The suicide bombers union, B.O.O.M, have a difficult task ahead of them in that their members don't have any 'recourse' in there trade. Being a one way street, the reward has to be taken on faith for blowing themselves up - apparently there is some spiritual gaps in their contracts.
But the real problem here is that the members have discovered that the good looking virgins are all gone, so now the union members have to due with ones that look like Helen Thomas or Janet Reno. Little wonder they are on strike.
Muslims On Strike Over Virgins Left in Afterlife
Muslim suicide bombers in Britain are set to begin a three-day strike on Monday in a dispute over the number of virgins they are entitled to in the afterlife. Emergency talks with Al Qaeda have so far failed to produce an agreement.
The unrest began last Tuesday when Al Qaeda announced that the number of virgins a suicide bomber would receive after his death will be cut by 25% this February from 72 to only 54. The rationale for the cut was the increase in recent years of the number of suicide bombings and a subsequent shortage of virgins in the afterlife.
The suicide bombers' union, the British Organization of Occupational Martyrs, (B.O.O.M.), responded with a statement that this was unacceptable to its members and immediately balloted for strike action. General Secretary Abdullah Amir told the press, "Our members are literally working themselves to death in the cause of Jihad. We don't ask for much in return but to be treated like this is like a kick in the tooth."
Speaking from his shed in Tipton in the West Midlands in which he currently resides, Al Qaeda chief executive Osama bin Laden explained, "We sympathize with our workers' concerns but Al Qaeda is simply not in a position to meet their demands. They are not accepting the realities of modern-day Jihad in a competitive marketplace." "Thanks to Western depravity, there is now a chronic shortage of virgins in the afterlife. It's a straight choice between reducing expenditure and laying people off. I don't like cutting pension benefits, but I'd hate to have to tell 3,000 of my staff that they won't be able to blow themselves up."
Spokespersons for the union in the Northeast of England , Ireland , Wales and the entire Australian continent stated that the strike would not affect their operations as "There are no virgins in our areas anyway." A strike may not be necessary, however, as the number of suicide bombings has been decreasing lately. This has been attributed to the emergence of the Scottish singing star, Susan Boyle. Now that Muslims know what a virgin looks like, they are not so keen on going to paradise.
Monday, June 07, 2010
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Jews Are Liberal Democrats Because - - ?
Excellent review of Podhoretz's book "Why are Jews Liberals?" Rush Limbaugh had and interview with Podhoretz in a past publication of the Limbaugh Letter which was a real eye-opener to me.
This phenomena of why Jews vote overwhelmingly liberal has always puzzled me. But now it has become clear from this book review, and the Limbaugh Letter article, for this voting block.
Still, questions arise as to why the Jews persist in the face of so much evidence of liberal Democrat agenda that wants to crush the Jewish community. Maybe the Jewish community can't come to grips with the realization they have been 'taken for a ride' by the Democrats all these years, refusing to acknowledge such trickery by continuing to support the liberal agenda.
It will be interesting to watch how the Jews vote in November given how Obama treated Bibi Netanyahu when he visited the White House this Spring, not to mention how he has completely sided with the Palestinian terrorists against Israel.
BOOK REVIEW: WHY ARE JEWS LIBERALS?
A Book Review By DICK MORRIS
Why Are Jews Liberals? By Norman Podhoretz
Published on DickMorris.com on June 5, 2010Printer-Friendly Version
It is the question that sooner or later baffles every political pundit, consultant, expert, or observer. Why do American Jews persist in their adoration of the Democratic Party? Why, like an abused spouse, do they tolerate Israel-bashing, support for the Palestinians and Democratic softness on terrorism and still return for more? As the richest demographic group in our population, why do they still vote for Obama and donate money to him when he specifically proposes to raise the taxes on those making more than $200,000 per year?
Why do they let liberal politicians embrace the likes of Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Jeremiah Wright and still support them on Election Day? I don´t have an answer and have never heard a satisfactory one from any leader of an American Jewish or pro-Israeli organization.
But Norman Podhoretz does and he explains his ideas in his brilliant book Why Are Jews Liberals?
American Jews, Podhoretz explains, grew up in liberal homes heavily influenced by the ideology they inherited from their Eastern European ancestors. There, in Russia and Germany, you either followed the Kaiser´s or the Czar´s line or were a Communist. Reacting to their exclusion and the pogroms that harassed them, these ghetto Jews readily embraced Marxism. Indeed, Marx was, himself, born a Jew and the majority of the first Bolshevik Politburo in 1917 were Jews.
When Hitler railed against Jews and Communists, he often felt no need to distinguish between the two. In the New World, communism morphed into socialism in the early years of the twentieth century when Eugene V. Debs won a million votes (almost 10%) on the Socialist Party ticket for President.
Finally, under the more benign influence of FDR and the New Deal, this leftist impulse settled into the cozy niche of liberalism where it has remained ever since.
Zionism, also, closely identified itself with socialism and the Labor Party of Golda Meier and David Ben Gurion, which dominated Israel´s early years, pushed its ideological agenda. Kibbutzim were formed with communal living as a Fabian or utopian socialism took root in the holy land. So leftist were the early Israelis that Russia recognized the state of Israel even before the United States did in the hopes that it could become a socialist ally.
The political majority which underscored this leftist bent was based on Jews descended from the ghettos of Europe -- Ashkenazi Jews. In the U.S. Jews stayed in the liberal camp not just out of conviction but also from fear of the Christian right. When fundamentalism reared its head in American politics, they feared that anti-Semitism would not be far behind. And, as the anti-communism of the McCarthy era targeted the Jewish intellectual establishment, their dependence on Democrats only increased.
It came as a shock to America´s Jews that first Nixon, then Reagan, and finally Bush-43 emerged as Israel´s strongest supporters. (The tepid backing Bush-41 gave the Jewish state was more in line with what they expected from the GOP). And it came as a total shock when the religious right became Israel´s strongest backer based on its biblical conviction that God had promised the Holy Land to the Jewish people.
But, by then, religion and even Israel had weakened their holds on American Jewish hearts. They attended religious services less than half as frequently as establishment Protestants and only one-third as often as Catholics or Evangelicals. Most Jews, Podhoretz notes, attended synagogue "four times a year" on the high holy days.
Meanwhile, in Israel, the socialist Ashkenazi-based Labor Party (led by Shimon Peres) fell to the campaigns of Menachem Begin and Bibi Netanyahu. Both had as their base the Sephardic Jews who came, not from Europe, but from Africa or the Middle East. They had no heritage of socialism, much less Marxism and had a healthy disrespect for their long term neighbors in the Arab world.
To American Jews, they looked racist and embarrassed them in front of their liberal friends. When Obama accuses Netanyahu of "intransigence", he echoes what liberal Jews themselves often think of the Israeli right-wing. But Podhoretz´ book, written before Obama manifested such an anti-Israel bent, leaves unanswered the question of whether the pro-Palestinian bias of the current administration, not to mention its war on prosperity, will drive Jews away from their liberal moorings.
The answer probably lies more with events than within Jewish thinking. As it becomes apparent that Israel faces a holocaust-like threat from Iranian nuclear weapons and the disastrous results of Obama´s socialist project become evident, Jews will likely gradually wean themselves away from the liberal Democratic Party.
As it becomes more anti-Israel and anti-wealth, the Party will leave the Jews before the Jews realize it has left and themselves leave the party. Norman Podhoretz, former editor of Commentary Magazine, and long a leading voice of the neo-con movement, has diagnosed the Jewish addiction to liberalism and helped us to understand why it still dominates their thinking. He has solved the mystery. Now let's see what we conservatives and Republican Jews can do with the knowledge he has given us.
This phenomena of why Jews vote overwhelmingly liberal has always puzzled me. But now it has become clear from this book review, and the Limbaugh Letter article, for this voting block.
Still, questions arise as to why the Jews persist in the face of so much evidence of liberal Democrat agenda that wants to crush the Jewish community. Maybe the Jewish community can't come to grips with the realization they have been 'taken for a ride' by the Democrats all these years, refusing to acknowledge such trickery by continuing to support the liberal agenda.
It will be interesting to watch how the Jews vote in November given how Obama treated Bibi Netanyahu when he visited the White House this Spring, not to mention how he has completely sided with the Palestinian terrorists against Israel.
BOOK REVIEW: WHY ARE JEWS LIBERALS?
A Book Review By DICK MORRIS
Why Are Jews Liberals? By Norman Podhoretz
Published on DickMorris.com on June 5, 2010Printer-Friendly Version
It is the question that sooner or later baffles every political pundit, consultant, expert, or observer. Why do American Jews persist in their adoration of the Democratic Party? Why, like an abused spouse, do they tolerate Israel-bashing, support for the Palestinians and Democratic softness on terrorism and still return for more? As the richest demographic group in our population, why do they still vote for Obama and donate money to him when he specifically proposes to raise the taxes on those making more than $200,000 per year?
Why do they let liberal politicians embrace the likes of Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Jeremiah Wright and still support them on Election Day? I don´t have an answer and have never heard a satisfactory one from any leader of an American Jewish or pro-Israeli organization.
But Norman Podhoretz does and he explains his ideas in his brilliant book Why Are Jews Liberals?
American Jews, Podhoretz explains, grew up in liberal homes heavily influenced by the ideology they inherited from their Eastern European ancestors. There, in Russia and Germany, you either followed the Kaiser´s or the Czar´s line or were a Communist. Reacting to their exclusion and the pogroms that harassed them, these ghetto Jews readily embraced Marxism. Indeed, Marx was, himself, born a Jew and the majority of the first Bolshevik Politburo in 1917 were Jews.
When Hitler railed against Jews and Communists, he often felt no need to distinguish between the two. In the New World, communism morphed into socialism in the early years of the twentieth century when Eugene V. Debs won a million votes (almost 10%) on the Socialist Party ticket for President.
Finally, under the more benign influence of FDR and the New Deal, this leftist impulse settled into the cozy niche of liberalism where it has remained ever since.
Zionism, also, closely identified itself with socialism and the Labor Party of Golda Meier and David Ben Gurion, which dominated Israel´s early years, pushed its ideological agenda. Kibbutzim were formed with communal living as a Fabian or utopian socialism took root in the holy land. So leftist were the early Israelis that Russia recognized the state of Israel even before the United States did in the hopes that it could become a socialist ally.
The political majority which underscored this leftist bent was based on Jews descended from the ghettos of Europe -- Ashkenazi Jews. In the U.S. Jews stayed in the liberal camp not just out of conviction but also from fear of the Christian right. When fundamentalism reared its head in American politics, they feared that anti-Semitism would not be far behind. And, as the anti-communism of the McCarthy era targeted the Jewish intellectual establishment, their dependence on Democrats only increased.
It came as a shock to America´s Jews that first Nixon, then Reagan, and finally Bush-43 emerged as Israel´s strongest supporters. (The tepid backing Bush-41 gave the Jewish state was more in line with what they expected from the GOP). And it came as a total shock when the religious right became Israel´s strongest backer based on its biblical conviction that God had promised the Holy Land to the Jewish people.
But, by then, religion and even Israel had weakened their holds on American Jewish hearts. They attended religious services less than half as frequently as establishment Protestants and only one-third as often as Catholics or Evangelicals. Most Jews, Podhoretz notes, attended synagogue "four times a year" on the high holy days.
Meanwhile, in Israel, the socialist Ashkenazi-based Labor Party (led by Shimon Peres) fell to the campaigns of Menachem Begin and Bibi Netanyahu. Both had as their base the Sephardic Jews who came, not from Europe, but from Africa or the Middle East. They had no heritage of socialism, much less Marxism and had a healthy disrespect for their long term neighbors in the Arab world.
To American Jews, they looked racist and embarrassed them in front of their liberal friends. When Obama accuses Netanyahu of "intransigence", he echoes what liberal Jews themselves often think of the Israeli right-wing. But Podhoretz´ book, written before Obama manifested such an anti-Israel bent, leaves unanswered the question of whether the pro-Palestinian bias of the current administration, not to mention its war on prosperity, will drive Jews away from their liberal moorings.
The answer probably lies more with events than within Jewish thinking. As it becomes apparent that Israel faces a holocaust-like threat from Iranian nuclear weapons and the disastrous results of Obama´s socialist project become evident, Jews will likely gradually wean themselves away from the liberal Democratic Party.
As it becomes more anti-Israel and anti-wealth, the Party will leave the Jews before the Jews realize it has left and themselves leave the party. Norman Podhoretz, former editor of Commentary Magazine, and long a leading voice of the neo-con movement, has diagnosed the Jewish addiction to liberalism and helped us to understand why it still dominates their thinking. He has solved the mystery. Now let's see what we conservatives and Republican Jews can do with the knowledge he has given us.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Obama White House Bribes Have Kick-Backs
It seems that the White House has no limit to how corrupt they can get to cement their agenda. The question remains - will the people accept the corruption or take a stand against it.
History is being made in this country.
WHY THE WHITE HOUSE BRIBED ROMANOFF TO DROP OUT OF COLORADO SENATE RACE
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on June 3, 2010Printer-Friendly Version
We now know that Obama's Deputy Chief of Staff, called Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff in September, 2009, to offer him one of three enumerated jobs if only he would drop out of the Democratic Senate primary in which he was challenging appointed Senator Michael Bennet. But the question is why?
In the case of the Spector/Sestak bribe, the answer is obvious: The Obama Administration wanted the Pennsylvania Senator to switch parties so that they would have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. To persuade him to switch, the White House had to do its utmost to clear the field and assure him a safe path to the Senate nomination in his new political party.
So, Rahm Emanual asked former President Bill Clinton to dangle positions in front of Sestak to get him to drop out of the race. But Michael Bennet was no great friend of the White House. Having never been elected to a statewide position, he lacked a political base and was never a particularly strong candidate. He only got the Senate seat as an appointment to fill the seat vacated by Senator Ken Salazar who gave up the seat to become Secretary of the Interior in the Obama Administration. So why was the Obama Administration trying to clear the field for Bennet and assure him of the nomination?
The answer likely lies in the politics of health care. Bennet had been a question mark from the beginning of the health care debate. The Huffington Post reported, on November 22, 2009, that he was willing to lose his Senate seat if he had to in order to back health care reform. The Post reported that his dramatic announcement ended months of silence on the subject and relieved White House concerns that he was not going to back the bill. Funny how Bennet's announcement came less than two months after Romanoff was offered a job to drop out of the race!
If a connection can be documented between the offer and the vote (no other motivation seems credible) the transaction becomes particularly sickening.
Trading a job for a vote is the crassest and most obvious form of bribery.
But what else can account for Bennet's sudden morph from being on the fence over health care to an ardent supporter who would lose all rather than see it die? In any case, we need to help Jane Norton, Colorado's former Lt Governor, beat either Bennet or Romanoff in the general election in the fall. She holds a lead and we need to throw this kind of horse trading bribery politics out of office.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns! __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT DICKMORRIS.COM!THANK YOU!***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2010. REPRINTS WITH PERMISSION ONLY***
History is being made in this country.
WHY THE WHITE HOUSE BRIBED ROMANOFF TO DROP OUT OF COLORADO SENATE RACE
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on June 3, 2010Printer-Friendly Version
We now know that Obama's Deputy Chief of Staff, called Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff in September, 2009, to offer him one of three enumerated jobs if only he would drop out of the Democratic Senate primary in which he was challenging appointed Senator Michael Bennet. But the question is why?
In the case of the Spector/Sestak bribe, the answer is obvious: The Obama Administration wanted the Pennsylvania Senator to switch parties so that they would have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. To persuade him to switch, the White House had to do its utmost to clear the field and assure him a safe path to the Senate nomination in his new political party.
So, Rahm Emanual asked former President Bill Clinton to dangle positions in front of Sestak to get him to drop out of the race. But Michael Bennet was no great friend of the White House. Having never been elected to a statewide position, he lacked a political base and was never a particularly strong candidate. He only got the Senate seat as an appointment to fill the seat vacated by Senator Ken Salazar who gave up the seat to become Secretary of the Interior in the Obama Administration. So why was the Obama Administration trying to clear the field for Bennet and assure him of the nomination?
The answer likely lies in the politics of health care. Bennet had been a question mark from the beginning of the health care debate. The Huffington Post reported, on November 22, 2009, that he was willing to lose his Senate seat if he had to in order to back health care reform. The Post reported that his dramatic announcement ended months of silence on the subject and relieved White House concerns that he was not going to back the bill. Funny how Bennet's announcement came less than two months after Romanoff was offered a job to drop out of the race!
If a connection can be documented between the offer and the vote (no other motivation seems credible) the transaction becomes particularly sickening.
Trading a job for a vote is the crassest and most obvious form of bribery.
But what else can account for Bennet's sudden morph from being on the fence over health care to an ardent supporter who would lose all rather than see it die? In any case, we need to help Jane Norton, Colorado's former Lt Governor, beat either Bennet or Romanoff in the general election in the fall. She holds a lead and we need to throw this kind of horse trading bribery politics out of office.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns! __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT DICKMORRIS.COM!THANK YOU!***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2010. REPRINTS WITH PERMISSION ONLY***
Friday, June 04, 2010
ObamaCare Costs WILL Go Higher and Higher
This does not come as a surprise - most of us knew this all along even before the bill was ever passed. Why would any one, with half a brain, believe costs would be reduced?
Look at how the government has handled the oil spill - that is exactly how they will handle health care.
YOUR HEALTH CARE COSTS, GOING HIGHER
Source: Carrie Lukas, "Your Health Care Costs, Going Higher," Townhall.com, June 1, 2010.
How much will ObamaCare cost, asks Carrie Lukas, vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum. That was a matter of particular dispute during the debate of the Patient Protection and Affordability Act. The bill's authors monkeyed around with the numbers, delaying some benefits, creating new revenue raisers, and pushing off known, needed reforms, so that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) could come up with a score below the $900 billion target.
Only the most naïve failed to recognize that those numbers were meaningless: Ultimately, they would have no relationship to how much the legislation would add to taxpayers' burdens and bloat the federal budget.
CBO has since been revising its estimates upward:
Another $115 billion for additional administrative costs associated with ObamaCare.
In addition, Congress now struggles to pass a change to the Medicare reimbursement rates, which will cost $23 billion just to patch the problem for two years.
Taxpayers must be warned that these are just the first of many upward revisions by CBO, says Lukas. As Congressman Paul Ryan pointed out during the health care debate, the CBO score was based on 10 years of increased taxes and Medicare cuts, and only six years of benefits.
Former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin just released his own analysis of ObamaCare and found that, far from reducing the deficit as President Obama and Congressional proponents promised, it will add more than $500 billion to the deficit during the first ten years and another $1.4 trillion in the decade after that.
Yet the program's cost for taxpayers are just a small part of the costs that will be borne by American citizens, says Lukas. Several large companies reported that they would suffer multi-million dollar losses due to ObamaCare's new taxes. Companies are also noting the incentives created by the law to drop insurance coverage for their employees.
According to Holtz-Eakin:
Caterpillar recently noted that it could save 70 percent on health care costs by dropping coverage and paying the penalties.
AT&T's $2.4 billion cost of coverage would drop to just $600 million for penalties.
Altogether, Holtz-Eakin estimates that as many as 35 million Americans could lose their employer-sponsored health insurance.
Look at how the government has handled the oil spill - that is exactly how they will handle health care.
YOUR HEALTH CARE COSTS, GOING HIGHER
Source: Carrie Lukas, "Your Health Care Costs, Going Higher," Townhall.com, June 1, 2010.
How much will ObamaCare cost, asks Carrie Lukas, vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum. That was a matter of particular dispute during the debate of the Patient Protection and Affordability Act. The bill's authors monkeyed around with the numbers, delaying some benefits, creating new revenue raisers, and pushing off known, needed reforms, so that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) could come up with a score below the $900 billion target.
Only the most naïve failed to recognize that those numbers were meaningless: Ultimately, they would have no relationship to how much the legislation would add to taxpayers' burdens and bloat the federal budget.
CBO has since been revising its estimates upward:
Another $115 billion for additional administrative costs associated with ObamaCare.
In addition, Congress now struggles to pass a change to the Medicare reimbursement rates, which will cost $23 billion just to patch the problem for two years.
Taxpayers must be warned that these are just the first of many upward revisions by CBO, says Lukas. As Congressman Paul Ryan pointed out during the health care debate, the CBO score was based on 10 years of increased taxes and Medicare cuts, and only six years of benefits.
Former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin just released his own analysis of ObamaCare and found that, far from reducing the deficit as President Obama and Congressional proponents promised, it will add more than $500 billion to the deficit during the first ten years and another $1.4 trillion in the decade after that.
Yet the program's cost for taxpayers are just a small part of the costs that will be borne by American citizens, says Lukas. Several large companies reported that they would suffer multi-million dollar losses due to ObamaCare's new taxes. Companies are also noting the incentives created by the law to drop insurance coverage for their employees.
According to Holtz-Eakin:
Caterpillar recently noted that it could save 70 percent on health care costs by dropping coverage and paying the penalties.
AT&T's $2.4 billion cost of coverage would drop to just $600 million for penalties.
Altogether, Holtz-Eakin estimates that as many as 35 million Americans could lose their employer-sponsored health insurance.
Obama Liberal Democrats : Eyes Wide Shut
It's the little things in life that make the difference - this is just a simple illustration of how an agenda or a philosophy is perceived.
FREE KITTENS
A pretty little girl named Suzy was standing on the sidewalk in front of her home. Next to her was a basket containing a number of tiny creatures; in her hand was a sign announcing FREE KITTENS
Suddenly a line of big black cars pulled up beside her. Out of the lead car stepped a tall, grinning man."Hi there little girl, I'm President Obama. What do you have in the basket?" he asked."Kittens," little Suzy said."How old are they?" asked Obama.Suzy replied, "They're so young, their eyes aren't even open yet.""And what kind of kittens are they?""Democrats," answered Suzy with a smile.
Obama was delighted. As soon as he returned to his car, he called his PR chief and told him about the little girl and the kittens. Recognizing the perfect photo op, the two men agreed that the president should return the next day; and in front of the assembled media, have the girl talk about her discerning kittens.
So the next day, Suzy was again standing on the sidewalk with her basket of "FREE KITTENS," when another motorcade pulled up, this time followed by vans from ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN. Cameras and audio equipment were quickly set up, then Obama got out of his limo and walked over to little Suzy."Hello, again," he said, "I'd love it if you would tell all my friends out there what kind of kittens you're giving away.""Yes sir," Suzy said. "They're Republicans."
Taken by surprise, the president stammered, "But... but... yesterday, you told me they were DEMOCRATS."Little Suzy smiled and said, "I know. But today, they have their eyes open."
FREE KITTENS
A pretty little girl named Suzy was standing on the sidewalk in front of her home. Next to her was a basket containing a number of tiny creatures; in her hand was a sign announcing FREE KITTENS
Suddenly a line of big black cars pulled up beside her. Out of the lead car stepped a tall, grinning man."Hi there little girl, I'm President Obama. What do you have in the basket?" he asked."Kittens," little Suzy said."How old are they?" asked Obama.Suzy replied, "They're so young, their eyes aren't even open yet.""And what kind of kittens are they?""Democrats," answered Suzy with a smile.
Obama was delighted. As soon as he returned to his car, he called his PR chief and told him about the little girl and the kittens. Recognizing the perfect photo op, the two men agreed that the president should return the next day; and in front of the assembled media, have the girl talk about her discerning kittens.
So the next day, Suzy was again standing on the sidewalk with her basket of "FREE KITTENS," when another motorcade pulled up, this time followed by vans from ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN. Cameras and audio equipment were quickly set up, then Obama got out of his limo and walked over to little Suzy."Hello, again," he said, "I'd love it if you would tell all my friends out there what kind of kittens you're giving away.""Yes sir," Suzy said. "They're Republicans."
Taken by surprise, the president stammered, "But... but... yesterday, you told me they were DEMOCRATS."Little Suzy smiled and said, "I know. But today, they have their eyes open."
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Liberal Democrats Attack Free Speech Rights : Stop the Truth
When an organization can't win in the arena of ideas they must turn to other means of stopping the debate. With liberal hate organizations stepping up their attacks on talk radio and cable news, it's a sure sign that hate is losing to the truth. This is the good news. The liberal Democrats believe this is bad news and must not be tolerated. The liberals believe if they are to succeed in their quest of total take over of the American dream, they must be stamped out the truth as soon as possible.
With the coming elections it is imperative that the liberals must stop the truth from influencing the outcome of the November election. Liberals have always relied on lies, misinformation and election fraud to gain seats in congress. There is no reason to believe this year will be any different.
Therefore, given the importance of the coming elections, it is a necessity, the liberals believe, to have all sources of information in the control of liberal socialist Democrats. They already have print media and nearly all television outlets. The only outlets for the truth left for the general public is talk radio and cable news. Little wonder why they are on the attack now to stop these organizations.
Liberal Groups Want FCC to Police Talk Radio, Cable News
Wednesday, 02 Jun 2010 03:14 PM
By: Jim Meyers
A coalition of more than 30 mostly liberal organizations has sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission urging the agency to monitor “hate speech” on talk radio and cable news networks. The groups assert in the letter that “hate, extremism and misinformation have been on the rise . . . as the media has focused on Arizona’s passage of one of the harshest pieces of anti-Latino legislation in this country’s history.”
The organizations include the Center for Media Justice, the Rainbow Push Coalition, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Association of Latino Independent Producers, and Common Cause.“As traditional media have become less diverse and less competitive, they have also grown less responsible and less responsive to the communities that they are supposed to serve,” the letter states.
“In this same atmosphere hate speech thrives, as hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable television programs masquerading as ‘news.’”The coalition did not mention any specific media outlets.
The groups also argue that the Internet has made it more difficult for the public to separate “the facts from bigotry masquerading as news,” The Hill newspaper reports.
The Internet “gives the illusion that news sources have increased, but in fact there are fewer journalists employed now than ever before,” according to the coalition.“Moreover, on the Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say things that they may not say in the public eye.“For these reasons, as the Commission deliberates how the public interest will be served in the digital age, it should consider the extent of hate speech in media, and its effects.”
With the coming elections it is imperative that the liberals must stop the truth from influencing the outcome of the November election. Liberals have always relied on lies, misinformation and election fraud to gain seats in congress. There is no reason to believe this year will be any different.
Therefore, given the importance of the coming elections, it is a necessity, the liberals believe, to have all sources of information in the control of liberal socialist Democrats. They already have print media and nearly all television outlets. The only outlets for the truth left for the general public is talk radio and cable news. Little wonder why they are on the attack now to stop these organizations.
Liberal Groups Want FCC to Police Talk Radio, Cable News
Wednesday, 02 Jun 2010 03:14 PM
By: Jim Meyers
A coalition of more than 30 mostly liberal organizations has sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission urging the agency to monitor “hate speech” on talk radio and cable news networks. The groups assert in the letter that “hate, extremism and misinformation have been on the rise . . . as the media has focused on Arizona’s passage of one of the harshest pieces of anti-Latino legislation in this country’s history.”
The organizations include the Center for Media Justice, the Rainbow Push Coalition, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Association of Latino Independent Producers, and Common Cause.“As traditional media have become less diverse and less competitive, they have also grown less responsible and less responsive to the communities that they are supposed to serve,” the letter states.
“In this same atmosphere hate speech thrives, as hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable television programs masquerading as ‘news.’”The coalition did not mention any specific media outlets.
The groups also argue that the Internet has made it more difficult for the public to separate “the facts from bigotry masquerading as news,” The Hill newspaper reports.
The Internet “gives the illusion that news sources have increased, but in fact there are fewer journalists employed now than ever before,” according to the coalition.“Moreover, on the Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say things that they may not say in the public eye.“For these reasons, as the Commission deliberates how the public interest will be served in the digital age, it should consider the extent of hate speech in media, and its effects.”
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Obama And Bush Address Marines : Compare/Contrast
Great video on how the Marines received George Bush before a speech and then how they appreciated who and what he was after the speech.
Also, this is compared and contrasted to how Obama, Berry, was received and how they knew who and what he is!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw
Also, this is compared and contrasted to how Obama, Berry, was received and how they knew who and what he is!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw
Obama's Presidency Understood : Free Ice Cream
There are probably other explanations for his being elected but this one is at or near the top of the list. emaculation
THE COW AND THE ICE CREAM
THE BEST EXPLANATION I HAVE SEEN ON
WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
From a teacher in the Nashville area. "We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice Cream.' The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year.....
The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president.
We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.
We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids.
I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support.
I had never seen Olivia's mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.
Jamie went first.
He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Everyone applauded and he sat down.
Now it was Olivia's turn to speak.
Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down.
The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream..." She surely could have said more, she did not have to.
A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure.
Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it?. She didn't know. The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was the ice cream.
Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other 48 percent know they are going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess."
This is the ice cream Obama promised us!
Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone -- until they first take it away from someone else.
THE BEST EXPLANATION I HAVE SEEN ON
WHY OBAMA WON THE ELECTION
From a teacher in the Nashville area. "We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'Ice Cream.' The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year.....
The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president.
We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.
To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.
We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.
The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids.
I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support.
I had never seen Olivia's mother. The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.
Jamie went first.
He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best. Everyone applauded and he sat down.
Now it was Olivia's turn to speak.
Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down.
The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream..." She surely could have said more, she did not have to.
A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure.
Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it?. She didn't know. The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was the ice cream.
Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 52 percent of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other 48 percent know they are going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess."
This is the ice cream Obama promised us!
Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone -- until they first take it away from someone else.
Greece To Dump Euro To Escape Disaster?
Bold steps to avert disaster in Greece? Sure, what ever it takes to do the job except not in this country. We want a disaster here as it gives the Obama administration another reason to expand it's grip on the country.
Total collapse of our economy and our way of life is a small price to pay for "Change".
Greece urged to give up euro
Robert Watts
THE Greek government has been advised by British economists to leave the euro and default on its €300 billion (£255 billion) debt to save its economy.
The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), a London-based consultancy, has warned Greek ministers they will be unable to escape their debt trap without devaluing their own currency to boost exports. The only way this can happen is if Greece returns to its own currency.
Greek politicians have played down the prospect of abandoning the euro, which could lead to the break-up of the single currency.
Speaking from Athens yesterday, Doug McWilliams, chief executive of the CEBR, said: “Leaving the euro would mean the new currency will fall by a minimum of 15%. But as the national debt is valued in euros, this would raise the debt from its current level of 120% of GDP to 140% overnight.
Spain races to avert banking crisis
The Eurosceptic case for saving the euro
“So part of the package of leaving the euro must be to convert the debt into the new domestic currency unilaterally.”
Greece’s departure from the euro would prove disastrous for German and French banks, to which it owes billions of euros.
McWilliams called the move “virtually inevitable” and said other members may follow.
“The only question is the timing,” he said. “The other issue is the extent of contagion. Spain would probably be forced to follow suit, and probably Portugal and Italy, though the Italian debt position is less serious.
“Could this be the last weekend of the single currency? Quite possibly, yes.”
Total collapse of our economy and our way of life is a small price to pay for "Change".
Greece urged to give up euro
Robert Watts
THE Greek government has been advised by British economists to leave the euro and default on its €300 billion (£255 billion) debt to save its economy.
The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR), a London-based consultancy, has warned Greek ministers they will be unable to escape their debt trap without devaluing their own currency to boost exports. The only way this can happen is if Greece returns to its own currency.
Greek politicians have played down the prospect of abandoning the euro, which could lead to the break-up of the single currency.
Speaking from Athens yesterday, Doug McWilliams, chief executive of the CEBR, said: “Leaving the euro would mean the new currency will fall by a minimum of 15%. But as the national debt is valued in euros, this would raise the debt from its current level of 120% of GDP to 140% overnight.
Spain races to avert banking crisis
The Eurosceptic case for saving the euro
“So part of the package of leaving the euro must be to convert the debt into the new domestic currency unilaterally.”
Greece’s departure from the euro would prove disastrous for German and French banks, to which it owes billions of euros.
McWilliams called the move “virtually inevitable” and said other members may follow.
“The only question is the timing,” he said. “The other issue is the extent of contagion. Spain would probably be forced to follow suit, and probably Portugal and Italy, though the Italian debt position is less serious.
“Could this be the last weekend of the single currency? Quite possibly, yes.”
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Arizona Schools Take Bold Steps - Change to Believe In
This change in direction of education in Arizona should be implemented in all of the nations schools. More money will not cure the problems that face our schools in this age of technology and fast moving markets.
Here is real "change to believe in".
ARIZONA LEGISLATURE ADOPTS SWEEPING EDUCATION REFORMS
Source: Matthew Ladner, "Arizona Legislature adopts sweeping education reforms," Goldwater Institute, May 11, 2010.
Arizona lawmakers recently enacted some of the most far-reaching K-12 education reforms in the state's history. Several of the bills that Gov. Jan Brewer has signed into law are modeled on Florida's successful reforms implemented a decade ago, says Goldwater vice president of research Matthew Ladner.
For example:
Arizona now will annually issue schools a letter grade of A, B, C, D or F.
The state now will have a robust program for experts in math, science and other areas to teach their subjects without first getting a teaching certificate from a college of education.
Lawmakers have curtailed social promotion by holding back some third graders who have yet to learn the basics of reading.
Legislators expanded the sources available to launch new charter schools.
Lawmakers increased the size and transparency of the state scholarship tax credit program and changed the date for claiming the tax credits from December 31 to April 15.
The Legislature also specified that school districts cannot use "years on the job" as the only criteria when deciding which teachers to keep. The Arizona Department of Education will be required to develop teacher and principal evaluations that include how well students score on specific tests.
This year, Arizona lawmakers demonstrated with action, not just words, that they will not accept Arizona permanently sitting near the bottom of student achievement rankings. Each bill contains important policy changes that will improve education by holding educators accountable to parents and taxpayers.
The "A" to "F" school labels and teacher evaluation reforms could revolutionize Arizona's public schools if properly implemented, says Ladner.
Here is real "change to believe in".
ARIZONA LEGISLATURE ADOPTS SWEEPING EDUCATION REFORMS
Source: Matthew Ladner, "Arizona Legislature adopts sweeping education reforms," Goldwater Institute, May 11, 2010.
Arizona lawmakers recently enacted some of the most far-reaching K-12 education reforms in the state's history. Several of the bills that Gov. Jan Brewer has signed into law are modeled on Florida's successful reforms implemented a decade ago, says Goldwater vice president of research Matthew Ladner.
For example:
Arizona now will annually issue schools a letter grade of A, B, C, D or F.
The state now will have a robust program for experts in math, science and other areas to teach their subjects without first getting a teaching certificate from a college of education.
Lawmakers have curtailed social promotion by holding back some third graders who have yet to learn the basics of reading.
Legislators expanded the sources available to launch new charter schools.
Lawmakers increased the size and transparency of the state scholarship tax credit program and changed the date for claiming the tax credits from December 31 to April 15.
The Legislature also specified that school districts cannot use "years on the job" as the only criteria when deciding which teachers to keep. The Arizona Department of Education will be required to develop teacher and principal evaluations that include how well students score on specific tests.
This year, Arizona lawmakers demonstrated with action, not just words, that they will not accept Arizona permanently sitting near the bottom of student achievement rankings. Each bill contains important policy changes that will improve education by holding educators accountable to parents and taxpayers.
The "A" to "F" school labels and teacher evaluation reforms could revolutionize Arizona's public schools if properly implemented, says Ladner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
