Three meaningful videos!!!!!
I believe The NYT's has becomes as dangerous as SOROS!
On This I have to Agree.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More responses re bigotry at The Landings:
I am grateful that you have identified the person responsible and he agreed to stop. I am concerned though that either the Club has an employee who has such appalling judgment or the Club's computer system has been compromised. As you know, the Club's files contain sensitive personal and financial information.
The Landings is a community. Sowing distrust and division is harmful. Everyone is entitled to their political views but when expressed in such a hateful way and attacking Club members who attended the event-- I did not-- risks undermining the reputation of the Club and the Landings. Before the damage grows, I suggest you send a message to all Club members that tells members what you plan to do to protect the security of the Club's computer system and the importance of treating all members respectfully regardless of their political views.
P---
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022, 2:19 AM Steven Freund <Steven.Freund@landingsclub.
Good morning -- ------Thanks for your message. Our initial desire is that the misuse of our member directory end. The individual involved has agreed to stop. We have not discussed legal action. I have copied Club President, Mike Barber so he is aware of your message and thoughts.with appreciation, Steven
+++
Finally the Top Dog at The Landings responds to a previous e mail I sent him and posted and my response:
Dear Mr. Berkowitz,
I don't know what the issues are relative to your email address. I will check my email settings. I apologize for a delay in my reply - I am on a long-planned vacation.
I believe you are referring to the unsolicited message many members received. I hope you saw the communication from our Club sent yesterday. That aside, the event noted in the message you received took place however, the characterization of the event is distorted, by a large degree in my opinion. To be clear, I had lengthy email exchanges with the author, offered to meet with him and would have invited our Board President to join us. Multiple invitations were turned down with silence. This is the first I have heard from him since December 17.
The event happened, peacefully and civilly as have hundreds of similar events over the 48-year life of our club. Further, the issue was brought before our Board in our December meeting. It was agreed that members have, and will, gather for different reasons, some purely social, some educational, some charitable, some civic. We believe it is reasonable for our club to serve as a platform for you and fellow members to gather and share ideas, with reasonable conditions.
Material presented to our Board was contained in our Board Briefs Live PowerPoint deck and will be noted in our meeting minutes. The blue text below is an email sent to another member around the time of the event. I believe it expresses our thoughts regarding the specific event as well as how we think about this more broadly. Names have been removed to protect identities.
I regret that the author of the email you received chose to use our Club's directory in an unauthorized manner - thereby randomly spamming a large segment of our membership to promote a personal point of view. Let me know if you have other questions or if you would like to meet. The aforementioned email follows.
Sincerely, Steven
Good evening Mr. and Mrs. Member,
I hope you receive my response on behalf of President Mike Barber, and I, as intended, and that is to be helpful. I have thought through this thoroughly while responding to other emails and believe Mike and I are aligned on this matter. First, I am grateful for your message and gracious tone of your attached letter. I appreciate your concern for our club and for the way you framed up your objections. Mike and I have discussed this and share the concerns you bring to light and have given thought to this issue, the specific event and generally, how we permit club space to be used for private gatherings. Mike and I discussed this event, but it also stimulated email dialogue among Board members. Although there were differing points of view among a few Board members, the use of private space has established parameters, and we believe it best to consider those guidelines and apply them consistently rather than making one-off decisions. That noted, the event was brought to our attention by other members with similar concerns. Here is what we know about this event:
· It meets established standards of use of our private space. Our catering team is the guardian of the standards of use, and they are empowered to make decisions within those defined guidelines. This is a private gathering that is legal and other than disagreement over what might be discussed, it complies with club standards.
· Although it is sponsored by a member (as required) and attended by many Landings Club members, it is organized by a group that has no formal connection to our club – like many other organizations that use our space via member sponsorship. I stress that our club has no role in organizing or promoting the event.
· We do not screen speakers or attendees at approved events – members are free to host private events to exchange ideas, socialize or engage in many other activities as appropriate for this type of space. Organizers are not permitted post political signs on club property – directional signage is allowed.
· We would intervene or decline a group’s access when the purpose behind an event is discriminatory, illegal, immoral or advocates violence or if it creates discomfort for staff serving the event. for example, racial or gratuitous sexual content – like nude dancers or other such things. Fortunately, these scenarios have never arisen.
Our belief is that the exchange of ideas, however crazy or wrong anyone might find them, is legal and reasonable. If our club takes the position of screening speakers for private groups, I believe we are stepping outside of our bounds. Someone asked me if we would allow a discussion of a flat earth or a presentation by “global warming deniers”. In my opinion, a flat earth discussion is crazy for sure – however, if a group wishes to discuss that topic, it does no harm, as crazy as it might be. Global warming is a scientific discussion and worthy of debate, here again, it does no harm. Also, debate about election outcomes is not a new discussion in our country. Perhaps a better comparison would be whether we’d permit members to gather privately to discuss the results of the 2016 or 2000 election – something I believe to be reasonable – even if it is a horribly out of date example.
We are providing space for a member sponsored event and have no position on the validity of the content nor do we endorse the meeting. I hope you could see the slippery slope it creates if we chose to screen speakers. We host events sponsored by members at both ends of the political spectrum – we have never screened content because we trust members to abide by club rules. The ultimate solution would be to ban all political speech – that would be the only way to manage this because no matter who speaks about social or political issues, half of our membership might disagree or take offense. I believe that is a step too far and contrary to the spirit of our country and our club. Final thought: in 45 years, this is not the only political event some have questioned – including recent visits by our Governor, and our congressman. However, all politically oriented events have been conducted without incident or harm to our club. It seems reasonable to be attentive to possible controversial speakers and accompanying harm to our club but it does not seem reasonable to make an overreaching decision based on one event.
One member who expressed concern about this event acknowledged that there was a time in our nation’s history when we may have disagreed with something a fellow citizen said but we were willing to fight to the death to protect their right to say it…may we one day return to that ideal.
Respectfully and with best wishes for the holiday season,
Steven
My reply:
Steven: Thanks for your complete and thoughtful reply. The Landings is an Oasis an Eden and I would hate for snakes to be allowed to ruin it .I even play tennis with one.
Enjoy your skiing vacation, sorry this incident may have disrupted it a bit but that's life.
Would also appreciate your seeing why my e mails never reach you. I hope you and Lynn have no vendetta against me. Me
++++++++++++++++++++
An excerpt from FAIR and, I thought, a good way to introduce my review of how the media has under undermined democracy
+++
Be a rebel and find common ground
By Jefferson Shupe
America is more divided than we’ve seen in decades. Polls show that the overlap between the two major political parties is shrinking fast—a widening canyon between looming masses—where just fifteen years ago they appeared as twin peaks of one noble mountain.
Yet you don’t need statistics to see how polarized our country is today; you can feel it. American institutions have been forced out of neutrality due to our growing partisan divide, yanked to one side or the other like metal marbles between two approaching magnets. Our elected officials seem more interested in firing insults across the aisle than in offering authentic solutions to our nation’s problems. All the while, political violence on American streets has become commonplace, and there are even whispers of an approaching civil war.
Is this our destiny to stand silently by as the chasm between left and right—between our fellow citizens and ourselves—grows wider? After all, what can we as individuals do against such a colossal problem?
One crucial thing each of us can do is to personally engage with that neighbor who votes differently—let’s call him Alex.
Picture your average Venn diagram. Two circles—you and Alex—with some overlap. How close are the circles exactly? In other words, how much common ground do the two of you share? Judging from his bumper stickers, it may appear very little. You’ve steered your conversations well away from elections and culture wars, since it seems he’s your political opposite. You might say to yourself: if Alex is pushing this country in the wrong direction, what’s the point in trying to engage with him? He doesn’t seem like the kind of person who wants to change his opinions to match yours, and you are definitely not about to move his way.
We could stop there and accept this irreparable division. However, this would play into the hands of the dividers, who want you to go no further—See? Look at those edges where you’re the most different. Those are deal-breakers, right? No need to look beyond them. Alex probably hates you.
But don’t listen to dividers, because there are benefits you’ll never gain if you do. Instead, we need to start in the middle; because it's difficult to get there when we begin where our differences are most pronounced, where the dividers want to keep us.
Who are the dividers? There are many, but two of them are standout masters at it: the news media and politicians. In the election year of 2016, Pearl Jam singer Eddie Vedder hit on this between songs at a concert: “And the news companies, they know that they're getting ratings by planting fear...and they want it to go game seven. It's more ratings...they keep it close.”
Politicians and news media have much to gain by keeping us apart and suspicious of each other at a distance. After all, money, ratings, and reelections (i.e. power) are on the table. So dividers keep us hyper-focused on our differences. They divide us any way they can—even by our skin color—and they cut to commercial just as we’re about to dig into the meat of an issue where real understanding and progress might form.
This doesn’t mean that Congress and the press are inherently evil, or that they’re always lying. But just as you are justifiably skeptical of the vacuum salesman on your porch, we should keep in mind the dividers’ incentives and motivations. And when they put up barriers between you and your perceived political opponents, be a rebel. Treat those as the holograms they are, and simply walk through them.
So, next time you and Alex get chatting at the mailbox, go ahead and “go there”—have a political discussion. But skip the points where you and Alex clearly disagree and go straight for the middle.
Start where you are already like-minded. If you have no idea where that might be, bounce around a little until you find it. For example, you both might value safety, or for things to be fair. Build from there. Like a game of Minesweeper, explore all the safe areas you can. Get a feel for where the mines are, and flag them. Avoid getting into an argument about them initially, and hold back from pointing out what looks like obvious inconsistency or hypocrisy.
Alex might be confused at first, expecting this political chat to be like the others he’s used to—either a comfortable visit to an echo chamber, or a hardened battle. If Alex asks what you’re doing, go ahead and be upfront: for the moment, you’re more interested in your similarities than your differences, and you’re genuinely interested in understanding his point of view. Every person is different, but after adjusting to the idea, there’s a good chance Alex will open up, play along, and learn just as much as you in the process.
When you find large areas of disagreement, try to break them up into smaller parts. The issue of immigration, for example, is a collection of many political policies and perspectives all wrapped together. It’s easy to oversimplify (and many do), claiming that you must hate America if you support amnesty, or that you must hate Mexicans if you like the idea of a border wall. However, it’s likely that you agree more than you realize.
Also keep in mind that two sides might use different language to describe similar (or the same) things. Plus, people often hold many of the same values, but just weight them differently.
Some level of political disagreement is good; essential, in fact. But so much of it is unnecessary and counterproductive when we talk past each other and make false assumptions. That’s where things get toxic. I’m sure you’ve heard someone ignorantly complain about what people like you supposedly believe. You just shake your head at your TV screen—they’ve got you all wrong. But you’re fixing this now. You and Alex.
While engaging Alex with genuine curiosity and good faith efforts to understand each other, the circles of the Venn diagram will draw closer, and the area of overlap will grow. But neither of you are actually moving, since your positions haven’t changed. What’s happening is that you’re both beginning to see things as they truly are, and as they have been for a while.
By starting from the mutual center you have uncovered the common ground that has been sitting there all along, hidden from you by the dividers.
You won’t finish in one conversation, and perhaps never. But if you keep exploring and refining when you can, there will be further revelations. You may find a key experience or concept that caused Alex to diverge from you on an issue. Follow the logical conclusions to the edge of his circle, and it manifests as a stance that seemed extreme or illogical before. You may not change your mind about the issue, but now you at least understand how Alex got there. He’s suddenly not as crazy or hateful as you thought.
One benefit of this approach is that you’ll both develop a new and deepening respect for each other as you begin to understand that your political opponent has honest intentions just like you, but simply sees the world differently. Alex might even defend you if his friends get talking about the “crazy nuts” who believe as you do. He may tell them that while he doesn’t agree with you, you’re actually quite reasonable. This helps reduce political tensions.
Another benefit is that you will understand the thought process of the other side—and your own—better than ever, which will make you more effective when you do decide to tackle those edges. You’ll use the right language, understand the nuance, and have a more productive, respectful, and persuasive conversation with Alex and others.
What’s more, you and Alex may find something you can both work on together, perhaps even something political. Maybe there’s a problem in your community that gets politicized, so nothing lasting ever gets done about it. You could find a way to synthesize multiple viewpoints and take a new approach.
Politically diverse coalitions can often resolve issues in a way that won’t get undone after the next election. Indeed, you’ll find that common ground is the best and most stable foundation on which to build policy. You might discover solutions that have been left off the table, or low-hanging fruit that has been invisible to us because we haven’t taken the effort to see deeper than the surface of our political opponents. By digging into the nuance of our differences, rather than ignoring them or treating them as unbridgeable, both sides could likely get most of what they want without changing their stance on a single strongly held opinion or belief.
Why would I want to help them get what they want, you ask? Well, look at it this way. What is happening is not you joining Alex’s team, like Luke accepting Darth Vader’s invitation to the Dark Side. It’s more like Thor and Loki, very different individuals who team up now and then when there’s a common cause.
In today’s political climate, it’s easy to lament our differences, and long for the days where everyone will finally see that you’ve been right all along. But until that day comes, we’d do well to ignore the dividers, start seeing the strength in America’s viewpoint diversity, and build from there. This can have a healing effect on our society and our personal relationships. And the more of us who do this, the more the canyon of our political divide will narrow. We’ll be a stronger nation, and more unified where it counts.
Or, we can continue our habit of beginning at the poles and trapping ourselves there, where nobody learns and everyone leaves angry.
Are you up for the challenge? The next time you’re in a conversation that turns political, pause for a moment. Then flip it around and leave the stark differences for another time.
Start in the middle.
+++
That we have become a divided nation is self-evident and that the press no longer serves as our nation's ombudsman is even more evident. How, if ever, this issue will be resolved is beyond my comprehension. It is possible should Republicans roundly defeat Democrats in the Mid Year the mass media could react by changing their thinking but that would entail such a sharp change I doubt it will occur because journalists are imbedded and control the direction of the newspapers.
Change might start with total firings at CNN and ripple through TV Land but that too is unlikely. The natural thing that liberal ideologues do when they are rejected is to blame others and double down because they are elitists and believe, if they say it, it must be so. Time will tell.
If the mass media does not change course, because it cannot, the ability of America to reverse course is highly unlikely.
Stay tuned.
+++
Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy by Batya Ungar-Sargon
Chapters Seven-Eight
In this chapter, the author begins by explaining how "Wokeism" began, tracing it's origin to 2014 and to the media which redefined racism. The author claims, the election of Obama resulted in "white supremacy" being hardwired into the DNA of America.
Even prior to this time (2011) the media had began using "woke" vocabulary in their language, reporting and reported subjects. Much of this was factually analyzed and charted by PROFESSOR ZACH GOLDBERG, A PHD CANDIDATE IN POLITICAL SCIENCE AT GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY.
The trend began in the newsroom, was expanded by mergers and concentration in the news industry as senior ranks of reporters. who had a more traditional view, were replaced by a new generation of digital natives, a more educated elite dedicated to creating their own social media brands.
The new narrative became "white supremacy and patriarchy are the biggest problem and attacking them is the way to a better society."
This narrow focus failed to recognize America was actually getting less racial. Though racism continues to exist, liberals no longer can claim they have the monopoly on caring about racism. America writ large now holds in contempt white supremacists etc.
Ironically, as America becomes less racist the media has gone in the opposite direction, becoming obsessed with racism. Why? How did this endless culture war evolve over racism?
The author believes, while Journalism was undergoing a status revolution from blue-collar workers to an elite caste, universities shifted from facts to relativism. Hegel's view of domination/oppression in every human interaction, which formed the basis of CRT, was embraced by Marxist academia and laid the foundation for the challenge of the claimed hypocrisy of our constitution by the birth of the 1619 Pulitzer Prize project. The NYT's doubled down on the argument that our constitution was devised to protect slavery and was even composed by some who owned slaves.
Though there is some truth to this claim it is a distortion in order to support the fact that post-modernists can never accept equality and that good can exist within something flawed.
Those who embrace the message of 1619 and "wokeness" have become wealthy and that whiteness equates with guilt has now become the accepted mantra of the radicals. Mission creep has, for the moment won notwithstanding, the numerical fact actual racism has waned.
The NYT's editorializing, journalism and embrace of 1619 has helped to convince racism is baked into the nation's heart, can never be solved and/or extracted. Consequently, as new journalists entered the news business , mostly coming from elitist and exclusive universities, they brought their indoctrinated learning - most consequentially CRT.
Yet, how can liberals embrace the opposite of what they see with their own eyes? Once again the author suggests "wokeness" allows them to feel guilty while permitting them to overlook the truth of economic inequality. Focusing on race exclusively justifies the burden but allows the excuse to do nothing. After all, their own success is the result of their own intelligence and talent. This attitude simply reinforces the status quo while allowing them to remain empathetic and compassionate. What sheer hypocrisy. Antiracism becomes a great displacement exercise according to the author. America's news media led the way by allowing socio-political liberals to maintain their status while feeling they are heroes all for the cost of a yearly subscription.
+++
Chapter Eight can be summed up quickly. It recites two separate events where people of differing views were penalized because of pressure by the "woke "crowd. In the first, Steve Bannon's appearance at a New Yorker event was disavowed as protests mounted.
The second involved Senator Cotton's op ed regarding the George Floyd episode and the suggestion the president had the authority to call out the military during periods of insurrection. It ended in an entire revolt at The NYT's and concluded with the firing of many senior opinion writers who were on the wrong side of the protesters.
Both events proved the power of the "woke element" in racial matters and their ability to force their will. It further exposed the danger and vulnerability of those who want to express varying opinions and resulted in the end of journalism as we once knew it to be, ie a source of diverse views backed by facts and supported by senior professional news editors, even including the owner of The NYT's.
One of the more popular victims was Bari Weiss who wrote a blistering explanation of what she had been subjected to and why she no longer wished to be associated with the "Grey Lady."
Bari is now one of the founders of FAIR.
We are now living in the period when a "moral panic" over race can occur because, as the author suggests, there is a consensus about who is the evil other. However, without the media such would be impossible in the author's view. Why? Because the power of the press remains immense, notwithstanding it's unpopularity and it has proven it can wage a culture war and create panic around race.
What The Cotton episode proves is that Twitter and journalists with powerful followings engaged in repeating the same messaging and in support of the mob can impose their way. Only the mob has the right to judge as journalists have ceded their right.
Trump can certainly attest to that. Even Senator Schumer, early on, warned Trump not to tangle with the press and/or the intelligence agencies.
+++
Bad News: How Woke Media Is Undermining Democracy by Batya Ungar-Sargon
Chapters Nine-Ten
Woke began to replace objectivity around 2020. Also, journalism began to disregard conservatism. Everything came from the perspective of elites. Since being rich is a precondition of breaking into the news business because, the cost of education was high and salaries were low, this made it difficult for blacks to penetrate the newsroom and thus black subjects were more or less excluded from coverage unless it was a sensational matter involving police brutality against black citizens. All of this was happening at a time when racial prejudice was in decline.
In the black community , a topic of whether blackness is distinct from other forms of humanity was being discussed among many black intellectuals along with the fact that you do not have to get rid of race to get rid of racism.. Coincidentally, very little news attention was being paid to whites being killed.
To make matters worse, the author believes white elites assuage their feeling of guilt by deeming they have to help blacks because they are lower in virtually every case, ie. economics, culture, status etc.
Is it any wonder Americans hate the media and blacks feel disdain for white elites
+++
In Chapter Ten the author focuses on three issues.
The first is why the NYT's is opposed to Zionism. The founder did not believe Jews were entitled to a nation because they were a religion not a race. The NYT's has always been woke and the root of this attitude was Adolph Ochs who was deeply insecure and resented his Jewishness. His attitude filtered down through the paper. It is no secret management of the paper was/is anti-Semitic and talented Jewish journalists were passed over for promotions. The paper ignored the treatment of the Jews during WW 2 and when Arthur Sulzberger became publisher he continued Och's discriminatory pattern towards Jews.
The paper's discomfort with Israel has never been resolved and I personally believe the paper is increasingly anti-Israel and will continue to be as they hire more staff that has an open and avowed bias.
The second issue discussed is CRIME. Major papers are predominantly "woke" and made a conscious effort to move away from the subject in the '60's so they could concentrate on a more affluent readership. The coverage of blacks and crime has also consistently been factually distorted. News focus gravitated to the more sensational and day to day crime was left to the local press, because it no longer fit the political narrative. Furthermore, the news industry had collapsed and poorer communities became news deserts.
Racial issue coverage, however, has increased mainly because of video coverage and social media depicting police brutality.
Trump voters is the chapter's third focus.
Trump drew increased support from a variety of outlier voters in 2016 and increased the % in2020 but the news media missed this entirely. He lost ground among white men in 2020. The national liberal media have no idea who these voters are or what motivates them. What interest journalists is not as important to the back row.
Furthermore, discrimination against blacks also plagues poor whites. A seldom discussed or followed topic.
Among the elite class there remains a lot of contempt for working class aesthetics, those who have not gone to college and that contempt is often clothed as anti-racism.
++++++++++++
UH Oh!
Ghislaine Maxwell Will No Longer Fight To Protect Names Of Eight ‘John Does’ Who Allegedly Had Sex With Underage Girls
By Ashe Schow
A fear many close to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein had may soon be realized, as convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell has decided to stop fighting to protect the names of eight men accused of having sex with underage girls procured by the two felons.
The New York Post reported one of Maxwell’s attorneys wrote in a letter to federal Judge Loretta Preska last week that the alleged madam of Epstein would no longer fight to keep secret the names of eight “John Does” who were named in a 2015 civil lawsuit against Maxwell from Virginia Giuffre, who is accusing Prince Andrew of sexual abuse.
“After careful review of the detailed objections submitted by Non-Party Does 17, 53, 54, 55, 73, 93, and 151, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell writes to inform the Court that she does not wish to further address those objections,” Maxwell attorney Laura Menninger wrote in a January 12 letter.
The Post noted that the letter was “written the same day a Manhattan federal judge refused to dismiss Giuffre’s case against Prince Andrew.”
The letter also comes less than two weeks after Maxwell was found guilty on five out of six of the charges against her. As The Daily Wire reported:
The jury found Maxwell guilty on five of six counts on Wednesday, including conspiracy to entice individuals under 17 to travel in interstate commerce with intent to engage in “illegal sexual activity,” conspiracy to transport individuals under 17 to travel in interstate commerce with intent to engage in “illegal sexual activity,” transportation of an individual under 17 with intent to engage in “illegal sexual activity,” conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of individuals under 18, and sex trafficking of an individual under 18.
Hot Air’s Jazz Shaw speculated, as others have, that Maxwell may have stopped protecting the names in the hopes that she would receive a lighter sentence for her crimes if she gives up other potential criminals.
“This assumes that any of the charges against the suspected Johns could still be brought to court and haven’t run afoul of the statute of limitations. Even if that’s not the case, the men on the list could still wind up in civil court where Maxwell’s testimony could be central to such cases,” Shaw wrote. “Maxwell is unlikely to get as light of a sentence out of this as she would have if she had just offered to cooperate initially, but it could still be an improvement for her.”
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey previously questioned whether Maxwell would give up the names to save herself:
Perhaps that’s what prosecutors had in mind with Maxwell all along. It will be another several weeks before sentencing takes place, so Maxwell has time enough to stew over the benefits of cooperation. Rumors have swirled that Epstein kept a vast video library of these sexual encounters as leverage over the “johns” or even outright extortion. If anyone knows where that evidence might be, it’s Maxwell, assuming it still exists at all or existed in the first place. Even without the video library, Maxwell certainly knows who got connected to Epstein’s Lolita Express and could assist prosecutors into building cases against the “johns.”
The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.
++++++++++
For better or for worse, Trump is sending a message first to Republicans and second to the nation, he is a force and the attendees are sending are also sending a message they are ready to have a go at the ballot box and, who knows after that, should Trump run and lose because of the appearance of dishonesty.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I love these "snippet" type videos!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let's hear it:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If there is a budding war by Trump against DeSantis it can have several repercussions:
First, it can cause a deep resentment within the Republican Party. Second, if DeSantis is nominated, it would provide ammunition for Democrats as a gift from Trump.
First, it can cause a deep resentment within the Republican Party. Second, if DeSantis is nominated, it would provide ammunition for Democrats as a gift from Trump.
Uncovering Trump's New War Against DeSantis
Who will come out on top? [READ MORE]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Who will come out on top? [READ MORE]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The man is really a first class jerk. Conservatives are for everything you are against schmuck:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tonight, January 19, we listened to a eulogy about a friend, Dan Eisenstein. Dan and his wife opened a bakery in a little offbeat neighborhood in Nashville and called it Sweet Sixteen because it was located on 16th street. Over the years, the bakery blossomed and it's reputation spread throughout Nashville. Dan developed cancer and when he passed away a few days ago the local paper did a story, which I also have posted, about both the bakery and Dan, who became the un-elected mayor of his little neighborhood. It is the story of a couple who became a proprietor of their own business. It is the story of the backbone of America. Dan loved France and his exploits, in that country, reminded me of my own life in France when I was in service. I lived in two small villages west of Orleans, Meung Sur Loire and Beaugency. In France the local tradesperson who owns the boulangerie, charcuterie, patisserie etc. are hero's because of the French love of food. Dan was loved as well both because of his delicious products but also because he befriended everyone who stepped through the door. They were more than customers.
Sweet Sixteen became the cement of their little neighborhood where people gathered to eat an éclair, drink coffee, get to know each other and live their lives secure in the knowledge they had friends who cared. When Dan was moved to hospice the neighborhood, and beyond, came together and raised over $100,000 so that little institution would survive because Dan and his wife meant that much to them.
This is the story of the America I love . Not the one of hate, destruction, murders ,law breakers. and gutless politicians seeking power who want to improve upon our Constitution with 20,000 pages of legislation and a president who has proven to be a total disaster of a party that has allowed itself to be captured by radicals who hate this country and seek it's destruction.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment