There was considerable collusion between the Israeli government and the Jews in the Pentagon, White House, National Security Council and State Department in the wake of 9/11. Under President George W. Bush, Israeli Embassy staff uniquely had free access to the Pentagon office of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, not being required to sign in or submit any security measures. It was a powerful indication of the special status that Israel enjoyed with top Jews in the Bush Administration. It should also be recalled that Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans was the source of the false WMD information used by the Administration to justify invading Iraq, while that information was also funneled directly to Vice President Dick Cheney without any submission to possibly critical analysts by his chief of Staff “Scooter” Libby. Wolfowitz, Feith and Libby were of course Jewish as were many on their staffs and Feith’s relationship with Israel was so close that he actually partnered in a law firm that had a branch in Jerusalem. Feith also served on the board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which is dedicated to nurturing the relationship between the US and Israel. Currently, the top three State Department officials (Tony Blinken, Wendy Sherman and Victoria Nuland) are all Zionist Jews. The head of the Department of Homeland Security, which is hot on the trail of domestic “terrorist” dissidents, is also Jewish as is the Attorney General and the president’s chief of staff. They and their boss Joe Biden do not seem concerned that their client Ukraine is no democracy. The nation’s current government came into power after the 2014 coup engineered by President Barack Obama’s State Department at an estimated cost of $5 billion. The regime change carried out under Barack Obama was driven by State Department Russophobe Victoria Nuland with a little help from international globalist George Soros. It removed the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych who was, unfortunately for him, a friend of Russia. Ukraine is reputedly both the poorest and most corrupt country in Europe, witness the Hunter Biden saga. The current President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish and claims to have holocaust victims in his family tree, is a former comedian who won election in 2019. He replaced another Jewish president Petro Poroshenko, after being heavily funded and promoted by yet another fellow Jew and Ukraine’s richest oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who is also an Israeli citizen and now lives in Israel. It all sounds like deja vu all over again, particularly as many of the perpetrators are still around, like Nuland, priming the pump to go to war yet again for no reason. And they are joined by journalists like Bret Stephens at the New York Times, Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper at CNN, and also Max Boot at the Washington Post, all of whom are Jewish and can be counted on to write regular pieces both damning and demonizing Russia and its head of state Vladimir Putin,
Yeah, those gosh darned Jews!
First they made Hitler kill most of them and now they made Putin invade and try to kill the rest. What the heck is wrong with those people? Why do they always force people to attack and kill them?!?
Ukrainians are mostly Orthodox Christians just like most Russians are, Jews have nothing to do with this conflict.
Bucks County D.A. Matt Weintraub blasted Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. and Democratic Senate candidate John Fetterman as "unprofessional" in an interview with Fox News Digital.
First they made Hitler kill most of them and now they made Putin invade and try to kill the rest. What the heck is wrong with those people? Why do they always force people to attack and kill them?!?
Ukrainians are mostly Orthodox Christians just like most Russians are, Jews have nothing to do with this conflict.
Nothing to do with the fighting and dying.
Everything to do with the actions taken by the US govt to cause the war.
Records obtained by the Free Beacon reveal Raphael Warnock's church, which pays him a $7,417 monthly housing allowance, secretly owns a low-income apartment building that tried to evict residents during the pandemic. One for just $28.55 in late rent.
ATLANTA, Ga.—"Unemployment benefits have expired, rent is due today, and many Georgia families are at risk of eviction in the middle of a pandemic," Sen. Raphael Warnock (D., Ga.) wrote in a tweet in August 2020, charging tha...
Records obtained by the Free Beacon reveal Raphael Warnock's church, which pays him a $7,417 monthly housing allowance, secretly owns a low-income apartment building that tried to evict residents during the pandemic. One for just $28.55 in late rent.
Not only did his own church evict poor people during the pandemic and this heartless POS did nothing to help them, he also abused his ex-wife and was a deadbeat dad. Evil Warlock indeed.
Raphael Warnock ran over his wife with his car, refused to pay child support, and neglected the terms of his divorce—all while refusing to take any responsibility whatsoever.
Like Warnock's Ex-Wife Said: Great Actor, Terrible Person.
Not only did his own church evict poor people during the pandemic and this heartless POS did nothing to help them, he also abused his ex-wife and was a deadbeat dad. Evil Warlock indeed.
Do you think it's a coincidence that the broken home rate exploded after single motherhood began being rewarded in the 1960s?
Any "solution" that makes a problem worse is not a solution.
Doing literally nothing would be better than what we're currently doing.
Are you sure? Are you sure a bunch of people, including children, wouldn’t just starve to death? Don’t tell me you think charity would cover it
Use some common sense...
When adding a child increases the income of a person do you think that person is less or more likely to have more kids?
If throwing dad out of the house increases the income of a person do you think that person is less or more likely to have more kids?
Starvation wasn't a problem prior to the 1960s and it certainly wouldn't be if we stopped subsidizing irresponsibility.
It is Democrat 101 to create a problem on purpose so kind hearted people will say it would be cruel to stop spending money on the problem they created on purpose...
Are you sure? Are you sure a bunch of people, including children, wouldn’t just starve to death? Don’t tell me you think charity would cover it
Use some common sense...
When adding a child increases the income of a person do you think that person is less or more likely to have more kids?
If throwing dad out of the house increases the income of a person do you think that person is less or more likely to have more kids?
Starvation wasn't a problem prior to the 1960s and it certainly wouldn't be if we stopped subsidizing irresponsibility.
It is Democrat 101 to create a problem on purpose so kind hearted people will say it would be cruel to stop spending money on the problem they created on purpose...
what do you all want to bet that the majority of states with high ratios of single parents are red states?
I'd bet a lot of money that it is. (it is)
People like adult just never get it - The red states are relatively poor, relatively undereducated and have massive moral failings. The red states are the problems.
Sure, data is hard to untangle when there are large African American populations. But it's just relentless how Republicans project their own local problems onto distant Democrats.
Are you sure? Are you sure a bunch of people, including children, wouldn’t just starve to death? Don’t tell me you think charity would cover it
Use some common sense...
When adding a child increases the income of a person do you think that person is less or more likely to have more kids?
If throwing dad out of the house increases the income of a person do you think that person is less or more likely to have more kids?
Starvation wasn't a problem prior to the 1960s and it certainly wouldn't be if we stopped subsidizing irresponsibility.
It is Democrat 101 to create a problem on purpose so kind hearted people will say it would be cruel to stop spending money on the problem they created on purpose...
The country looks a lot different now than it did in the 1960s. Stripping away welfare now wouldn’t just take us back to a different world. I think it would just cause a ton of issues. What would people who rely on that money do? Welfare checks stop coming next month. What happens? My guess is children starve and there’s a massive increase in crime. I don’t know why you would think anything else would happen. Because it was fine 60 years ago seems like bad reasoning to me.
Are you sure? Are you sure a bunch of people, including children, wouldn’t just starve to death? Don’t tell me you think charity would cover it
Use some common sense...
When adding a child increases the income of a person do you think that person is less or more likely to have more kids?
If throwing dad out of the house increases the income of a person do you think that person is less or more likely to have more kids?
Starvation wasn't a problem prior to the 1960s and it certainly wouldn't be if we stopped subsidizing irresponsibility.
It is Democrat 101 to create a problem on purpose so kind hearted people will say it would be cruel to stop spending money on the problem they created on purpose...
CNNPresident Joe Biden took the opportunity on Friday to tweak conservative Republicans who recently asked for grants from the infrastructure law that was passed last year, noting that these same lawmakers had previously blas...
Donald Trump has roasted his successor Joe Biden by playing a supercut of the president's various gaffes during a rally for Nevada Republicans on Saturday ni...
First they made Hitler kill most of them and now they made Putin invade and try to kill the rest. What the heck is wrong with those people? Why do they always force people to attack and kill them?!?
Ukrainians are mostly Orthodox Christians just like most Russians are, Jews have nothing to do with this conflict.
Ummm . . . please read post I was responding to BEFORE commenting.
When adding a child increases the income of a person do you think that person is less or more likely to have more kids?
If throwing dad out of the house increases the income of a person do you think that person is less or more likely to have more kids?
Starvation wasn't a problem prior to the 1960s and it certainly wouldn't be if we stopped subsidizing irresponsibility.
It is Democrat 101 to create a problem on purpose so kind hearted people will say it would be cruel to stop spending money on the problem they created on purpose...
what do you all want to bet that the majority of states with high ratios of single parents are red states?
I'd bet a lot of money that it is. (it is)
People like adult just never get it - The red states are relatively poor, relatively undereducated and have massive moral failings. The red states are the problems.
Sure, data is hard to untangle when there are large African American populations. But it's just relentless how Republicans project their own local problems onto distant Democrats.
There's probably a word in German for it.
Blue cities in red states are still blue.
African-American's vote 90%+ Democrat and over 70% of them come from broken homes.
Single mothers are on the rise, making up roughly one in every four households with children under 18, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center . That growth, coupled with the overwhelming...
"single moms have been a solidly Democratic group in each of the past two presidential races. In 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama won 74 percent of single moms — defined for these purposes as unmarried women living in households with children under 18. Obama followed that by winning 75 percent among that group in his contest with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in November."
Projection is a problem Democrats have because you people are incapable of self awareness...
When adding a child increases the income of a person do you think that person is less or more likely to have more kids?
If throwing dad out of the house increases the income of a person do you think that person is less or more likely to have more kids?
Starvation wasn't a problem prior to the 1960s and it certainly wouldn't be if we stopped subsidizing irresponsibility.
It is Democrat 101 to create a problem on purpose so kind hearted people will say it would be cruel to stop spending money on the problem they created on purpose...
The country looks a lot different now than it did in the 1960s. Stripping away welfare now wouldn’t just take us back to a different world. I think it would just cause a ton of issues. What would people who rely on that money do? Welfare checks stop coming next month. What happens? My guess is children starve and there’s a massive increase in crime. I don’t know why you would think anything else would happen. Because it was fine 60 years ago seems like bad reasoning to me.
Let's recap.
Democrats saw a problem.
They threw a bunch of money at the symptoms of the problem.
Their "solution" made the problem MUCH MUCH worse.
And now your argument is we can't stop throwing money at this problem because it will get even worse.
That is Democratic policy every time. Growing the government to waste money making a problem worse and then clutching your pearls when getting rid of the useless policy that makes things worse is suggested.
