Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Barack Obama Makes Aliya

Hat Tip to Israel Matzav

Guess who is now a African-American Jewish Man?  Yes it is Barack Obama.
An African-American Jewish convert living in Jerusalem changed his name recently to Barack Obama, saying it will give him a platform to speak out on issues much like the American president.

After a two-month process, a special committee at the Interior Ministry approved Mark Hardie’s request to change his name to that of the current US president. He said his lawyer in the United States is working to have his name legally changed in the US to Barack Obama as well.

“I left out the middle name” — Hussein, he said, because it didn’t jibe with his Jewish character. Hardie said he changed his name so that he could have a platform to speak about issues, such as the peace process and the ultra-Orthodox draft. By changing his name to Barack Obama it would allow him “to speak out in support of Israel” and unite the Jewish people, he said.

“I want to help build a strong Israel,” Obama said.

Hardie underwent a Reform conversion to Judaism in 1995 and an Orthodox one in 1997. Three years later he moved to Israel and served in the IDF.

After his release in 2002, he served three years in the US military. He has written a hip hop translation of the Bible, and in 2011 expressed a desire to become the first African-American member of Knesset.

He also for a period declared himself the grand rabbi of a united Hasidic dynasty of Lubavitch-Satmer-Sanz.

According to his Facebook page, Hardie spent two years in a mental institution in California between 2009 and 2011 and was recently hospitalized at a Jerusalem-area mental hospital.

“I decided to go with Barack Obama. I respect the president and I felt like it could be good for Israel to have a Jewish Barack Obama,” he said. Because both Obamas are African-Americans, Hardie-Obama said he felt a “special connection” to the US president and his entire family.

“Everybody, when they see my ID card, at the bank or on the street, they go, wow! Barack Obama,” he said. Employees at his local coffee shop in the Katamon neighborhood of the capital have taken to addressing him as Mr. President.

The Jewish Barack Obama said the move was not “just a gimmick” or “publicity stunt.”

“I take my Judaism very seriously. I take myself very seriously,” he said.

SOURCE
Yes, it is true as seen by Barack Obama's Identity Card:


Barack Obama is now an Israeli Citizen!

Monday, February 3, 2014

O'Reilly's Benghazi Interview With Obama - A Whirling Vortex of Bloviating Air

Four-hundred-and-thirty-seven meaningless words out of Obama's 504 total words on Benghazi - each of the 437 -- pure spin, and then they ran out of time for the only question O'Reilly asked. If you take the nine times Obama said the word "Bill," and replace them with a 'yes' or 'no,' it might have been a different interview. What I've transcribed below covers the Benghazi portion of the exchange only. The beginning and the end of the video has to do with, first, ObamaCare and then the IRS. O'Reilly asked this simple, but important question:



"Did he, Secretary Panetta, tell you it was a terrorist attack?"

In red text below are Obama words that are pure spin, have nothing to do with the question, wasted words, such as: is, that, Bill, what is, you know, no, folks, focused, happened, happens, the fact of the matter, the question ends up being, you see, how can we, do we, who in fact," and no answer comes forth -- exactly, no answer. Obama's words in black text generously give him the benefit of the doubt. They were not counted. This is how a dishonorable president gets out of answering questions, out of relaying information, and is how he misleads the country and avoids the truth. To know the truth, you have to interrupt him, shut-him up or a few seconds and focus on the question -- ask it again, and when he bloviates, shut him up again. O'Reilly's words totaled 192. The entire interview consisted of 741 words.
Before the transcript, here is a reminder of what General Carter Ham and Panetta have said, relating to O'Reilly's question:
“Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?” asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack,” Panetta replied. Source: Hot Air
Gen. Carter Ham, who at the time was head of AFRICOM, the Defense Department combatant command with jurisdiction over Libya, told the House in classified testimony last year that it was him who broke the news about the unfolding situation in Benghazi to then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff...
According to declassified testimony obtained by Fox News, Ham -- who was working out of his Pentagon office on the afternoon of Sept. 11 -- said he learned about the assault on the consulate compound within 15 minutes of its commencement, at 9:42 p.m. Libya time, through a call he received from the AFRICOM Command Center.
"My first call was to General Dempsey, General Dempsey's office, to say, 'Hey, I am headed down the hall. I need to see him right away,'" Ham told lawmakers on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on June 26 of last year. "I told him what I knew. We immediately walked upstairs to meet with Secretary Panetta." Source: Fox News
At about 3:10-into the video, the Benghazi discussion begins (remember that the red text has, in my opinion, nothing to do with the question, "Did he tell you, Secretary Panetta, that it was a terrorist attack?):
O'REILLY: Libya, a House Armed Services testimony -- General Carter Ham, you know the General, security in Africa, he testified that on the day the Ambassador was murdered, and three other Americans, he told Secretary Panetta it was a terrorist attack. Shortly after General Ham said that, Secretary Panetta came in to you. Did he tell you, Secretary Panetta, that it was a terrorist attack?
OBAMA: You know, what he told me was there was an attack on our compound...
O'REILLY: He didn't use the word "terror?"
OBAMA: You know, in the heat of the moment, Bill, what folks are focused on is what's happening on the ground, do we have eyes on it, how can we make sure our folks are safe [inaudible]
O'REILLY: I just want to get this straight. Did he tell you it was a terrorist attack?
OBAMA: Bill, and what I'm, and I'm answering your question. What he said to me was, we've got an attack on our compound...
O'REILLY: No terror attack?
OBAMA: we don't know yet who's doing it. Understand by definition, that when somebody is attacking our compound, that's an act of terror, which is how I characterized it the day after it happened, so, and, so the question ends up being, who in fact, was attacking us...
O'REILLY: But it's more than that because of Susan Rice.
OBAMA: No...
O'REILLY: It's more than that because Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration of a video tape, but your Commanders and the Secretary of Defense know it's a terror attack.
OBAMA: No, no, Bill, Bill.
O'REILLY: I'm just an American. I'm confused.
OBAMA: and I'm trying to explain it to you if you want to listen. The fact of the matter is that people understood at the time, something very dangerous was happening, that we were focused on making sure that we did everything that we could to protect them. In the aftermath, what became clear was that the security was lax, that not all the precautions that needed to be taken were taken, and both myself and Secretary Clinton, and others indicated as much. But at the moment, when these things happen, Bill, on the other side of the world, people don't know at the very moment exactly why something like this happens, and when you look at the video tape of this whole thing unfolding, this is not some systematic, well-organized process. You see...
O'REILLY: There were heavy weapons used, and ...
OBAMA: Bill...
O'REILLY: Heavy weapons coming in...
OBAMA: Bill, listen, I've gone through this and we have had multiple hearings on it. What happens is, you have an attack like this taking place and you have a mix of folks who are just trouble-makers, you have folks who have an ideological agenda...
O'REILLY: all right.
OBAMA: You have some who are affiliated with terrorist organizations, you have some who are not...
O'REILLY: but...
OBAMA: The main thing that all of us have to take away from this is that our diplomats are serving in some very dangerous places, and...
O'REILLY: It's more than that...
OBAMA: and we've got to make sure that not only have we implemented all the reforms that were recommended by the independent agency, but we also have to make sure that we understand that our folks out there are in a hazardous, dangerous situation.
O'REILLY: I think everybody understands that, Mr. President.
OBAMA: No, not everybody does, because what ends up happening, what ends up happening is we end up creating a political agenda on something...
O'REILLY: Absolutely, that's my next question.
OBAMA: Democrats and Republicans should be unified in trying to figure out how are we going to protect people, ...
O'REILLY: I've got to get to the IRS, but I just want to say, your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign did not want that out...
OBAMA: Bill...
O'REILLY: That's what they believe...
OBAMA: and, and they believe it because folks like you are telling them that.
O'REILLY: I'm not telling them that. I'm asking you whether you were told it was a terror attack.
OBAMA: The thing is, that is inaccurate. We revealed to the American people exactly what we understood at the time. The notion that we would hide the ball for political purposes, when a week later, we all said, in fact, there was a terrorist attack taking place the day after, I said it was an act of terror, that wouldn't be a very good cover-up 
O'REILLY: All right. I have to get to the IRS.
How arrogant for Obama to say, "The main thing that all of us have to take away from this is that our diplomats are serving in some very dangerous places, and and we've got to make sure that not only have we implemented all the reforms that were recommended by the independent agency, but we also have to make sure that we understand that our folks out there are in a hazardous, dangerous situation."
How much do we pay the thousands of State Department and Defense Department employees, every year, to tend to the details. Who are the "all of us," that he wants to wake-up now that the worst has happened. You and I have no control over anything.
That "independent agency" Obama refers to? The chairman was appointed by Hillary Clinton. Thomas Pickering is a close personal friend of hers and Bills. Bill appointed Pickering to the post of Ambassador to Russia and he was the Under Secretary of State for Political Affiars from 1997 - 2001 (Clinton's presidency). Hillary was not interviewed. Hillary's chief of staff was not interviewed. It was a sham investigation. 
One more thing, when Obama says "when you look at the video tape of this whole thing unfolding, this is not some systematic, well-organized process...." 1) we should see that video, has Congress seen the video? and 2) I would say the attack was well-organized. The attackers had diesel fuel with them, and plenty of it. They knew where the safe room was in the embassy compound and as O'Reilly said, the terrorists had heavy weapons.
Bill O'Reilly: Barack Obama Benghazi Interview in the White House, February 2, 2014 (video)
Posted by Maggie @ Maggie's Notebook

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Obama Walked Off Debate Stage Thinking He Won – Dems Say Obama Disdainful of Romney

Stolen from (with permission) Maggie's Notebook

The DailyMail reports David Axelrod saying The Won thought he won the first presidential debate against his insignificant opponent, Mitt Romney. Others said Obama was disdainful of Romney and had “one-liners” to combat/humiliate Romney’s truthful remarks on the “47%” but didn’t use them. No one attached to the debate prep thought Obama taking time off to visit Hoover Dam and a campaign headquarters locale was a good idea.



The Democrat, who is aligned with the Obama campaign and has been an unofficial adviser on occasions, said that David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, was stunned that the President left the stage feeling that he had won the debate. Source: DailyMail


Doug Ross says this is just what we “cherish in our leaders…time to lay off the Peyote, Mr. President.” 



Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Obama Sued Citibank in 1995 Mortgage Discrimination Case: Of 186 Obama Client Homeowners Only 19 Still Own Homes – Multiple Bankruptcies

Stolen From Hat Tip to Maggie's Notebook

Obama actually did have a private sector job, and he failed at that too. He filed a discrimination lawsuit on behalf of 186 clients claiming discrimination in home mortgages. Nineteen of the 186 still own a home and have a good credit rating – 19 of 186! Some of his clients are speaking out and their message: there should be a regulation against giving loans to people who can’t afford them! Obama pushed the Community Reinvestment Act, right along with Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters. Democrats forced banks to give mortgages to Blacks who had no credit rating, no down payment, sometimes no job. The Bush administration tried 17 times to force Democrats to moderate the risks of these through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.



The first thing to know is that 71% of the bad loans were Government loans, not Wall Street. From one of my previous articles on the housing crisis:
[In a news conference, Obama] said this: (paraphrased) People got housing loans that they did not understand that they could not afford. They were told they could afford them. They didn’t understand the paperwork they were signing. What a crock. The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend without credit, without down payments, without any assurance that the buyers could meet their monthly payments. He is a bold, blatant liar.
Flashback to 2000:
The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation’s banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.
The Daily Caller, snippets from page 1:
The startling failure rate among Obama’s private sector clients was discovered during The Daily Caller’s review of previously unpublished court information from the lawsuit that a young Obama helmed as the lead plaintiff’s attorney. [RELATED: Learn about the 186 class action plaintiffs]
Since the mortgage bubble burst, some of his former clients are calling for a policy reversal.
“If you see some people don’t make enough money to afford the mortgage, why would you give them a loan?” asked Obama client John Buchanan. “There should be some type of regulation against giving people loans they can’t afford.”…
The campaign was powered by progressives’ moral claim that their expertise could boost home ownership among the United States’ most disadvantaged minority, African-Americans. [RELATED: Obama's African-American clients got coupons, not cash]
Progressive activists’ ambition instead contributed greatly to a housing bubble that burst in 2007, crashed the nation’s economy in 2008, wiped out at least $4 trillion in equity, kept unemployment above 8 percent for four years, and damaged the intended beneficiaries of looser mortgage lending standards.
The article is about 6 pages long. Look at this.
While the settlement provided $950,000 for the lawyers, it provided $20,000 for each of the three named plaintiffs, and $360,000 in benefits to be divided among the 183 other clients.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported in 1998 that Obama claimed $23,000 in billable hours for his role in the lawsuit. That role was limited, partly because he was networking his way toward his 1996 election to the Illinois Senate. But he stayed with the firm until 2004, and it was his lawsuit.

Obama also won massive campaign donations from the mortgage industry, including at least $126,349 between 1989 and 2004.

He sought public credit for the lawsuit: His employer submitted a docket to the court that listed him as the lead attorney for two of the three named plaintiffs in the case. The docket bound Obama’s name to the lawsuit — and to the 186 clients who would soon follow.
How the bullying brought down the economy:
To meet their anti-redlining promises, executives ditched their caution. Street-level officers soon began offering loans to people with little chance of repaying, including many of Obama’s eventual clients.

Banks were “financing people who had no jobs. … [T]he pendulum swung the other way,” Renee Brooks, an accountant and one of the three named plaintiffs, told The DC.
“They didn’t check out certain people, and they got loans and they couldn’t afford them in the first place,” Juanita Malone, another Obama client, told The DC. “I think that really was, to me … not professional.”

In the late 1990s “money became available to everybody … everybody and their brother-in-law,” said Freeman. “Individuals who get money easily and who don’t have a good background and or a good education would expect to suffer the consequences.”

Their judgment is shared by Mark Zandi, an Obama supporter and the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “Too-easy credit and millions of bad loans made during the U.S. housing crisis paved the way for the financial calamity and [the] Great Recession thatfollowed,” he wrote in an Aug. 25 column for the Washington Post.
At least 46 of Obama’s clients claimed bankruptcy – sometimes multiple times, says the Daily Caller and the numbers are actually higher. It took years to shake this out:
 2009 wasn’t an aberration: Obama’s client list had averaged 5.3 foreclosure notices a year during the 1990s.
More is expected this year and into 2013.
Everyday we hear how many mortgages are under water:
Each client’s wealth losses have been shared with other Americans through declining neighborhood-wide property values.

In Marcella Wilson’s neighborhood, nearby home values have dropped, she said, because “crooks [in banks] were giving people money they couldn’t afford.”
“My neighborhood is so-so.” she said. “Fifty years ago, when we moved in, it was a very lovely place.”

Seventeen of Obama’s clients lived in her 60619 ZIP code.
I encourage you to read the Daily Caller piece. Many of Obama’s private sector clients are quoted there. The Jawa Report has much more.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Working Towards The Fuehrer

A timely and topical rant from my friend Patriot USA at Patriot's Corner.  A look back with a warning to the future.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Adolf Hitler was a lazy bastard. He slept late, often until two o'clock in the afternoon. After he got out of his pit, he'd have a read of the papers then go for a stroll. In the evening, he often watched movies selected for him by Goebbels. (1)

The world was at war, and somehow, the "Vienna vagabond" (2) was at the center of the storm. An average of twenty seven thousand people died each day between September 1939 and August 1945. At least sixty million lives were lost overall. The lives of the survivors were forever touched by the events of World War II. The war went beyond anything previously experienced by humanity and the only way people could describe what happened was to say that "all hell broke loose". (3)

That's an appropriate turn of phrase, because the Satanic nature of Hitler's regime is unmistakable. Hitler, a failed artist with no formal training, created a symbol for the Nazis to follow during his rise to power. That symbol was the Hakenkreuz, the hooked cross. We know it as a black swastika on a white disc, with a red background. (4)

At the first Nazi party rally held in Nuremberg, Hitler used the Blutfahne to bless the Nazi flags carried by his followers. This flag was stained with the blood of Nazis who had been killed during the failed putsch of November 1923. (5)





The Fuehrer demanded absolute loyalty from his followers. German soldiers had to swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler personally. (6) One Nazi party member said, "There are things one cannot explain, cannot describe. I never stopped thinking of him. Sometimes, he meets us in our dreams." (7)

An oath sworn to a man, believed by his followers to be their Savior, made under a hooked cross and consecrated with the blood of other Nazis. Historians have struggled to explain how such a regime managed to establish the camps.

Adolf Hitler may have spent most of his time lazing around at his home in the mountains, and he may not have issued an explicit order to establish a system of death camps, but an explanation of how the camps came to be an integral part of the Third Reich is certainly possible.

Hitler had stated that he intended to do away with democracy in Germany, and that's exactly what he did once he attained power. The Nazi regime has been described as chaotic, (8) but in fact the Nazis operated the Third Reich in accordance with basic evolutionary principles. Hitler was a follower of Darwin, and believed that his subordinates should compete amongst themselves, and the most devout and able Nazis would rise to positions of power. (9)

In the absence of clearly defined orders being formally issued to his subordinates, the words of the Fuehrer served to establish the goals of the Nazi regime. Hitler had declared the Jewish race to be his enemy throughout his political career, so it was natural for avowed Nazis to pursue anti-Semitic policies. The British historian Ian Kershaw explains how this worked, citing a speech by Werner Willikens, who was employed in the German Ministry of Food: "Everyone who has the opportunity to observe it knows that the Fuehrer can hardly dictate from above everything he intends to realize sooner or later. On the contrary, up till now everyone with a post in the new Germany has worked best when he has, so to speak, worked towards the Fuehrer." (10)

Nazis worked towards the Fuehrer by perpetrating crimes they thought Hitler would approve of. There was no legal or moral reason to restrict their behaviour in any way. Their enemies had from day one been treated with the utmost brutality. On the Night of The Long Knives, the Nazis had even turned against their own and murdered the leader of the SA, Ernst Roehm. (11)

The most ruthless anti-Semitic measures were taken. In accordance with the principles of Darwinism, the ongoing expression of the Nazis' hatred of the Jewish people could not evolve differently, by going back in time and choosing a path which had not been taken. The Nazis' anti-Semitic policies could only become more radical until eventually, a "final solution" was reached.

In the Third Reich, all roads led to the death camps.





Many people living in first world countries today have no personal experience of war, and they have no context in which to place the Nazis and their crimes against humanity. This limited view of reality is sometimes referred to as a "normalcy bias". It may be difficult for some people to think clearly about the Holocaust. But the question must be asked: Could it happen again?

If such a regime arose today, its disciples would not march under the swastika. That symbol is now associated with the Nazis, and the political operators of the 21st century would never permit such an overt display.

In the landmark television series The World At War, one woman who lived in Germany in the 1930s said that Adolf Hitler appeared to many people to be pursuing order and stability. By the time his real agenda became known, it was too late for anyone to oppose him. Christabel Bielenberg, who was married to a German at the time, said: "I think that everything that came to us when we were living in Germany came very gradually. That was part, perhaps, of the way Hitler managed these things. It came on us rather, drip by drip, rather like an anesthetic, one could almost say, and it was only when a specific thing that he did hit you personally that you actually realized what was going on." (12)

We know that it is possible for a man who has done nothing, achieved nothing, and whose character and beliefs are a mystery, to manoeuvre themselves into a position of considerable political power. In an age where information is accessible to anyone, anywhere in the world, at the touch of an iPad, no one has any idea who the current American President really is.

Winston Churchill, 4th Queen's Own Hussars
One of the first things Obama did as President was remove a bust of Sir Winston Churchill from the Oval Office. Churchill was the man who, more than any other, recognized the danger posed by the Nazis and stood resolutely against them. (13)

After insulting the Brits, Obama did the same to the Israelis. Benjamin Netanyahu served in the IDF and fought on the front lines in the Yom Kippur war of 1973. When Netanyahu arrived at the White House for a scheduled meeting, Obama handed him a list of demands based on the false "land for peace" premise, and told him to consider that while he went off to have dinner with his wife. Obama said he'd "be around" if Netanyahu decided he was willing to bend over on behalf of the state of Israel and take it up the ass. As one of the reporters who covered the incident noted, all that Obama managed to do here was reveal himself to be ideological and vindictive. (14,15)

These two incidents are telling enough, but a further incident involving a head of state gives Obama's game away completely. When he met a real, live Muslim king, his upbringing came to the fore and the President of the United States of America bowed down before him.

Barack Hussein Obama
As President, Obama has changed the status of Israel in the Middle East by letting her enemies know that instead of standing by Israel, his administration is backing away. As President of America, Obama has given hope to Israel's enemies. (16)

If that's what Obama meant by "hope" and "change" on the campaign trail in 2008, one shudders to think what is meant by his new slogan: "Forward!" (17)

An American President doesn't need to drop a nuke on Tel Aviv for Israel's citizens to start dying. All he needs to do is let it be known that he sympathizes with the Islamic world, and that America no longer stands with Israel. There are plenty of organizations in the Middle East willing to murder Israelis. They're not satisfied killing a busload of people at a time either. They've been doing that for years, and it hasn't worked. The Star of David still flies over Israel.

The Nazis also tried to operate at that level, using "gas vans". (18) It didn't work for them either; as we know, the Nazis went on to develop their "final solution" to the Judenfrage.

Hitler may have committed suicide in April 1945, but there are still a lot of people today trying to act in ways that would have pleased him.

Whether it's politicians trying to do to Israel what Neville Chamberlain and his pals did to Czechoslovakia in 1938, a corrupt Western media failing to report the thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into the town of Sderot, or the educated, so-called "moderate" Muslims living in the West who harbor the same "ancient hatred" of Israel in their hearts as the so-called "extremists" who act upon it, there is no shortage of people who, almost seven decades after the collapse of the Third Reich, are still working towards the Fuehrer.

References

1. Kershaw, I. Hitler, The Germans, And The Final Solution, Kindle loc. 435
2. Shirer, W. The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, Kindle loc. 2301
3. Hastings, M. All Hell Let Loose: The World At War 1939-1945, p.xv
4. Shirer, W. The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, Kindle loc. 1140
5. History Channel, The Third Reich, DVD no.1, 12-13 mins
6. Rees, L. The Nazis: A Warning From History, p. 50
7. History Channel. The Third Reich, DVD no. 1, 12-13 mins
8. Rees, L. The Nazis: A Warning From History, p. 45
9. Rees, L. The Nazis: A Warning From History, p. 34
10. Kershaw, I. Hitler, The Germans, And The Final Solution, Kindle loc. 596
11. Shirer, W. The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich, Kindle loc. 5355
12. ITV. The World At War: A New Germany, 40-41 mins
13.  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/177508/obama-throws-churchill-out-oval-office/nile-gardiner#
14.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/7521220/Obama-snubbed-Netanyahu-for-dinner-with-Michelle-and-the-girls-Israelis-claim.html#
15. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/obama_and_netanyahu_pointless.html
16. Horowitz, D. and Laskin, J. Obama And The War Against The Jews, Kindle loc. 330
17.  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/forward-for-communism-is-obamas-new-forward-slogan-really-a-coincidence/
18.  http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/viewer/wlc/film.php?RefId=DFG0667E
19. www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm, quoted by Horowitz & Laskin, Kindle loc. 322
20. Gilbert, M. The Second World War: A Complete History, p. 681




Friday, May 18, 2012

Obscene Profits?

The president and those on the left love to vilify the oil companies. With gasoline averaging $3-$4, many Americans play right into that vilification and the resulting hatred of the oil companies for their "obscene" profits. The reality is that the oil companies operate on incredibly slim profit margins.
 
With Mother's Day this past weekend, I got to thinking: What is Hallmark's profit margin on a $5 Mother's Day card? I don't know for certain, but I would be willing to bet that that $5 card costs Hallmark no more than 50 cents to produce.
 
So...what about Hallmark's "obscene profits"?
 
 

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Obama Gives 7 Oil-Rich Islands to Russia

Stolen from Maggie's Notebook

It appears Congress had nothing to do with this 7-island giveaway with tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds. The Department of the Interior says these islands are a source of BILLIONS of barrels of oil. Our president and the State Department can just give away American sovereign land – Alaskan land. A story like this leaves me speechless. I’ll let Joe Miller, a former US Senate candidate from Alaska, do the talking:


World Net Daily (read the entire story here including the American historical connection to these islands):
Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

The imperiled Arctic Ocean islands include Wrangell, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangell became American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is 3,000 square miles in size.

Northwest of Wrangell are the DeLong Islands, named for George Washington DeLong, the captain of USS Jeannette. Also in 1881, he discovered and claimed these three islands for the United States. He named them for the voyage co-sponsor, New York City newspaper publisher James Gordon Bennett. The ship’s crew received a hero’s welcome back in Washington, and Congress awarded them gold medals.

In the Bering Sea at the far west end of the Aleutian chain are Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock. They were ceded to the U.S. in Seward’s 1867 treaty with Russia.

The State Department’s maritime agreement is a loser – it gives us nothing in return for giving up Alaska’s sovereign territory and invaluable resources. We won the Cold War and should start acting like it.
I actually believe that President Barack Hussein Obama hates the United States.  Why else is he destroying our military, eliminating our nuclear weapons, taking parental choices from us.  Another 4 years of Obama and there will be no United States.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Jimmy Carter/Barack Obama Video

Saw the video below at Power Line and just had to show it here. Audio of Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama saying the exact same things. Kinda creepy to be truthful.



It is like they are the same person to listen to them speak.

By Susan Duclos

Monday, July 11, 2011

My Grinchy Wife

From The Liberty Ledger

I contribute to theLiberty Ledger and this was posted there yesterday.  A posting by Terry Bascom.  I hope you all enjoy.
I make $100,000 per year, and I have a net debt of $87,000. I’m worrying about making payments on my loans, in addition to keeping up my basic living expenses. I have to pay more this year for health insurance, food, utilities and gasoline. I own a business, but it looks like sales are going to be down again, which will cut into my revenue stream.

I budget July – June, and I had planned to increase my living budget by 8% for 2011-2012, based on anticipated income. Now that it looks like my income is going to be less than I’d hoped, I’ll have to make cuts instead. So I’m only going to increase my budget by 5%, which is a 37% reduction. It’s going to be hard to live with such a huge austerity measure, but I’ll just have to find a way to make it work.

Since my revenue stream is already taking a hit, and I’ve cut my budget all I can, I’m planning to borrow more money to make up the short-fall. I’m confident my earnings will increase next year when business picks up, which means I will be able to pay everything back over time. I think I’ll need to borrow about $7,000 to hit my scaled-back spending budget of $105,000.

My wife is arguing that we should reduce our spending even more. She thinks we should not count a reduction in proposed spending increases as a spending cut. She thinks our debt burden is getting too high and we should start spending less than we bring in.

I’ve pointed out how unsavory that would be. In a down year like this, we would have to make some pretty serious adjustments to our living standards. I don’t know where we would cut. Do we really want to reduce the kids’ allowances? Are we ready to forego our quarterly vacations? Should we scale back our Christmas lights display? Are we going to close the backyard swimming pool and throw fewer barbeques? Does she think we should stop replacing the living room furniture every 2 years, or the cars every 3? Would she like to spend her days growing vegetables where the roses are blooming, just to save a few dollars on food? What, exactly, can we cut?

She says ‘yes’ to all of the above. She even thinks it might be good for the kids to go mow lawns for their money, rather than getting it from us! She reminds me that when she was a kid her parents bought her 1 pair of shoes at a time, and she never owned more than a single pair of jeans until she went to work to buy them herself. They ate whatever was cheap – tuna fish this month, chicken next, hamburger when it was affordable. They ate ice milk rather than ice cream, and often mixed powdered milk rather than buy fresh. Her mom kept a vegetable garden and canned the extra to tide them over through the winter, and her dad never owed a penny except for his mortgage.

Yeah, okay. I’ve heard all of that before. But do we really want to live like that, I ask?

No, she says, she doesn’t. But she’s willing to do it for awhile, if the result will be a more stable household economy, the ability to get out of debt, and getting the risk of bankruptcy removed from over our heads. She’d even like to see us put some money in the bank.

I tell her that’s fine for her, if she wants to do it. But I don’t see why the kids and I should suffer because she’s afraid of a little debt. After all, we’ve never gone bankrupt yet, so why get gloomy about the future? All we need is for a little turn-around in the world economy and we’ll be flying high again in no time. In the meanwhile, we should just suck it up and borrow what we need. After all, I’ve already cut deeply into our 2011-2012 budget. She should just meet me half way by agreeing to increase our debt load a couple percentage points. What kind of difference is that going to make over the long haul?

For some reason, she refuses. She says she’s not willing to raise our debt ceiling any further. So I told the kids that half their parents think they deserve all the good things we can provide them, but half their parents think they should unnecessarily and unfairly suffer just because we’re going through a temporary rough patch.

It’s obvious to me that if we borrow more, we can keep to our inflation-adjusted budget, modestly improve our lifestyle and, if we borrow enough, I can even invest more in my company than I did last year. Surely more spending on my business will turn this year’s reduction in revenue into next year’s surplus. It’s clear to me that I just didn’t spend enough on employee wages, fringe benefits and improving the phone system. This year, if I put money into new toilet seats, upgraded computers, and softer mood lighting – heck, I should probably rewire the whole plant, and upgrade the entire sewer system, not just the toilet seats – oh, and pave the parking lot – I could even bring back a couple of the guys I had to furlough last year to help – if I make those infrastructure improvements, productivity will surely increase! We’ll turn the corner and make a profit next year, and from that profit I can pay down the debt I’m accruing.

The kids get it. They like it. They even voted for it when I put it to them. But for some reason, my Grinchy wife won’t get on board. She just can’t see that if we do it her way, we’ll be in for a hard time. And hard times are not fun. The kids don’t like it. I don’t like it. And I venture to say that even my wife won’t like it when she’s in the midst of it.

She has such a negative outlook, and won’t budge. So it looks like I’ll have to go around her, somehow, to get the money I need to keep this family solvent.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Anchor Baby Legislation in House and Senate: States Move to Require Presidents Natural Born Status


Two U.S. senators  are introducing legislation that will halt the enormous numbers of foreign mothers barely reaching U.S. soil before birthin’ their babies, packing up the birth certificate and scurrying back home to grab siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins to brave their new world of living illegally in the U.S. with the golden anchor baby.

Anchor Babies


Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and David Vitter (R-LA):
“For too long, our nation has seen an influx of illegal aliens entering our country at an escalating rate, and chain migration is a major contributor to this rapid increase – which is only compounded when the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are granted automatic citizenship,” Vitter said. “Closing this loophole will not prevent them from becoming citizens, but will ensure that they have to go through the same process as anyone else who wants to become an American citizen.”
Similar legislation failed in the 111th Congress. Rep. Steve King has introduced similar legislation in the House.

Another piece of legislation has been introduced into the Arizona State House of Representatives to require presidential candidates to prove their eligibility to run for the office of president in the U.S. The Arizona house already has 25 co-sponsors and needs only 31 votes to pass. In the Arizona Senate, only 16 votes are needed to become law.
The proposal, which also is being taken up in a number of other states, is highly specific and directly addresses the questions that have been raised by Barack Obama’s occupancy of the White House. 
It says: Within ten days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
Here are some stats showing the impact of illegals in Los Angeles County, clearly aided by the birthing of "anchor babies."

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

The Future For The FBI

After Eric Holder and Barack Obama get through with their reforms of the FBI, this will be the result:



I do believe J. Edgar Hoover is rolling in his grave!

Friday, May 28, 2010

Obama and Rahm at Man's Country - Frequently?

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

Well, well, well. HillBuzz was visited in Chicago by a US journalist wanting 
information about Man’s Country in Andersonville, Illinois. This article states that Barack Obama was a frequent visitor until 2002 and Rahm Emanuel until 2008, according to their sources.
HillBuzz tagged this article “bath houses.”

Man’s Country (see bottom of sign above door)

HillBuzz tagged this article “bath houses.” A quick check on the Internet and what I find about Chicago’s Man’s Country is fairly disgusting. Read the reviews here, especially the one by Alberto M. who says Man’s Country is “a gay Chicago icon…,” but complains that there is always the chance of getting “cooties” in Man’s Country.
Now, the article goes on to question the rags so busily working to tie Obama to an affair with Vera Baker, and the writer says something is fishy, and doesn’t hesitate to explain. The side story is about Kal Penn, the actor who left House to serve the President. He also plays Kumar in the Harold and Kumar movies. In the White House, Penn goes by his real name, Kalpen Modi.
Why the sudden need to portray this current president as an insatiably heterosexual stud who just can’t get enough women?
Baker’s a diversionary tactic…designed to cover SOMETHING up…and we think that something is an affair Obama had with Kal Penn, which seems to have ended badly.  We also think Penn was mugged not by a street thug in DupontCircle, but by someone working for either the DNC or Organizing for America (or any number of its umbrella thugs), because Penn’s phone had something in it that would prove some kind of romantic relationship between the president and a Hollywood actor with zero government experience who was plucked off a TV show unceremoniously and lifted into a high profile made-up position in the White House…so he could be close to Obama in Washington, where Obama wanted him.  Wanted in more than one sense.
Until he didn’t want him anymore.
And then someone needed to take his cell phone away, so that any pictures, texts, voicemails, or other interesting itts and bitts could be secured by those wishing to protect the current president.
Here’s a link to Penn/Modi’s mugging.
You know, this is an astounding and gutsy story, whether 
true or false. HillBuzz has stepped “out there.”  It is obvious from they have had some background on the story. Maybe they have blogged about this in the past, but the blog title is Someone in the national media is FINALLY interested in Man’s Country in Andersonville.

My disclaimer: I’m printing this because the report comes from Chicago. I don’t know if it’s true, but unless the writer is lying about the national media coming specifically for info about Man’s Country, it deserves to be known, and besides, HillBuzz is a reputable blog. I got to the HillBuzz story via 
Logistics Monster who indicates that many have known about this since 2007, so….
Read it all at HillBuzz

Friday, January 1, 2010

Mayo Clinic Arizona Drops Medicare! Happy New Year Seniors!

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

Happy New Year Seniors! A little prezzy from the Prez: Medicare patients have been kicked out of the Mayo Clinic’s Glendale, Arizona facility. It’s a happy, happy day for the Obamas. They are soon to hold your health care in their sweaty, greedy, grabby hands and they can't wait.


“No Medicare patients” beginning today, at the Mayo Glendale facility (a suburb of Phoenix). This is a two-year-trial-run. About 3,200 patients are affected. Needless to say, the Glendale area is rife with retirees:
Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering “the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm.” Mayo’s move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday….
Mayo’s hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The program’s payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said.
If you are now on Medicare, but want to continue to be treated at Mayo-Glendale, here is what they have planned for you:
A Medicare patient who chooses to stay at Mayo’s Glendale clinic will pay about $1,500 a year for an annual physical and three other doctor visits, according to an October letter from the facility. Each patient also will be assessed a $250 annual administrative fee, according to the letter. Medicare patients at the Glendale clinic won’t be allowed to switch to a primary care doctor at another Mayo facility.
A few hundred of the clinic’s Medicare patients have decided to pay cash to continue seeing their primary care doctors, Yardley said. Mayo is helping other patients find new physicians who will accept Medicare.
Mayo’s decision may herald similar moves by other Phoenix- area doctors …“We’ve got doctors who are saying we are not going to deal with Medicare patients in the hospital” because they consider the fees too low, Rivers said. “Or they are saying we are not going to take new ones in our practice.”
DoctorRX at Naked Capitalism says the following about Medicare patients paying cash and receiving treatment (referring to the same article I have quoted above):
Despite what the article says, It’s not easy under the regs to just charge cash. So I’m not sure what Mayo is referring to. Basically a physician has to drop out of being a Medicare provider in toto in order to then charge freely. Once out, I think you’re out for a whole year (at least). And that includes seeing a patient in hospital who’s a Medicare patient (Medicare “A” covers essentially all Medicare patients). So for a whole year the doctor has to only treat outpatients and have nothing to do with Medicare. Not easy. Especially if Glendale has an elderly population.
Obama’s health care plan is not yet law, but he has his ball rollin’ anyway.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Obama Poses with Tareq and Michaele Salahi - Long Before the White House?

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

This photo came to me in an email. It shows Barack Obama with Tareq and Michaele Salahi, the White House State Dinner crashers. At this moment, FOX is showing the couple making their way to Capitol Hill for their subpoenaed testimony - and they say they wil take the Fifth.

Just my opinion here, but I don't think there's any photoshopping involved. We all knew something wasn't right about these people in the White House with no credentials. The Salahis and the President look noticeably younger - no doubt about that.

The emailer believes the photo was taken when Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator or before. Does anyone else think the guy on the left looks a bit like Randy Jackson, the American idol judge (who we know is an Obama friend?).






 Compare Tareq and Micahele Salahi "then" and "now."


Tareq Salahi, Joe Biden and Michaele Salahi

Because the Salahi's were allowed into the White House with no credentials, several Secret Service agents are in danger of losing their jobs. The person responsible, Desiree Rogers, the White House Social Secretary - who decided no one from her office needed to meet and greet guests as has been the custom for years, will not be subpoenaed. The White House has forbidden her testimony and Congress did Obama's bidding and did not invite her to testimony party. Instead, taxpayer money will be wasted on the gate crashers, who will plead the Fifth Amendment, and we will hear of no White House involvement in a very serious crime.

Officials say the Salahis went through metal detectors and passed all the rigorous tests to be allowed into the White House sanctuary...except, they did not have an invitation to the event. American Power, however, reported Tareq Salahi's ties to the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP):
In addition, and ominously, it turns out that Tareq Salahi, the polo-playing intruder, is a Palestinian nationalist with ties to the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP) , a pro-Palestine lobby demanding the "right of return" for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants. The "right of return" has long been considered the backdoor to Israel's destruction. But not only that: ATFP President Ziad Asali is an America-basher who blamed 9/11 on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Asali was a lead U.S. official to PLO terrorist Yassir Arafat's funeral in 2004. And in a position paper in 2007, the ATFP called for a power-sharing agreement at the Palestinian Authority, which would have included the State Department's designated-terrorist group, Hamas.
ADDED: ATFP has removed Tareq Salahi from its website's board of directors page.

As Glenn Beck would indelicately say, this stinks on ice.

A thank you for the pic of Obama and the Salahis to reader, Lynne, who finds amazing news as she works to combat this evil administration everyday. The photo was sent to her husband and she passed it along. Visit her at TravelLight to see a wonderful game for children to adults. She is a true conservative, a devoted Christian, and she is the game's designer. The tagline for the game:  "A game plan for life! TravelLight - A Self-Help Phenomenon. Here is how the game is described?
TraveLight is a futuristic-fun card game designed with the idea to rescue man from dysfunctional relationships and hardships in life. Simply playing the game will not provide a life change. As one learns to apply the principles of the game it brings about cognitive logic of how to get rid of Excess Baggage by replacing it with Light Baggage. Then he or she is sure to learn how to TraveLight.
Now, let's see if the MSM prints this photo of Obama with the pro-Palestinian Salahis - probably taken long before the White House State Dinner, or at least investigates it.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Christmas Banned at the White House...before it wasn't

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers told a group of her predecessors that the White House "did not intend to put the manger scene on display. This happened earlier in the year, but is just now breaking news. Rogers' comments indicating that the White House Christmas was banned...was before the White House reversed their decision and Christmas wasn't banned after all. See a video below.




White House Creche (between draperies) - previous administrations

Ms. Rogers, this participant said, replied that the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display — a remark that drew an audible gasp from the tight-knit social secretary sisterhood. (A White House official confirmed that there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the crèche.)
I would like to know how the former social secretaries kept this secret. 

The report says "in the end, tradition won out...and the creche is in its usual East Room spot. What a sad, sad commentary for our country. Would you ever have believed that such a discussion would be possible in the house where the President of the United States lives?








White House Christmas Tree, Manger (Creche)

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Federal Reserve Extorting Banks?

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

The video below is Judge Andrew Napolitano and a panel discussing a new, developing story of the Federal Reserve extorting banks.

Napolitano was sitting for Glenn Beck this week. Here are a few quotes from his monologue leading into the panel:

The CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York called the heads of New York's largest banks into the offices of his lower Manhattan offices.

We don't know precisely what was said but we do know that the head of the Fed told the assembled bankers that they must start cutting executive compensation, or the government will do it for them.

The government admits that it has no lawful authority to regulate compensation at banks that never received TARP funds or paid the funds back already.

So what was the extortion? Undoubtedly, it was a threat to have the FDIC audit the banks if they fail to tow the pay Czar's line. An FDIC audit will cost the banks tens of millions in employee loss of time and shareholder loss of value.

What is extortion? Extortion is a threat to perform a lawful act to influence the free will of someone else. Well, can the FDIC audit these banks? Yes. But may it do so to force executives to do what they have a lawful authority not to do? No.
The panel discussion on extortion is worth listening to. Napolitano asks: Can the federal government, constitutionally interfere with use of private funds and private freely negotiated contracts (when TARP money was NOT taken, when TARP money has been repaid)?

A reminder that Obama's tax-cheating Treasury Secretary is Timothy Geithner, who was the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York before moving to Treasury.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

African Archbishops Believe Barack Obama is a Divine Plan

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

African Bishops meeting in the Vatican believe Barack Obama is part of a "divine" plan, God's "divine" plan. Archbishop Gabriel Charles Palmer-Buckle of Ghana compares Obama to the Old Testament's Joseph. A question not asked: is abortion a part of God's divine plan?





Archbishop Gabriel Charles Palmer-Buckle

"It's like the biblical story repeating itself," he told reporters, citing the Old Testament figure, Joseph, who after being sold into slavery in Egypt ends up becoming a top official.
"God directs history," said Archbishop Gabriel Charles Palmer-Buckle. God did not, however, direct Palmer-Buckle to speak out against the Obama administration's support of abortion - or maybe He did, and the Archbishop didn't listen. Palmer-Buckle says he and his peers are aware of the controversy in the U.S. over the right-to-life issue, but nevertheless, (and I can hear him intone this):
But we feel it our duty to meet him and find out what are the things that unite us more than divide us."
How can leader in the Catholic church identify a divine mission in the efforts of Barack Obama? The answer is, it's all about being black.

A black president, a black pope in the future - it's all a:
"divine sign and a sign from the Holy Spirit for the reconciliation of races and ethnic groups for peaceful relations...," said Monsignor Laurnet Monsengwo Pasinya of the Congo.
I agree with that statement. I see America's election of a black man or woman as a wonderful step for our country...but not this particular black man.

How can abortion be viewed as a "divine sign?" How can abortion be viewed as a road to "peace?"

Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Nigeria had a different take on the importance of Barack Obama:
"Obama has the authority to talk straight to our bad leaders and tell them they are messing up our countries," he said. Besides, he added, "In Africa we are always happy when our brother is big."
High expectations, considering we know how tough Obama is not on the "bad leaders" around the world. 

Just like politicians, churches today see their mission as making it easy for themselves and those who follow. It has nothing to do with being "right" or "moral," but everything to do with power.

This is one of the more disgusting religious news stories I've ever read.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Barack Obama's New Year Message.

I am usually critical and skeptical of the messages that President Obama sends to various groups on their holidays. This is no exception. While it is a thoughtful message, I am wondering what "October Surprise" will accompany it when he proposes his "Middle East Solution".

President Obama: Warm Wishes for Rosh Hashanah




View at YouTube


The Full Text:

As members of the Jewish faith here in America and around the world gather to celebrate the High Holidays, I want to extend my warmest wishes for this New Year. L’Shanah Tovah Tikatevu – may you have a good year, and may you be inscribed for blessing in the Book of Life.

Rosh Hashanah marks the start of a new year – a time of humble prayer, joyful celebration, and hope for a new beginning. Ten days later, Yom Kippur stands as a day of reflection and repentance. And this sacred time provides not just an opportunity for individual renewal and reconciliation, but for families, communities and even nations to heal old divisions, seek new understandings, and come together to build a better world for our children and grandchildren.

At the dawn of this New Year, let us rededicate ourselves to that work. Let us reject the impulse to harden ourselves to others’ suffering, and instead make a habit of empathy – of recognizing ourselves in each other and extending our compassion to those in need.

Let us resist prejudice, intolerance, and indifference in whatever forms they may take -- let us stand up strongly to the scourge of anti-Semitism, which is still prevalent in far too many corners of our world.

Let us work to extend the rights and freedoms so many of us enjoy to all the world’s citizens – to speak and worship freely; to live free from violence and oppression; to make of our lives what we will.

And let us work to achieve lasting peace and security for the state of Israel, so that the Jewish state is fully accepted by its neighbors, and its children can live their dreams free from fear. That is why my Administration is actively pursuing the lasting peace that has eluded Israel and its Arab neighbors for so long.

Throughout history, the Jewish people have been, in the words of the Prophet Isaiah, “a light unto the nations.” Through an abiding commitment to faith, family, and justice, Jews have overcome extraordinary adversity, holding fast to the hope of a better tomorrow.

In this season of renewal, we celebrate that spirit; we honor a great and ancient faith; and we rededicate ourselves to the work of repairing this world.

Michelle and I wish all who celebrate Rosh Hashanah a healthy, peaceful and sweet New Year.
A lovely message if I do say so.