That is your perspective only and, of course, you are welcome to it. But the fact remains that the document is a forgery.
Personally, like most Americans I have lived my entire life in a melting pot of various religions and have logged in many hours in various churches of different faiths. I'm not particularly religious myself, but my life experience has always shown that people are people...There are some bad apples but at least here in America they are human beings first, religious second. Jews are no exception. They have a lovely religion from what I can tell...strong family values and caring community participants. Until I see otherwise that's how they will be viewed.
The Franklin "Prophecy" Modern Anti-Semitic Myth Making
This article, which thoroughly documents the history of the transparent fraud known as the Franklin "Prophecy", appeared almost forty-five years ago in the April-May 1954 issue of Facts, a publication of the Anti-Defamation League. At the time, the authors wrote "This 20-year-old anti-Semitic hoax is circulating again." Today, more than sixty-five years after it was manufactured, the "Prophecy" it is still circulating, a staple of anti-Semitic propaganda. It can be found on a number of web sites maintained by haters and hate-groups. The article is, therefore, still timely and instructive
Another anti-Semitic hoax on history, of a piece with that incredible forgery, The Protocols of The Learned Elders of Zion, but not as widely distributed nor as successful in creating the pogrom atmospheres that were the achievements of the Protocols, is a speech attributed to Benjamin Franklin during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The anti-Semitic movement, which founded the hoax, calls it the Franklin Prophecy — ascribing to Franklin a dire warning that unless Jews were expelled from the new nation by Constitutional decree they would ultimately immigrate in great numbers to the detriment of the Christian population.
Of course, no such speech was ever made. But the hoaxers sought to impart an aura of historical credibility to the fake by claiming that the speech is quoted in a "private diary" of Charles Pinckney, Revolutionary leader who was delegate from South Carolina to the Constitutional Convention. They also maintain that the diary is now in the possession of the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, a bald lie which Henry Butler Allen, director of the Institute, has often refuted. Allen says that "historians and librarians have not been able to find [the diary] or any record of it having existed."
A copy of the forgery was anonymously circulated through the mails this month [May 1954] on stationery captioned WAR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF. The envelope bore a May 3 postmark from Atlanta, Ga. This is the latest in a series of recent incidents that suggest another revival of the Prophecy. A copy was picked up earlier this year at a Tampa, Fla., bus stop, and there have been recent distributions of it in Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Alabama.
Growing up, my dad always used to tell me, "If you don't know where you're going, all roads will take you there."
I THINK (just a guess), that women say that generally to mean they want a guy who knows where he wants to go in life, or that he at least has some clear goals and ambitions. Otherwise, you're bound to end up partnering with a guy who spends more time following different pipe dreams and never getting anywhere.
Looks like Old Harry Reid is losing control over Las Vegas....
Brutal: Las Vegas Review-Journal slams Obama over ‘Benghazi blunder’
In an editorial today, Nevada’s largest daily newspaper officially endorsed Mitt Romney for president, but it wasn’t the endorsement that left the lasting impression.
The Review-Journal blasted Obama over his economic ineptitude and absolutely excoriated him and his administration over their handling of the attacks in Benghazi that left four Americans dead. Not only has the president failed to demonstrate any leadership, but, according to the editorial, he is unworthy of being our commander in chief.
The Obama administration sat by doing nothing for seven hours that night, ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, less than two hours away. It has spent the past seven weeks stretching the story out, engaging in misdirection and deception involving supposed indigenous outrage over an obscure anti-Muslim video, confident that with the aid of a docile press corps this infamous climax to four years of misguided foreign policy can be swept under the rug, at least until after Tuesday’s election.
The Review-Journal also slammed the lapdog media for trying to ensure that the truth stay buried:
When Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney promptly criticized the security failures in Benghazi, the White House and its lapdog media jumped all over him for another “gaffe,” for speaking out too promptly and too strongly. Prompt and strong action from the White House on Sept. 11 might have saved American lives, as well as America’s reputation as a nation not to be messed with. Weakness and dithering and flying to Las Vegas the next day for celebrity fund-raising parties are somehow better?
…
These behaviors go far beyond “spin.” They amount to a pack of lies. To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation’s economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie “Dr. Strangelove,” would be disastrous.
A major newspaper pushing the truth about Benghazi? Conservatives couldn’t quite believe their eyes, but they were thrilled that an Old Media outlet finally had the guts to speak truth to power:
That's just totally untrue. Bush could and would have plenty to say from a position of first-hand knowledge about the mis-behavior of Barack Obama. Take the Libya cover-up, for example. Bush could, if he wanted to, frankly inform the American people of how and why the Libya massacre was totally unnecessary and unwarranted because of mechanisims in place to prevent such atrocities.
But he does not.
He could talk about the fact that 90 percent of his stimulus money has been repaid while only 10% of Obama's is repaid. He could talk about the Solyndra loan and why his administration declined the loan because it was foolhardy. He could talk about Fast and Furious, and why they threw out a similar program.
There is MUCH he could talk about...but he's "larger" than that.
1. Democrat got America in the Vietnam War A. Democrat President John Kennedy sent money and advisors to South Vietnam B. Democrat president Lyndon Johnson sent American troops into Vietnam C. 2 Million people died in the vietnam war 4. 58,000 Americans died in vietnam, and another 350,000 were injured
2. Democrats got America involved in the Korean war A. It was Democrat president Harry Truman that sent Americans to fight in the Korean war B. 33,000 Americans were killed in that war
3. Democrats dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan A. It was Democrat president Harry Truman that dropped the atomic bomb on innocent women and children in Japan, killing over 200,000 innocent civilians.
4. Democrats got America involved in World War 1 A. It was Democrat president Woodrow Wilson that got America invloved in World War 1. B. 37 million people died in that war C. 117,000 Americans were killed in that war
5. Democrats got America involved in World War 2 A. It was Democrat president Franklin Roosevelt that got America involved in World War 2 B. 70 million people died in that war C. 406,000 Americans died in that war.
6. Democrats started the Bay of Pigs. A. It was Democrat president John F Kennedy that started the Bay of Pigs, which was a war against Cuba.
"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff February 17, 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) Addressing the US Senate October 10, 2002
"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Speech at Federal Plaza, Chicago, Illinois October 2, 2002
Let's talk about those offshore accounts for a minute...
there are plenty of other elected officials — Democrats — who merit the same scrutiny as anyone else with money in the Caymans. When discussing Romney, Harry Reid claims “exotic tax-avoidance schemes available only to the preposterously wealthy.”
Yet many of the “preposterously wealthy” are democrats - most notably the high and mighty senators Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), and John Kerry (D., Mass.).
OpenSecrets.org lists Feinstein as the seventh-wealthiest senator, with a net worth between $44 million and $94 million, according to her latest disclosure forms. Her most recent reports say she has SEVERAL accounts of unspecified amounts “held independently by the spouse or independent child” in Coral Growth Investments, Ltd., in St. Peter Port, Guernsey. Guernsey, a tax haven, is a small island in the English Channel that early this year drew the ire of a British Labour-party leader for helping wealthy Brits dodge taxes.
The California senator also has between $500,000 and $1 million in a fund called Cevian Capital II L.L.C. in Jersey, another of the Channel Islands. According to her latest forms, that holding generated between $15,000 and $50,000 in capital gains, interest, and dividends. Feinstein has another $1,000 to $15,000 in Mauritius, an island nation in the Indian Ocean off Madagascar that is an up-and-coming tax haven.
Like Feinstein, Richard Blumenthal is on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Also like Feinstein, he has funds sheltered from taxes — $15,000 to $50,000 in a hedge fund in the Cayman Islands, to be exact. That might not sound like a huge number, but his most recent disclosure forms say he made $50,000 to $100,000 from the fund in capital gains, dividends, and interest.
Lautenberg appears to be in the same boat. The New Jerseyan is the fifth-wealthiest senator, with a net worth that, in 2006, was six times the Senate’s average. His most recent forms show that his wife’s family has between $500,000 and $1 million in Port Louis, Mauritius. The money is in a real-estate private-equity fund that does its actual investing in India, and the earnings it generates are subject to taxes, as one of his representatives told National Review Online.
“The Senator’s wife’s family trust invested in a real estate fund that is fully transparent with a website and a reputable board of directors, and income on the investment is taxable,” said the senator’s communications director, Caley Gray. Which makes them just like Mitt Romney’s offshore investments.
All Americans, including Romney and Lautenberg, pay applicable taxes on investments they report to the IRS, but often they deliberately set up these investments in places like Mauritius because these countries’ laws can help reduce their tax burdens.
Then there’s John Kerry, the richest person in the Senate. He is considered wealthy because of the fortune of his wife, ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz Kerry, whose wealth came largely from her previous husband, Henry John Heinz III. The senator’s 2010 disclosure forms (the latest available online) show that she had at least $2 million in a fund in Guernsey at filing time. Kerry’s communications director said that according to his 2011 returns, which aren’t online yet, the fund is no longer one of her assets.
Perhaps while Reid is lambasting Romney for his offshore accounts, he could find a moment to politely ask these colleagues to release their returns on the same grounds. And who knows? Maybe Reid’s anonymous source has some insight into the taxpaying status of Senate Democrats, too.
— Betsy Woodruff is a William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Institute.
"GWB has been avowedly apolitical in his personal appearances since leaving office. I think he's happy that way and I think the Republican Party is happy that way.
Clinton, on the other hand, has campaigned for President Obama in Florida, Ohio, Minnesota, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin and again in Ohio. By most measures, the former president has become Obama's most popular and most effective surrogate. He's going to be out there using all the power of his former position to sway voters who are tired of Obama but still like him - and it may well be earning favors for Hilary in 2016.
GWB has very deliberately stayed out of the limelight and out of this election by choice. Why should this event be any different? The fact that it's in the Caymens is just nonsense. Not one voter in a million should care."
We haven’t seen much of former President George W. Bush since he left office in 2008. And in a rare public appearance Tuesday morning, he gave us a little insight as to why.
“I have decided to stay out of the limelight,” Bush said at a conference hosted by the George W. Bush Institute. “I have had plenty of the limelight. I don’t think it is good, frankly, for our country to undermine our president and I don’t intend to do so but I do intend to remain involved in areas that I am interested in.”
Looking ahead to the future, Bush says he wants to engage in public policy in a positive way through his institute.
GWB COULD have had a field day with Barack Obama and the events that have transpired over the past four years...but he took the high road, which he has often done.
I don't think anyone can say the same of the current administration.
WhatUwish4 Forum Posts (7,986)
RE: The hottest man alive
Absolutely! Give me that "sadder but wiser" look any day.