Jackie comments on how loveless wives are just as much criminals, if not more, than prostitutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkusHBjGp7c
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Democrats: Soiled Diapers And A Spoiled Majority
Like a baby's dirty diaper, hypocrisy and duplicity soils the Democratic majority in Congress, and like the diaper, the closer you get to it, the worse it smells.
In the vote on the non-binding resolution to oppose President Bush's request for a troop surge in Iraq, the overwhelming majority of the Democrats — both in the House and the Senate — voted time after time to fund the war in Iraq. Imagine if you opened a restaurant and had the group of financial backers who enabled you to open the restaurant blame you for opening the business in the first place! Or imagine if someone bought the gas for your car and then they blamed you for trying to drive someplace in the car! The Democrats were Bush's partners in this war from the very beginning, and yet now blame him for the results of the war. Why doesn't Bush blame them for funding the war?
So now, they had their chance to put the final nail in the war’s coffin, and what did they do? They loaded the bill with pork and set an expiration date on the war. Knowing full well that the bill would be “Dead on Arrival” on the Presidents desk. The extra pork alone is proof positive, of their duplicitous nature. Secure their success in the next election, while pretending to be for the troops.
As for the Pull-out date, even they knew this would be outright treasonous, giving our enemies a strategic advantage of holding out until “such and such” date. Then, Harry Reed’s prophecy of us losing the war would be self fulfilled.
So after the House passed the last funding bill with no Pull-out date, why then did they draft the bill in the first place? Why do they howl all day about how we need to end the war, and bring our troops home?
The Democrats have no conscience or moral purpose whatsoever. They are worse than mere hypocrites. They are accessories to the murder of American troops. By not approving of a mission that they have funded all along, they are revealed for what they really are — a group of cowards whose actions are demoralizing the troops and encouraging our enemies to kill more American soldiers. The fact that they are harming our troops' morale by playing into the hands of the enemy means nothing to these Democrats. The Democrats simply don't have the guts to vote to cut off the funding for the war, so they came up with this absurd resolution simply to humiliate George Bush.
It is as if someone wants to kill himself and a fellow on the other side of town pays for the gun and the bullets — and they he says it's someone else's fault the guy committed suicide.
The Democrats are more concerned with their political futures than anything else. They are emboldening the enemy by saying this is a worthless war. In effect, their actions will only result in the loss of more of our troops.
Let's consider the Congressional hearings confirming General David Petraeus as the top American ground commander in Iraq, and Petraeus argued vehemently for the troop surge, and the Democrats all voted for him and wished him the best of luck and success in his mission. Two weeks later say the mission is a total failure and a mistake, with no planning or ultimate objectives. Imagine if you had a fighter and you know that Mike Tyson will knock him out in the first round, but you go out and hire the best trainer, and wish him "Best of Luck" and tell him where to send the body.
What success do they wish Petraeus? If they think the mission is stupid, why do they need a brilliant man? Why do they want to watch something flop successfully? Why do they need a great general at all — why do they need the best man, if he will serve no purpose? Why should a man get paid for nothing? If the Democrats approve sending him on a worthless mission, then they are complicit in planning the murder of innocent people. If they had the courage of their convictions, they would have cancelled the mission. Why approve Petraeus in the first place?
Well, I think we know why.
In the vote on the non-binding resolution to oppose President Bush's request for a troop surge in Iraq, the overwhelming majority of the Democrats — both in the House and the Senate — voted time after time to fund the war in Iraq. Imagine if you opened a restaurant and had the group of financial backers who enabled you to open the restaurant blame you for opening the business in the first place! Or imagine if someone bought the gas for your car and then they blamed you for trying to drive someplace in the car! The Democrats were Bush's partners in this war from the very beginning, and yet now blame him for the results of the war. Why doesn't Bush blame them for funding the war?
So now, they had their chance to put the final nail in the war’s coffin, and what did they do? They loaded the bill with pork and set an expiration date on the war. Knowing full well that the bill would be “Dead on Arrival” on the Presidents desk. The extra pork alone is proof positive, of their duplicitous nature. Secure their success in the next election, while pretending to be for the troops.
As for the Pull-out date, even they knew this would be outright treasonous, giving our enemies a strategic advantage of holding out until “such and such” date. Then, Harry Reed’s prophecy of us losing the war would be self fulfilled.
So after the House passed the last funding bill with no Pull-out date, why then did they draft the bill in the first place? Why do they howl all day about how we need to end the war, and bring our troops home?
The Democrats have no conscience or moral purpose whatsoever. They are worse than mere hypocrites. They are accessories to the murder of American troops. By not approving of a mission that they have funded all along, they are revealed for what they really are — a group of cowards whose actions are demoralizing the troops and encouraging our enemies to kill more American soldiers. The fact that they are harming our troops' morale by playing into the hands of the enemy means nothing to these Democrats. The Democrats simply don't have the guts to vote to cut off the funding for the war, so they came up with this absurd resolution simply to humiliate George Bush.
It is as if someone wants to kill himself and a fellow on the other side of town pays for the gun and the bullets — and they he says it's someone else's fault the guy committed suicide.
The Democrats are more concerned with their political futures than anything else. They are emboldening the enemy by saying this is a worthless war. In effect, their actions will only result in the loss of more of our troops.
Let's consider the Congressional hearings confirming General David Petraeus as the top American ground commander in Iraq, and Petraeus argued vehemently for the troop surge, and the Democrats all voted for him and wished him the best of luck and success in his mission. Two weeks later say the mission is a total failure and a mistake, with no planning or ultimate objectives. Imagine if you had a fighter and you know that Mike Tyson will knock him out in the first round, but you go out and hire the best trainer, and wish him "Best of Luck" and tell him where to send the body.
What success do they wish Petraeus? If they think the mission is stupid, why do they need a brilliant man? Why do they want to watch something flop successfully? Why do they need a great general at all — why do they need the best man, if he will serve no purpose? Why should a man get paid for nothing? If the Democrats approve sending him on a worthless mission, then they are complicit in planning the murder of innocent people. If they had the courage of their convictions, they would have cancelled the mission. Why approve Petraeus in the first place?
Well, I think we know why.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Beatification Befits Saint Hillary
By Jackie Mason
Now that there is a new Pope, bringing with him the possibilities of naming new saints, there appears to be a movement of biblical proportions afoot for the beatification of Hillary Clinton. Gone are the memories of disappearing files, ducking Grand Juries, and just being beyond the reach of prosecutors. "They couldn't lay a finger on her" — a phrase whose only province used to be in grade-B Warner Brothers gangster movies — became her motto when she occupied the Clinton White House. Gone and forgotten is probably the only real miracle she performed, which was changing $1,000 into $100,000 in ten months ($6,300 of which was earned overnight). Even the Mafia could not get a better return on its money. However, in what must be one of the most interesting miracles since the fishes and loaves, she has transmuted herself into a figure of faith, principle, and piety. Like Saul on the road to Tarsus, who had seen the light of his Lord, she has transformed herself. Anna Quindlen, writing in Newsweek magazine, where her full page column occupies the prime-space last page of the magazine, pontificates:
...we [Hillary and she] talked about faith, about how both of us believed our religion had led us toward a heightened interest in various social-reform issues.That's the real Hillary Rodham Clinton. A lifelong Methodist...
If that was the real Hillary Clinton, then she did a pretty good job of hiding it the last ten years. Also, many Methodists will be surprised to learn that the practice of their faith is not incompatible with anti-Semitism. Remember Dick Morris revealing that when he was close to the Clintons and there was a disagreement concerning money owed him, Hillary, in anger, addressing his demand for payment, referred to him as "You people." In the revealing shorthand of an angry person, she was not exposing her inner thoughts and prejudices about Swiss bankers. Also, who can forget the wet one she planted on Mrs. Arafat — who turned out to be so low that even the Palestinians wanted to get rid of her.
Ms. Quindlen goes on to write, "Her [Hillary's] concern that the culture is deadening our kids to sex..." Excuse us, but we thought that it was the Clintons who brought sex into our living rooms via television and made every kid who turned on the six o'clock news an expert in oral sex.Ms. Quindlen also quoted a speech by the real Hillary Clinton where she spoke of a spiritual vacuum in the country. If they gave out Nobel Prizes for creation of spiritual vacuums in countries, the Clintons would surely be contenders.Ms. Quindlen ends her article by noting and quoting Mrs. Clinton , "...she [Hillary Clinton] spoke of changing the national ethos to the golden rule, so Americans 'truly begin to...treat them [each other] as they wish to be seen.'" Actually the Golden Rule is to treat each other as you would want to be treated. Well, that the Clintons did in fact do — particularly Mr. Clinton, and particularly if the other person was female. With his phone sex, he was able to actually treat himself as he would have others treat him. Mrs. Clinton has made up with Newt Gingrich, her husband got himself a world trip with former President Bush on Air Force One, and she has now taken a pro-life position. But until she can do the water to wine trick, we will take a pass on seriously considering her and her baggage as Presidential material.
Now that there is a new Pope, bringing with him the possibilities of naming new saints, there appears to be a movement of biblical proportions afoot for the beatification of Hillary Clinton. Gone are the memories of disappearing files, ducking Grand Juries, and just being beyond the reach of prosecutors. "They couldn't lay a finger on her" — a phrase whose only province used to be in grade-B Warner Brothers gangster movies — became her motto when she occupied the Clinton White House. Gone and forgotten is probably the only real miracle she performed, which was changing $1,000 into $100,000 in ten months ($6,300 of which was earned overnight). Even the Mafia could not get a better return on its money. However, in what must be one of the most interesting miracles since the fishes and loaves, she has transmuted herself into a figure of faith, principle, and piety. Like Saul on the road to Tarsus, who had seen the light of his Lord, she has transformed herself. Anna Quindlen, writing in Newsweek magazine, where her full page column occupies the prime-space last page of the magazine, pontificates:
...we [Hillary and she] talked about faith, about how both of us believed our religion had led us toward a heightened interest in various social-reform issues.That's the real Hillary Rodham Clinton. A lifelong Methodist...
If that was the real Hillary Clinton, then she did a pretty good job of hiding it the last ten years. Also, many Methodists will be surprised to learn that the practice of their faith is not incompatible with anti-Semitism. Remember Dick Morris revealing that when he was close to the Clintons and there was a disagreement concerning money owed him, Hillary, in anger, addressing his demand for payment, referred to him as "You people." In the revealing shorthand of an angry person, she was not exposing her inner thoughts and prejudices about Swiss bankers. Also, who can forget the wet one she planted on Mrs. Arafat — who turned out to be so low that even the Palestinians wanted to get rid of her.
Ms. Quindlen goes on to write, "Her [Hillary's] concern that the culture is deadening our kids to sex..." Excuse us, but we thought that it was the Clintons who brought sex into our living rooms via television and made every kid who turned on the six o'clock news an expert in oral sex.Ms. Quindlen also quoted a speech by the real Hillary Clinton where she spoke of a spiritual vacuum in the country. If they gave out Nobel Prizes for creation of spiritual vacuums in countries, the Clintons would surely be contenders.Ms. Quindlen ends her article by noting and quoting Mrs. Clinton , "...she [Hillary Clinton] spoke of changing the national ethos to the golden rule, so Americans 'truly begin to...treat them [each other] as they wish to be seen.'" Actually the Golden Rule is to treat each other as you would want to be treated. Well, that the Clintons did in fact do — particularly Mr. Clinton, and particularly if the other person was female. With his phone sex, he was able to actually treat himself as he would have others treat him. Mrs. Clinton has made up with Newt Gingrich, her husband got himself a world trip with former President Bush on Air Force One, and she has now taken a pro-life position. But until she can do the water to wine trick, we will take a pass on seriously considering her and her baggage as Presidential material.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Jackie Mason "John Edwards:you phony low-life!
Happy Memorial Day John Edwards: you phony low-life! I blast John Edwards for encouraging people to protest the war on Memorial Day.
Take a look at my youtube vlog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl1qDKzwryQ
Take a look at my youtube vlog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl1qDKzwryQ
The art of effective communication by words is dying the death of a dog
By Jackie Mason & Raoul Felder
Because we both make a living by words we are very sensitive about them and more importantly, in our respective occupations, with better or worse results, we utilize them as a mechanism to communicate our thoughts. Sadly, from what we observe, the art of effective communication by words is dying the death of a dog.
People throw words around like indescribably: indescribably delicious, indescribably beautiful, etc. If something is indescribable, how does putting the word indescribable before the thing it is supposed to describe in fact describe or even help in describing that thing?
Before we receive e e-mails (excessive e-mails) we know that indescribably is an adverb. However, putting a respectable name on word that does not make sense, makes no sense, no more than putting on a Chanel dress on a streetwalker changes her profession.
Similarly, people also toss around the word fabulous. How was the girl? She was a fabulous girl. The chopped liver? It was fabulous. How can you use the same word to describe a girl and chopped liver — unless it's some of the girls we know?
Then we get words that really mean the exact opposite of what they say. When a girl says the boy she went out with is hot, she really means he is cool. When another girl is asked to describe the guy who just picked her up, the girl might say, "He is really Bad." Usually this is pronounced BAAAD, and of course she means he is real good.
How about, "The rain kept up for an hour"? If it kept up, it never would have come down. When somebody says "kept up," they mean down, unless, of course, they live in Australia, which is down from us, on the other side of the world, so when we are up, they are down. When it rains on them, in that case, we would be correct if we say the "the rain kept up," because their up is our down. However, if you stand on your head in New York, then in that situation up would then still be down. We trust that we clarified this matter.
The last place we expect to hear strings of words that are self-contradictory or that don't make sense is from the United States Supreme Court. But what did we just hear from it? It says it's legal to have the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse, but illegal to have them inside the courthouse. The unworthy thought occurs to us that to get inside the courthouse you have to walk there from outside, so the same person is walking from a legal environment into an illegal environment, and doing nothing more than putting one foot in front of the other. To make things more clear, the Court also said you have to consider each case on its own merits and its own facts, so theoretically, in certain cases, you could have the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse and it would be illegal, and yet inside the courthouse would be legal. Actually in terms of its own building where the Ten Commandments is inside the courthouse, the Supreme Court said that was legal. But if it were illegal outside, and legal inside the courthouse, people would have to walk on the outside where it is illegal to get to the inside where it is legal. And we didn't even discuss the cases where it is illegal both inside and outside, which seems to us to be a great way to get out of jury duty, or showing up to pay a traffic ticket.
In all this talk of language, we are not even mentioning expressions like "Keep your shirt on," when nobody in the house ever thought of taking it off. Or "Keep your eyes peeled," which we find too painful to contemplate.We like simple stuff — spit on the subway and you're fined $50.00. That we understand!
Because we both make a living by words we are very sensitive about them and more importantly, in our respective occupations, with better or worse results, we utilize them as a mechanism to communicate our thoughts. Sadly, from what we observe, the art of effective communication by words is dying the death of a dog.
People throw words around like indescribably: indescribably delicious, indescribably beautiful, etc. If something is indescribable, how does putting the word indescribable before the thing it is supposed to describe in fact describe or even help in describing that thing?
Before we receive e e-mails (excessive e-mails) we know that indescribably is an adverb. However, putting a respectable name on word that does not make sense, makes no sense, no more than putting on a Chanel dress on a streetwalker changes her profession.
Similarly, people also toss around the word fabulous. How was the girl? She was a fabulous girl. The chopped liver? It was fabulous. How can you use the same word to describe a girl and chopped liver — unless it's some of the girls we know?
Then we get words that really mean the exact opposite of what they say. When a girl says the boy she went out with is hot, she really means he is cool. When another girl is asked to describe the guy who just picked her up, the girl might say, "He is really Bad." Usually this is pronounced BAAAD, and of course she means he is real good.
How about, "The rain kept up for an hour"? If it kept up, it never would have come down. When somebody says "kept up," they mean down, unless, of course, they live in Australia, which is down from us, on the other side of the world, so when we are up, they are down. When it rains on them, in that case, we would be correct if we say the "the rain kept up," because their up is our down. However, if you stand on your head in New York, then in that situation up would then still be down. We trust that we clarified this matter.
The last place we expect to hear strings of words that are self-contradictory or that don't make sense is from the United States Supreme Court. But what did we just hear from it? It says it's legal to have the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse, but illegal to have them inside the courthouse. The unworthy thought occurs to us that to get inside the courthouse you have to walk there from outside, so the same person is walking from a legal environment into an illegal environment, and doing nothing more than putting one foot in front of the other. To make things more clear, the Court also said you have to consider each case on its own merits and its own facts, so theoretically, in certain cases, you could have the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse and it would be illegal, and yet inside the courthouse would be legal. Actually in terms of its own building where the Ten Commandments is inside the courthouse, the Supreme Court said that was legal. But if it were illegal outside, and legal inside the courthouse, people would have to walk on the outside where it is illegal to get to the inside where it is legal. And we didn't even discuss the cases where it is illegal both inside and outside, which seems to us to be a great way to get out of jury duty, or showing up to pay a traffic ticket.
In all this talk of language, we are not even mentioning expressions like "Keep your shirt on," when nobody in the house ever thought of taking it off. Or "Keep your eyes peeled," which we find too painful to contemplate.We like simple stuff — spit on the subway and you're fined $50.00. That we understand!
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Jackie Mason Radio Show: Sunday, May 27th 2007
This Sunday's Guest Line-Up
7:15pm EST Joe Kovacs
News Editor from World Net Daily
Rush Limbaugh has the power to annoint GOP candidate
7:30pm EST Dr. Gary Tobin
President of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research
Hostility towards Evangelicals and Mormons
8:05pm EST Rep. John LeBoutillier (R) NY
Former US congressman
Current Politics
8:30pm EST Steve Emerson
Terrorism Expert
Author of Jihad Incorporated
For more info on The Jackie Mason Radio Show, or the Talk Radio Network, click here
http://www.talkradionetwork.com/
You can listen online to the Jackie Mason radio show by clicking here.
Talk to Jackie live, on-air between 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm EST at
1 (800) 449-8255
7:15pm EST Joe Kovacs
News Editor from World Net Daily
Rush Limbaugh has the power to annoint GOP candidate
7:30pm EST Dr. Gary Tobin
President of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research
Hostility towards Evangelicals and Mormons
8:05pm EST Rep. John LeBoutillier (R) NY
Former US congressman
Current Politics
8:30pm EST Steve Emerson
Terrorism Expert
Author of Jihad Incorporated
For more info on The Jackie Mason Radio Show, or the Talk Radio Network, click here
http://www.talkradionetwork.com/
You can listen online to the Jackie Mason radio show by clicking here.
Talk to Jackie live, on-air between 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm EST at
1 (800) 449-8255
Jackie Mason On Troop Talk Radio
Sunday Morning I will have the honor of talking to Captain Trip Bellard on his Radio Show Troop Talk: Voice of the Troops at 10:30am EST Sunday, May 27th. This is the only show that tells what is happening with the war from the troops perspective. For more info on Troop Talk click here
http://www.trooptalkradio.com/
http://www.trooptalkradio.com/
Al Gore: The gift that keeps giving
When we (Raoul Felder and myself) wrote about Al Gore and in our first book, we intended to leave him behind like a chewed-over pastrami sandwich left on a delicatessen table and move on to other Schmucks in our on-going tour of Schmuckville. But he does not permit us to do so.
We believed Al Gore would be happily retired, adrift in his delusions of inventing the Internet and discovering the Love Canal. We thought, like a punch drunk fighter, he would spent the rest of his days boring people, explaining he wuz robbed by the referee and could've been a champion.
However, leaving his chads behind – and from the look of Gore today, we have an idea of where he stuffed them – he now became the Guru of Global Warming.
Global warming is a highly politicized subject, so inculcated into our collective psyches by the liberal media as a reality that, notwithstanding the fact hundreds of scientists believe it is a merely a cyclical phenomenon that has existed for thousands of years, to even question its existence relegates you to the insanity of a Holocaust denier.
Gore, with no scientific training, assumed the role of the validator and spokesperson for global warming. He even made a movie about it, and in fact won an Academy Award for it.
Suddenly, all of this somehow propelled him into being a potential candidate for president. To prove how serious he was, he started losing weight. We have heard of women who lose weight to get into last summer's bikini, and of old men who also lose weight to stuff themselves into ancient tuxedos, but this is an historic first: joining Weight Watchers to become president.
Now, we are not scientists, but, to us, the winters seem colder not hotter. The carbon dioxide that is supposed to be the villain is actually good, not bad, for trees, which everybody says are good for the planet. In fact, governments all over the world are expending effort and money to preserve the forests and plant new trees. The statistics show that using alternate fuels for automobiles actually costs more (considering government subsidies) and in the long run requires greater overall energy consumption than does gasoline.
Apparently, a great deal of the ozone problem is caused by methane gas, a principal source being the flatulence of cows. It may be more efficient and less costly to buy some Gas-X for the cows than the more sophisticated and costly alternative means suggested.
All of Gore's sputterings might be the proper subject of honest debate, except for one thing. Gore, as we have all now learned, is patently a hypocrite. He lives in a house that in one week, consumes 20 times the yearly energy use of an average home, and he flies around in private planes consuming vast amounts of fossil fuel and spewing enormous quantities of hurtful gasses into the atmosphere. His justification: He purchases carbon credits.
While few in the world can understand exactly what they are, in principle the credits are traded, for a fee, by middlemen, with the extreme offenders of pollution being made to pay money that, in effect, becomes the "credits." These are now placed into an exchange and then sold to other violators – like Gore. All of this does not change the amount of carbon produced one bit, but does produce a profit for the exchange company. Oh yes, did we forget to mention – you guessed it – Gore owns a carbon exchange company.
The proponents of global warming say that in a hundred years, the ocean temperature will rise five degrees and, because of melting icebergs, the Atlantic Ocean will extend into the land an additional nine inches. Just in case, we will definitely sell our Miami Beach condominiums in 90 years. Of course, if Gore will just shut up, the hot air lost may be just enough to save the icebergs.
We believed Al Gore would be happily retired, adrift in his delusions of inventing the Internet and discovering the Love Canal. We thought, like a punch drunk fighter, he would spent the rest of his days boring people, explaining he wuz robbed by the referee and could've been a champion.
However, leaving his chads behind – and from the look of Gore today, we have an idea of where he stuffed them – he now became the Guru of Global Warming.
Global warming is a highly politicized subject, so inculcated into our collective psyches by the liberal media as a reality that, notwithstanding the fact hundreds of scientists believe it is a merely a cyclical phenomenon that has existed for thousands of years, to even question its existence relegates you to the insanity of a Holocaust denier.
Gore, with no scientific training, assumed the role of the validator and spokesperson for global warming. He even made a movie about it, and in fact won an Academy Award for it.
Suddenly, all of this somehow propelled him into being a potential candidate for president. To prove how serious he was, he started losing weight. We have heard of women who lose weight to get into last summer's bikini, and of old men who also lose weight to stuff themselves into ancient tuxedos, but this is an historic first: joining Weight Watchers to become president.
Now, we are not scientists, but, to us, the winters seem colder not hotter. The carbon dioxide that is supposed to be the villain is actually good, not bad, for trees, which everybody says are good for the planet. In fact, governments all over the world are expending effort and money to preserve the forests and plant new trees. The statistics show that using alternate fuels for automobiles actually costs more (considering government subsidies) and in the long run requires greater overall energy consumption than does gasoline.
Apparently, a great deal of the ozone problem is caused by methane gas, a principal source being the flatulence of cows. It may be more efficient and less costly to buy some Gas-X for the cows than the more sophisticated and costly alternative means suggested.
All of Gore's sputterings might be the proper subject of honest debate, except for one thing. Gore, as we have all now learned, is patently a hypocrite. He lives in a house that in one week, consumes 20 times the yearly energy use of an average home, and he flies around in private planes consuming vast amounts of fossil fuel and spewing enormous quantities of hurtful gasses into the atmosphere. His justification: He purchases carbon credits.
While few in the world can understand exactly what they are, in principle the credits are traded, for a fee, by middlemen, with the extreme offenders of pollution being made to pay money that, in effect, becomes the "credits." These are now placed into an exchange and then sold to other violators – like Gore. All of this does not change the amount of carbon produced one bit, but does produce a profit for the exchange company. Oh yes, did we forget to mention – you guessed it – Gore owns a carbon exchange company.
The proponents of global warming say that in a hundred years, the ocean temperature will rise five degrees and, because of melting icebergs, the Atlantic Ocean will extend into the land an additional nine inches. Just in case, we will definitely sell our Miami Beach condominiums in 90 years. Of course, if Gore will just shut up, the hot air lost may be just enough to save the icebergs.
Can Rush Limbaugh really anoint GOP nominee?
Jackie Mason interviews exec news editor Joe Kovacs on radio giant's power.
WND executive news editor Joe Kovacs joins comedian Jackie Mason Sunday night on "The World According to Me: Jackie Mason Radio Show at 7:15 p.m. Eastern to discuss his recent story regarding Rush Limbaugh's influence in the presidential race.
See The World Net Daily Article
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55848
WND executive news editor Joe Kovacs joins comedian Jackie Mason Sunday night on "The World According to Me: Jackie Mason Radio Show at 7:15 p.m. Eastern to discuss his recent story regarding Rush Limbaugh's influence in the presidential race.
See The World Net Daily Article
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55848
Friday, May 25, 2007
Islam is a religion of WHAT?
Standing on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, on the afternoon of September 11, 2001, looking west to Manhattan, the fires had turned the horizon a bright orange that rose to great heights painted against a perfect pitiless blue sky.
Observing this terrible beauty, the residents of the neighborhood danced in the streets, laughing, shouting to each other, shaking hands. These people were not what one would suppose to be fanatical or militant Muslims. They were people who had come to these shores from the Middle East, mostly shop keepers, bakers, purveyors of eastern spices, tradesmen, cab drivers and the usual diversity of people found in a New York ethnic neighborhood on a warm fall weekday. They were American citizens however, who were expressing their judgment — joy at the events of that horrible day that forever changed our world and America's place in that world. They were also the followers of Islam: religion of oppression, discrimination, violence, terror, war, superstition, intolerance and prejudice. They were the followers of a religion of hate who, at the very least, if not active participants in the events of that world-changing day, took unashamed pleasure in the violence visited upon those — including their fellow citizens and neighbors — who did not share their beliefs.
The President has said about Islam: ...Islam inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity and morality (12/5/02). A...It's [Islam] a faith based on love, not hate. (9/10/02) "The Islam that we know...teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy and peace. (11/15/01).
Well, he is the President, and like Tony Blair, probably has to say these sorts of politically-correct things in the belief that they are necessary to be said, because to declare the truth would create a threat to the maintenance of order or, it might provoke an outraged citizenry to retaliate in a vengeful and illegal way, jeopardizing domestic tranquility. We have no such impediment and trust that the truth can only serve to enlighten and not to incite.
Islam exists as it is taught in the Koran and lived by Muhammad. Muhammad, by the way, was hardly an example that one would wish to emulate. He had affairs with maids and slave girls and was also a pedophile (and before we get outraged e-mails on the latter point, here is chapter and verse: the girl's name was Aisha, she was 9 he was 53. He was also involved in the slave trade, assassinations and genocide. But, what the heck, nobody is perfect.)
Let's, as the sportscasters say, go to the record, which, in this case is the Koran.
Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them. (2:191)
Fight and slay the pagans (translation: that's us) seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem. (9:5)
Slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers...(5:34)
...strike off the heads of the disbelievers...[make a] wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives [for ransom] (947:4)
[treatment of disbelievers]...garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods (22:19).
The Koran also instructs Muslims to slay or crucify or cut the hands and the feet of the unbelievers (5:34), fight unbelievers until no other religion except Islam remains. (3:85)
Given these basic teachings of Islam there is little reason to be surprised at the beheading of Americans Nick Berg and Paul Johnson.
Of course, not all Muslims participate in violence or even express joy at the perpetration of violence against the West in general, or Americans in particular, just as all Germans in the forties did not believe when they heard their anthem, Deutschland uber alles, that it meant literally that Germany must conquer all other nations. Some Germans embraced a passive longing for Germany to be victorious; some few actually despised fascism, and some, an almost non-existent few acted against it. So it is with Islam and the Muslims. About the best the civilized world can expect is a joyous but passive reaction to the mindless violence.
Empires have come and gone. Rome, Portugal, France, Holland, Germany and even in our time, Great Britain, have seen their moment of world dominance - have seen it flicker, and then, extinguish. And yet, they accepted it as part of the panorama of history, and have moved on. Not so with Islam.
It is not by accident that our enemies call the coalition forces in Iraq the Crusaders. To Islam the war, which they lost centuries ago, continues.
[It is of interest to note that the United States went to war with Muslim powers in 1801. Barbary pirates kidnapped and made slaves of our citizens, demanding tribute for their release. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson asked of the envoy of Tripoli by what right did he make his claim for payment. As reported to Congress by Jefferson, "The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners." ]
The enemy is not really the United States, nor even Israel. The enemy is modernity itself and the forces of change that have made them irrelevant. The West has persevered and they have lost. They are the have-nots, and to the degree that they have the economic power of oil, even this has been denied to them as a society by the corruption of their own despotic rulers. They are the past in a present and future that belongs to the West. There is a chord that joins them with other losers like Lee Harvey Oswald and Lee Boyd Malvo, devoid of any distinction or ability to even control their own lives, who strike out in spasms of hate-filled rage.
Muslims, married to a failed past, offer little hope for integration into modern society. Israel giving them land to which they are not entitled, or the United States not punishing them for criminal acts will not assuage their rage. America must learn it cannot negotiate or reason with people who consider us infidels. It must recognize that the enemy is often among us and all the exposure available to them in Western civilization with its tolerances and respect for individual rights will not affect their seething anger at imagined wrongs, injustices, and illogical sense of entitlement.
Historically, use of strength, swift and certain punishment, and resolve of purpose are all that is left us to effectively deal with their primitive madness. And until we recognize this, there will be many more beheadings and September elevenths.
Observing this terrible beauty, the residents of the neighborhood danced in the streets, laughing, shouting to each other, shaking hands. These people were not what one would suppose to be fanatical or militant Muslims. They were people who had come to these shores from the Middle East, mostly shop keepers, bakers, purveyors of eastern spices, tradesmen, cab drivers and the usual diversity of people found in a New York ethnic neighborhood on a warm fall weekday. They were American citizens however, who were expressing their judgment — joy at the events of that horrible day that forever changed our world and America's place in that world. They were also the followers of Islam: religion of oppression, discrimination, violence, terror, war, superstition, intolerance and prejudice. They were the followers of a religion of hate who, at the very least, if not active participants in the events of that world-changing day, took unashamed pleasure in the violence visited upon those — including their fellow citizens and neighbors — who did not share their beliefs.
The President has said about Islam: ...Islam inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity and morality (12/5/02). A...It's [Islam] a faith based on love, not hate. (9/10/02) "The Islam that we know...teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy and peace. (11/15/01).
Well, he is the President, and like Tony Blair, probably has to say these sorts of politically-correct things in the belief that they are necessary to be said, because to declare the truth would create a threat to the maintenance of order or, it might provoke an outraged citizenry to retaliate in a vengeful and illegal way, jeopardizing domestic tranquility. We have no such impediment and trust that the truth can only serve to enlighten and not to incite.
Islam exists as it is taught in the Koran and lived by Muhammad. Muhammad, by the way, was hardly an example that one would wish to emulate. He had affairs with maids and slave girls and was also a pedophile (and before we get outraged e-mails on the latter point, here is chapter and verse: the girl's name was Aisha, she was 9 he was 53. He was also involved in the slave trade, assassinations and genocide. But, what the heck, nobody is perfect.)
Let's, as the sportscasters say, go to the record, which, in this case is the Koran.
Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them. (2:191)
Fight and slay the pagans (translation: that's us) seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem. (9:5)
Slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers...(5:34)
...strike off the heads of the disbelievers...[make a] wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives [for ransom] (947:4)
[treatment of disbelievers]...garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods (22:19).
The Koran also instructs Muslims to slay or crucify or cut the hands and the feet of the unbelievers (5:34), fight unbelievers until no other religion except Islam remains. (3:85)
Given these basic teachings of Islam there is little reason to be surprised at the beheading of Americans Nick Berg and Paul Johnson.
Of course, not all Muslims participate in violence or even express joy at the perpetration of violence against the West in general, or Americans in particular, just as all Germans in the forties did not believe when they heard their anthem, Deutschland uber alles, that it meant literally that Germany must conquer all other nations. Some Germans embraced a passive longing for Germany to be victorious; some few actually despised fascism, and some, an almost non-existent few acted against it. So it is with Islam and the Muslims. About the best the civilized world can expect is a joyous but passive reaction to the mindless violence.
Empires have come and gone. Rome, Portugal, France, Holland, Germany and even in our time, Great Britain, have seen their moment of world dominance - have seen it flicker, and then, extinguish. And yet, they accepted it as part of the panorama of history, and have moved on. Not so with Islam.
It is not by accident that our enemies call the coalition forces in Iraq the Crusaders. To Islam the war, which they lost centuries ago, continues.
[It is of interest to note that the United States went to war with Muslim powers in 1801. Barbary pirates kidnapped and made slaves of our citizens, demanding tribute for their release. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson asked of the envoy of Tripoli by what right did he make his claim for payment. As reported to Congress by Jefferson, "The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners." ]
The enemy is not really the United States, nor even Israel. The enemy is modernity itself and the forces of change that have made them irrelevant. The West has persevered and they have lost. They are the have-nots, and to the degree that they have the economic power of oil, even this has been denied to them as a society by the corruption of their own despotic rulers. They are the past in a present and future that belongs to the West. There is a chord that joins them with other losers like Lee Harvey Oswald and Lee Boyd Malvo, devoid of any distinction or ability to even control their own lives, who strike out in spasms of hate-filled rage.
Muslims, married to a failed past, offer little hope for integration into modern society. Israel giving them land to which they are not entitled, or the United States not punishing them for criminal acts will not assuage their rage. America must learn it cannot negotiate or reason with people who consider us infidels. It must recognize that the enemy is often among us and all the exposure available to them in Western civilization with its tolerances and respect for individual rights will not affect their seething anger at imagined wrongs, injustices, and illogical sense of entitlement.
Historically, use of strength, swift and certain punishment, and resolve of purpose are all that is left us to effectively deal with their primitive madness. And until we recognize this, there will be many more beheadings and September elevenths.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Jackie Mason "The Most Shameful Chapter..."
...In the history of America. The hypocrisy of the Democrats knows no bounds. As they continue to fund a war they are against. They proved once and for all, they could care less about our troops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STSskq0QDbY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STSskq0QDbY
Jackie Mason "Michael Moore Is The Sicko"
Jackie thought Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" was about Moore himself. Jackie calls Moore out for being a treasonous pig.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twFK0a2EbdY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twFK0a2EbdY
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Jackie Mason "Democrats Are Full Of It"
Democrats are more interested in winning an election, than winning the war. More interested in supporting the rights of terrorists, than supporting our troops.
click on link below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NkMlm3L5Ko
click on link below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NkMlm3L5Ko
Monday, May 14, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
