I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
Newsmax can't, or won't, pay it's fees being charged. This isn't "cencorship" (sic), It's called capitalism. Is guess Fox has become to left-wing for some people? I'm sure that Direct TV would accept payment from the outraged Republicans to cover the Newsmax bill:)
Newsmax can't, or won't, pay it's fees being charged. This isn't "cencorship" (sic), It's called capitalism. Is guess Fox has become to left-wing for some people? I'm sure that Direct TV would accept payment from the outraged Republicans to cover the Newsmax bill:)
I think it's the other way around: DirecTV pays networks some kind of fee to be able to carry them on its service. Newsmax demanded more money than DurecTV was willing to pay for the privilege.
Newsmax can't, or won't, pay it's fees being charged. This isn't "cencorship" (sic), It's called capitalism. Is guess Fox has become to left-wing for some people? I'm sure that Direct TV would accept payment from the outraged Republicans to cover the Newsmax bill:)
As far as I know, Newsmax has not made a statement as to if this is true or not. That's "sus" as my teen would say. (Suspicious) . Newsmax is the right's CNN. I occasionally watch when I want to laugh and not think.
This is interesting. Many will say this is a republican political stunt but I think that someone who says what she does about Jewish people then pretend "she didn't know" should not be on a committee of foreign affairs.
finally. She's been a hater of the Jewish state for a long time.
heron said:
I think it's the other way around: DirecTV pays networks some kind of fee to be able to carry them on its service. Newsmax demanded more money than DurecTV was willing to pay for the privilege.
Happens all the time. That's why you get a blackout until a deal can be reached.
This is interesting. Many will say this is a republican political stunt but I think that someone who says what she does about Jewish people then pretend "she didn't know" should not be on a committee of foreign affairs.
She is a strong woman, who has the audacity to speak her mind. This absolutely retaliation.
finally. She's been a hater of the Jewish state for a long time.
Happens all the time. That's why you get a blackout until a deal can be reached.
Yes. For Omar to claim that she didn't know the association of Jewish people and money in antisemitism is laughable. Then she doubles down and claims she's been at the forefront of fighting antisemitism. If that was true, she would at least have an idea of the centuries of antisemitism and money. It was one of Hitler's main complaint.
Then she has the nerve to say it's because of Islamophobia and racism. She has no place on a committee involved in foreign affairs.
She is a strong woman, who has the audacity to speak her mind. This absolutely retaliation.
She's a "strong woman" with audacity to say antisemitic remarks with hate in her heart and claim she didn't know better but, is at the forefront of "fighting antisemitism". Perhaps she should be removed from that front too. Anyone who fights against antisemitism knows the discrimatory association between Judaism and money.
She can say what she wishes, the country that gave her asylum when she was a refugee gives her that right. However, with the questionable comments she has said, she should not be on a committee of foreign affairs. Retaliation? Maybe. However this retaliation came with some justice as well.
Her race and her religion does not shield her from the consequences of her speech. Nor does the first amendment.
Perhaps she'll learn a lesson from this. Her reaction thus far does not seem likely.
"Omar first came under fire for comments on Israel in February 2019, when she posted tweets that invoked tropes about Jewish wealth and influence on U.S. politics. The tweets received bipartisan criticism, and Omar shortly after issued an apology, saying she was "listening and learning" about "the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes."
The next month, Omar again drew condemnation for comments criticizing pro-Israel lobbying in American politics. In a speech at a political event, she said, "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. I want to ask why is it OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, of fossil fuel industries or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobbying group that is influencing policies?"
No. If there was one off colored statement I would be inclined to believe it was a mistake. This woman has a history of antisemitic, anti American comments.
She probably can be a valuable member of congress, however foreign affairs committee is not her place.
These remarks were made years ago, and she apologized. But until she converts, removes her hijab, and changes parties she will be retaliated against. MTG rails against Jewish space lasers but that's just fine and dandy.
Omar has faced accusations of antisemitism since 2019
"Omar first came under fire for comments on Israel in February 2019, when she posted tweets that invoked tropes about Jewish wealth and influence on U.S. politics. The tweets received bipartisan criticism, and Omar shortly after issued an apology, saying she was "listening and learning" about "the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes."
The next month, Omar again drew condemnation for comments criticizing pro-Israel lobbying in American politics. In a speech at a political event, she said, "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. I want to ask why is it OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, of fossil fuel industries or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobbying group that is influencing policies?"
No. If there was one off colored statement I would be inclined to believe it was a mistake. This woman has a history of antisemitic, anti American comments.
She probably can be a valuable member of congress, however foreign affairs committee is not her place.
So you are fine with Sheldon Adelsen donating millions to Trump in return for moving the embassy to Jerusalem?
She's a "strong woman" with audacity to say antisemitic remarks with hate in her heart and claim she didn't know better but, is at the forefront of "fighting antisemitism". Perhaps she should be removed from that front too. Anyone who fights against antisemitism knows the discrimatory association between Judaism and money.
She can say what she wishes, the country that gave her asylum when she was a refugee gives her that right. However, with the questionable comments she has said, she should not be on a committee of foreign affairs. Retaliation? Maybe. However this retaliation came with some justice as well.
Her race and her religion does not shield her from the consequences of her speech. Nor does the first amendment.
Perhaps she'll learn a lesson from this. Her reaction thus far does not seem likely.
But the woman who blamed the forest fires in California came from Jewish space lasers gets to stay? I don't like Omar Ilhan but she is neither crazy nor stupid. Just your usual run of the mill anti-Semite. She must have heard about the evil Jews at in her home crowd because the Somalis weren't even Islamist until the 1986 Islamist revolution.
subee, MSN, CRNA
1 Article; 6,167 Posts
Newsmax can't, or won't, pay it's fees being charged. This isn't "cencorship" (sic), It's called capitalism. Is guess Fox has become to left-wing for some people? I'm sure that Direct TV would accept payment from the outraged Republicans to cover the Newsmax bill:)