WE must make more NOISE!!!

Tags

accountability, American Conservative, Big Government, choices, conservatism, WE THE PEOPLE

The general unrest across America is palpable! People are angry, frustrated, and disgusted with the ‘business as usual’ in DC, but they also feel helpless. Clearly, the majority of our elected officials no longer care two hoots what the people want. Suddenly, once elected, they simply work toward fulfilling their own agenda, whatever that is. Usually, it’s little more than lining their own pockets with taxpayer money!

The “system” is so badly out of whack that WE, the PEOPLE feel we have little or no recourse, no place to argue our distrust of government, no place to flay the “mainstream media” for feeding us only their left-leaning drippings, no place to decry the GREED from top to bottom because morality is currently out of fashion. Sadly, many decent Americans have simply given up and gone into hiding, so to speak.

I heard Sean Hannity a few weeks ago in conversation with a guest from the Republican party attempt to explain an opinion I agree with – Americans are so accustomed to the media’s definition of “Conservativism” that we are left to play defense on the various issues America faces. The would-be voices of Conservative leaders are silenced or manipulated into idiocy beyond recognition. As Americans, WE must define ourselves. WE must make more noise, positive noise! Let the left continue to make a mess of things for now, but USE our successes to prove our point. Use the soaring economy in the Dakotas and Texas to demonstrate the success of Conservative economic policies. Bring national social issues to a referendum – things like abortion and same-sex marriage. Let WE-the PEOPLE declare our choices loud and clear. CONSERVATISM is both logical and pragmatic, and it is what America needs!!!

WE must make more NOISE!!!

Where Is Our Voice in the Wilderness Touting Conservatism?

By Lloyd Marcus · Sep. 18, 2014

For crying out loud, will someone “pleeeeease” take a stand for Conservatism? Someone forwarded this article to me, “Why Are Republicans Suddenly Leaning Left?” The article cites numerous examples of the GOP obviously believing it must embrace at least lukewarm Liberalism while backing away from Conservatism to win elections.

The article mentioned that Mitt Romney avoided saying “Republican” in an ad supporting Scott Brown’s Senate run. Romney said in the ad referring to Brown, “will buck his own party to do what’s right for New Hampshire.” Romney’s statement implies that Conservatism can be mean, but rest assured that Brown will push back if Republicans go down that road. This hogwash drives me nuts because Conservatism is not mean; Liberalism is mean!

Mr. Romney you are an honorable man. But, if you are not going to boldly articulate the superior attributes of Conservatism; how it is rooted in compassion and why it is most beneficial to all Americans – if you are afraid to explain the foundational evils of Liberalism, please stay home; out of the 2016 presidential race.

In the first 2012 presidential debate, Romney kicked Obama’s butt with truth and facts. Then, Romney went on “prevent defense” in the next debate. His behavior said, “I have Obama on the ropes. I’m not going to say or do anything to blow my lead.” Consequently, in the second debate Romney allowed Obama to get away with lies.

Clueless low info voters believed Obama’s lies and his sycophant MSM allies said nothing. Romney’s lukewarm defense of Republican principles (Conservatism) led to 4 million frustrated Republican voters staying home, not bothering to cast their votes on election day. READ MORE HERE

ADDITIONAL READING:

The People Are Revolting!

The Logic of Liberalism

He Who Governs Nearest, Governs Most?

The Tyrannical Logic of Liberalism

Briefing by Senior Administration Officials to Update Recent Events in Libya

Tags

barack-obama, Benghazi, Hillary Clinton

Condemnation: President Obama, joined by Hillary Clinton, speaks in reaction to the killing of the US Ambassador to Libya on Wednesday morning
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2201780/Christopher-Stevens-death-US-ambassador-killed-attack-Libya.html#ixzz29QSKI5tY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Pentagon sending warships to Libya following death of ambassador killed in ‘co-ordinated al Qaeda revenge attack by terrorists who used Libyan Mohammed movie protest as cover’

• USS Laboon and USS McFaul sent to the coast of Libya on the day after the massacre at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi
• Attack came amid protests following film The Innocence of Muslims which ‘insults Prophet Mohammed’
• Attackers could have been staging revenge attack for death of al Qaeda official in June
• Officials noted the staged attack came on 11th anniversary of 9/11
• US ambassador Christopher Stevens died of ‘smoke inhalation’ after grenade attack on consulate in Benghazi
• He had been trying to evacuate staff at US compound as furious mob of extremists attacked
• Obama: ‘Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the US who selflessly served his country’
• Marines on their way to Benghazi to provide additional security and drones expected to gather intelligence
• Sean Smith, a foreign service information manager, was also shot dead by armed militants

READ MORE HERE

Killed: Christopher Stevens was a career diplomat who died as he tried to evacuate staff from the US consulate in Benghazi

I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY

I know there’s more.

hawkdriver on October 15, 2012 at 10:13 PM

hawkdriver:

Hawk,here are the State Departments Briefings,after the Debackle:)
===================================================================

Briefing by Senior Administration Officials to Update Recent Events in Libya

Special Briefing
Office of the Spokesperson
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
September 12, 2012
******************

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Thank you, Operator, and thanks to all of our journalists for joining us on this very, very difficult day. We thought it was important to give you a little bit more information about what we knew when we knew it to help shape your understanding of the tragic events in Benghazi. Here with me I will hereafter be Senior Administration Official Number One. That’s [title withheld]. I also have with me [Senior Administration Official Two], hereafter Senior Administration Official Number Two. And we also have [Senior Administration Official Three], hereafter Senior Administration Official Number Three.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the bucks stops with her when it comes to who is blame for a deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
“I take responsibility” for what happened on September 11, Clinton said in an interview with CNN’s Elise Labott soon after arriving in Lima, Peru for a visit. The interview, one of a series given to U.S. television networks Monday night, were the first she has given about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Let me just give you some framing points. First of all, we want to make clear that we are still here today operating within the confusion of first reports. Many details of what happened in Benghazi are still unknown or unclear. The account we’re going to give you endeavors to reconstruct the events of last night to the best of our ability now. And again, this reflects our current accounting of events. These are first reports, and so the facts could very well change as we get a better understanding.

Let me also give you a little better understanding about our office conditions in Benghazi. The facility that we are working in is an interim one. We originally acquired the property before the fall of Qadhafi. It includes a main building and several ancillary buildings, and then there was also an annex a little bit further away.

So let me give you a little bit of the chronology to the best of our knowledge. Again, the times are likely to change as it becomes a little bit more precise, but this is how we’ve been able to reconstruct what we have from yesterday.

In flames: The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is seen on fire during a protest by an armed group protesting a film being produced in the United States

At approximately 4 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time yesterday, which was about 10 p.m. in Libya, the compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists. By about 4:15, the attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith. They became separated from each other due to the heavy, dark smoke while they were trying to evacuate the burning building. The Regional Security Officer made it outside, and then he and other security personnel returned into the burning building in an attempt to rescue Chris and Sean. At that time, they found Sean. He was already dead, and they pulled him from the building. They were unable, however, to locate Chris before they were driven from the building due to the heavy fire and smoke and the continuing small arms fire.

At about 4:45 our time here in Washington, U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex. At about 5:20, U.S. and Libyan security personnel made another attempt and at that time were able to regain the main building and they were able to secure it. Then, due to continued small arms fire, they evacuated the rest of the personnel and safe havened them in the nearby annex.

The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack.

At about 8:30 p.m. our time here in Washington, so now 2 o’clock in the morning in Libya, Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time. His body was later returned to U.S. personnel at the Benghazi airport.

Later that evening, we were able to bring our chartered aircraft from Tripoli into Benghazi to evacuate all of our Benghazi personnel back to Tripoli. This evacuation, which had to occur in a couple of planeloads, included all of our American Benghazi personnel, including the three wounded, and the remains of our fallen colleagues. They are now in the process – that same staff – of being evacuated to Germany. The staff that is well is going to stay in Europe on standby for a while while we assess the security situation in the coming period. The wounded will be treated in Germany, and the remains will come home, and we’ll advise you of when that will be as soon as we know.

In the meantime, we have taken our Embassy in Tripoli down to emergency staffing levels. We have reduced the staff down to what we call emergency staffing levels. And we have requested increased support from the Libyans while we assess the security situation.

I would also like to advise you that last night, all of our diplomatic posts around the world were ordered to review their security posture and to take all necessary steps to enhance it if those were deemed necessary. I’d like to now turn it over to Senior Administration Official Number Three for some remarks on what his agency has been up to.

OPERATOR: Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, please press * then 1 on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone indicating you have been placed in queue. You may remove yourself from queue at any time by pressing the # key. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. Once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press * then 1 at this time.

And the first question is from Elise Labott with CNN. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, I have a couple of questions, if you would. And again, all of our condolences on what happened today. I was wondering if you can talk about now how – I know Secretary Clinton said that this would not affect how the U.S. dealt with the Libyans, and that you would move forward. But certainly, it must make you start to think about any precipitous rush to support groups in any other countries such as Syria or the like because of the uncertainty of who is on the ground.

And then I was wondering if you could talk a little bit more about Chris Stevens’ personal security and how his personal detail could have been separated from him. I mean, his personal detail’s number one responsibility is to protect their package, and so it just seemed – I just would like more clarity on how he got out of the building and then went back to find him. Why didn’t he just keep staying in the building looking for him? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: Let me start with the last question first, Elise. I think you can understand that I’m not going to go into detail about how his security detail was organized. I think in the accounting that I gave, I made clear that security personnel were endeavoring to get him out of the building when they got separated by the incredibly thick smoke and fire – if you’ve seen the pictures from the building you can have some sense of how awful the conditions were – and that they then turned right back around, got more help, and went back in to look for him. So this was really a quite – a heroic effort.

With regard to your larger question, as the Secretary said very clearly today, we are as committed today as we have ever been to a free and stable Libya. That is still in America’s interest. And we are going to continue to work very strongly to help them have the future that they want and they deserve. I would simply note how quickly and how strongly senior members of the Libyan government came forward to condemn this attack, to offer all support to us.

I’d also like to underscore that it was Libyan security forces that stood with ours in defending our buildings. We also had some – one of the local militias who is friendly to the Embassy came to assist as well. And I think that really speaks to the relationship that we’ve built with Libya. Thank you.

OPERATOR: Andrea Mitchell with NBC News is next. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you for doing this and especially at such a terrible time for all of you. Can you expand on the regular security for the Ambassador? I know you don’t usually talk about security, but you can imagine how people want these details now in terms of, was it diplomatic security? Were they all RSOs? How long had he been in Benghazi? Give us a little bit more of his movements that day.

And secondly, there’s a lot of reporting now on this being linked to a terror attack, an organized terror attack – possibly al-Qaida sympathetic or al-Qaida linked. Can you speak to that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL THREE: Operator, is the call ongoing?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL ONE: I’m sorry, it looks like I had a – I was on mute there for a while. I was going on and on on mute. I apologize. So Andrea, to your first question: Frankly, we are not in a position to speak any further to the perpetrators of this attack. It was clearly a complex attack. We’re going to have to do a full investigation. We are committed to working with the Libyans both on the investigation and to ensure that we bring the perpetrators to justice. The FBI is already committed to assisting in that, but I just – we’re – it’s just too early to speak to who they were and if they might have been otherwise affiliated beyond Libya.

With regard to Chris’s trip to Benghazi, as you know, he made regular and frequent trips to Benghazi so that he could check up on developments in the east. You know that he had been our representative – the Secretary’s representative and the President’s, to the Transitional National Council before the fall of Qadhafi and had spent a lot of time in Benghazi and built deep contacts there. So this was one of his regular visits that he made periodically.

With regard to the security arrangements, I think you will understand that we never talk in detail about how our security is arranged. And we particularly don’t talk about security arrangements for – personal security arrangements for senior level personnel.

What I can tell you is that security in Benghazi included a local guard force outside of the compound on which we rely, which is similar to the way we are postured all over the world. We had a physical perimeter barrier, obviously. And then we had a robust American security presence inside the compound, including a strong component of regional security officers. But I’m not going to go any further than that on the specifics.

Next question, operator.

(A lot More……)
==================

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/09/197694.htm

Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
September 13, 2012

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/09/197729.htm
=====================================================

Victoria Nuland
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
September 14, 2012

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/09/197784.htm
=====================================================

canopfor on October 1, 2012 at 10:22 AM

canopfor on October 10, 2012 at 5:59 PM

canopfor on October 15, 2012 at 10:22 PM

The History of Labor Day via The Story of Liberty

Tags

Labor Day, Matthew Maguire, Peter J. McGuire, President Grover Cleveland

The History behind Labor Day

Labor Day is an American federal holiday observed on the first Monday in September (September 3 in 2012) that celebrates the economic and social contributions of workers. In 1882, Matthew Maguire, a machinist, first proposed the holiday while serving as secretary of the CLU (Central Labor Union) of New York. Others argue that it was first proposed by Peter J. McGuire of the American Federation of Labor in May 1882, after witnessing the annual labor festival held in Toronto, Canada.

Oregon was the first state to make it a holiday in 1887. By the time it became a federal holiday in 1894, thirty states officially celebrated Labor Day. Following the deaths of a number of workers at the hands of the U.S. military and U.S. Marshals during the Pullman Strike, the United States Congress unanimously voted to approve rush legislation that made Labor Day a national holiday; President Grover Cleveland signed it into law a mere six days after the end of the strike. The September date originally chosen by the CLU of New York and observed by many of the nation’s trade unions for the past several years was selected rather than the more widespread International Workers’ Day because Cleveland was concerned that observance of the latter would be associated with the nascent Communist, Syndicalist and Anarchist movements that, though distinct from one another, had rallied to commemorate the Haymarket Affair in International Workers’ Day. All U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and the territories have made it a statutory holiday.

The form for the celebration of Labor Day was outlined in the first proposal of the holiday: A street parade to exhibit to the public “the strength and esprit de corps of the trade and labor organizations”, followed by a festival for the workers and their families. This became the pattern for Labor Day celebrations. Speeches by prominent men and women were introduced later, as more emphasis was placed upon the civil significance of the holiday. Still later, by a resolution of the American Federation of Labor convention of 1909, the Sunday preceding Labor Day was adopted as Labor Sunday and dedicated to the spiritual and educational aspects of the labor movement.

The holiday is often regarded as a day of rest and parties. Speeches or political demonstrations are more low-key than May 1 Labor Day celebrations in most countries, although events held by labor organizations often feature political themes and appearances by candidates for office, especially in election years. Forms of celebration include picnics, barbecues, fireworks displays, water sports, and public art events. Families with school-age children take it as the last chance to travel before the end of summer recess. Similarly, some teenagers and young adults view it as the last weekend for parties before returning to school, although school starting times now vary.

What does Labor Day mean to YOU?

My family always celebrated by “protesting” the “Union” in parade downtown Pittsburgh by having a large family picnic!

Bozell Nails Ross and ABC; James Holmes and Obama

Bozell Nails Ross and ABC; James Holmes and Obama

Posted by JEFFREY LORD via The American Spectator on 7.21.12 @ 11:14AM

Did you know James Holmes gave money to Barack Obama?

It’s true. And I knew this yesterday morning.

Why didn’t I write this up for The American Spectator to publish as a blog post — on the spot?

For one very simple, very elemental reason.

In the first flush of the carnage in Colorado yesterday morning, when the shooter’s name had made it to the airwaves but not much else about him, everybody with a computer and a phone was scouring all manner of Internet sites to find out about James Holmes.

In my case I found that James Holmes was on the Federal Election Commission rolls as an Obama contributor. The problem? I had absolutely no idea whether this was the same James Holmes who was the Colorado movie murderer — and with good reason. “James Holmes” or “Jim Holmes” are not exactly odd names in America. Indeed, the FEC had dozens of “James Holmes” on its contributor lists — as did all manner of other sites have the same two names. In fact, there were several James Holmes or Jim Holmes on social sites listed as living in or around Aurora, Colorado or what we had learned was his family home — San Diego, California. In the latter case, there was a Jim Holmes who professed himself to be a “lefty.” With enough persistence one could learn their ages and place of residence. That Jim Holmes in the San Diego area was long over 24.

The James Holmes who was an Obama contributor was from an East Coast state — and there was not a shred of proof that I could find that he was the James Holmes who was by then the subject of intense scrutiny.

So?

So I never wrote him up. James Holmes and his connection to President Obama never made it to The American Spectator. Good thing — because if I had done that I would have looked like an idiot, and deservedly so.
Obviously standards are a little looser over at ABC News. Where yesterday ABC News anchor and longtime Democratic Party operative George Stephanopoulos called on correspondent Brian Ross to tell America breathlessly that he had found a page for “Jim Holmes” with the Colorado Tea Party.

In other words, Brian Ross did exactly what I did not do. He went with a completely false story — and clearly it was because over at the liberal precincts of ABC News they wanted to smear the Tea Party. They weren’t interested in the truth — they were interested in the liberal politics.

So today they have egg on their face.

Here’s Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center on the episode at ABC:

Bozell: ABC’s Disgraceful Rush to Judgment on the Tea Party

This morning, in the aftermath of the unspeakable Colorado massacre that claimed at least 12 innocent American lives and injured dozens more, ABC “news” investigative reporter Brian Ross appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America and made the outrageous, irresponsible, and completely unfounded claim that the alleged gunman, 24-year-old Jim Holmes, is a member of the Tea Party. Apparently Ross has learned absolutely nothing from the media’s disgraceful rush to judgment and dissemination of misinformation following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in January 2011.

That’s twice now that the “news” media have falsely implicated the Tea Party in murder.

In his brazen attempt to smear the Tea Party, Ross speculated on national television to millions of viewers that Holmes was a member of the Tea Party based on a social media webpage. When it became apparent that this accusation was false, ABC offered an apology, but they chose to release it online where only a fraction of Good Morning America’s misinformed viewers would see it. In addition, Ross had the gall to appear on ABC News to correct himself without offering an on-air apology.

Ross slandered every American even loosely associated with the Tea Party, and he owes them an apology. He must also apologize to Good Morning America’s audience, the James Holmes he falsely implicated of mass murder, and, most of all, to each and every person in Colorado directly or indirectly affected by this horrific tragedy.

In a moment that demanded clarity of thought and purpose, Ross rushed to slander those with whom he does not agree politically, exposing the depths and darkness of his political prejudices. Shame on Brian Ross, and shame on ABC News for not yet demanding he look directly into the camera and beg forgiveness for politicizing this terrible event. Ross’ meek Twitter apology is a cynically insincere slap in the face to us all.

So.

It’s fair to ask.

What was going on in the heads of this liberal media outlet when they ran on-air with a story linking the Tea Party to the Colorado shooter — a story they had not found to be fact.

Safe to say, it was not the same thing that went through my head when I found out that James Holmes was a contributor to Barack Obama.

I was after the truth. ABC was after the Tea Party.

Preparing for the next outage

Tags

Carrington Event of 1859, electromagnetic pulse (EMP), Solar Storm

Electromagnetic pulse … America’s security nightmare

By Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House and a Republican candidate for president, lives in McLean with his wife, Callista.

Callista and I live in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, and, like many in the region, we lost power in the recent storms. The blackout, combined with a record heat wave, made homes nearly uninhabitable. The storm and heat were this region’s greater leveler: Rich or poor, urban or suburban, six-figure income or just barely getting by, we were all cast on the same strange shores.

Without power, the comforts of home become worthless. You sit in the sweltering heat, realizing you are living in a box that, without electricity, is a trap. You pray for the “juice” to return before your groceries go bad. You either make do in the heat or find refuge with friends who have electricity.

I write this now because of my concern for national security and our power grid, which are susceptible to doomsday-level damage if hit by an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) strike or a major solar storm.

It is almost unthinkable, yet possible, that an enemy could detonate a nuclear weapon over the atmosphere over the continental United States, triggering an electromagnetic pulse(EMP). This would short-circuit our power grid, taking power off­line for months, perhaps even years.

A similar crisis could be sparked by a solar storm like the Carrington Event of 1859, a type of geomagnetic disturbance that occurs about every 75 years. Statistically, we are long overdue for such a storm. There have been some recent examples of the potential impact, such as the millions in Quebec who lost power for several hours in 1989 as a result of a space storm.

Our nation’s communications infrastructure, modes of transportation and many fundamentals of survival all rely on a power grid that is vulnerable. The current system lacks safety features needed to prevent damage to critical electrical infrastructure.

In 2009, my friend — and sometimes co-author — William R. Forstchen published a truly frightening book, “One Second After.” (I wrote the foreword.) The story is fiction but based on hard facts. It is a cautionary tale about the threat of EMP strikes and major solar storms, known as coronal mass ejections.

William turned to bipartisan congressional studies published in 2004 and 2008 and interviewed many experts. His book made the New York Times bestseller list and helped to trigger what some call the “prepper” movement.

During the recent power outage, William and I talked about what would have happened if this had been an EMP attack or a strong solar storm. > > > READ MORE

Additional info:

Our Worst Frailty: An Electro Magnetic “Hit”

EMP ATTACK: WHAT TO DO TO PREPARE

The Carrington Event

Electromagnetic pulse impact far and wide

JESUS ‘OMITTED’ FROM NIAGARA FALLS CROSSING

‘Are you that uncomfortable typing the name of Christ?’

SARASOTA, Fla. – Despite Nik Wallenda’s frequent mentions of God the Father and Jesus during his record-setting, high-wire crossing of Niagara Falls Friday night, an ABC News blog documenting virtually every moment of the achievement makes no mention of his verbal thanks to the Creator.

Wallenda, 33, the great grandson of legendary tightrope walker Karl Wallenda, became the first person ever to walk across Niagara Falls on a high wire, as hundreds watched on TV at a block party in his Florida hometown of Sarasota, Fla., and millions of others tuned in for ABC television coverage.

Wallenda was fitted with a microphone during his tension-filled, 25-minute saunter at 200 feet high, and he could be heard praising God numerous times as he walked the length of four football fields from New York to Canada.

“Praise you, Father God. Praise you, Jesus!” Wallenda said on one occasion.

Not only were his comments audible, but on closed-caption TV sets broadcasting the event at restaurants, each of his words glorifying God were visible.

“Oh, my gosh, it’s an unbelievable view,” Wallenda continued. “You know I am so blessed to be in the position I am to be the first person in the world to be right here.”

His remarks provided a continuous theme of inspiration, as he said, “This is what dreams are made of, people. Pursue your dreams. Never give up. Mine might seem strange, but anybody that’s dealing with any battle – focus on that other side.”

But during the event itself and on an ABC News blog chronicling the astounding event, reporters did not mention Wallenda’s frequent shout-outs to God, and some viewers are taking issue with the omission.

“Not mentioned by the news media, Wallenda prayed throughout the walk, and we could hear him,” says Christian writer Jim Bramlett.

One commenter told ABC News, “How come this blog leaves out the part about him praising Jesus? All the details are complete, except this is noticeably left out. Are you that uncomfortable typing the name of Christ?”

Another wondered, “Why could any (just one) of your ‘correspondents’ not acknowledge Mr. Wallenda’s faith in Jesus and God, throughout his walk??? What is up with that? Really. This wasn’t a stunt. It was a challenge faced by a non-fundamentalist Christian. Why can’t media acknowledge that? Ask Nik about it. I bet he would like answering the question.”

The closest thing to matters of faith cited by ABC’s blog was noting at 10:08 p.m., “The Wallenda family prays together moments before he gets on the wire.”

Later at 10:56 p.m. once the crossing was complete, ABC’s blog noted: “Nik says, “It hasn’t sunk in yet. I’m grinning from ear to ear. This is something I’ve played over and over in my mind for the past 20 years. It’s surreal. I’m really blessed to be here.” >>>>>>> MORE HERE

KIDS DRESSED AS TERRORISTS IN PRO-JIHAD KINDERGARTEN GRADUATION CEREMONY IN GAZA

Yesterday, we reported about the Palestinian puppet show in East Jerusalem teaching the children that while it’s bad to smoke, it’s admirable to tote a machine gun and target Jews.

Now it appears that no child is left behind in Gaza, where kindergarteners recently held a jihad-promoting graduation ceremony replete with camouflage make-up, fatigues, fake machine guns and a kiddie version of water-boarding.

Ynet News translates from Islamic Jihad’s website which posted the photos:

“It is our obligation to educate the children to love the resistance, Palestine and Jerusalem, so they will recognize the importance of Palestine and who its enemy is,” the kindergarten’s director said.

The children were dressed up in uniforms of Jihad’s armed-wing, the al-Quds Brigades, and each of them received a toy rifle […]

One child, Hamza, said “When I grow up I’ll join Islamic Jihad and the al-Quds Brigades. I’ll fight the Zionist enemy and fire missiles at it until I die as a shahid [martyr] and join my father in heaven.

“I love the resistance and the martyrs and Palestine, and I want to blow myself up on Zionists and kill them on a bus in a suicide bombing,” he said.

Here are some of the photos, captured by the pro-Israel bloggers Challah Hu Akbar and Elder of Ziyon:

Future Jihadis “defend” Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa mosque

No caps and gowns: These Gaza graduates sport fatigues, guns, and suicide vest.

Mock up of coffins draped with terrorist factions’ flags

Ynet translates one teacher who said:

“At every kindergarten graduation ceremony we focus on the children to represent the role of struggling and resistance in the way of Allah so they will grow up to love the resistance and serve the cause of Palestine and Holy Jihad, as well as to make them leaders and fighters to defend the holy soil of Palestine.” >>> READ MORE

The Passing of a Patriot

Tags

Adolfo Calero, counterrevolutionaries, Nicaragua, Sandinistas

By Oliver North
June 8, 2012

MANAGUA, Nicaragua — The classical definition of a hero is a person who puts himself at risk for the benefit of others. That certainly describes Adolfo Calero, who died June 2 at the age of 80. The obituaries of this remarkable man hardly do justice to his courage, perseverance, faithfulness and humility. Here is the Adolfo Calero I knew, admired and called a friend for nearly three decades:

A graduate of Holy Cross High School in New Orleans and the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind., he was a devout Roman Catholic and educated to be a businessman, not a soldier. But after he was jailed twice by the Somoza regime and then by the Marxist Sandinistas, who overthrew the Nicaraguan dictator in 1979, Calero quietly joined the armed resistance in an effort to liberate his country. Threatened with arrest for anti-regime activities in 1982, he and his family escaped and watched from exile as the Sandinistas seized their property. The following year, he was chosen by his countrymen to lead the Nicaraguan Democratic Force, or FDN. By 1984, it had become the largest insurgent army ever fielded in the Western Hemisphere — more than 20,000 freedom fighters under arms.

Adolfo Calero (center) with FDN peasants.

Most of Calero’s all-volunteer counterrevolutionaries were poor but fiercely independent farmers and indigenous Christian Miskito, Suma and Rama Indians with no military experience. Destitute and hounded, they fled Sandinista tyranny, Soviet-style “collectivization” and police-state repression for sanctuaries on Nicaragua’s borders. I first met Adolfo at one of these encampments early in 1983. While walking among the fighters and their families, he made a passionate, emotional appeal for food, medical support, clothing, shelter and arms to “help these brave people resist the regime in Managua from spreading their ‘revolution without frontiers’ throughout this hemisphere.”

This wasn’t just rhetoric for the visiting “gringos.” Calero meant it — and lived it. His integrity, wisdom, steadfast resolve and fidelity to the cause of freedom were crucial to building and sustaining an unprecedented political-military organization committed to a democratic outcome in his homeland. It worked. Despite eight years of on-again, off-again support from the U.S. and other governments, his Contras forced the Soviet bloc/Cuban-supported Sandinistas to the negotiating table and to agree to an internationally supervised secret ballot. Thanks to Adolfo and those he led, the Marxists were defeated in the freest and fairest elections in Nicaraguan history. So great was Calero’s credibility among his countrymen that when he asked his soldiers to lay down their arms, they did.

Their victory came at a heavy price. Thousands of his Contras were killed and maimed during their quest for freedom. The long fight also took a heavy toll on Adolfo and his family. From 1983 to 1989, he traveled incessantly to rally political and financial support for his Nicaraguan Democratic Resistance throughout Latin America, to European capitals and to Washington — home of his most fervent supporters and critics.

Though Calero accepted assurances that his troops would not be abandoned in the field, he asked for a personal audience with the man who had promised to sustain them “body and soul” — President Ronald Reagan. A private, “off-the-books” White House meeting was arranged in 1985, and during the session, Adolfo gave the president an FDN lapel pin. President Reagan turned to the camera and said, “I’m a Contra, too.”

On one occasion in the mid-1980s, I flew to Miami to visit him when he was briefly hospitalized for exhaustion and respiratory distress — the malady from which he eventually succumbed. But when I arrived, he wasn’t in his hospital bed. I found him in a visitors waiting room lecturing a group of obstetricians, pediatricians and nurses — many of them children of Cuban refugees — on why they should volunteer to come to Honduras on weekends to treat the families of his anti-communist combatants. His powers of persuasion were such that many of them did just that.

After Congress barred the CIA from assisting the Contras, I accompanied Adolfo on numerous visits to the Contra camps along the Honduras-Nicaragua border. He ignored frequent and credible intelligence about Soviet, Cuban, Sandinista and even Palestinian assassination plots, eschewed an offer of a phalanx of bodyguards and insisted on attending memorial services for his fallen fighters at their bases…..READ MORE

The FY2013 NDAA and Domestic Detention—Now With More Misdirection

Tags

FY2012 NDAA, Gohmert Amendment, NDAA 2013

By Steve Vladeck
Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Ben is a far better wordsmith than I—”a little cowardly” communicates a lot more in a lot less than my post from Tuesday afternoon about why the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act does absolutely nothing to ameliorate the domestic detention concerns voiced from both ends of the political spectrum in response to the FY2012 NDAA. Moreover, I think Ben hits the nail on the head in suggesting with respect to the HASC bill that “its very purpose is to be inconsequential.” But it’s not just that the language in the HASC version of the FY2013 NDAA is designed to be inconsequential; it only works if it can at once (1) be inconsequential; and (2) look like it does a great deal. Without (2), one couldn’t argue that there’s simply no need for proposals like the Smith-Amash amendment (of course, one might still object to such proposals on substantive grounds, but alas, that’s another matter).

It seems that the secret may be out:

An amendment being proposed by Rep. Louis Gohmert is rumored to be circulating as a suggested “fix” to the Chairman’s Mark—as doing what the original bill did not do, i.e., adequately protecting the rights of individuals within the United States. On my reading, the Gohmert Amendment makes three material changes to the Chairman’s Mark:

• It narrows the scope of the statutory habeas protection to individuals “lawfully in the United States when detained,” as opposed to those “detained in the United States.”
• It adds a new notification provision requiring that the President notify Congress within 48 hours of subjecting to military detention an individual “lawfully in the United States when detained.”
• It specifies that “A person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the [AUMF] shall be allowed to file an application for habeas corpus relief in an appropriate district court not later than 30 days after the date on which such person is placed in military custody.”

Just to be clear, the Gohmert Amendment does nothing whatsoever to address the central objections to the Chairman’s Mark vis-a-vis domestic detention, which are that it (1) merely provides by statute a remedy that is already available to individuals detained within the United States; and (2) says nothing about the circumstances in which individuals might actually be subject to military detention when arrested within the territorial United States (that is, whether individuals using the provided-for remedy might actually prevail). Anyone within the United States who was subject to military detention before the FY2013 NDAA would be subject to it afterwards, as well, at least under the Chairman’s Mark (and with or without the Gohmert Amendment).

Moreover, in my view, the Gohmert Amendment actually makes things worse in two very significant respects: First, it introduces uncertainty regarding whether individuals arrested within the United States but out of immigration status are entitled to pursue habeas relief (never mind the countless immigration cases where such relief has historically been available—and the compelling constitutional arguments supporting that jurisprudence). Second, the 30-day provision would arguably allow the government to preclude a detainee’s access to court (or counsel) for 30 days, whereas under current law, the detainee may file the moment he is “in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States.”

As I wrote on Tuesday, the only way to address the concerns folks have about the potential domestic application of the AUMF and the NDAA is to do so explicitly by delineating with precision who may, and who may not, be subjected to military detention when arrested within the territorial United States. Whatever else one might say about the Smith-Amash amendment, it does exactly what the Chairman’s Mark, the Gohmert Amendment, and a host of the other proposals on the table refuse to do: It takes this central substantive issue seriously.

CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES ASAP!!!

READ MORE:

Virginia attempts to nullify the National Defense Authorization Act

Obama’s Broken Promises

NDAA 2013: Now Featuring Propaganda And War With Iran

NDAA 2013: Congress approves domestic deceptive propaganda

Our Contest for Freedom ~ a Thought to Ponder