AMAZON & EBAY BAN CONFEDERATE FLAGS, STILL SELLS NAZI MERCHANDISE,WALMART SELLING IRANIAN, CUBAN FLAGS

Online retail giant Amazon’s Monday decision to ban the sale of merchandise depicting the Confederate flag has many Americans scratching their heads, as a quick review of Amazon’s site reveals the company still sells Nazi flags.

For just $7.35, Amazon shoppers can pick up this Nazi SS flag, depicting the symbol of Adolf Hitler’s “Schutzstaffel” who helped carry out Germany’s annihilation of 6,000,000 Jews during the Holocaust

Walmart continues to sell the Iranian and Cuban flags, as well as artwork depicting the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro urging people to “liberate” Cuba, according to the super store’s website.

Amid a growing controversy over the sale and display of the Confederate flag in such stores, Walmart continues to sell the official flags of Iran and Cuba.

The Iranian flag, which was created in the wake of the Islamic Revolution that brought extremists into office in 1979, is being sold online at Walmart.com for a price of $54.89.

The Iranian flag is “suitable for parades or indoor display,” according to the product description.

The Cuban flag also can be purchased for $13.75, according to the website.

“This seaworthy international courtesy flag can be used on ocean going commercial or private vessels,” according to the product description.

Walmart also is selling canvas wall art featuring Fidel Castro.

The portrait of Castro includes the quote, “I am Fidel Castro and we have come to liberate Cuba.”

The continued sale of such merchandise comes as stores such as Walmart and others move to end the sale of the Confederate flag under growing pressure.

"Baal" Kerry will ignore Iran Leader's Nuke Comments and continue with the deal to destroy the world!

Here is a guy that takes every word of Netanyahu literally, but wont take the word of a monster at his word ..... sick sick people

Nuclear negotiations between world powers and Iran will not be affected by recent comments from Iran’s supreme leader who appeared to backtrack on key points of an emerging deal, Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday.

Kerry, who will leave Friday to rejoin the talks in Vienna as negotiators race to meet a June 30 deadline to complete an agreement, said this week’s speech by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would not deter the talks. Kerry said the speech, along with highlights on Khamenei’s official Twitter feed, were for “domestic political consumption.” And he said that if Iran did backtrack on commitments made in an April outline there would be no deal.

“This is something that’s been going on throughout the negotiations,” Kerry said of the Iranian leader’s remarks. “It is not new. We are not going to be guided by or conditioned by or affected or deterred by some tweet that is for public consumption or domestic political consumption. What matters to us is what is agreed upon within the four corners of a document and that is what is yet to be determined.”

“It may be that the Iranians will not fill out the full measure of what was agreed at Lausanne and, in that case, there will not be an agreement,” he said, referring to the framework reached on April 2 in Lausanne, Switzerland.

In a speech Tuesday, Khamenei rejected a long-term freeze on nuclear research and insisted that Iran will only sign a deal if international sanctions are lifted first.

Kerry said neither he nor President Barack Obama would negotiate in public.

“I am not tweeting,” he said. “I am not making speeches, neither is President Obama.”

Earlier, the State Department announced in a one-sentence statement that Kerry would depart for Vienna on Friday on his first overseas trip since breaking his leg in a bicycle accident earlier this month after a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Geneva.

Diplomats from the United States, the other four permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany have been in intense discussions with Iranian officials in Vienna as the end-of-month deadline for a deal looms.

Shlomo Erps Molests 4 year Old ...

A 27-year-old private school bus driver has been charged with molesting a 4-year-old boy, police said Wednesday.

Shlomo Erps, of Nancy Lane, Monsey, was arrested on a felony charge of first-degree sexual abuse, Spring Valley police Detective Robert Bookstein said.

Erps is accused of making sexual contact with a child on the bus for a Spring Valley private school in late May, Bookstein said.

Following a complaint and police investigation, police arrested Erps in early June, Bookstein said.

The boy's name and the details were not being disclosed. Bookstein said he didn't know the name of the school or bus company.

Erps has been released on $10,000 bail set by a Spring Valley judge, according to the authorities.

Lakewood residents don't want Fancy Supermarkets... just want supermarket with reasonable prices!

Starkist Tuna used to have a slogan "don't give me good tasting tuna, just give me tuna that tastes good"
Lakewood residents are saying: "don't give us supermarkets that look good, give us supermarkets that are reasonable"
It looks like fancy supermarkets are bankrupting those with large families... "who needs a whole row dedicated to potato chips?" "Who needs entire rows dedicated to candy?" "Who needs the meats ready for the oven?' 
so Lakewood residents are petitioning KRM to move to Lakewood!

A group of residents of Lakewood, NJ, have banded together to call for a reasonably-priced supermarket to open in their town.

With the planned openings of several new supermarkets in their town, these residents are focused on the vacant store of Shop Rite in Shop Rite Plaza at Route 9 and Kennedy Blvd., from which Shop Rite recently departed to move down the road.

These residents have created a petition, asking the KRM supermarket of Brooklyn, NY – founded by the noted baal tzedakah and baal chesed Rabbi Moish Binick – to open a branch in the now empty Shop Rite store.

The text of the petition is as follows:

KRM, please move into the former Shop Rite location:

We, the people of Lakewood are desperate for a supermarket that will offer affordable prices in a convenient, nearby location. We don’t need another fancy grocery store that will focus on selling expensive prepared foods and everyday groceries at convenience store prices. 

KRM, we know good and well that you will be able to open an amazing supermarket as has been shown for many years in your current locations. 

Please do us a favor (probably even a mitzvah) to the 99% of families that can’t afford the current grocery pricing in Lakewood.  Please open a location in Shop Rite Plaza.

The petition can be seen here.

‘Clinton Cash’ author demolishes Hillary’s self-defense

Grave incompetence or brazen dishonesty?

Those are the only two conclusions one can reasonably come to after reviewing Hillary Clinton’s stunning Sunday interview on local New Hampshire TV.

When WMUR local TV host Josh McElveen asked Clinton why her State Department greenlit the transfer of 20 percent of all US uranium to the Russian government, Clinton claimed she had no involvement in her own State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium One to Russia.

“I was not personally involved because that wasn’t something the secretary of state did,” said Clinton.

The transfer of 20 percent of US uranium — the stuff used to build nuclear weapons — to Vladimir Putin did not rise to the level of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s time and attention?

Beyond being an admission of extreme executive negligence on an issue of utmostnational security, Hillary’s statement strains credulity to the breaking point for at least three other reasons.

First, nine investors who profited from the uranium deal collectively donated $145 million to Hillary’s family foundation, including Clinton Foundation mega-donor and Canadian mining billionaire Frank Giustra, who pledged $100 million.

Since 2005, Giustra and Bill Clinton have frequently globetrotted together, and there’s even a Clinton Foundation initiative named the Clinton-Giustra initiative.

But Hillary expects Americans to believe she had no knowledge that a man who made a nine-figure donation to her foundation was deeply involved in the deal? Nor eight other mining executives, all of whom also donated to her foundation?

Second, during her Sunday interview, Clinton was asked about the Kremlin-backed bank that paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a single speech delivered in Moscow. Hillary’s response? She dodged the question completely and instead offered this blurry evasion.

“The timing doesn’t work,” said Clinton. “It happened in terms of the support for the foundation before I was secretary of state.”

Hillary added that such “allegations” are being “made by people who are wielding the partisan ax.”

The reason Hillary ignored addressing the $500,000 direct payment from the Kremlin-backed bank to her husband is because that payment occurred, as the Times confirms, “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One.”

And as for her comment that the timing of the uranium investors’ donations “doesn’t work” as a damning revelation: In fact, the timing works perfectly.

As “Clinton Cash” revealed and others have confirmed, Uranium One’s then-chief Ian Telfer made donations totaling $2.35 million that Hillary Clinton’s foundation kept hidden. Telfer’s donations occurred as Hillary’s State Department was considering the Uranium One deal.

 Third, Clinton correctly notes in the interview that “there were nine government agencies who had to sign off on that deal.” What she leaves out, of course, is that her State Department was one of them, and the only agency whose chief received $145 million in donations from shareholders in the deal.

Does she honestly expect Americans to believe she was simply unaware that the deal was even under consideration in her own State Department?

Moreover, is that really the leadership statement she wants front and center heading into a presidential campaign? That in the critical moment of global leadership, with the Russians poised to seize 20 percent of US uranium, she was simply out to lunch?

Perhaps a review of her emails would settle the accuracy of her Sunday claim. But, of course, she erased her emails and wiped clean the secret server housed in her Chappaqua home.

To be sure, like those emails, Hillary Clinton wishes questions about her role in the transfer of US uranium to the Russian government would simply vanish.

But that’s unlikely. A recent polling memo by the Republican National Committee finds that the uranium transfer issue is “the most persuasive message tested” and one that “severely undercuts her perceived strength of resume.”

Hillary’s Sunday comments only served to elevate and amplify the need for serious answers to axial questions.

In the absence of such answers, Americans are left to believe only one of two potentialities regarding her involvement in the transfer of 20 percent of US uranium to Vladimir Putin: She was either dangerously incompetent or remains deeply dishonest.

Peter Schweizer is the author of the bestseller “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” (Harper), and president of the Government Accountability Instititut

New Flotilla sets out for Gaza!

The History of the Heter Mechira

As a result of previous articles on the heter mechira, I received questions and complaints about the dispute over the heter. To answer them collectively, I felt it necessary to relate the history of the heter.

When the Question Arose

During the long years of exile, the Land of Israel remained desolate and the few Jews living there did not engage in agriculture.

The Jews expelled from Spain who began immigrating to Israel five hundred years ago, and also the Hassidim and the Vilna Gaon's disciples who began immigrating two hundred years ago, barely engaged in agriculture.

 It was only about one hundred and forty years ago that Jews began establishing agricultural communities throughout the country. The first settlers were members of the Old Yishuv in Jerusalem who ventured out of the walls of the Old City, and together with new immigrants established small outposts, until in the year 5638 (1877) they established Petah Tikva. In 5642 (1881) the first aliyah of Chovevei Tzion (Lovers of Zion) began, giving rise to the establishment of seven additional moshavot (rural settlements), until the Sabbatical (shmitta)year of 5649 (1889). The settlements were: Rishon Lezion, Zichron Yaakov, Akron (Mazkeret Batya), Nes Ziona, Rosh Pina, Gedera and Yesod Hama’alah.

This was the first time the question of keeping shmitta arose, and the problem was twofold – first, for the farmer’s themselves, and second, for the public in general. The farmers themselves were barely able to exist and required financial support, and keeping shmitta would have caused severe distress, and even starvation.

 As far the public in general was concerned, keeping shmitta would have likely caused the destruction of the moshavot, for even if some of the farmers were able to survive, it was clear that several would not. In addition, many Jews in the Diaspora who considered immigrating to Israel would refrain from making aliyah after hearing about the difficulties of surviving in the shmitta year.

The Rabbis In Favor of the Heter

One of the Torah giants of the generation and a leader of the Chovevei Tzion movement, Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever, together with his European rabbi colleagues, Rabbi Yehoshua of Kutna, and Rabbi Klapfish, the Av Beit Din of Warsaw, discussed the issue and decided to permit farmers to expropriate the fields from the obligation of shmitta by selling them to a non-Jew, in such a way that following the sale, the Jews would be able to work in the fields as employees of the non-Jewish owner. 

The eminent posek (Jewish law arbiter), Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor of Kovno also supported the heter. In addition, the Sephardic rabbis in Israel, headed by the Rishon Lezion Rabbi Yaakov Shaul Elishar, supported the heter, relying on the judgments of Sephardic rabbis of previous generations who lived in Eretz Yisrael.

Opponents of the Heter

However, the Ashkenazi rabbis in Jerusalem, led by Rabbi Shmuel Salant and Rabbi Diskin, opposed the heter.

 In their estimation, keeping shmitta would not cause great harm because at any rate, there were some agricultural techniques which claimed that periodically allowing the fields to lie fallow was beneficial. 

Other rabbis believed it was possible to obtain financial support for the settlers who kept shmitta, while others argued that if the farmers were allowed to act leniently in keeping shmitta, they would continue to do so in other halakhic matters. On the contrary, they feared that the heter would actually cause the destruction of the moshavot, citing the Torah’s warning that the punishment for not keeping shmitta was exile. 

There were other important European rabbis, such as the Netziv of Volozhin and Rabbi Soloveitchik, author of “Beit Halevi”, who also opposed the heter.

In general, the dispute hinged on two questions: First, whether the heter mechira was based on the majority of poskim, or the minority. Second, whether the situation was considered a ‘sha’at dachak’ (a time of distress), for indeed, the accepted halakhic rule is that in times of distress, it is possible to rely on a lone opinion, and the more pressing the situation, the more appropriate it is to be lenient.

In Practice, the Heter Mechira was Adopted

In practice, most of the farmers and their supporters felt the need to rely on the heter. Guided by their rabbis from Europe, the farmers approached the Sephardic rabbis in Israel, and they performed the sale of the fields for them. This was also the position of the majority of the leading rabbis.

 Yet, there were still many rabbis in the Diaspora and Jerusalem who opposed the heter, and the fanatics of the generation stood by their side and fought the heter fiercely, and opposed the rabbis who supported it.

Initially, Some Members of Chovevei Tzion Opposed the Heter

It is worth noting that initially, among the rabbis who were machmir (stringent), there were rabbis who felt civic responsibility towards the Yishuv HaChadash (the new community) and the farmers, as did the rabbis of Jerusalem. 

Among the rabbis who were machmir, there were also rabbis who enthusiastically supported the ‘Chovevei Tzion’, like the Netziv of Volozhin and Rabbi Mordechai Gimpel Yaffe. However, from one shmitta year to the next, as it became more evident just how difficult it was for the pioneers to stop working for an entire year, even some of the rabbis who were against the heter changed their opinions. 

One of them was the ‘Aderet’ (Rabbi Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim) who attested that while in the Diaspora, he was inclined towards the opinion of the machmirim. But after he immigrated to Eretz Yisrael to serve as the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, and viewed firsthand the great distress, he changed his mind in support of the heter (Iggrot HaRa'ayah 207). 

Rabbi Diskin from Jerusalem also opposed the heter in the first shmitta year, but in the second Sabbatical year, after recognizing the reality, agreed to the heter in some measure.

The Dispute in the Second Generation

In the year 5664 (1904), Rabbi Kook began serving as rabbi of Jaffa and the moshavot, and in the shmitta year of 5670 (1909), twenty-one years after the Gedolei Ha’dor (eminent Torah scholars) had introduced and implemented the heter, Rabbi Kook continued in their path, also enacting the heter mechira.

Over the years that passed from the beginning of the new settlements, the moshavot grew and expanded. Instead of hundreds of farmers, there were now thousands of families whose livelihood depended on agriculture. 

On the one hand, this fact made the heter even more necessary, but on the other hand, it also caused the opponents to harden their position, seeing as the heter had become more comprehensive and involved much more people and land.

The Spiritual Situation of the Farmers

In the meantime, another significant change occurred: 

Most residents of the first moshavot, members of the First Aliyah, were Torah observant and committed to the rulings of the rabbis. 

However, during the following generation, the rapid secularization process that swept over European Jewish communities was reflected in the composition of the young immigrants who came to Israel as part of the Second Aliyah. Thus, by the year 1909, many of the new farmers were not fully observant. Most of them were willing to cooperate with the rabbis on issues concerning Shabbat, orla and tithes, but it was impossible to persuade them not to work the fields for a full year. 

The distancing of the pioneers from Torah observance caused the opponents of the heter to escalate their struggle against it and the rabbis who supported it, but on the other hand, strengthened the position of those in favor who believed that by means of the heter, the pioneers would continue cooperating with the rabbis in matters of kashrut (Iggrot HaRa’ayah 291, 311).

The Struggle against the Zionist Movement

By that time, the ideological camps were evident. If initially there were rabbis who supported Chovevei Tzion but objected to the heter, in the second generation, all who supported the new settlements also approved of the heter. 

Conversely, the defining characteristic of the opponents was their reservations to one extent or another of the Yishuv HaChadash, and certainly, their disapproval of the Zionist movement which in the meantime had been founded in 5657 (1897), and most of its leaders and activists were non-observant.

Only in this light can the fierce opposition to the heter be understood. Indeed, the first generation of rabbis who opposed the heter were still able to disregard the opinion of the lenient rabbis, seeing as it was a new matter which had not yet been clarified adequately, and the extent of the distress the public would face by keeping shmitta was also unclear.

 But in the second generation, the opponents of the heter were already familiar with all the considerations, and could have known that its foundations were vastly firmer than similar heters, such as eating ‘chadash’ in chutz l’aretz, which is accepted in times of a sha’at dachak. Moreover, the rabbis who supported the heter tended to be more machmir (stringent) and cautious compared to common practice in similar cases of distress.

The only answer is that the machloket (controversy) of most of the opponents of the heter against the Zionist movement kilkala et shurat ha’din (defied the rules of proper debate among Torah scholars), to the point where they ignored all the reliable sources of the heter, while gathering together all the possible chumra arguments.

The Mitzvah of Settling the Land

In other words,

 if one believes there is no point in yishuv ha’aretz without keeping shmitta, and the fulfillment of the mitzvot of yishuv ha’aretz by a person who is not meticulous in mitzvoth is meaningless, it goes without saying there is no need to find a heter to work in the shmitta year.

Yet, the heter is based on the mitzvah of yishuv ha’aretz, which our Sages said is equivalent to all the mitzvot. Not working the fields in the shmitta year was liable to cause severe damage to the settlements, because as it was, the difficulties of immigration and settlement were enormous, and only small numbers of Jews agreed to move to Israel; how much more so would their numbers have decreased if they had to stop working in the shmitta year.

Therefore, the rabbis saw a great need to find a heter in order to expropriate the fields from the obligation of shmitta – which today is d’rabbanan (of rabbinic status) or midat chassidut (a pious and meritorious act), and fulfill the commandment of yishuv ha’aretz, whose obligation is d’oreita (of Biblical status).

 In time, it turned out that the necessity was much graver, because many of the Jews who remained in European exile were murdered by the Nazis or trapped under Communist persecution.

The Controversy

Life was not easy for the rabbis in favor of the heter. They had to withstand harsh attacks and slander from the extremists of the generation. There were even Gedolei Ha’dor who initially opposed the heter, but after hearing the explanations in favor, supported it, but refrained from openly expressing their opinions due to the controversy waged by the opponents of the heter (for example, the eminent posek, the Maharsham).

Rabbi Kook

When the Gedolei Ha’dor instituted the heter in 5649 (1888), 

Rav Kook was only twenty-four years old. In spite of this, many people associate the heter with Rabbi Kook, because he explained its foundations at length in his book 'Shabbat Ha’aretz’ and in numerous responsa and letters, and he also was responsible for its implementation as rabbi of Jaffa and the moshavot in the shmitta years of 5670 (1909) and 5677 (1916) (although he was not in Eretz Yisrael at the time). 

Later on, as Chief Rabbi of Israel, he also implemented the heter in the shmitta years of 5684 (1923) and 5691 (1930).

It is worth noting that by nature, Rav Kook was an extremely pious man who was inclined to enhance and embellish every mitzvah possible, and greatly regretted having been forced to expropriate the mitzvot of shmitta by means of the heter mechira. 

In practice, nevertheless, he determined that it was absolutely impossible to be machmir. And as he wrote, if we are overly machmir (stringent) in this matter beyond what is required, the enormity of the chilul Hashem (desecration of God) and the destruction of the Torah it would cause would be inconceivable, for it would reinforce the heretics who claim that the Torah does not enable the Jewish People to survive in its land, and therefore we must renounce its commandments (Iggrot 291, 311).

With God's help, next week I will write about the harder line the opponents of the heter took, and the serious consequences that still has today.

This article appears in the ‘Besheva’ newspaper, and was translated from Hebrew. Additional articles by Rabbi Melamed can be found at: Yeshivat Har Bracha.

Abe Foxman Stabs Israel in back while retiring from Anti-Defamation League

Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is retiring from the organization in July after many years at the helm – and for some reason, he chose to condemn the State of Israel on three separate occasions in his last few days of running the organization. 

This master of Public Relations criticized Israel on different issues in three separate forums – in an op-ed, in a speech and via press release. 

It is true that Foxman undermined the Prime Minister of Israel a few months ago when he urged Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel his speech to a joint session of Congress about the Iranian nuclear threat, and that he has stated that those who oppose a two-state solution encourage anti-Semitism, boycotts against Israel, and are bad for Israel.  Foxman has long spoken out on liberal issues.

This week, Foxman wrote an op-ed that criticized Culture Miri Regev for her decision to refuse to fund programs which harm the State of Israel.  

Foxman argued that “fierce arguments ensued about when free speech crosses the line into something more dangerous, about the difference between speech that comes from independent institutions or individuals and speech that is funded by government, and about what constitutes the public interest in discussing the curtailment of speech.” 

He is wrong – leaders have the obligation to make decisions and to lead.

Foxman then claimed that the minister of culture should not be able to decide what to fund, writing of Regev, 

“While it is true that she became minister of culture because her Likud Party formed the government, this line of approach is a grave misunderstanding of democratic society and values, and potentially holds within it future threats to democracy.”

 Wrong again.  Winners win and losers lose. 

 The Likud Party was chosen in a democratic election to lead the State of Israel. And the left closed the Arutz Sheva radio station on a pretext.

Last week, during a presentation at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan, Foxman blamed Israel for losing American Jewish support,claiming

 “I don’t think Israel understands, appreciates, values, respects this partner– this side of the partner[ship]…  There needs to be a lot more sensitivity and education in Israel as to the value of this community beside sending checks or in a moment of crisis, running to Congress.” 

Foxman continued, “Where is [Israel’s] sekhel (intelligence, ed.)? Where is the smartness? Where is it to understand that you need to change that relationship, you need to find ways– and it’s not happening! It’s not happening!”

For the tri-fecta, on a hot summer Sunday evening June, Foxman issued a press release condemning Michael Oren, Israel’s former Ambassador to the U.S., claiming Oren’s criticism of President Obama is ““unjustified and insensitive.”

Someone should have suggested to Foxman, that after 30 years of running the ADL, he might wish to close his career with a solidarity trip to Israel, or perhaps a gesture to Jews in Europe who are facing a barrage of anti-Semitism.  

It is sad that a high-profile Jewish leader chose instead to attack the State of Israel.  At this time, that is not what Jewish leaders should be doing. It is certainly not what the head of ADL should leave as his legacy.

byRonn Torossian

Chandelier Collapses In Wedding Hall In Yavne - One Dead, Close To 30 Injured.... updated

At least one person was killed, and at least two dozen injured when a lighting system crashed down at a wedding hall in Yavne, Israel on Monday night.

The party was for a “Henna” (a custom that certain Sefardim have that make a party the night before the wedding), and hundreds of people were in the room. 

For reasons still unknown, a massive chandelier came crashing to the ground. At least one person is dead, and around two dozen are injured. Three of them are reportedly in serious condition.

A Mass Casualty Incident (MCI) has been declared, with scores of Magen David Adom, United Hatzalah and Zaka operating on the scene.

Some reports say that multiple chandeliers fell.

UPDATED

Light fixture, about 5 meters (16 feet) in diameter, was supposed to descend from the ceiling, but instead collapsed on a bar • "My world was destroyed on the day of my son's wedding," says groom's mother . Event hall operated without a license.

A woman was killed and 21 people were hurt late Monday when a light fixture collapsed on a wedding party at an event hall in Yavne. 

The fixture, about 5 meters (16 feet) in diameter, collapsed onto a wet bar, causing moderate injuries to one man and light injuries to 20 more people.

The three owners of the event hall have been taken into police custody for questioning.

Gila Levy, the mother of the groom described the turn of events: "It happened at 12:30 a.m. The special light fixture that is supposed to descend from the ceiling collapsed suddenly. I heard an explosion, and I thought that it was plates, that something had been dropped, and suddenly my eyes go dark. Blood, people on the floor. It was like a terrorist attack.

"My world was destroyed on the day of my son's wedding," she went on to say. "It is a feeling of complete helplessness. I am still in shock, I never dreamed something like this could happen to me. My daughter-in-law said to me 'everyone said our wedding was so unique but we never dreamed it would be this unique.' Everything was perfect. 

There were 800 guests, an upscale venue, everyone was happy, and then suddenly, in one fell swoop, everything was ruined."

The woman who was killed, Aviva Hayun, 54, was the wife of the bride's uncle. 

According to Israeli media, an initial police investigation has so far revealed that the event hall had been operating without a license. The venue began operating about a year ago and apparently received all the necessary permits, but in the absence of one permit from the Health Ministry, a permanent license was never issued.

The attorney representing the event hall owners argued that they were in the process of obtaining a permanent license and were in the midst of completing the necessary paperwork.

A paramedic who treated the wedding guests at the scene recounted: "There was a lot of confusion. Some of the injured were walking around and some were lying on the ground in the center of the hall. People were panicked and tried to make their way outside the hall.

"We performed initial triage and honed in on three people lying on the ground. One of them, a woman, was unconscious, not breathing and without a pulse. We began administering life saving treatment, but sadly we had to pronounce her dead at the scene. Another man sustained injuries to his head, and he was fully conscious and labeled in moderate condition. The rest were lightly hurt," he said

Obama will use the "N" word but he won't use the word "Islamist Jihad"

Here is a guy who gave instructions to the entire State Department not to use the word "Islamist Terrorism" but he, the President of the United States sees nothing wrong with  using the racist "N" word?
This is the state of affairs...

We have a black President that was elected twice, a black Attorney General, a black Supreme Court Justice, a black Secretary of State, and they are still worried about racism!

Then Chuck Todd and all the Sunday Journalists discuss and debate whether to prohibit flying the confederate flag .... while the entire world is burning.... get it? I don't !

Chuck Todd to Huckabee: Do You Display the Confederate Flag?

One of the major talking points in the media on Sunday wasn’t the Charleston shooting, per se, but the renewed debate regarding whether or not the Confederate flag has a place in modern America. Former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney spoke out against the flag on Twitter, and current GOP hopefuls like Lindsey Graham, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum have all broached the topic — some more forcefully than others.

Mike Huckabee followed suit on Sunday morning’s Meet the Press when host Chuck Todd asked the former Arkansas governor point blank, “Are you comfortable displaying the Confederate battle flag in public?”

I don’t personally display it anywhere, so it’s not an issue for me. That’s an issue for the people of South Carolina. Do you display it? I doubt it. Does anyone on your panel display it? I doubt it. For us, it’s not an issue.