Latest posts

Re: Who was your first love?

Wendy Forte.
First grade.
We were going to get married, eat nothing but hamburgers, and she was never ever going to have to wash the dishes.
(And you ladies think men never notice!)

Re: Is your house cleaner?

Not only is my house cleaner, but both the dishes and laundry are done, I built two tree rings, and mowed the grass.

My cat has even emailed SodaHead to bitch, because I apparently am now bothering him and will not let him sleep.

Re: Hello!!!!! why aren't People using the CHATROOM ??? I think it's a great feature and when we were in GROUP PM together , we had such a l

I concur.

Re: 'Goonies,' 'Lethal Weapon' Actress Mary Ellen Trainor Dead at 62 by REUTERS

I'm really getting sick of all the actors I know dying.

RIP, Ms.Trainor.

Re: Cities Without Borders by Roseann Salanitri

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Re: Posting videos

It onlr appears to be when trying to upload youtube vids

Cities Without Borders by Roseann Salanitri

Many will remember the words of Ronald Reagan who inspired us to once again become a shining City on a Hill. Reagan's vision was captivating and for a short time some of us actually believed it was possible – and as long as we believed it, it was possible. Those days are gone with the wind. The reality is that we are fast becoming a City Without Borders and consequently without shine.

While we are rightfully concerned about by the high numbers of illegals entering through what was once considered to be our southern and northern borders, another disturbing statistic has gone virtually unnoticed. In 2014, it was reported that nearly 70,000 refugees entered these United States sanctioned by our government as a result of the Refugee Act of 1980 and its bureaucratic arm, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) . While images of young children fleeing the swords of ISIS may make this seem like a humanitarian effort, many would be surprised to know that these refugees are not screened by any office within the United States. Instead, their authorization to enter the United States is based on approval from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees . This arm of the UN is governed by the UN General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. Additionally, the President of the United States, after consulting with Congress and the appropriate agencies (none of which are run by elected officials), determines the designated nationalities and processing priorities for refugee resettlement. I'll just bet that makes you feel secure – especially since you would be hard pressed to find any processing priorities for these refugees other than entitlement benefits freely given to them from our coffers – many of which exceed the entitlements America citizens are given.
In 2014, the man now occupying the White House approved many nations that could send us refugees, among whom were: Afghanistan with 758 refugees, Bhutan at 8,316, Burma at 14,577; Cuba at 4,063; Dem Rep. Congo at 4,052; Iraq at 19,651; Somalia at 9,011, and Iran at 2,833. But don't worry – these refugees were approved by the UN General Assembly. It should be noted that all of these countries (with the exception of Somalia) are part of the 193 Member States of the United Nations that approve who the refugees are that come to our homeland. Member States also include China, Pakistan, Yemen, Turkey, and the Syrian Arab Republic – many of whom have closed their borders to refugees fleeing the ire of ISIS and a few of which can be considered safe havens for ISIS – none of which has the slightest interest for safety and prosperity of America at heart. It should also be noted that the greatest number of people being dumped into our hands come from Somalia, a nation that has produced pirates and profiteers that continually impede the waters between Africa and the Arabic states and considered by most to be the worst of the worst.
This action begs several questions: is this program the ORR's equivalent to the Beau Bergdahl trade; are these countries cleaning house by sending us their most unwanted residents; or worse, are they sending us terrorists masquerading as refugees; and can this be part of a plot devised by Barack Obama to infiltrate and destroy the land of the free by creating an annex to the 57 Muslim states? Since we don't have access to the sanctioning process, we may never know the answers to these questions – unless the likes of the Boston bombers become visible within our ranks.

However, there is some information that is available. For instance, research will reveal that these refugees are provided with the necessities of life, such as welfare, cash and medical assistance (including emotional wellness and health insurance), individual development accounts, grants, microenterprise development, childcare and all the other entitlements our tax dollars to pay for – and yes, these do include handing them unknown quantities of cash. Additionally, The ORR has reported that they were able to help some find jobs – although it doesn't report whether or not their employment took them off the dole. In Texas, where 7,214 refugees were settled, 46% have jobs (which means 54% don't), and in Michigan 47% out of the reported 4,006 are working. Since we have child labor laws on the books, it is safe to assume that none of these are children. Of course this is good news for the refugees but not such good news for the American citizens who didn't have the ORR recruiting employment positions for them and have lost job opportunities enjoyed by these refugees. It has been reported by American Citizens Lobbyist Group in NJ that the total cost of this program is at least 10-20 billion dollars per annum at the federal level and is impossible to estimate what this burden costs the communities where these refugees reside.

Additional facts that Americans should be aware of is that these refugees are not tested for many diseases, such as HIV or TB. It should be noted that TB among the foreign born now accounts for about half of the TB in America. The American Citizens Lobbyist Group also reported that the number one language of refugees entering the United States right now is Arabic, with Somali being number four. Does this mean that soon we will be hearing "Press 1 for Arabic, 2 for Somali, 3 for Spanish, and 4 for English?"

And, if you think that these refugees will be settled in urban areas – think again. They are expected to be approved by county-level legislative bodies and settled in semi-rural and rural communities – all under the politically correct goal of diversity and all without the approval of the local communities that they will impact.

In recent history, the geographic location of countries could be defined by its borders. That is quickly changing in America. Our melting pot is overflowing and will soon consume everything we love(d) about this nation.                                           http://mychal-massie.com/premium/cities-without-borders/?inf_contact_key=6bdff4c8ea753fa2b8353a7016f6d64270778b82b55ae0187540155c36d3e9bc

The Irish Times: Multiple Lies and Distortions in Three Parts : Simon Plosker

The Irish Times has published a series of three stories ostensibly taking a Palestinian perspective on current issues. Biased and skewed reporting is clearly evident as is the norm for the Irish Times.

In the first article, "Palestinians must use politics to end 'apartheid regime'," journalist Michael Jansen conducts an interview with "Israeli peace activist Jeff Halper" who is also described as "a veteran critic of Israeli police."

What Jansen fails to reveal is that Halper is anything but a "peace activist." Indeed Halper's criticism of Israel goes far beyond that of its police force. Halper is a radical anti-Israel activist and the director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICHAD).                                                                                                                                                                As NGO Monitor notes:

ICAHD's rhetoric includes accusations of "ethnic cleansing," "genocide," "collective punishment," and "apartheid."
Active in promoting the BDS (boycotts, divestments and sanctions) campaign against Israel.
Explicitly advocates for the end of the state of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, stating that "the only option for resolving the conflict [is] a one-state solution."
In his comments to the Irish Times, Halper claims:

The Israeli army is everywhere. Squads posing as Palestinians enter Palestinian towns and villages at will and arrest and shoot Palestinians.
In Halper's mind, Israeli soldiers simply shoot Palestinians. As Halper well knows, the IDF has strict rules of engagement and opening fire on Palestinians, be they armed or otherwise, is not taken lightly.

But then, this isn't the first time that Michael Jansen has given an unchallenged platform for Halper to incite against Israel.

Jansen continues her story, interviewing PA foreign minister Nabil Shaath, who advocates for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel and describes the Palestinian campaign as an "anti-apartheid struggle." It's all too easy to throw unverified figures around such as Shaath's claim that Israel has taken over 92% of the West Bank's water.

In fact, as StandWithUs makes clear, Israel uses the same aquifers for its water today that it used before 1967, when its administration of the West Bank began. The water in the aquifiers naturally flows seawards, into Israel. Israeli settlements are connected to Israel's national water system and do not use the Palestinian Authority's water system. Palestinian fresh water consumption grew over 300 percent between 1967 and 2008.

Despite the scarcity of water, Israel agreed in the Oslo Accords to annually give 31 million cubic meters (mcm) of its own water to West Bank Palestinians to supplement their water resources. In fact, Israel has given progressively more each year. In 2008, Israel gave 40 percent more than agreed upon: 51.8 mcm.                                                                                        http://honestreporting.com/the-irish-times-multiple-lies-and-distortions-in-three-parts/

Iran Spends Billions to Prop Up Assad : By Eli Lake

Iran is spending billions of dollars a year to prop up the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, according to the U.N.'s envoy to Syria and other outside experts. These estimates are far higher than what the Barack Obama administration, busy negotiating a nuclear deal with the Tehran government, has implied Iran spends on its policy to destabilize the Middle East.

On Monday, a spokeswoman for the U.N. special envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, told me that the envoy estimates Iran spends $6 billion annually on Assad's government. Other experts I spoke to put the number even higher. Nadim Shehadi, the director of the Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies at Tufts University, said his research shows that Iran spent between $14 and $15 billion in military and economic aid to the Damascus regime in 2012 and 2013, even though Iran's banks and businesses were cut off from the international financial system.

Such figures undermine recent claims from Obama and his top officials suggesting that Iran spends a relative pittance to challenge U.S. interests and allies in the region. While the administration has never disclosed its own estimates on how much Iran spends to back Syria and other allies in the Middle East, Obama himself has played down the financial dimension of the regime's support.

"The great danger that the region has faced from Iran is not because they have so much money. Their budget -- their military budget is $15 billion compared to $150 billion for the Gulf States," he said in an interview last week with Israel's Channel 2.

But experts see it another way. The Christian Science Monitor last month reported that de Mistura told a think tank in Washington that Iran was spending three times its official military budget--$35 billion annually--to support Assad in Syria. When asked about that earlier event, Jessy Chahine, the spokeswoman for de Mistura, e-mailed me: "The Special Envoy has estimated Iran spends $6 billion annually on supporting the Assad regime in Syria. So it's $6 billion not $35 billion.                    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-09/iran-spends-billions-to-prop-up-assad

U.N. keeps Israel, Hamas off children's rights blacklist; raps Israel army UNITED NATIONS | BY MICHELLE NICHOLS AND LOUIS CHARBONNEAU

The United Nations on Monday left Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas off its blacklist of states and armed groups that violate children's rights during conflicts, but criticized Israel over its 2014 military operations.

U.N. special envoy for children and armed conflict, Leila Zerrougui, had included Israel's army - known as the IDF - and Hamas in a draft of the report she had sent to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Ban had final say on the blacklist, which was distributed to Security Council members on Monday.

U.N. sources have said Ban's decision to override Zerrougui's recommendation was unusual. They also said Israel lobbied Ban hard to stay off the list, though it denied pressuring him.

Still, his report strongly criticized Israel.

"The unprecedented and unacceptable scale of the impact on children in 2014 raises grave concerns about Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law ... (and) excessive use of force," he said.

Israel's U.N. Ambassador Ron Prosor said Israel should not be listed alongside groups like Islamic State, al Qaeda and the Taliban. Emmanuel Nahshon, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Israel took all possible steps to protect civilians.

"Israel acted to defend its residents from attacks by a murderous terrorist group, which has no qualms about placing Palestinian civilians, including children, in the line of fire," Nahshon said.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum criticized the United Nations for keeping Israel off the list and for equating his Islamist faction, which he said was defending the Palestinians against Israeli "state terror," with Israel.

The U.N. report criticized "Palestinian armed groups" for indiscriminate rocket fire that endangered children in Israel and Gaza.  http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/06/08/uk-israel-palestinians-children-un-idUKKBN0OO1VD20150608