respond effectively to questions from Republican Senators who want to know where she stands on the most pressing judicial issues of the day.
At the end of the day, Kagan will likely be confirmed because the Democrats have the Majority in the U.S. Senate.
But, this should not be a partisan issue. Prior Judicial experience should be a prerequisite for serving on the Supreme Court. You could argue about President Bush's nominees Justice Samuel Alito and and Chief Justice John Roberts' judicial philosophies. You could also argue about President Obama's first nominee Justice Sonia Sotamayor's judicial philosophy.
But no one could ignore the fact that both Alito, Roberts and Sotamayor all had several years of prior judicial experience which seems to me should be a requirement to even be considered for the Supreme Court.
Now, the Senators and the rest of the legal profession will only be in the position to surmise the kind of Judge Elena Kagan will become rather than have a past record to base its decision on whether Kagan has the credentials to be on the Supreme Court.
This flimsy evaluation that the Senators now have to rely upon because of the choice that President Obama has made in picking Kagan does the American people a disservice because it potentially could put someone on the Supreme Court who does not have the background to adequately assess the most important issues of the day.
The Supreme Court is the deciding factor on issues raging from civil rights, political controversies, criminal rights, abortion, marriage, among other hot topics.
For all we know which is scarce at this point, Kagan could rely on her liberal philosophy rather than any judicial framework when serving as Supreme Court Justice which is a frightening proposition.
We therefore should at the very least expect that the President of the United States will select a nominee who knows how to be a Judge to avoid any attempt by the nominee to wholly push his or her political philosophy on the American people. That should be the very minimum requirement. Otherwise, the Supreme Court will become another Congress rather than the distinguished judicial institution that it is now.
Unfortunately, Obama chose again to put his own liberal agenda ahead of the desires of the American people.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Biden Disparages a Wisconsin Business Manager
Vice-President Biden may have only been kidding when he called a Wisconsin custard shop manager a "smart ass" after the manager told Biden that he could have the ice cream without charge if he lowered his taxes.
The business manager took no offense to Biden's response.
However, is this how the Obama Administration should be treating small business owners/managers calling them smart asses when they make a reasonable request that the government lower our taxes?
You decide. Let me know what you think of Biden's exchange with the business manager.
The business manager took no offense to Biden's response.
However, is this how the Obama Administration should be treating small business owners/managers calling them smart asses when they make a reasonable request that the government lower our taxes?
You decide. Let me know what you think of Biden's exchange with the business manager.
Friday, June 25, 2010
87 Senators Sign Letter to Obama
On June 21, 2010, eighty seven Senators signed a letter to President Obama affirming their support for the State of Israel and in particular Israel's right to defend herself. Unfortunately, Israel's right to defend herself has been questioned and disregarded by the international community as a result of the fallout following the Flotilla incident.
The letter, sponsored by Senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, contained the following language:
"We write to affirm our support for our strategic partnership with Israel, and encourage you to continue to do so before international organizations such as the United Nations. The United States has traditionally stood with Israel because it is in our national security interest and must continue to do so."
The entire letter can be read in full here.
A similar letter was signed by seventy six Senators in April urging President Obama to stand with Israel after the President snubbed Prime-Minister Netanyahu during his last visit to the White House.
This latest letter had a more conciliatory tone which could explain why more Senators signed the letter this time.
Nevertheless, thirteen Senators did not sign the June 21st letter.
Here are the list of the Senators who did not sign the letter:
1) Jim Webb (D- VA)
2) Robert Byrd (D-WV)
3) John Kerry (D-MA)
4) Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
5) Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
6) Tom Udall (D-NM)
7) Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
8) Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
9) Christoper Dodd (D-CT)
10) Tom Harkin (D-IA)
11) Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
12) Jim Bunning (R-KY)
13) Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Notice more D's in the non-signers category that R's.
The letter, sponsored by Senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, contained the following language:
"We write to affirm our support for our strategic partnership with Israel, and encourage you to continue to do so before international organizations such as the United Nations. The United States has traditionally stood with Israel because it is in our national security interest and must continue to do so."
The entire letter can be read in full here.
A similar letter was signed by seventy six Senators in April urging President Obama to stand with Israel after the President snubbed Prime-Minister Netanyahu during his last visit to the White House.
This latest letter had a more conciliatory tone which could explain why more Senators signed the letter this time.
Nevertheless, thirteen Senators did not sign the June 21st letter.
Here are the list of the Senators who did not sign the letter:
1) Jim Webb (D- VA)
2) Robert Byrd (D-WV)
3) John Kerry (D-MA)
4) Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
5) Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
6) Tom Udall (D-NM)
7) Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
8) Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
9) Christoper Dodd (D-CT)
10) Tom Harkin (D-IA)
11) Bernard Sanders (I-VT)
12) Jim Bunning (R-KY)
13) Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Notice more D's in the non-signers category that R's.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Turkey's PM behind the Flotilla
Kauffmans Commentary reported on December 7, 2009 of Turkey's close ties with the Iranian regime and its opposition to procuring sanctions against Mahmoud Ahmadenijad's Iran.
The Turkish organization IHH's involvement in funding the Mavi Marmara's attempt to sabotage the Israeli blockade of Gaza is more evidence that Turkey is more and more becoming one of the bastions of radical Islamic terror in the Middle East which is a drastic significant shift from its longstanding moderate stance.
We now know that Turkey's own Prime Minister had ties to the Mavi Marmara ship that was headed for Gaza. This revelation certainly clinches the widespread perception in the Middle East that Turkey is no longer a moderate nation which Israel could count on for bilateral ties.
The New York-based publication Hamodia reported in its June 16, 2010 edition that documents seized on the ship demonstrate a connection between Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish officials and IHH.
A letter was found on the ship that was dated 10 days prior to Mavi Marmara's departure from the Turkish port. In the letter, an IHH representative requested the assistance of Turkish President Abdullah Gul to free an IHH member held in Israel. This letter reveals a cozy relationship between IHH and high-level Turkish officials suggesting that the Turkish government was well aware of IHH's hidden agenda in sending the Mavi Marmara to Gaza.
Passengers on board the Mavi Marma were more revealing in their testimonies with Israeli officials.
Some of the passengers stated that Recep Tayyip Erdogan personally knew of the Flotilla's intentions and did nothing to stop it. Those passengers stated that "the Flotilla sailed to Gaza with Erdogan's knowledge and blessings." According to these passengers, the Turkish Prime-Minister showed a personal interest in the Flotilla hoping that it would improve his status in the Arab world which he could exploit by using a confrontation with Israel to his advantage. Apparently, documents that were found on board the Mavi Marmara tend to support the contention of these passengers.
The documents found on board the ship also link the purchase of the Mavi Marmara to Erdogan. According to the discovered documents, the Mavi Marmara had been purchased by the IHH from a Turkish firm called IDO which was funded by the Istanbul Municipality. At the time the IDO was first formed, the Mayor of Istanbul was none other than Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Despite the evidence which reveals the Turkish Prime Minister's support of the Flotilla, others have told Israeli officials that Erdogan knew what the Flotilla was up to and tried to stop them unsuccessfully.
Either way, a picture is emerging which once again debunks any claim that this ship could have carried peaceful activists.
In reality, it is seemingly apparent that the Flotilla on the Mavi Marmara was in fact a state-sponsored Turkish operation backed by Turkey's very own Prime Minister.
The Turkish organization IHH's involvement in funding the Mavi Marmara's attempt to sabotage the Israeli blockade of Gaza is more evidence that Turkey is more and more becoming one of the bastions of radical Islamic terror in the Middle East which is a drastic significant shift from its longstanding moderate stance.
We now know that Turkey's own Prime Minister had ties to the Mavi Marmara ship that was headed for Gaza. This revelation certainly clinches the widespread perception in the Middle East that Turkey is no longer a moderate nation which Israel could count on for bilateral ties.
The New York-based publication Hamodia reported in its June 16, 2010 edition that documents seized on the ship demonstrate a connection between Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkish officials and IHH.
A letter was found on the ship that was dated 10 days prior to Mavi Marmara's departure from the Turkish port. In the letter, an IHH representative requested the assistance of Turkish President Abdullah Gul to free an IHH member held in Israel. This letter reveals a cozy relationship between IHH and high-level Turkish officials suggesting that the Turkish government was well aware of IHH's hidden agenda in sending the Mavi Marmara to Gaza.
Passengers on board the Mavi Marma were more revealing in their testimonies with Israeli officials.
Some of the passengers stated that Recep Tayyip Erdogan personally knew of the Flotilla's intentions and did nothing to stop it. Those passengers stated that "the Flotilla sailed to Gaza with Erdogan's knowledge and blessings." According to these passengers, the Turkish Prime-Minister showed a personal interest in the Flotilla hoping that it would improve his status in the Arab world which he could exploit by using a confrontation with Israel to his advantage. Apparently, documents that were found on board the Mavi Marmara tend to support the contention of these passengers.
The documents found on board the ship also link the purchase of the Mavi Marmara to Erdogan. According to the discovered documents, the Mavi Marmara had been purchased by the IHH from a Turkish firm called IDO which was funded by the Istanbul Municipality. At the time the IDO was first formed, the Mayor of Istanbul was none other than Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Despite the evidence which reveals the Turkish Prime Minister's support of the Flotilla, others have told Israeli officials that Erdogan knew what the Flotilla was up to and tried to stop them unsuccessfully.
Either way, a picture is emerging which once again debunks any claim that this ship could have carried peaceful activists.
In reality, it is seemingly apparent that the Flotilla on the Mavi Marmara was in fact a state-sponsored Turkish operation backed by Turkey's very own Prime Minister.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Millions of Martyrs to Gaza
BREAKING NEWS
New Footage has been released (seen below) which debunks all claims that the passengers on board the Mavi Marmara were "peaceful humanitarian activists."
For the most up to date information on the Flotilla of terrorists on board the Mavi Marmara, you can also check out http://www.flotillafacts.com/.
New Footage has been released (seen below) which debunks all claims that the passengers on board the Mavi Marmara were "peaceful humanitarian activists."
For the most up to date information on the Flotilla of terrorists on board the Mavi Marmara, you can also check out http://www.flotillafacts.com/.
Elton John Performs in Israel
The renown musician Elton John kept his promise and performed in Tel Aviv Thursday night to a rousing crowd of 45,000 people.
John's appearance in Israel is particularly significant because many musicians have cancelled their scheduled concerts in Israel due to pressure from the Palestinian Authority and other organizations who sympathize with the Palestinians. Elton John refused to succumb to such pressure.
John, always an individual who beats to his own drum, told the enthusiastic crowd in Tel Aviv "Shalom, we are so happy to be back here! Ain't nothing gonna stop us from coming, baby. Musicians spread love and peace, and bring people together. That's what we do. We don't cherry-pick our conscience."
Good for you Elton.
John's appearance in Israel is particularly significant because many musicians have cancelled their scheduled concerts in Israel due to pressure from the Palestinian Authority and other organizations who sympathize with the Palestinians. Elton John refused to succumb to such pressure.
John, always an individual who beats to his own drum, told the enthusiastic crowd in Tel Aviv "Shalom, we are so happy to be back here! Ain't nothing gonna stop us from coming, baby. Musicians spread love and peace, and bring people together. That's what we do. We don't cherry-pick our conscience."
Good for you Elton.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Pundits on the left blast Obama's Speech
President Obama has not had it easy lately with his co-politicos on the left much less with the right.
Prior to Obama's speech from the oval office, pressure had been mounting on Obama from his own party to show some leadership in responding to one of the worst environmental crises on American soil. James Carville, the former outspoken Clintonite, has been out there in recent weeks blasting Obama for not coming down to the Gulf sooner. He notoriously quipped in an interview on ABC "People are dying out here and the President looks like he is not involved in this [referring to the oil spill]."
Carville's unusual spat with a Democrat President could come from the fact that Obama went on vacation at the height of the oil spill which enraged the native Louisianan.
The onslaught of criticism from the left convinced Obama that he needed to return to the Gulf which he did over the weekend and assert the Administration's position on how to respond to the oil crisis in a prime time speech from the Oval Office.
Surprisingly, liberal pundits have been some of the most vociferous critics of the President's speech.
Chris Matthews, who went ga ga over Obama during the campaign, now says "I do not sense any executive command."
Huffington Post asks "what was the point of that terrible speech?"
Obama supporter Keith Olbermann opined "“It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”
These sharp critiques from the left is not good news for the Obama Administration who hoped that a Presidential speech could mollify the criticism.
Obama could easily brush aside attacks from the right as partisan politics. He can not ignore similar attacks from his own party. When the left is critical of a Democrat President, there has to be validity to the claim that President Obama has not shown himself to be capable of responding forcefully and quickly to the oil crisis which is a blow to the message presented during the campaign that Obama is fit to respond to any crisis of any magnitude.
Whether or not it is true that Obama has failed miserably in responding to the oil crisis, that is the perception of an overwhelming amount of the American people which is all that matters in an election year.
But you should always be the judge.
Here is President Obama's speech to the American people. Do you think Obama lacks executive command?
Let me know what you think.
Prior to Obama's speech from the oval office, pressure had been mounting on Obama from his own party to show some leadership in responding to one of the worst environmental crises on American soil. James Carville, the former outspoken Clintonite, has been out there in recent weeks blasting Obama for not coming down to the Gulf sooner. He notoriously quipped in an interview on ABC "People are dying out here and the President looks like he is not involved in this [referring to the oil spill]."
Carville's unusual spat with a Democrat President could come from the fact that Obama went on vacation at the height of the oil spill which enraged the native Louisianan.
The onslaught of criticism from the left convinced Obama that he needed to return to the Gulf which he did over the weekend and assert the Administration's position on how to respond to the oil crisis in a prime time speech from the Oval Office.
Surprisingly, liberal pundits have been some of the most vociferous critics of the President's speech.
Chris Matthews, who went ga ga over Obama during the campaign, now says "I do not sense any executive command."
Huffington Post asks "what was the point of that terrible speech?"
Obama supporter Keith Olbermann opined "“It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”
These sharp critiques from the left is not good news for the Obama Administration who hoped that a Presidential speech could mollify the criticism.
Obama could easily brush aside attacks from the right as partisan politics. He can not ignore similar attacks from his own party. When the left is critical of a Democrat President, there has to be validity to the claim that President Obama has not shown himself to be capable of responding forcefully and quickly to the oil crisis which is a blow to the message presented during the campaign that Obama is fit to respond to any crisis of any magnitude.
Whether or not it is true that Obama has failed miserably in responding to the oil crisis, that is the perception of an overwhelming amount of the American people which is all that matters in an election year.
But you should always be the judge.
Here is President Obama's speech to the American people. Do you think Obama lacks executive command?
Let me know what you think.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Surprise: No Humanitarian Supplies on the Mavi Marmara
For those of you out there who bashed Israel for intercepting a "humanitarian ship," the truth is now out of the bag so to speak.
No humanitarian supplies were found on the Mavi Marama.
What transpired here were terrorists who used the canard of a "humanitarian" mission to frame Israel as the aggressor. It has now been proven that their story which they told to the world over was a complete and utter lie as the intent of the ship passengers could not have been to deliver humanitarian supplies when no such items were found on board.
As Prime-Minister Netanyahu stated quite eloquently, the Mavi Marmara was no love boat but rather it was a hate boat committed to aiding and abetting Hamas terrorists in their desire to smuggle weapons.
Read more about this unbelievable story here.
No humanitarian supplies were found on the Mavi Marama.
What transpired here were terrorists who used the canard of a "humanitarian" mission to frame Israel as the aggressor. It has now been proven that their story which they told to the world over was a complete and utter lie as the intent of the ship passengers could not have been to deliver humanitarian supplies when no such items were found on board.
As Prime-Minister Netanyahu stated quite eloquently, the Mavi Marmara was no love boat but rather it was a hate boat committed to aiding and abetting Hamas terrorists in their desire to smuggle weapons.
Read more about this unbelievable story here.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Two Meetings a Worlds Apart
President Obama Meets with Palestinian Authority Leader Mahmoud Abbas at the White House on June 9, 2010. The President's Meeting with Abbas is one of the photos of the day on the White House's website.
President Obama meets with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on March 23, 2010. The following was the March 23rd photo of the day on the White House website following the Obama-Netanyahu meeting.
President Obama meets with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on March 23, 2010. The following was the March 23rd photo of the day on the White House website following the Obama-Netanyahu meeting.
(This picture appeared originally on foxnews.com)
Rabbi who filmed Thomas Receives Death Threats
Rabbi David Nessenoff of Rabbilive.com, now famous for filming Helen Thomas's anti-Semitic rant which abruptly ended her career, is reporting that he has received death threats and hate mail from people who blame him for Thomas's demise.
This is the classic modus operandi from the anti-Semites. They blame the Jews for everything under the sun rather than blaming themselves for their own inequities.
Even though Thomas brought upon her own demise for stating that the "Jews should go back to Europe," her supporters instead resort to attacking the Rabbi who could not have predicted that Thomas was going to make such an outlandish statement when he innocently asked her what she thought about Jews on Jewish Heritage Civilization Day.
One person who emailed Nessenoff stated "We're going to kill the Jews; watch your back.'"
Others have called for another Holocaust and threatened the Rabbi's family.
While most people in the U.S. have roundly condemned Helen Thomas's comments, those who have stood by her only highlight the fact that anti-Semitism is alive and well in the United States as it is in Europe.
We therefore can not become complacent in thinking that Thomas is the only renown person in Washington who would assert such despicable views if given the opportunity. It would not even be a stretch to state that Thomas's views are consistent with the perspective of a considerable amount of Americans.
In fact, this latest comment from Thomas is not the first time she has spewed anti-Semitic remarks. In 2002, she thanked Gd for Hezbollah and she also claimed that Israel is responsible for "99 percent of terrorism." (Hezbollah has issued a statement praising Helen Thomas for being "bold and courageous" in calling for the Jews to go back to Europe)
Rabbi Nessenoff did us a service by eliciting the removal of one of the most vicious anti-Semites working in the press corps. He should be applauded not condemned. We need more people like Rabbi Nessenoff.
The truth is that Helen Thomas should have been removed a long time ago.
Better late than never.
This is the classic modus operandi from the anti-Semites. They blame the Jews for everything under the sun rather than blaming themselves for their own inequities.
Even though Thomas brought upon her own demise for stating that the "Jews should go back to Europe," her supporters instead resort to attacking the Rabbi who could not have predicted that Thomas was going to make such an outlandish statement when he innocently asked her what she thought about Jews on Jewish Heritage Civilization Day.
One person who emailed Nessenoff stated "We're going to kill the Jews; watch your back.'"
Others have called for another Holocaust and threatened the Rabbi's family.
While most people in the U.S. have roundly condemned Helen Thomas's comments, those who have stood by her only highlight the fact that anti-Semitism is alive and well in the United States as it is in Europe.
We therefore can not become complacent in thinking that Thomas is the only renown person in Washington who would assert such despicable views if given the opportunity. It would not even be a stretch to state that Thomas's views are consistent with the perspective of a considerable amount of Americans.
In fact, this latest comment from Thomas is not the first time she has spewed anti-Semitic remarks. In 2002, she thanked Gd for Hezbollah and she also claimed that Israel is responsible for "99 percent of terrorism." (Hezbollah has issued a statement praising Helen Thomas for being "bold and courageous" in calling for the Jews to go back to Europe)
Rabbi Nessenoff did us a service by eliciting the removal of one of the most vicious anti-Semites working in the press corps. He should be applauded not condemned. We need more people like Rabbi Nessenoff.
The truth is that Helen Thomas should have been removed a long time ago.
Better late than never.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Where have all the parents gone?
Two poignant examples in the news lately highlights the danger in allowing kids unrestricted freedom to engage in all types of behaviors
While it it is not recommended for parents to be overindulging or controlling of their children which only presents problems down the road, setting no rules or restrictions is arguably one of the main reasons why children have behavioral problems.
Needless to say, proper parenting is imperative for your child's maturity.
Here are the two examples which begs the question:
Where have all the parents gone?
Toddler at the Phillies game is seen drinking beer
And a disturbing video of a 2 year old Indonesian boy addicted to nicotine
While it it is not recommended for parents to be overindulging or controlling of their children which only presents problems down the road, setting no rules or restrictions is arguably one of the main reasons why children have behavioral problems.
Needless to say, proper parenting is imperative for your child's maturity.
Here are the two examples which begs the question:
Where have all the parents gone?
Toddler at the Phillies game is seen drinking beer
And a disturbing video of a 2 year old Indonesian boy addicted to nicotine
Obama's Unprofessionalism
Throughout U.S. history, Presidents from both parties have used profanity often accidentally over an open mic.
During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush leaned over to Dick Cheney in what he thought was a private moment. Instead, he called a reporter an A Hole which was caught on TV and broadcasted on the news. Additionally, during a trip to London, President Bush was caught on tape using the word Sh*t to Tony Blair.
The current President has not been very subtle in using profanity. Recently, at the White House Correspondents Dinner, he made a joke about Joe Biden and used the F word. It had to beeped out by the networks. You know things have gone down hill when CSPAN has to bleep out the President.
Now, the latest profanity moment involving the President occurred with Matt Lauer of NBC's The Today Show interviewing Obama about his response to the oil spill crisis. Incredulously, Obama told Lauer that he has been consulting with experts to find out "whose ass to kick" for causing the oil spill.
We are not talking about a gaffe here on an open mic or even a camera that catches the President using profanity or a news report that attributes a profanity laced quote to the President. Rather, Obama has sit down with a respected reporter for an interview on a major network and he chooses to use shady unprofessional language to describe his current administration policy on how to deal with the crisis.
Is this how the President of the United States should be acting? For an individual educated in Ivy league schools, did he not learn more proper language with which to describe his frustrations?
Obama is now sending the message through his unprofessional discourse that it is perfectly acceptable to use profanity in the workplace. How unfortunate!
During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush leaned over to Dick Cheney in what he thought was a private moment. Instead, he called a reporter an A Hole which was caught on TV and broadcasted on the news. Additionally, during a trip to London, President Bush was caught on tape using the word Sh*t to Tony Blair.
The current President has not been very subtle in using profanity. Recently, at the White House Correspondents Dinner, he made a joke about Joe Biden and used the F word. It had to beeped out by the networks. You know things have gone down hill when CSPAN has to bleep out the President.
Now, the latest profanity moment involving the President occurred with Matt Lauer of NBC's The Today Show interviewing Obama about his response to the oil spill crisis. Incredulously, Obama told Lauer that he has been consulting with experts to find out "whose ass to kick" for causing the oil spill.
We are not talking about a gaffe here on an open mic or even a camera that catches the President using profanity or a news report that attributes a profanity laced quote to the President. Rather, Obama has sit down with a respected reporter for an interview on a major network and he chooses to use shady unprofessional language to describe his current administration policy on how to deal with the crisis.
Is this how the President of the United States should be acting? For an individual educated in Ivy league schools, did he not learn more proper language with which to describe his frustrations?
Obama is now sending the message through his unprofessional discourse that it is perfectly acceptable to use profanity in the workplace. How unfortunate!
Monday, June 7, 2010
Update: Thomas Retires
Helen Thomas's career has officially ended in disgrace.
After years of bashing Israel at the White House, Helen Thomas is forced to retire after she made incendiary comments about Jews a few weeks ago. She told Rabbilive.com on May 27th that the "Jews should go back to Europe" and that they should "get the hell out of Palestine."
In an email to Kauffmans Commentary, Ward Bushee of Hearst Newspapers wrote "Helen Thomas apologized and resigned her post today with Hearst" which is effective immediately.
Now, Helen Thomas can spend her retirement years in Lebanon far away from the White House.
After years of bashing Israel at the White House, Helen Thomas is forced to retire after she made incendiary comments about Jews a few weeks ago. She told Rabbilive.com on May 27th that the "Jews should go back to Europe" and that they should "get the hell out of Palestine."
In an email to Kauffmans Commentary, Ward Bushee of Hearst Newspapers wrote "Helen Thomas apologized and resigned her post today with Hearst" which is effective immediately.
Now, Helen Thomas can spend her retirement years in Lebanon far away from the White House.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
A Letter to the Management of Hearst Newspapers
Dear Messieurs Bushee and Bronstein,
On behalf of all of my readers who share my position, I am writing to express my outrage at the anti-Semitic comments that your correspondent Helen Thomas made to Rabbilive.com on May 27th.
Helen Thomas has long been a virulent anti-Semite who harbors anti-Israel sentiments. She routinely asks questions of White House Press Secretaries which challenges them to criticize Israel. She certainly is not a fair-minded reporter. Her bias against the State of Israel and the Jewish people reflects poorly on her employer Hearst Newspapers. Unfortunately, Hearst Newspapers is represented in the White House by a correspondent who has such such an animus for one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
However, Thomas has exceeded all boundaries by asserting in rather a vindictive matter that the "Jews should go back to Europe" among other bigoted diatribes. Thomas may have apologized for her comments but they are not sincere given her history in expressing such views.
You know very well that if Thomas made those same comments about African-American people telling them to go back to Africa, there would be calls from every corner in the globe for you to immediately fire Helen Thomas. And, you would have no other alternative but to dismiss Helen Thomas from her duties as White House Correspondent.
Why should the comments that she made against Jews be treated any differently? Why are diatribes against Jews treated with kid gloves rather than an ironclad fist?
If Helen Thomas remains in her position as White House Correspondent, it will demonstrate that Hearst Newspapers tolerates antisemitism which will be an unfortunate proposition.
I urge you to take prompt action and fire Helen Thomas if only to demonstrate unequivocally that Hearst Newspapers is wholeheartedly opposed to the expressed anti-Semitic statements.
The readership of Kauffmans Commentary which spans throughout the United States, Israel, and Europe, is awaiting your response on this matter.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Ed. of Kauffmans Commentary
http://www.
On behalf of all of my readers who share my position, I am writing to express my outrage at the anti-Semitic comments that your correspondent Helen Thomas made to Rabbilive.com on May 27th.
Helen Thomas has long been a virulent anti-Semite who harbors anti-Israel sentiments. She routinely asks questions of White House Press Secretaries which challenges them to criticize Israel. She certainly is not a fair-minded reporter. Her bias against the State of Israel and the Jewish people reflects poorly on her employer Hearst Newspapers. Unfortunately, Hearst Newspapers is represented in the White House by a correspondent who has such such an animus for one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
However, Thomas has exceeded all boundaries by asserting in rather a vindictive matter that the "Jews should go back to Europe" among other bigoted diatribes. Thomas may have apologized for her comments but they are not sincere given her history in expressing such views.
You know very well that if Thomas made those same comments about African-American people telling them to go back to Africa, there would be calls from every corner in the globe for you to immediately fire Helen Thomas. And, you would have no other alternative but to dismiss Helen Thomas from her duties as White House Correspondent.
Why should the comments that she made against Jews be treated any differently? Why are diatribes against Jews treated with kid gloves rather than an ironclad fist?
If Helen Thomas remains in her position as White House Correspondent, it will demonstrate that Hearst Newspapers tolerates antisemitism which will be an unfortunate proposition.
I urge you to take prompt action and fire Helen Thomas if only to demonstrate unequivocally that Hearst Newspapers is wholeheartedly opposed to the expressed anti-Semitic statements.
The readership of Kauffmans Commentary which spans throughout the United States, Israel, and Europe, is awaiting your response on this matter.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Ed. of Kauffmans Commentary
http://www.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Remove Helen Thomas from the White House Press Corps
Helen Thomas, the legendary White House Press Correspondent, has been interviewing Presidents since the Eisenhower Administration. She is known in Washington for her liberal leanings. Thomas was adamantly opposed to the Iraq war and routinely clashed President Bush's White House press secretaries over that issue. But many people do not know is that Helen Thomas is a virulent anti-Semite and a staunch supporter of the Palestinian Authority. Her Lebanese descent may explain why she is so anti-Israel.
But Thomas recently stepped over the line when she told a reporter outside of the White House on Jewish Heritage Civilization Day this past May 27th that the Jews should go back to Europe and "get the hell out of Palestine."
Here is the shocking video
Could you imagine if a White House Correspondent told Black people to go back to Africa or Hispanic people to go back to Mexico or Asian people to go back to China? There would be moral outrage and rightfully so.
Hardly anyone is criticizing Thomas for her viciously anti-Semitic remarks.
Thomas, who is the correspondent for Hearst Newspapers which owns the Houston and San Francisco Chronicles among other newspapers, should be immediately removed from the White House Press Corps and Hearst Newspapers should immediately terminate her services.
Call the White House comments line at 202- 456-1111 and tell the White House operator that the President and his press secretary Robert Gibbs should no longer permit Helen Thomas to attend any press conferences at the White House.
You know Al Sharpton would be calling for Helen Thomas's dismissal if she the same incendiary remarks about Blacks. Lets cause a similar uproar.
But Thomas recently stepped over the line when she told a reporter outside of the White House on Jewish Heritage Civilization Day this past May 27th that the Jews should go back to Europe and "get the hell out of Palestine."
Here is the shocking video
Could you imagine if a White House Correspondent told Black people to go back to Africa or Hispanic people to go back to Mexico or Asian people to go back to China? There would be moral outrage and rightfully so.
Hardly anyone is criticizing Thomas for her viciously anti-Semitic remarks.
Thomas, who is the correspondent for Hearst Newspapers which owns the Houston and San Francisco Chronicles among other newspapers, should be immediately removed from the White House Press Corps and Hearst Newspapers should immediately terminate her services.
Call the White House comments line at 202- 456-1111 and tell the White House operator that the President and his press secretary Robert Gibbs should no longer permit Helen Thomas to attend any press conferences at the White House.
You know Al Sharpton would be calling for Helen Thomas's dismissal if she the same incendiary remarks about Blacks. Lets cause a similar uproar.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The Flotilla Song
Ed. Note: Unfortunately, YouTube pulled the Flotilla song off their website allegedly because of a copyright infringement. But, my hunch is other forces are at play here prompting YouTube to succumb to political pressure. However, the Jewish Task Force still has a version of the song that appears on You Tube which is seen above.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Terrorists on board the Mavi Marmara
Below is a video of an Israeli Navy Seal describing the violence that he encountered when boarding the ship.
We now know that the so-called activists on board the ship were not peaceful humanitarian activists. But, they were in fact connected to Al Qaeda and were armed with weaponry to be delivered to Hamas in Gaza. Worldnetdaily reported that the passengers wanted to be martyrs and chanted Jihadist slogans.
We now know that the so-called activists on board the ship were not peaceful humanitarian activists. But, they were in fact connected to Al Qaeda and were armed with weaponry to be delivered to Hamas in Gaza. Worldnetdaily reported that the passengers wanted to be martyrs and chanted Jihadist slogans.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
More Videos of the Mavi Marmara
The following is a video of the IDF asking the Mavi Marmara to dock in Ashdod
Here is a video of IDF soldiers yelling to each other that they are under fire by passengers on board the Mavi Marmara
And finally for anyone who believes that the passengers on board the Mavi Marmara were "peaceful", tell them to watch this video
Here is a video of IDF soldiers yelling to each other that they are under fire by passengers on board the Mavi Marmara
And finally for anyone who believes that the passengers on board the Mavi Marmara were "peaceful", tell them to watch this video
Question and Answer of the Day
Question: If the NYPD or the LAPD or any police officer in America had his gun stolen by a criminal only to be fired upon by the gun that was once in the police officer's position, would that police officer hesitate to kill the criminal if he could in self-defense?
Answer: Of course he would not hesitate and there would be no U.N. condemnation nor would there be any outcry from the European Union nor would the President of the U.S. ask the police force to get their facts straight. There would be no discussion. The police officer would have the absolute right to defend himself if he had his gun stolen or if he was beaten with metal rods or if he was thrown to the ground and assaulted.
Next Question: Why should the IDF be treated any differently when their soldiers are attacked by terrorists masked as humanitarian activists?
Answer: Because Jews are not allowed to defend themselves in the eyes of the international community. Instead, Jewish police officers/soldiers must permit the criminal/terrorist to beat them to death with metal rods, thrown them overboard in the water, and steal their guns without a reprisal attack.
Answer: Of course he would not hesitate and there would be no U.N. condemnation nor would there be any outcry from the European Union nor would the President of the U.S. ask the police force to get their facts straight. There would be no discussion. The police officer would have the absolute right to defend himself if he had his gun stolen or if he was beaten with metal rods or if he was thrown to the ground and assaulted.
Next Question: Why should the IDF be treated any differently when their soldiers are attacked by terrorists masked as humanitarian activists?
Answer: Because Jews are not allowed to defend themselves in the eyes of the international community. Instead, Jewish police officers/soldiers must permit the criminal/terrorist to beat them to death with metal rods, thrown them overboard in the water, and steal their guns without a reprisal attack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
