Take your pick or charity of your choice, of course. But … what’s the bottom line for how much of the money actually goes to the cause you had intended?
A. Bad Guys
The American Red Cross
President and CEO Marsha J. Evans salary for the year was $651,957 plus expenses
MARCH OF DIMES It is called the March of Dimes because only a dime for every 1 dollar is given to the needy.
The United Way
President Brian Gallagher receives a $375,000 base salary along with numerous expense benefits.
The United Nations Children’s Fund is a United Nations Program headquartered in New York City that (THEORETICALLY!) provides long-term humanitarian and developmental assistance to children and mothers in developing countries. It is one of the members of the United Nations Development Group and its Executive Committee.
CEO Caryl M. Stern receives $1,200,000 per year (100k per month) plus all expenses including a ROLLS ROYCE.
Less than 5 cents of your donated dollar goes to the cause.
GOODWILL CEO and owner Mark Curran profits $2.3 million a year.
Goodwill is a very catchy name for his business.You donate to his business and then he sells the items for PROFIT. He pays nothing for his products and pays his workers minimum wage! Nice Guy. $0.00 goes to help anyone! Stop giving to this man.
B. Good Guys
Instead, give it to ANY OF THE FOLLOWING. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE IT WILL DO SOME GOOD:
The Salvation Army
Commissioner,Todd Bassett receives a small salary of only $13,000 per year(plus housing) for managing this $2 billion dollar organization. 96 percent of donated dollars go to the cause.
The American Legion
National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.
Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!
The Veterans of Foreign Wars
National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.
Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!
The Disabled American Veterans
National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!
The Military Order of Purple Hearts Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.
Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!
The Vietnam Veterans Association
National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.
Your donations go to help Veterans and their families and youth!
Make a Wish: For children’s last wishes. 100% goes to funding trips or special wishes for a dying child.
St. Jude Research Hospital 100% goes towards funding and helping Children with Cancer who have no insurance and cannot afford to pay.
Ronald McDonald Houses (Sponsor: McDonald Burger Corp)
All monies go to running the houses for parents who have critically ill children in the hospital. 100% goes to housing, and feeding the families.
Lions Club International
100% of donations go to help the blind with hearing aids, support medical missions and measles vaccinations.
By Hillel Fendel and Chaim Silberstein
The Jewish Press
December 5, 2014
Here’s a little-known fact: The Dome of the Rock – the magnificent structure that stands atop the site of the Holy of Holies – was originally built up not for Muslims; rather, it, or its precursor, was built for the Jewish people.
How do we know this? We rely on the late Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren, and on a Byzantine historian from the 7th century.
Rabbi Goren, in his classic work The Temple Mount, wrote that the silver-domed Al-Aksa Mosque, at the Mount’s southern end opposite the gold Dome of the Rock, points southward toward Mecca and was built as a Muslim house of prayer. “At the request of the Jews,” Rabbi Goren continues, “Omar built the Dome of the Rock sanctuary to serve as a house of prayer for the Jews. This was after the Jews showed him the site where the Holy Temple had stood – and it does not point to Mecca.”
Most certainly one of Rabbi Goren’s sources was the Byzantine historian Theophanes. Written in Greek and translated into English in 1839, the following relevant passage from Theophanes was cited by English historian Guy Le Strange in his 1890 work History of Jerusalem Under the Moslems (p.11):
“In this year [635 C.E.], Omar … (continued below Wikipedia entry)
(From Wikipedia): Umar (or Omar) was the second Rashidun Caliph and reigned during 634-644. Umar’s caliphate is notable for its vast conquests, aided by brilliant field commanders, he was able to incorporate present day Iraq, Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, and part of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and south western Pakistan into the empire of the Muslims. All of these were permanent conquests. The Byzantines lost more than three fourths of their territory and in Persia, the Sassanid empire ceased to exist.)
… began to restore the Temple at Jerusalem, for the building, in truth, no longer then stood firmly founded, but had fallen to ruin. Now when Omar inquired the cause, the Jews answered saying, ‘Unless thou throw down the Cross, which stands on the Mt. of Olives, the building of the Temple will never be firmly founded.’ Thereupon Omar threw down the Cross at that place, in order that the building [of the Temple] might be made firm…”
Thus we see that the Dome of the Rock, or its precursor by several decades, was built not for Muslims but for Jews, and was even supposed to be a “more firmly founded” version of the Holy Temple.
How ironic that this is the true background of the building that now symbolizes, throughout the world, Muslim control of Judaism’s holiest site – and the ban on Jewish prayer there.
Israelis officials have repeatedly promised of late, at the behest of pressure from without and within, not to change the “status quo” on the Temple Mount. Is it clear to all what exactly this means?
At the outset, it must be explained that the halachic aspects of visiting the Temple Mount are beyond the scope of this article. The issue is a matter of dispute among leading rabbis, and the opinions range from “forbidden because it leads to bloodshed,” “forbidden because we are impure,” “permitted if you know the halachic boundaries and precautions,” to “important to do so in order to retain the holy site for the Jewish people.”
When Israeli, American, and other diplomats speak of maintaining the status quo, they generally mean that Muslims must be allowed free entry for worship or playing soccer, while Jewish access must continue to be restricted.
However, some recent historical background is in order, showing that what people think is the “status quo” is actually not that at all. For one thing, how far back do we go when referring to the “status quo”?
There is much historical evidence that up until three centuries ago Jews historically prayed on the holy site relatively freely. Maimonides, for instance, wrote that he made an annual holiday to commemorate his visit to Jerusalem, on which occasion he “prayed in the Great and Holy House.” Many believe this is a clear reference to the site of the Holy Temple, and that he referred to it by the same phrase we recite in the beginning of the third blessing (Rachem) in the Grace After Meals. (The Rambam also held that nowadays, the site of the Temple is not absolutely forbidden for entry; rather (“Laws of the Chosen House 7:7), “No one may enter it except the places that one is permitted to enter.”
Thus, we must entertain the likelihood that Jews did pray on the Temple Mount at various times since the destruction. Certainly, however, since about the 1600s, Jewish prayer has not been held at the holy site. This was the “status quo” – until the Six-Day War of 1967.
This miraculous war brought about the unification of Jerusalem, our return to the Western Wall, and, for the first time since Bar Kochba, Jewish control over the site of the Holy Temple. One of the first things Israel did with this prize was, at the initiative of then-defense minister Moshe Dayan, to relinquish most of it, giving day-to-day control to the Muslim Waqf (religious trust).
Still, however, some Jewish visitation rights were ensured. In fact, Dayan instituted the following rules after the Six-Day War (based on research by Jerusalem expert and Keep Jerusalem Advisory Board member Nadav Shragai):
Jews are permitted to visit the Temple Mount, but forbidden to pray there.
Israel’s police maintain law and order in the sacred compound.
Israeli sovereignty and law is applied to the Temple Mount, as to the other parts of Jerusalem.
Other rules added later stipulated that Jews and other non-Muslims would enter the Mount only via the Mughrabi Gate, located at the center of the Western Wall, and that flags may not be unfurled on the Mount.
The situation today would be barely recognizable even to Dayan. For one thing, the “unrestricted Jewish visits” have been replaced by strict hours: Jews may ascend for three hours in the morning and one in the afternoon, only five days a week. Even these few hours are often removed from the Jewish itinerary when Arab incitement and unrest portends violence in the area.
In addition, religious Jews may not visit in large groups, and are often forced to wait for hours until those in front of them in line have completed their visits. Even then, they frequently are not allowed in.
Want to wave a flag? If it’s a Hamas or Palestinian Authority banner, no problem; the ban is enforced only in the case of Israeli flags.
Thus, when Israel is pressured to retain the “status quo” on the Temple Mount, it should respond, “Fine – we’ll take the ‘status quo’ as set by Moshe Dayan in 1967″ – restoring full Israeli sovereignty to the holy site, full authority to Israel’s police to act to maintain law and order, and the option of full Jewish accessibility.
This is crucial not only for the sake of emphasizing and actualizing the intrinsic and historical Jewish rights and bonds to the Mount, and not only in order to guarantee freedom of religion for all. Most essentially, it is a key step in guaranteeing the integrity of Jerusalem and strengthening it as the eternal capital of Israel and the Jewish people.
Please visit our website, www.keepjerusalem.org, to keep apprised of developments in Jerusalem and to see how you can help preserve a united Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty forever.
About the Author: Chaim Silberstein is president of Keep Jerusalem-Im Eshkachech and the Jerusalem Capital Development Fund. He was formerly a senior adviser to Israel’s minister of tourism. Hillel Fendel, past senior editor at Israel National News/Arutz-7, is a veteran writer on Jerusalem affairs. Both have lived in Jerusalem and now reside in Beit El.
jsk (PS The reader will notice that I included two names for the Caliph – Umar and Omar, because that is the way I saw it spelled in different references and concluded it was really the same guy. Well, I just got a note from a very well respected Middle Eastern historian. It follows and clears up a lot of the historical and chronological discrepancies I have found in my own research. I love the professor’s remarks because now I don’t have to worry about a lot of that stuff. Here is his comment:) jsk
Without reading the whole entry, there is much confusion between two Umars, both Calphs:
Things which the first Umar did are thought as have been done by the second and vice versa.
I am afraid that modern books fell in this trap following classic stories by Muslims.
This is not the only confusion regarding the early history of Islam.
Some modern researchers “gave up” and claim that in reality there is no reliable source for the early days of Islam. Everything written is based on rumors which one said to one who to another and another (Hadith, stories). There are Muslims who feel the same vis-a-vis the oral traditions, and relate only to the Koran, like our Karaiites.
Iranian IRGC Missile Unit Commanders: “We’ve Developed 2,000-km Range Missiles And Equipped Hizbullah With 300-km Range Missiles.”
Fars News Agency: Israel’s Illusions About Its Natural Gas Fields Will Be Buried In The Mediterranean
By: U. Kafash, Y. Mansharof and A. Savyon*
Two weeks before November 24, 2014, the end date of the Joint Plan of Action between Iran and the P5+1, websites close to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) began reporting about the capabilities of the IRGC missile unit, and in particular about this unit’s capability to strike and destroy Israel.
At the same time, there has been a marked increase in threats by IRGC officials on behalf of Hizbullah about the latter’s readiness to strike any point in Israel. Furthermore, the IRGC-affiliated Fars news agency is touting the capability of Hizbullah’s Iranian missiles to damage Israel’s natural gas fields in the Mediterranean Sea, as well as Israeli naval vessels.
On November 24, IRGC commander Ali Jafari said at a conference at Shahid Modares University: “Today, the entire area of the occupied territories [Israel] is within range of the missiles of the resistance — meaning the fall of the Zionist regime. Of course, the matter does not end here, and certainly the final liberation [of Palestine] will come about.”
Also in November, the Iranian news agency Fars published statements by IRGC Aerospace Force and missile unit commander Amir Ali Hajizadeh and his deputy Majid Mousavi, both of whom claimed that the missile unit had been established in order to attack Israel. They said that Hizbullah is in possession of Iranian missiles with a range of 300 km, covering Israeli territory as far south as Dimona. Hajizadeh added that the IRGC and Hizbullah were a single apparatus.
Hajizadeh explained in detail the history of the establishment of the missile unit, which originally copied Libyan missile systems and was based on knowhow provided by North Korea, and that training for it had been carried out in Syria. He noted that it was Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who had demanded that Iranian missiles be precise to within 10 meters. He also underlined the IRGC’s advanced missile capability against naval vessels.
In addition, just prior to the November 24 deadline, on November 17, the IRGC-affiliated Tasnimnews.com posted a diagram showing the ranges of several Iranian missiles, up to 2,000 km, covering Greece, southern Italy, southeast Europe, Turkey, the Caucasus, Central Asia and Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states. The diagram emphasized the Iranian missile threat to Israel and to U.S. military bases in the region.
On November 26, two days after Iran and the P5+1 agreed to extend the Joint Plan of Action to June 2015, Tasnimnews posted links to video clips of the launch of 2000-km range Sejil ballistic missiles (download the clip from MEMRI.org here); of 1,350-km range Qadr F and Qadr H missiles (here) and of 1,350-km range Shahab 3 missiles; of 300-km range Hormuz 1 and 2 missiles (here), of 300-km range Zelzal missiles (here and here), of 300-km range Zelzal Raad 307 missiles (here); and of the simultaneous launch of several ballistic missiles (here).
This paper will review at length statements by IRGC officials on Iran’s missiles, on the missile unit, on the missile threat to Israel and to U.S. military bases in the region, and on the missile capabilities of Hizbullah and the Palestinian resistance, which are now armed with Iranian missile technology. It will also review statements by Hizbullah deputy secretary general Naim Qassem on Iran’s aid to Hizbullah to arm itself with missiles against Israel.
(All of the above while Obama/Kerry diddle away US/Israeli precious time and opportunity to destroy this awful, imminent world threat — shades of North Korea all over again only 100 times or more lethal and pertinent. Of course, this terrifying policy suits Barack Hussein Obama’s basic philosophy just fine – Eliminate the US as a world power and Israel altogether!) jsk
MEMRI – The Middle East Media Research Institute
December 4, 2014
II Video: The origins of the Jewish Nation
Professor Ruth Wisse, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks and many other biblical experts
From the Hebrew Bible, First Book of Moses, Bereishis (Genesis)
The Haftorah of the Torah portion of the week, Vayishlach
(Ovadiah 1:1-21) The Vision of Ovadiah.
1 This is what Almighty God said about Edom (Eisav): We (the prophets) have heard a message from God, and a messenger has been sent among the nations, (saying): “Get up! Let’s wage war against her!”
2 “Look, (initially) I made you small among the notions (and; you were greatly despised.)
3 (But now that your kingdom is great), the wickedness of your heart has enticed you (to be overly proud). You (are like one) who dwell(s) in the (sheltered) clefts of a rock, (as secure as one) whose dwelling is lofty, who says to himself: ‘Who can (lower me from my lofty position, and) bring me down towards earth?’
4 (But even) if you lift (yourself) high like an eagle, and (even) if you place your nest between the stars, I will bring you down from there (to be conquered by the nations)!” says God.
5 “If thieves came upon you, or robbers at night, (they would not totally clean you out, so) how have you been (totally) wiped out? Don’t they only steal what they require? If grape-gatherers came upon you, do they not at least leave some gleanings? (Yet, You Edom, will be totally wiped out).”
6 How have the houses of Edom been searched (and all their belongings removed? How have his hidden places been sought out.)
7 All your allies accompanied you (only) to the border (but then turned back, and left you to fight alone). Those who are at peace with you induced you (to go to war) and prevailed over you. Those who eat your bread have (schemed against you, and have thereby) made a wound in your place. (Edom) has no understanding (to realize that this is happening to him).
8 Surely, on that day (when the punishment will arrive),” says God, “I will cause the wise men from Edom and wisdom from the mountain of Eisav to perish, (for they will not have the tactics at hand to save their lives).”
9 And you who live in the south, (since you too are from Edom), your mighty men will be broken, so that the slaughter will wipe out every last man from the mountain of Eisav.”
10 Because you oppressed your brother Ya’akov, you will be covered in shame, and you will be cut off forever.
11 (Yes, you oppressed your brother) when you stood aside on the day that strangers confiscated his possessions, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots over (dividing) Jerusalem (between themselves). You too are like one of them since you did nothing to help).
12 You should not have looked on at your brother’s anguish), on the day of his estrangement (from his land), and (all the more so) you should not have rejoiced at the Children of Yehudah when they were destroyed. Nor should you have spoken proudly on the day of his distress (and since you did these things, I consider them acts of oppression against your brother).
13 You should not have entered the gates of My people (to conquer their lands) on the day of their calamity (when the Temple was destroyed). Nor should you have gazed at his misfortune on the day of his downfall. You should not have stretched (your hand) out over his possessions (and looted them) on the day of his calamity.
14 You should not have stood at the dispersion to cut off his refugees, and you should not have arrested his survivors (throughout) the day(s) of his distress.
15 Because (you should have realized that) the day of God’s reckoning) on all the nations is near. As you have done, so will be done to you. Your recompense will come back on your head.
16 For just as you (Yehudah) have drunk on My Holy Mount, so too all the nations will constantly drink (from the cup of turmoil). They will drink and become confounded, and they will be (destroyed) as if they never were.
17 But on the Mount of Tziyon there will (still) be a remnant, and it will be holy. The House of Ya’akov will inherit those nations who inherited them previously.
18 The House of Ya’akov will be a consuming fire, the House of Yosef a consuming flame and the House of Eisav will be (like) straw. They will set them alight and consume them, and there will be no survivors from the House of Eisau — for God has spoken.
19 They will inherit the South, the Mountain of Eisav, and the lowlands, the (land of the) Philistines. And they will inherit the field of Efrayim and the field of Shomron. Binyamin (will inherit) the Land of Gilad.
20 The exiled army of the Children of Israel, (who lived) with the Cana’anites until Tzorfas, and the exiles of Yerushalayim until Seforad, will inherit the cities of the south (i.e. Edom).” And (when Moshiach and his ministers) the saviors of Mount Tziyon, will ascend Mount Se’ir to judge (the children of Eisav for all their wrongdoings to Israel), God will be King — all nations will recognize His sole authority.)
PS Correction. My original article presented Eisav as the progenitor of the Arab nations and I have been advised that Eisav was the progenitor of the nation of Edom which later helped the Romans in their destruction of the Second Hebrew Temple. It was Ishmael, brother to Isaac, who was progenitor of the Arab nations. Sorry for the confusion but in either case the Jews have had a very bad time. Only Hashem has guaranteed their continued success and existence. jsk
Further commentary by world renown Rabbi Berl Wein:
From: Rabbi Berel Wein
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 2:33 PM
To: The Destiny Foundation
Subject: Re: FW: Eisav vs. Ishmael
Traditionally, Eisav represents Christianity and Yishmael represents Islam. However, it is difficult to assign these designations to the prophets. We don’t quite know what and who their prophecy refers to.
The Case for Jewish-Christian collaboration.
The Weekly Standard
BY MARK TOOLEY
DEC 1, 2014
Father Gabriel Naddaf, a Greek Orthodox priest in Yafia, near Nazareth, made news in 2012 when he publicly urged Israeli Christians of Arab descent to join the Israel Defense Forces. Since then, he’s become a lightning rod for encouraging Christians to integrate themselves into Israeli society rather than maintain an Arab identity that typically entails hostility to their country. In the United States in recent days, Naddaf spoke to pro-Israel groups, urging Christians to support the Jewish State against anti-Christian, anti-Jewish Islamists throughout the Middle East.
Of Israel’s 1.3 million Arabs, 160,000 are Christians, Naddaf told one Washington audience. Shifting seamlessly from Aramaic to Arabic to Greek while an interpreter provided English translations, he recounted how the Arab conquest 1,400 years ago “erased” the identity of what was then a mostly Christian population. Tall, bearded, and imposing in his black clerical garb, with a large gold cross around his neck, Naddaf urged Christians in Israel to embrace the Aramean ethnicity, which the Israeli government recently recognized.
Many Arabs in Israel denounce Naddaf. His teenage son, who plans to join the IDF, was attacked with a metal rod last year and now has a bounty of $300,000 on his head. Two Catholic priests who joined Naddaf’s initiative reneged when threatened, but father and son are undeterred.
Israeli Muslims and Christians are not required to perform national service. But since Naddaf’s campaign began, Christian volunteers for the IDF have increased from about 35 recruits a year to 150, 90 percent of them for combat units.
“In the Middle East today, there is one country where Christians are affectionately granted freedom of expression, freedom of worship, and security,” Naddaf told his Washington audience. “In Israel, Christians enjoy good education, employment, welfare, health care, and high socioeconomic standing. In Israel, Christians have freedom, which no Muslim power has ever offered us.”
The Christian population of Israel was only 57,000 in the 1970s. Its rapid growth reflects the fact that,that, “Christians in Israel believe the safest place for them is Israel,” Naddaf said. He urged skeptics to “come and check for yourself,” to expose themselves to something besides the “lies and propaganda in the media.” Those with a religious vocation have a special obligation to do this, he said. “A religious man needs to say the truth first because he reads and believes the words of God. If he won’t say the truth, who will?”
Naddaf explained his vision of Jewish-Christian collaboration in theological terms; his own calling was prompted partly by the heavy toll the Arab Spring took on Christians. “We and the Jews are partners,” he said. “Christianity was born from Judaism. Jesus came to continue the religion, not replace it. Jesus was born in a Jewish town, Bethlehem. Our faith is a joint faith with the Jews. Jews were persecuted throughout history, and today the same is true for Christians. Our fates are the same and we must join hands and work together.”
Naddaf emphasized that Christians fear Islamic rule more than Israeli rule. He cited the continuing exodus of Christians from the Palestinian Territories: Only 1,500 remain in Gaza under Hamas, and Bethlehem is down to 2 percent Christian. If Israeli occupation were so terrible, surely the Muslim majority would be in flight. “Why,” he asked, “are the only people fleeing the occupation Christian and not Muslim?”
Western and global apathy toward Christian suffering is a “historic sin,” in Naddaf’s view. “I expect the Christian world to support the minority being persecuted,” he said. “I expect the world that flies the flag of human rights not to support Islamic states.” He inveighed against foreign aid that ends up buttressing Islamist indoctrination and terror.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. “If terror infiltrates Israel and makes Israel fall, it will be a disaster for the world,” warned Naddaf, who sees the present conflict as a “war of ideology and religion” that, “wants to make the whole world bend to sharia.”
Naddaf cited a poll by the University of Haifa showing 75 percent of Christians in Israel support their own greater integration into Israeli society. He speculated that the remaining 25 percent were nominal Christians, uninformed about their faith: “When you call yourself Christian but oppose what’s written in the Bible, you are in opposition to Christianity.”
Jihadist Islam, which prefers martyrdom to life, cannot be accommodated, Naddaf insisted. “I want to love them, but I won’t let them kill me,” he said. He complained that too many non-extremist Muslims in Israel and throughout the region are silent. He implored his hearers to help Israel and Middle Eastern Christians.
“If Christians grow, Israel becomes stronger,” he said in conclusion. “Don’t weaken Israel. Don’t boycott. If you don’t support Israel you’re signing a death warrant for the Middle East and all Christians in the Mideast.”
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
Video of Father Gabriel Naddaj
On Monday, November 17, 2014, The Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), The Israel Forever Foundation, and the Face of Israel were proud to host a seminar on Capitol Hill, featuring Congressman Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX), and Father Gabriel Naddaf.
II Great Basketball Giant Commentator Charles Barkley video below.
Homicide is the leading cause of death among young black men, and 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks.
Redacted from an article By JASON L. RILEY
The Wall Street Journal
Nov. 25, 2014
We now know that Michael Brown was much more of a menace than a martyr, but that won’t stop liberals from pushing an anti-police narrative that harms the black poor in the name of helping them.
The black teen in Ferguson, Mo., robbed a store, attacked a white police officer and was shot dead while resisting arrest. That was the conclusion of a St. Louis County grand jury that brought no charges against the officer after considering all the physical evidence, along with eyewitness accounts from blacks in the vicinity of the confrontation.
Not that any amount of evidence would have stopped the hooligans in Ferguson Monday night who were determined use Brown’s death as a pretext for more bad behavior. Nor will evidence thwart liberals who are bent on making excuses for black criminality and pretending that police shootings are responsible for America’s high black body count.
According to the FBI, homicide is the leading cause of death among young black men, who are 10 times more likely than their white counterparts to be murdered. And while you’d never know it watching MSNBC, the police are not to blame. Blacks are just 13% of the population but responsible for a majority of all murders in the US, and more than 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. Liberals like to point out that most whites are killed by other whites, too. That’s true but beside the point given that the white crime rate is so much lower than the black rate.
Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do. The fact that their victims tend to be of the same race suggests that young black men in the ghetto live in danger of being shot by each other, not cops. Nor is this a function of “over-policing” certain neighborhoods to juice black arrest rates.
Research has long shown that the rate at which blacks are arrested is nearly identical to the rate at which crime victims identify blacks as their assailants. The police are in these communities because that’s where the emergency calls originate, and they spend much of their time trying to stop residents of the same race from harming one another.
Chicago had 507 murders in 2012, only 26% of which were solved. “To put it another way: About three-quarters of the people who killed someone in Chicago in 2012 have gotten away with murder—so far, at least,” Chicago Magazine noted. Mr. Dyson and others on the left are not oblivious to this black pathology, but they are at pains even to acknowledge it, let alone make it a focus. Instead, liberals spend their time spotlighting white racism, real or imagined, and touting it as an all-purpose explanation for bad black outcomes.
Ferguson helps further that agenda in ways that Chicago does not. Hence, the left posits that the Michael Brown shooting is the norm, even though the data show that it’s the exception. And if black criminal behavior is a response to white racism, how is it that black crime rates were lower in the 1940s and 1950s, when black poverty was higher, racial discrimination was rampant and legal, and the country was more than a half-century away from twice electing a black president?
Racial profiling and tensions between the police and poor black communities are real problems, but these are effects rather than causes, and they can’t be addressed without also addressing the extraordinarily high rates of black criminal behavior—yet such discussion remains taboo. Blacks who bring it up are sell-outs. Whites who mention it, are racists. (Mr. Dyson accused Mr. Giuliani of “white supremacy.”) But so long as young black men are responsible for an outsize portion of violent crime, they will be viewed suspiciously by law enforcement and fellow citizens of all races.
Pretending that police behavior is the root of the problem is not only a dodge but also foolish. The riots will succeed in driving business out of town, which means that Ferguson’s residents will be forced to pay more at local stores or travel farther for competitive prices on basic goods and services. Many Ferguson residents today can’t go to work because local businesses have been burned down.
Even worse, when you make police targets, you make low-income communities less safe. Ferguson’s problem isn’t white cops or white prosecutors; it’s the thug behavior exhibited by individuals like Michael Brown, which puts a target on the backs of other young black men. Romanticizing such behavior instead of condemning it only makes matters worse.
Thank you President Obama for igniting the fires in Ferguson, MO. Your warm association and reliance on the counsel of chief thug and racist rabble rouser, Al Sharpton did not go unnoticed among the black and white revolutionaries who had their sights on that town since the Michael Brown shooting. Your mealy mouthed pronouncement to the nation on the night of the grand jury verdict was the fire starter thrown into the simmering kindling of Ferguson.
You and your Attorney General, Eric Holder, set the stage for discontent among the low life of the black community by pandering to those who control the emotions of their own people for their own self serving benefit and causes. Van Jones, your early Czar appointee, boastfully admitted Communist and CNN biggee, reported from Ferguson after the verdict and with uncontrolled glee and a watering mouth, blamed the violence on the racism of the grand jury. A happier camper you couldn’t find.
Your talk tonight to the nation while calling for calm on the part of blacks also contained the typical catch phrases recognized by the street mob about this nation falling short on integration of its police forces and the distrust blacks have for our judicial system. There was no mention of respecting the rule of law and the workings of our judicial system.
Lawful African Americans who are law abiding and upwardly mobile thrive in this nation. Your incendiary words did not go unheeded by the uncivilized savages who, during your speech, burned the business section of their town to the ground.
Your talk was reminiscent of your response to the Trayvon Martin and Professor Gates’ run in with the police in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Whites hate blacks!” Eric Holder, under your orders, interfered with and tried to intimidate the Grand Jury in this case. The threat of federal intervention if no indictment of officer Wilson were rendered, stirred up the resentment of the community and laid the playing field for tonight’s rioting. These actions were not accidental. Rather, they were a well planned strategy with Sharpton and Jackson as head coaches calling the plays.
One wonders if Ferguson will end up being a ghost town with empty stores, no taxpayer base and tumbleweed bouncing through its empty streets. A bit like Detroit. Another city which will require massive federal bailouts and loads of self serving pity. All a tribute to your background as a radical community organizer: but most of all to your total lack of concern or love for this country and its citizens. Shame on you!
Alan Bergstein web page: Petfa4@aol.com
II Ferguson Legal Fight Extends Beyond Grand Jury
Redacted from an article by Ashby Jones and Devlin Barrett
The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 25, 2014
For starters, (Deliberately undermining the exhaustively determined Grand Jury decision) the Justice Department is conducting its own criminal investigation to see if federal civil-rights laws were violated by Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson in the killing of 18-year old Michael Brown after an altercation between the two, an incident that sparked waves of protests and a national outcry.
While the known facts of the case suggest it would be difficult to bring such charges against the officer, that review probably will take weeks or months more, according to people familiar with the work.
Separately, the Justice Department has opened a civil investigation aimed at the entire, 53-member police force in Ferguson, which is a suburb of St. Louis. The probe, which is exploring whether Ferguson police engaged in a “pattern and practice” of legal violations, will focus on possible excessive use of force, statistics on stops, searches and arrests, as well as treatment of prisoners and discriminatory policing, Justice Department officials said.
(Obama’s lifetime mentor deceased revolutionary Saul Alinsky, would be very proud. Alinsky (January 30, 1909, – June 12, 1972). He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is noted for his book, Rules for Radicals
Obama, with Eric Holder, have caused the nation wide violence already taking place not only in Ferguson but in Los Angeles, Oakland Calif, Boston, New York City, Minneapolis with more to come. Alinsky’s sage advice was to start a revolution and disrupt the whole successful capitalistic country in order to destroy it.) jsk
III OBAMA QUOTES ALINSKY IN SPEECH TO YOUNG ISRAELIS
By Aaron Klein, World Net Daily
March 21, 2013
The politician started his career as an Alinsky-style community organizer in Chicago and taught the radical’s tactics at the University of Chicago. Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization.
Former 1960s radical and FrontPage Magazine Editor David Horowitz describes Alinsky as the “Communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States.”
Horowitz writes in his 2009 pamphlet, “Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution. The Alinsky Model.” “The strategy of working within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it was what ’60s radicals called ‘boring from within.’ … Like termites, they set about to eat away at the foundations of the building in expectation that one day they could cause it to collapse.”
Compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman
Yes, the “American voter is too stupid” to understand that the economics of Obamacare just doesn’t work. “Transparency” is the last thing we want if the bill is to pass the Congress.
The Weekly Standard
By the Scrapbook
Editor, William Kristol
NOV 24, 2014
The late William F. Buckley famously observed that he “would sooner be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than by the two thousand members of the faculty of Harvard.”
Not only does this remain a sage observation, The Scrapbook would suggest extending Buckley’s cordon sanitaire further down the Charles River basin to encompass the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where economist and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber teaches.
A video of Gruber discussing Obamacare has recently emerged that explicitly confirms what critics have long known about the law, but did not expect anyone to say out loud. “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically—call it ‘the stupidity of the American voter’ or whatever—but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.” This was damning enough, but then two more videos emerged of Gruber expounding upon how the law is purposefully deceptive.
Notably, none of these videos was unearthed by the media. They were found (in plain sight, on YouTube) by Rich Weinstein, an investment adviser in Philadelphia. Weinstein was angry that his insurance policy got canceled by Obamacare, so he started looking to document all the dishonest ways in which the law was sold to voters. It didn’t take long for him to hit pay dirt. “[I’m] just the average person who gets hacked off about something or has an interest about something. I think I’m a perfect lesson that any one person can make a difference,” Weinstein told Huffington Post.
In three separate appearances, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, dubbed the “Obamacare Architect,” took a dim view of Americans’ intelligence. In the first, he discusses “the stupidity of the American voter.” In the second, that “Americans were too stupid to understand” one of the ACA’s tax increases. In the third, he describes the law’s “exploitation of the lack of understanding of the American voter.”
The discovery of the Gruber videos by an amateur is almost as much an indictment of the media as the videos themselves are of Obamacare. Even when forced to acknowledge Gruber’s remarks, the media have focused not on their substance, but on the GOP’s opposition to Obamacare. (Let’s call this the “Gruber/Obamacaregate”)
“ ‘Stupidity’ comments renew GOP vitriol on Obamacare,” was the actual headline on the Washington Post’s website. Obamacare’s architect calls voters stupid, and somehow it’s Republicans who are accused of vitriol. You would think the media might be less inclined to defend Gruber after the New York Times appended a correction to a 2012 op-ed he wrote, noting that they might not have published his article had he disclosed that he was being paid nearly $400,000 by the White House to promote Obamacare.
But no matter how much the media downplay them, the videos are extremely damaging. The White House has been forced to repudiate Gruber’s comments. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi actually told the Washington Post, “I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill.” Naturally, Pelosi is lying. Video of a press conference from a few years ago quickly surfaced, with Pelosi commending Gruber and his health care analysis by name.
There is at least one honest Democrat in America, however. Doctor and former Democratic National Committee head Howard Dean found himself echoing Buckley and diagnosing Obamacare’s fundamental problem as elitism. “The problem is not that [Gruber] said it—the problem is that he thinks it,” Dean told MSNBC. “The core problem under the damn law is it was put together by a bunch of elitists who don’t fundamentally understand the American people. That’s what the problem is.”
Gruber is wrong about almost everything, by the way. Tellingly, he thinks Americans were successfully hoodwinked about the law. Unlike liberal elites, though, ordinary Americans weren’t really fooled. They have never liked Obamacare or thought it workable. You have to be a politician, a member of the media, or have a Ph.D. in economics to be that stupid.
We were fortunate to have Dr. Daniel Pipes political analyst, writer, founder and editor of the Middle East Forum address our synagogue Wednesday evening. He spoke on world-wide events. Faced with this formidable task, Dr. Pipes elected to try and give us a snap shot view of those countries in which we were likely to have the most interest.
Dr. Pipes was concerned with Turkey, putting aside, just for the moment, the terrifying threat of Iran’s nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, Iran’s development of the bomb appears to be a foregone conclusion, especially with the ineptitude of John Kerry and the questionable political allegiance and motivation of Barack Obama.
Dr. Pipe’s concern was based upon the genuine strength of Turkey — its size, population — apx. 75 million — relatively advanced culture, education, military capability, vital geographical location and most important, its leader, Recep Erdogan, a dedicated enemy of the West. Not unlike Vladimir Putin, who is obviously working toward the reformation of the USSR, Erdogan is equally ambitious in his recidivism dedicated to the return of a Grand Caliphate over the Middle East and much of Europe.
Pipes then spoke of Iraq and Syria, almost in the past tense, as completely failed states whose flimsy fabric, artificially created after WWI, was easily destroyed by the initial thrust of the very successful Sunni Moslem extremist group, ISIS/ISIL, now attracting dissident Muslims of all stripes and nuance.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, has issued a defiant call for followers to “erupt volcanoes of jihad everywhere”. He specifically called on Isis fighters to launch attacks in Saudi Arabia, particularly on its rulers, and in Yemen. He proclaims himself as the initiator and founder of the reborn Grand Caliphate. By the way, within the last few days, written and video reports have been presented claiming Baghdadi has been killed.
Unfortunately, assassinations of this sort never seem to mean very much with a new leader quickly taking the place of the guy eliminated. Obama’s much self-heralded and only supposed foreign achievement, the assassination of Osama bin Laden, is a perfect example of this much ado about something that quickly becomes very little.
Dr. Pipes was dismissive of ISIS, what with their crude beheadings, their return to the ugliest aspects of sharia law and, in the process, creating enemies of the major Arab powers: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Yemen and Iran, when their own destructive ambitions do not conflict. Al-Baghdadi even woke up the naive, slumbering, totally ineffective, underarmed, pacifist and cowardly European Union unified only in their mindless denunciation of their real ally in the area, the state of Israel.
Dr. Pipes then addressed the Israeli/Arab conflict. There was no equivocation in his remarks. The “Peace Process” is a complete failure — no matter how many trips back and forth made by John Kerry. The process itself is based upon an ancient lie perpetrated by Yasir Arafat signing the Oslo Accords in 1993 wherein the Arabs were to accept the existence of Israel as a separate Jewish State. Two different peoples were to live side by side in peace.
Pipes recommends Israel finally disregard the useless, fictitious Oslo Accords, defeat its sworn relentless enemy and not stop until complete victory with abject surrender is achieved. Nothing else has worked for 50 years and nothing else will.
Pipes then briefly discussed the Egyptian nation and declared it also a failed state. Egypt has long been in desperate straits. Once considered the bread basket of the Middle East as a result of the agricultural munificence of the Nile River, it is now unable to feed its own gargantuan, ever growing population. There is no promise in sight except as an insatiable welfare state totally dependent upon the kind support of its Arab neighbors and Israel.
Finally, Dr. Pipes got to current American Foreign Policy. He considered it an unmitigated disaster. Obama has alienated allies that have been with us for decades. The first thing he did taking office was to insult the British with the return of the sculpture of Winston Churchill held in a place of well deserved honor in the White House.
He left the Czechs and Poles hanging by stopping the development of sophisticated United Nations air defense systems on their territory to ward off the Russians who quickly have taken full advantage of this destructive action. He has allowed Russia to grab huge swaths of territory under false pretenses in Georgia and now Ukraine. As a result the Baltic States and Poland live in understandable dread and have no faith in the US defending them. Nor does anyone else.
Obama has also alienated our long time Arab allies: Saudi Arabic, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and seems to have a personal vendetta against Israel. And, is now, obsequiously attempting to placate Iran, not unlike the way we have placated North Korea with disastrous consequences.
Obama continued to destroy us by deliberately killing our space program leaving us completely dependent upon the Russians, of all people, for our existence in space. In addition, he has drastically cut the size of our army and recently stopped the building of new submarines badly needed against Russian and Chinese incursions into the farthest reaches of the South China Sea and vital American interests in the Pacific.
And, that is just the tip of the iceberg of the list. Never mind going into the domestic disasters and destruction he has wrought with his personal toys — the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and his buddy, Eric Holder’s Justice Dept.
The meeting was then opened for questions. The first question was why was it that the media and the Congress and the Supreme Court have refused to Call out Obama for what he obviously is – A destroyer of the once great United States of America!
Dr. Pipes gave a politically correct answer. He described Obama as basically a Left winger who indeed resented the power and grandeur and strength of the US and, like his father and mother, considers the US an exploiting colonial power taking advantage of the “poor folks” of the world.
Pipes went on excusing Obama’s behavior as that of a confused man. In his heart of hearts Obama despises this country but, at the same time, he knows he has the role of the President of the US and is supposed to defend us and leave an exemplary legacy. Dr. Pipes explained Obama by saying it seems he assumes the role of colonial destroyer of the US on Mon and Wed but assumes the supposed usual defender of the US role on Tuesday and Thursday.
And, that is where Dr. Pipes and I parted company. Obama’s Tuesday/Thursday role is a farce wherein he cleverly pretends to help this great country but in fact continues to destroy it in every way he and his carefully assembled staff of misfits, malcontents and revolutionaries can devise.
Unfortunately, a huge percentage of Americans have no idea what is happening, are sound asleep and understandably pre-occupied worrying about the source of their next pay check!
Without any doubt, we will soon pay the dire consequences of all of the above and May the good Lord please take the time to defend us. No one else will.
From Gaza to Catalonia: Europe’s insufferable hypocrisy
By Michael Freund
November 11, 2014
This past Saturday, European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini set a world record for diplomatic duplicity and haste. Barely seven days after assuming her new post, the former Italian foreign minister rushed to pay a visit to Gaza and Ramallah, where she managed to call for the division of Jerusalem, denounce housing construction for Jews in Judea and Samaria, and insist on the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Mustering up all the moral bluster that European diplomats are so fond of, she did not hesitate to lecture Israel, as if she knew better than the Jewish state what its own national interests might be. Dead Syrians may be littering the streets of Aleppo while Islamic State is busy beheading Kurds and Christians in Iraq, and Saudi women might be struggling to be allowed to drive cars, but Mogherini appears to have a one-track mind when it comes to the Middle East. And it revolves only around Israel.
This is European hypocrisy of the highest order. It is sickening in its scope and magnitude. And it is time for it to stop.
As the continent where more Jewish blood was spilled over the past 2,000 years than any other, Europe has a special responsibility and a moral obligation to support Israel.
(Surely you are kidding! Whats “responsibility” have to do with the price of bananas or olive oil?) jsk
Yes, that’s right. You read that correctly: Europe owes Israel.
They have an eternal debt to pay to the Jewish people for the slaughters, massacres, blood libels, anti-Semitism, forced conversions, expulsions, Crusades and Inquisitions which they inflicted upon our ancestors for two millennia.
All of this might sound like ancient history to Mogherini and her colleagues, who probably don’t see what it has to do with compelling Israel to create a Palestinian state. So just in case, let’s highlight a more recent example of European hypocrisy, one that is closer to home and can be found in Europe’s own back yard: Catalonia.
This past Sunday, millions of men and women across the northeastern Spanish region made a historic cry for liberty. Bravely defying heavy-handed threats and intimidation from Madrid, some two million Catalans took part in a referendum on independence, peacefully exercising their basic human right to decide on their own future.
And the results were decisive. Over 80 percent of voters backed Catalonia’s independence from Spain, prompting Catalan leader Artur Mas to declare that the ballot “made it very clear that we want to govern ourselves.”
“We deserve to vote in a legal and binding referendum,” Mas said, adding, “and this is what we are going to do.”
Curiously, however, the Catalonians’ roar for independence doesn’t seem to interest the rest of Europe as much as that of the Palestinians, even though the former have a much better case for having their own state.
To begin with, there actually once was a Catalonian State, albeit briefly, in the 17th century, whereas there has never been an independent Palestine in all of history. Even if one does think the Palestinians have been living under occupation since 1967, Spain has occupied Catalonia for 300 years, making it a longer-running dispute, and justice delayed is justice denied.
And whereas Catalans can legitimately claim to be a nation with their own distinct language and culture, the Palestinian Arabs cannot.
Nonetheless, this doesn’t appear to bother Europe one whit, as it completely ignores the Catalan case for statehood while championing that of the Palestinians.
Adding to the irony is that the Spanish parliament in Madrid – the same one that will not countenance freedom for Catalonia – is set to vote on recognizing “Palestine” as an independent country.
This only goes to prove that when it comes to Israel, Spain’s policy amounts to “do as we say, not as we do.”
I’d like to think that the new European push to recognize a Palestinian state stems from naiveté, from some misguided belief that doing so will somehow dull the threat posed by Islamic extremism. Or that perhaps they are simply wallowing in ignorance and truly believe the Palestinians to be the aggrieved party in the conflict with Israel.
But I know better — and I hope you do as well. The hypocrisy is so egregious and so blatant that it cannot and must not be ignored.
Sadly, what we are witnessing now is little more than a continuation of Europe’s mistreatment of the Jews, but with a new twist. After all, for 2,000 years, Europeans told the Jews to leave and “go to Israel.” Now that we are finally here they want us to abandon it and hand it over to our foes.
And yet when it comes to a long-running dispute in the heart of Europe, they don’t even think of suggesting a division of Barcelona or the creation of a Catalonian State living side-by-side with Spain in peace and security.
So perhaps it is time for someone to pull Mogherini aside and politely whisper into her ear: before you start offering unsolicited advice to Israel, you might want to get your own hypocritical house in order.
(Oh! And, let us not forget the good old USA with Obama/Chas. Hagel currently negotiating a seal of approval to Iran to complete nuclear weapons aimed directly at the State of the Jews – Israel) jsk
From: Straight Shooter, No holds barred — Bernie Goldberg
November 4, 2014 in Featured, Political Opinion
Some off-the-beaten track takeaways from the 2014-midterm elections …
We all know that politics isn’t for the faint of heart, that things can get nasty, especially when you’re losing: especially when you’re desperate.
So Democrats went to their playbook and did what they too often do. They consciously tried to divide Americans – along gender lines (rehashing the so-called GOP war on women) … along racial lines (with despicable ads whose unmistakable message was that a vote for the Republican candidate was a vote for killing black kids) … and along class lines (trying to convince voters that big bad evil businesses didn’t create jobs). (It is called demagoguery — divisive, destructive, sick and the last desperate refuge of hate-mongers) jsk
The bad news is this kind of cold-blooded cynicism has worked for Democrats in the past. The good news is it did not work this time around.
Yes, the Democrats had a lot to overcome. The landscape was ruby red this year. Many of the key races were in Red States, making it tough for Democrats who were trying to hang on to their jobs. A vast majority of Americans thought the country was on the wrong track. President Obama was immensely unpopular in those Red States (and elsewhere) for way too many reasons to go into in this space. Americans were voting against him — maybe more than they were voting for Republicans.
And Republicans had good candidates this time around. No one said, “ I am not a witch” or blabbed about “legitimate rape.” This time around the dumb comments came from Democrats.
But, just as important is that this year the Democrats’ divide and conquer strategy failed them. Americans said “Enough!” A friend sent me an email on Election Day about how voters have finally pulled back the curtain on liberal politicians and discovered they’ve been running a con game for way too long. “Superficial arguments like the war on women and racism are becoming laughable,” he said, “particularly among young people, which leaves Democrats with very little. If division and identity politics actually start to backfire, it finally exposes liberals for what they truly are.”
But, it would be a mistake for Republicans to get too giddy over the midterm results … to look at how many Democrats bit the dust and make premature optimistic projections about 2016. Rush Limbaugh has said that when voters have finally had enough of Democratic policies that don’t work, they vote Republican. But after a while, they go back to the Democrats – because Republicans don’t successfully articulate what they stand for.
I think he’s right. But I think (as I said in a recent column) the GOP also needs a facelift. Good policies won’t be enough to win in two years. The Party needs a new image because the old one isn’t attracting new voters. As I’ve said before, too many Republican leaders who appear on camera look like funeral directors. They look like yesterday. Voters only care about tomorrow.
So, Republicans need a charismatic front man or woman. Someone who is young and articulate and attractive. An African American or Latino would be nice. A conservative George Lopez – who is funny and likable — would be just fine with me.
Finally, here’s my suggestion for what Republicans should do now that they have control of both Houses of Congress. Vote on every bill that Harry Reid wouldn’t let come to the floor for a vote: the Keystone pipeline, tax reform, and immigration policy that starts with border security. If Democrats vote “No,” fine. Let them become the Party of No. And if Republicans get barely enough support from the other side, but not enough to satisfy the most liberal president in our history, let him veto whatever they send him. Let him use his veto pen until it runs out of ink. And let him become the obstructionist, the one who is standing in the way of getting things done in Washington.
The question is: Will any of that hurt Hillary? Or will voters revert to their comfort zone and once again pick a Democrat for president? I don’t know what I’m having for lunch so I have no clue on what’s going to happen in two years. But here’s something to think about: Every legitimate criticism of the woman who would be the first female US president will be portrayed (by fellow Democrats and her allies in the so-called mainstream media) as an attack on women. But remember, it didn’t work this time around. And it may not work next time around, either. Millions of Americans are saying,”Enough!”
PS (Obama post-election, already denying that he lost and will continue to work against the best interests of the US ignoring the voters and the US Constitution. This total narcissist makes me sick!) jsk
II 19 second video of Obama below describing the US role in the World. You will not believe this statement!
June 21, 2012
By David Herold
I am reposting this article for those who have missed it.
I knew they had both lost their law license, but I didn’t know why until I read this.
This is 100% legit. I check it out at https://www.iardc.org/ Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It’s the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois ; and they are very strict. (Talk about irony.) Even I, at the advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long to earn.
Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and US President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.
1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. A “Voluntary Surrender” is not something where you decide “Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?” and forget to renew your license. No, a “Voluntary Surrender” is something you do when you’ve been accused of something, and you ‘voluntarily surrender” your license five seconds before the state suspends you.
2 Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993 after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud!
4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago .
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
6. “He did not hold the title of Professor of Law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the US Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence … not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence.
9. Free Republic : In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.”
10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?
When you are a phony it’s hard to keep facts straight. Keep this moving — educate others
PS November 2, 2014, 4:23 PM: I just checked snopes.com which specializes in shooting down phony statements and found the following: No statement of denial! (Jerome S. Kaufman)
1. snopes.com: Barack and Michelle Obama’s Law Licenses: …Taking License Claim: Barack and Michelle Obama both surrendered their law licenses to avoid pending disciplinary actions. Example: [Collected via…
…night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently…
Sun, 02 Nov 2014 12:23:36 GMT http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp
II Video – Obama’s view of the world and US citizens in 19 seconds. You must see this to truly understand with whom you are dealing whether he had to surrender his law license or not.
Please copy and paste to your search engine. http://stg.do/mfuh
PS Needless to say, I have been getting all kinds of criticism for daring to question the Obama credentials. I have seen many of their credentials before, like his phony birth certificate and am unimpressed by his loyal followers.
And then, this beautiful comment came in from an astute reader that confirmed my heartfelt misgivings. Here it is:
“This expose’ of the Obamas has been around for years. I prefer to believe the claim against them despite the left wing, George Soros bankrolled Snopes and “Factcheck”, the other liberal apologists. We do not have to take their word for what is true in this situation. Prove to me that it isn’t.”
The man who embodied New York’s sick old days of the 1980s now wields influence as never before—at City Hall and in the White House.
By HEATHER MAC DONALD
Wall Street Journal Oct. 25-26, 2014
The Rev. Al Sharpton once epitomized New York’s bad old days of the 1980s, when the then-corpulent, gold-medallion-bedecked tub thumper inflamed racial hatred and courted violence. Today, against all expectations and at least 100 pounds lighter, he has been rehabilitated into the Democratic Party’s civil-rights leader of choice! Has Mr. Sharpton changed or simply outlasted his critics?
President Obama’s embrace of Mr. Sharpton has been particularly intense this year. He called Mr. Sharpton’s radio show to discuss the Nov. 4 elections. In April the president appeared at a political rally organized by Mr. Sharpton’s National Action Network. Mr. Obama’s closest adviser, Valerie Jarrett, conferred with Mr. Sharpton in August about the police killing of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., as Mr. Sharpton led protests against the Ferguson police.
The Democratic establishment is just as obsequious. It turned out in force earlier this month to celebrate Mr. Sharpton’s 60th birthday party at New York’s tony Four Seasons restaurant. Hillary Clinton phoned in with best wishes. Barack and Michelle Obama sent a congratulatory letter. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomogushed: “He’s the nation’s Rev. Sharpton—and the nation is better for it.” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman , Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand , and Reps. Charles Rangel and Jerry Nadler rushed to pay their respects. Worrying as it might be for America to see Mr. Sharpton catapulted into the national limelight, that is nothing compared with the alarm felt by many New Yorkers now witnessing his emergence as a political power in their city.
When New Yorkers elected Bill de Blasio as mayor last year, they knew they were getting a self-styled “progressive” who pledged to soak the rich and shackle the New York Police Department. What they didn’t know was that they were also voting to bring Al Sharpton and his influence into the very heart of City Hall. The mayor’s alliance with the racial provocateur is now creating the biggest crisis of his mayoralty. So far, Mr. de Blasio is pretending not to notice.
As the crisis escalated, involving a former Sharpton aide now working for the mayor’s wife, Mr. de Blasio ladled on the praise at the Four Seasons. “Al Sharpton has been a blessing for this city,” the mayor enthused. “He’s been a blessing for this nation and the more people criticize him, the more I want to hang out with him. Because a lot of times, just look who’s doing the criticizing and the way they’re saying it, it makes you realize the Rev must be doing something right. You know, sometimes, your enemies are the best endorsers of the righteousness of your actions.”
Where to start in evaluating what a “blessing” Al Sharpton has been to New York and America? For those who have forgotten or are too young to recall, here is a brief history of the man now so warmly embraced by the mayor, the governor and the president. There was Mr. Sharpton’s frenzied involvement in the Tawana Brawley case. In 1987 Ms. Brawley, a 15-year-old African-American, concocted a tale of being raped by six white males. The allegation was ultimately revealed as a hoax, but not before Mr. Sharpton had commandeered the racially incendiary story and poured fuel on it by accusing a white county prosecutor of having been among the attackers. The prosecutor, Steven Pagones, won a defamation suit in 1998 against Mr. Sharpton, Ms. Brawley and her lawyers. Mr. Sharpton refused to pay the judgment against him, which was eventually discharged by a group of supporters.
In 1991 a Hasidic driver in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights accidentally ran onto a sidewalk and killed a 7-year-old black child named Gavin Cato. Mr. Sharpton led protesters in angry cries of “No justice, no peace,” criticized “Jewish diamond merchants” in the neighborhood for selling goods from apartheid South Africa, and spoke at a rally where a banner said, “Hitler did not do the job.” During three days of violence following the accident, rioters beat to death an Australian rabbinical student named Yankel Rosenbaum.
In 1995 Mr. Sharpton led a protest in Harlem to stop a Jewish landlord—a “white interloper” in Mr. Sharpton’s words—from evicting a black-operated record shop. One of the protesters would later set fire to the store, killing seven store employees.
Mr. Sharpton has never apologized for his involvement in the Brawley hoax. Nor has he taken responsibility for his agitation in Crown Heights. In 2008 the Associated Press reported that Mr. Sharpton and his business entities owed nearly $1.5 million in taxes and penalties, as well as tens of thousands of dollars in fines for unpaid workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance. By this year Mr. Sharpton’s tax liabilities had ballooned to $4.7 million, according to the New York Post.
He still owes the Federal Election Commission $208,000 for the improper use of campaign money during his 2004 presidential bid. Not relevant, apparently, to Mr. Sharpton’s increasing reach into Democratic circles. Mr. Sharpton believes that New York’s mayor owes him his job—a belief shared, it seems, by Mr. de Blasio himself. Mr. Sharpton pointedly declined to endorse the sole black candidate in the Democratic primary last year. That left the field open for a late-surging Mr. de Blasio, who had run a demagogic campaign against the New York Police Department, denouncing its stop-question-and-frisk policies as racist. Candidate de Blasio also pandered to black voters by prominently featuring his biracial son in campaign ads.
“We won the election,” Mr. Sharpton later told CBS New York. Mr. de Blasio’s first offering of thanks was to hire Mr. Sharpton’s longtime public-relations adviser as his wife’s $170,000-a-year chief of staff. Such a position was unprecedented, but the choice of Rachel Noerdlinger to fill it was even more startling. It put an Al Sharpton confidante at the center of city power.
Next, Mayor de Blasio implied that Mr. Sharpton was a major player in police affairs. In late July the mayor convened a meeting of “community advocates” to discuss the death of a black man following the man’s arrest for selling untaxed loose cigarettes. Mr. Sharpton’s inevitable protests against the NYPD had blamed the death on the enforcement of public-order laws, including the ban on selling loose cigarettes.
Such enforcement is key to “broken windows” policing—stopping minor crimes as a way of preventing major ones. Mr. Sharpton was led in to the mayor’s community meeting by his former aide, Ms. Noerdlinger, and seated on Mr. de Blasio’s left, with Police Commissioner William Bratton , serving his second tour as New York’s top law officer, on the mayor’s right. The symbolism was lost on no one, least of all police officers. The next day, a mock NYPD identification card circulated through police headquarters showing Mr. Sharpton as commissioner.
By the time of the Four Seasons birthday blowout, the mayor’s Noerdlinger-Sharpton connection was turning toxic. As the local press reported, the 43-year-old single mother had failed to disclose in her City Hall background check that she was living with an unemployed ex-convict who had served time for fatally shooting a man over a jacket and for drug dealing. The boyfriend, Hassaun McFarlan, had referred to the police as “pigs” on his now-vanished Facebook page. Ms. Noerdlinger had received a waiver of the city’s residency requirement by citing her teenage son’s need to continue a physical-therapy regime in New Jersey following a traffic accident. She didn’t mention that he was fit enough to play linebacker on his high-school football team. Like Mr. McFarlan, that son has referred to the police as “pigs” on social media, and he has tweeted: “I’m convinced all white people are the devil.”
Ms. Noerdlinger has a federal tax lien against her, typical of the Sharpton inner circle, but failed to report it to the city’s conflict of interest board. She has been involved to varying degrees in McFarlan-related dust-ups with the law, including hundreds of dollars in unpaid traffic tickets issued to her Mercedes-Benz since her City Hall job began. Mayor de Blasio has refused to discuss the implications for his administration of these and other revelations. Nor has he disciplined Ms. Noerdlinger for her multiple omissions on city background checks.
Police morale is plummeting, given the mayor’s stubborn allegiance to a former Sharpton aide and the seeming elevation of Mr. Sharpton to near-parity with Police Commissioner Bratton. Cops in certain high-crime precincts have all but abandoned pedestrian stops, which candidate de Blasio had so fiercely criticized. As for Mr. Sharpton, he portrays the Noerdlinger fiasco as a conspiracy to bring down the de Blasio mayoralty and Mr. Sharpton’s connection to it.
After leading a few rounds of “no justice, no peace” on a recent Saturday at his National Action Network headquarters—still little more than a shabby storefront despite the millions shoveled into it by supplicant corporate donors—Mr. Sharpton told his supporters: “They will keep trying to prevent [the mayor] from transforming this city, whether it’s Rachel—Ms. Noerdlinger—or it’s someone else.”
When Mayor de Blasio and his wife reached out and said they wanted Rachel to come, I said: ‘Don’t think that they won’t put a target on your back. They’ll find something. They gonna think I cut some deal,’ ” The longer Mayor de Blasio sticks by Ms. Noerdlinger, the more it will appear that the mayor did cut a deal. But firing her would invite Mr. Sharpton’s wrath, jeopardizing Mr. de Blasio’s hopes for a second term.
Worse, Mr. Sharpton is demanding an end to broken-windows policing, while Commissioner Bratton has vowed to continue it. Mayor de Blasio cannot satisfy both men. Despite Mr. Sharpton’s current mainstream patina, his stock-in-trade has changed little from his Tawana Brawley-Crown Heights days, as the disintegration of his inflammatory narrative about the police shooting in Ferguson, Mo., demonstrates. Apart from rare forays into the rhetoric of personal responsibility, he still peddles the dangerous lie that police officers are the greatest threat facing young black men and that racial discrimination is the main force holding blacks back. In fact, it is other young black men who are responsible for the high homicide risk faced by black teens, and it is proactive policing that has dramatically reduced that risk, saving thousands of young lives in places like New York City.
Mr. Sharpton’s longevity as a public figure rests on the enduring power of racial grievance to elevate those politicians who accede to it, while distracting attention from the family and social breakdown afflicting the black community. Mayor de Blasio’s Sharpton predicament is nevertheless a cautionary tale about the risks of getting too close to the Reverend Al.
Ms. Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.