Tuesday, November 30, 2010

What A Difference...

By Findalis

A few e-mails and phone calls made.  Instead of caving into the BS BDS movements demand that Sabra quit supporting the IDF and specifically their "adoption" of the Golani Reconnaissance platoon,   Sabra did an about-face and is not only continuing support of the IDF, but is redoubling its efforts of support.

In order to encourage more companies to follow Sabra's example, it is now asked by everyone to BUYCOTT Sabra.  That is right. Go out and buy Sabra Hummas.  Show not only the BDS idiots, but the world that you will take a stand with your wallet.  Plus it really is the best hummas on the market.

While we are on the subject of BUYCOTT, it is the holiday season.  The time of gift giving.  The time of pampering yourself and others. Think about putting some Ahava products on your shopping list.  With holiday specials and gift sets, you are sure to find a product for everyone on your list. And they make great stocking stuffers.

Ahava products are made exclusively from Dead Sea Minerals.  The very same minerals that history says Cleopatra used to snag both Julius Caesar and Mark Anthony.

This holiday season BUYCOTT Israel!  Go out of your way to do it too. And remember to let the store's management of why you are doing this.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Speech in Copenhagen

Gary Fouse

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is an Austrian journalist who is being criminally charged in her native Austria for defamatory speech (against Islam). She gave a speech on the topic of free speech at a conference in Copenhagen. I am cross-posting this from Vlad Tepes blog.


So now the EU is drafting legislation to crack down on free speech. As Ms Sabaditsch-Wolff points out, Europeans do not have a First Amendment. Thus, anything they say which could be construed as criticism of Islam would be subject to criminal prosecution. Is it any wonder Europeans are afraid to even mention the words, "Muslim" or "Islam"? Here is the wording of the EU Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia. Read it carefully. It may seem good on the surface, but it is dangerously broad.


Of course, one must make a distinction between hate speech-still protected under US laws- and an open and honest discussion of what Islamization and shariah law mean for Europeans. That discussion of Islam should not take the form of incriminating an entire people and should not be an incitement to violence or discrimination. However, it is a legitimate issue of public interest both here and in Europe. There must be a way for Europeans to express their concern about what is happening in their countries without being subjected to prosecution-not only in their own nations, but in any other member nation that takes exception to their speech.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Abraham Lincoln' Thanksgiving Proclamation

By Findalis

While George Washington issued the first Thanksgiving Proclamation, this proclamation which set the precedent for America's national day of Thanksgiving.

Sarah Josepha Hale, a 74-year-old magazine editor, wrote a letter to Lincoln on September 28, 1863, urging him to have the "day of our annual Thanksgiving made a National and fixed Union Festival." She explained, "You may have observed that, for some years past, there has been an increasing interest felt in our land to have the Thanksgiving held on the same day, in all the States; it now needs National recognition and authoritive fixation, only, to become permanently, an American custom and institution."

Prior to this, each state scheduled its own Thanksgiving holiday at different times, mainly in New England and other Northern states. President Lincoln responded to Mrs. Hale's request immediately, unlike several of his predecessors, who ignored her petitions altogether. In her letter to Lincoln she mentioned that she had been advocating a national thanksgiving date for 15 years as the editor of Godey's Lady's Book.

The document below sets apart the last Thursday of November "as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise." According to an April 1, 1864, letter from John Nicolay, one of President Lincoln's secretaries, this document was written by Secretary of State William Seward, and the original was in his handwriting. On October 3, 1863, fellow Cabinet member Gideon Welles recorded in his diary how he complimented Seward on his work. A year later the manuscript was sold to benefit Union troops.
Washington, DC—October 3, 1863

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they can not fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.

In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict, while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well as the iron and coal as of our precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the imposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the divine purpose, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity, and union.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 3d day of October, A.D. 1863, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-eighth.

Abraham Lincoln

By the President:
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.
Part of the Founding Document series.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Sunday, November 21, 2010

One For The Record Books!

By Findalis

Hat Tip to Israel Matzav

I have thought that I have heard every type of story regarding the idiots who work for the TSA and the traveling public.  But this one, my dear Truth Seekers gets the prize for being the best example of the mental idiots and brain dead bureaucrats that are entrusted with keeping us safe when we fly.
A friend of mine sent me this about his TSA experience. He, unlike most of us, was coming back into the country from Afghanistan on a military charter.

As the Chalk Leader for my flight home from Afghanistan, I witnessed the following:

When we were on our way back from Afghanistan, we flew out of Baghram Air Field. We went through customs at BAF, full body scanners (no groping), had all of our bags searched, the whole nine yards.

Our first stop was Shannon, Ireland to refuel. After that, we had to stop at Indianapolis, Indiana to drop off about 100 folks from the Indiana National Guard. That’s where the stupid started.

First, everyone was forced to get off the plane–even though the plane wasn’t refueling again. All 330 people got off that plane, rather than let the 100 people from the ING get off. We were filed from the plane to a holding area. No vending machines, no means of escape. Only a male/female latrine.

It’s probably important to mention that we were ALL carrying weapons. Everyone was carrying an M4 Carbine (rifle) and some, like me, were also carrying an M9 pistol. Oh, and our gunners had M-240B machine guns. Of course, the weapons weren’t loaded. And we had been cleared of all ammo well before we even got to customs at Baghram, then AGAIN at customs.

The TSA personnel at the airport seriously considered making us unload all of the baggage from the SECURE cargo hold to have it reinspected. Keep in mind, this cargo had been unpacked, inspected piece by piece by U.S. Customs officials, resealed and had bomb-sniffing dogs give it a one-hour run through. After two hours of sitting in this holding area, the TSA decided not to reinspect our Cargo–just to inspect us again: Soldiers on the way home from war, who had already been inspected, reinspected and kept in a SECURE holding area for 2 hours. Ok, whatever. So we lined up to go through security AGAIN.

This is probably another good time to remind you all that all of us were carrying actual assault rifles, and some of us were also carrying pistols.

So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our Soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better. A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the Soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this:

TSA Guy: You can’t take those on the plane.

Soldier: What? I’ve had them since we left country.

TSA Guy: You’re not suppose to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f**k out of here. I’ll buy you a new set.

Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]

This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns–but nothing that could have been used as a weapon.

And guess who is getting unionized?

Feel safe to fly now?

Saturday, November 20, 2010

The Ghailani Verdict-Why We Need Military Tribunals

Gary Fouse

The Department of Justice can spin this case any way they want. The fact is that the acquittal in New York of Ahmed Ghailani while being convicted of one count of conspiracy is a defeat for justice and a signal as to why these cases should be held by military tribunals instead of civilian courts.

It has been reported that the presiding judge had refused to allow the testimony of a key witness because the government had come up with that witness as a result of "enhanced interrogation". Fruit of the poisoned tree I assume.

It seems a stretch to me that the jury could convict him of conspiracy in connection with the African embassy bombings that killed 224 people, but not the murders themselves. Under conspiracy law, a co-conspirator who did not actually carry out the substantive act (in this case bombing the embassies) is still legally responsible if it was reasonable for a person to conclude that this plan could result in the deaths of people (in this case). I don't know the fine details in this case, but the key point is whether he was knowingly contributing to a plan to commit a terroristic act. For example, if you help a group of bank robbers case a bank, and in the act of robbing the bank, an innocent person is killed, you can still be held liable for the death even if you were not present. Why? Because if you knew you were assisting a bank robbery-even though you were not present-you would reasonably know there was a danger of someone being injured or killed.

The bottom line is that these cases belong before military tribunals. These are unlawful enemy combatants who fall outside the rules of war. There is no reason we should clog our court system with these terrorists-with whom we are at war. The example is the German saboteur case during World War II when German operatives landed on US shores to bomb key facilities. It was outside the rules of war. They were captured, tried by a military tribunal, and most were hanged.

By the way, when I was an Army MP, I had occasion to testify in a couple of court martials. I am confident they can do the job.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

A Most Sorrowful Boycott

By Findalis

I love Sabra hummus. Especially the roasted pine nut variety.  So a call to boycott Sabra, an Israeli company, is very disheartening and sorrowful to me.
An Israeli company that co-owns Sabra, the number-one selling hummus brand in the United States, has removed support for the IDF from its English-language website after a video circulating the internet criticized the company's support of Israel's "human rights abuses," according to a press release issued Thursday by the Philadelphia branch of the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement.

Strauss Group, which recently highlighted its "adoption" of the Golani Reconnaissance platoon and other Israeli soldiers on its website, has taken down its support for the IDF, according to the press release.

Kate Zaidan, a spokesperson for BDS group said, "We notice that while Stauss's English-language website no longer makes these claims, the Hebrew-language part of the site still includes them."

She added, "Philly BDS is asking that Strauss Group clarify whether the removal of the references means that Strauss no longer supports the Golani brigade, or whether it is simply an acknowledgment that support for the Israeli military is no longer seen as beneficial to Strauss's international image. We hope Strauss will confirm that the company now supports the 2005 Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel."

Last month, Philadephia activists staged a dance around a local supermarket as part of a campaign to pressure grocery chains to stop carrying Sabra Hummus products. The activists urged the supermarket and its customers not to "buy into Israeli apartheid," and shouted "No Justice, No Chickpeas!"

Full Story
Giving into the demands of anti-Semites who would see the death and destruction of 7 million Jews (Dancing and singing  while they kill them.) is and should be unacceptable to everyone with a working conscience.

I have sent them an explanation of why I am boycotting their products and why I hope they will reverse their decision so I can then change the boycott into an buycott.
I understand that you removed your "adoption" of the Golani Reconnaissance platoon and support of other Israeli soldiers on its website, has taken down its support for the IDF. I find this not acceptable. The rational that was given to me was the so-called human rights violations of Israel. Violations that occur only in the minds of the anti-Semites of the Philadelphia branch of the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement.

I support the State of Israel and the men and women of the IDF. I also find the BDS movement to be against everything I hold dear.

Since you have caved into their pressure I have no choice but to divest myself from your product. I have enjoyed Sabra hummus for many years, preferring it to other brands. But as of today I will join the growing boycott of your product.

I do hope that one day you will reverse your decision and support the IDF openly.
If you wish to contact them you can by the following methods:

Snail Mail: Sabra Consumer Relations, PO Box 660634, Dallas, TX 75266-0634
Phone: 1-888-957-2272, Monday – Friday 9:00AM to 4:30PM Central Time
E-Mail:  Click here

A boycott isn't effective if the company involved doesn't know you are boycotting them or why.

Join this boycott and let us see if we can change Sabra's minds to join the BDS and instead reject this idea.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Going, Going, Gone!

By Findalis

I have been waiting for this news for the last 2 weeks.  This election here in the 8th Congressional District for Illinois has been too close to call.  Allegations of voter fraud do to ballots from 5 villages (including my village of Palatine) going mission on Election Eve and mysteriously found at a polling place that had already been searched.  Yet the counting continued.
By a margin of 291 votes out of more than 200,000 cast, GOP challenger Joe Walsh emerged Tuesday as the winner over U.S. Rep. Melissa Bean in their nail-biting 8th District congressional race.

Bean, a three-term Democrat, made the results official late Tuesday, conceding the contest after calling Walsh to congratulate him on his upset victory.

Walsh, a Tea Party-backed conservative, led Bean by 347 votes at the beginning of the day, but absentee and provisional ballots tallied Tuesday narrowed that margin to less than two-tenths of a percent.

While Walsh, 48, claimed victory following the Nov. 2 election, Bean had refused to concede until all votes were counted. Bean is scheduled to speak on her decision Wednesday at a news conference.

Walsh, a self-employed consultant from McHenry County who battled a sometimes rocky road to reach Election Day, is expected today to formally claim victory.

He has been in Washington as part of the transition for new members of Congress
It was during the summer of  2009, the time of Town Hall Meetings, that the first rumblings of discontent towards her surfaced.  Instead of an open discussion of the ideas, she sent in her SEIU thugs and threw out her bosses constituency.  She had forgotten that she had a temp job, and that we, her constituency were her bosses.  She kept up this behavior even after she voted for Obamacare, even after we voiced our displeasure with her, even after she did this:

We did warn her, but she thought she knew better.  The 8th Congressional is a conservative district.  The last 3 elections she ran as an fiscal conservative, but these last 2 years she voted like a fiscal liberal.  So we voted her out.

Yes she lost by only 291 votes, but I like to think that my vote was the one to kick her out.  Perhaps it was!

Just  a reminder to Joe Walsh that we will not be ignored!

Ray Stevens - We The People

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Who is Mary Robinson?

Gary Fouse

If you don't know who Mary Robinson is, you should. This lady is a former president of Ireland (a ceremonial post-1990-1997) who was appointed by former UN Secretary General, the corrupt Kofi Annan, to be commissioner of the UN Office of the High Commission on Human Rights (1997-2002). Robinson is a critic of Israel and also the US-especially its military actions in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. Once, when asked if George W Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes, she opined that the matter was "premature" and should be studied by an independent body.

As UN high commissioner, Robinson oversaw the Durban Conference on Racism in 2001, which concentrated its fire on the state of Israel. Last year, President Obama awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom.One thing must be pointed out in fairness to Robinson. During a meeting at Durban, someone handed her a cartoon book full of anti-Semitic images which was being handed out to attendees at the registration table. When she saw it, she stood up and protested, declaring (rhetorically), "I am a Jew."

Yet, the entire conference that she ruled over was nothing but an exercise in bashing Israel, yet another in a long line of UN embarrassments. In my view, that conference should have been brought to an abrupt end by Robinson as soon as she saw that cartoon book.

So now (last year), our president awards this woman a medal. Doesn't that speak volumes about where his ideology lies?

So what ever became of Robinson? I'll give you one guess.

That's right. In 2004, she was given a teaching position at Columbia University, where she has lived happily ever after.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Why I quit...

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Desert Storm vet explains decision to leave Air Force after 22 years.

I never expected to write this letter, but my Mom e-mailed me to get information about my career for a writeup on Veterans Day, and as this is the first such holiday in 22 years when I will not be on active duty, I felt compelled to let you know why I decided to quit.

Quit is a strong word, I know. Everyone I’ve talked to has repeated that I’ve had a marvelous career and that I’ve retired with honor. Maybe that’s true on paper; I guess that it’s reflected by the record. But that’s not how I feel. I feel like I’ve quit. And because I’m not a quitter, I feel I have to explain why — not that anyone is asking, but because perhaps they don’t know to ask.

Briefly, my career had been a representation of the promise of this country. Starting out on the lowest rung of the rank ladder as an F-4G Wild Weasel crew chief, continuing on F-16s and the F-117A Stealth fighter in Desert Storm, then a small part of Desert Fox as a nuclear Maintenance Officer and finally a pilot that took part in numerous deployments in Southern Watch, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. I finished up an awesome year on the ground in Iraq, and was selected to receive a coveted “Definitely Promote,” assuring me of promotion to lieutenant colonel. They don’t pass out many of those. My dreams were right in front of me. All I had to do was grab them. And then I retired. Why?

Atlas Shrugged.

I had chosen, freely, to place my life between those that would do harm to the U.S. and those whom I would protect: her citizens. I had always believed in the best of America and the people of her lands; that despite occasional missteps there was a general “rightness” to our way. I lived that belief for 22 years, leading and following warriors into combat. I’m certainly no war hero; my brothers in arms have seen far more combat, more intense and personal than I. But I have become acquainted with death in a way that I hope you never do. My last tour, on the ground in Iraq was where my heart started to be hardened towards you, the electorate, and culminated in this letter, written two days before our elections. And here’s why.

You’ve elected officials who, for partisan points, spoke openly that the “…war is lost.” I happened to be in a dining facility in Baghdad that day, filled with the (mostly) young faces of (mostly) Army men and women. CNN was on the TVs, and things got very quiet when this elected official continued on, railing that the mission that some of these very people were here to do, had “…failed.” Yet, they would be donning their body armor, strapping on med kits and weapons, mounting HMMVs or MRAPs and heading outside the wire, ensuring that the newborn democracy in Iraq, purchased with so many lives, would be safe another night. The newly re-invigorated insurgents would be waiting, teeth bared back in a hateful smile, gripping the IED detonator, the RPG launcher, or the AK-47s to ply their trade with new energy, because the Senate Majority Leader had said they were winning.

You elected officials who continually defame and berate military members, whether it is the observation that if you’re not too bright, you’ll get “…stuck in Iraq” (this from a guy who has two Purple Hearts for self-inflicted wounds, and known for throwing someone else’s medals away in protest), or the calling of combat Marines cold-blooded killers (in a war; before trial). You’ve elected officials in the role of commander-in-chief who “loathe” the military, while using ROTC deferments and special treatment to avoid military service that the less “connected” take as a responsibility. On the basis of “change,” you elected someone who had close, ongoing associations with people who were part of an organization that tried to kill us [U.S. military] on our own soil.

You elected officials that promised to take property from some Americans, and give it to you, merely because they had more than you did. Those Americans that these officials have labeled as the “rich” are your neighbors, who provide jobs and pay far more in taxes than you ever will. That means they are already subsidizing your lifestyle choices; you just want more of their property without the responsibility of risking your wealth and labor to get it. You would rather hire someone to take it from them. And you have.

Yet these same officials from this same party are the wealthiest group of people in both the House and Senate. They have offshore accounts, forbid unions in their businesses and use every tax loophole they can find with their armies of accountants. But you keep sending them back to those jobs, because they promise to steal from some Americans and give to you.

You elect officials who openly embrace illegal activity; but they don’t have to live with the consequences. Other Americans pay the price. You support “sanctuary cities” and open defiance of federal law, including supporting administrations who sue our sister states as they desperately try to control a crime epidemic by supporting federal law. You support an administration that leads a party that gives a standing ovation to the leader of a country that exploits our kindness and actively encourages law-breaking in our country while insulting our fellow citizens who dare to try to enforce the law. Check out your elected officials; did they stand and applaud the racist diatribe of the president of Mexico? Did they join the attorney general and the head of Homeland Security in applauding this gaping hole in (homeland) security and law? Do you have locks on your doors? Why?

You elect officials who are openly racist, decrying that “White folks’ greed drives a world in need…” and that their own grandmother was a “…typical white person.” Someone who sits in admiration as their pastor (small p; no capital letters for racists), in a church he attended for 20 years, slanders the United States as the “…U.S. of KKK America” and delights that the 9/11 “…chickens have come home to roost.” Someone who refused to denounce a paramilitary, racist organization that placed its members in front of polling places armed with billy clubs, and yelling racist, threatening epithets. On video. And the Attorney General did nothing.

Oh, wait. The Justice Department is now apparently, under sworn testimony, the Department of Racial Payback. And you continue to support the party that supports this blatantly racist behavior because they say that they will stick it to “the man” on your behalf. A Nation of Cowards? I don’t think so; the courage of this breathtaking racism is without equal in modern times. One would think that you would use your votes to eradicate these racist policies from the U.S. But that assumes eradicating racism is your aim. It’s not, or you would be as incensed at this blatant racism as you would if sheet-covered whites were there. But longtime Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd’s old gang has been rightfully disgraced and shamed into a virtual non-existence. Thank goodness that 52 percent of you discourage that kind of behavior.

But you don’t. You support the tactic of using the epithet of “racist” as the cudgel of choice for racists who don’t like policies that conservatives advocate. Don’t like illegal activity? Racist. Your party insists that to provide a photo ID — proving you are who you say you are — is not only too much of a burden to ask a voter to bear, but it’s racist as well. This not only terribly insulting to all races, but when the burden of proof to rent the DVD “Second Hand Lions” (amazing movie!) is higher than that required to vote for someone who has control of nuclear weapons or deploying men and women into harm’s way, there is something wrong.

It doesn’t end there. Don’t like a particular female’s policies? Sexist. Yet, you support politicians who prey on 20-year old interns, seduce underage male interns, and, as a double bonus, support a person for the Supreme Court who says she is “wiser” than white people because of her race and sex. And any opponent of hers must be sexist and racist. Yet the prevailing double standard makes “bitch” an acceptable term for a conservative grandmother with the temerity to want to stop illegal activity. And “whore” is acceptable terminology for any conservative woman.

Sarah Palin seems to be a nice person, the kind you would love to have as a neighbor, regardless of her policies; but you insist that she is stupid and vile. She is ignorant and inexperienced, clearly not ready for anything, as holding a variety of elected and appointed positions culminating in the governorship of Alaska clearly doesn’t hold up against… an organizer of race-based communities. Sexist, if a conservative said those words about a liberal, but because she is not pro-killing-little-kids, 52 percent of you decided she was worth vicious ad hominem attacks that continue to this day. Not just saying that you disagree, but saying she is evil. You support it all. All because the folks that practice this abhorrent behavior promise to give you free health care stolen from other Americans who haven’t paid their ill-defined “fair share.”

My oath was this: “I, Mike, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

I took that oath seriously. But you have responsibilities, too. You should take them seriously.

Mike Banzet, a retired major in the U.S. Air Force, is a 1986 graduate of Flathead High School in Kalispell, Montana.
When I first read this letter I knew I had to post it in its entirety, without any embellishes or comments from me.  Major Banzet's words speak louder, clearer, with an eloquence that stands alone without overt embellishments.

It is a shame that men and women who serve our nation find themselves disillusioned and repelled at the level of revulsion directed at them by many of the esteemed Members of Congress.  Many of which never served a day of their lives in uniform, let alone in a combat zone.  These respected public servants are not fit to lick the shoes of Major Banzet, let alone speak against them.

Let the words of Major Banzet be a wake-up call to us all.  For if the Major Banzet's leave our military disillusioned and disheartened, we will be faced with the reality of a second class military incapable of defeating our weakest foe and unable to defend this nation from those who would destroy it from within.  A military the former Soviet Union wanted us to have and their fellow travelers are trying to turn into the new reality.

In Tribute To The Men And Women Of the US Air Force

Wild Blue Yonder

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Did CAIR Tip its Hand in Oklahoma?

Gary Fouse

If you were not paying attention, in the recent election, the state of Oklahoma passed a ballot measure (with 70% approval) that would make any future implementation of shariah law against the state constitution. Predictably, the Council on American Islamic Relations filed an immediate lawsuit and as usual, a friendly judge has passed a temporary stay on the law until hearings can be held.

Many might jump to conclusions and say that the ballot measure was ridiculous and there is no possibility of shariah law gaining a foothold in the US.

You might want to think again.

Just recently, a New Jersey judge ruled in favor of a Muslim man who abused his wife on the grounds that Islamic law denied the woman the right to refuse sex with her husband. British courts have already approved dozens of shariah courts to handle "family and community matters". As the measure's advocates have stated, passing such a law in Oklahoma was viewed as preventative measure for future rulings as the New jersey outrage.

What is even more ridiculous is the CAIR position that such a law would discriminate against Muslims. In the case of the New Jersey wife, it would protect Muslims and ensure they are afforded all the rights and protections given to all Americans. It would also seem obvious that the Oklahoma law would be in conformance with the principle of separation of Church and State.

But why is CAIR so quick to jump to the defense of shariah law in the US? After all, this is supposedly a "moderate" organization, right? Never mind their roots back to the Muslim Brotherhood (another organization that claims to be "moderate", but is also the parent organization of Hizbollah, Hamas and even Al-Qaeda.) The bottom line is that CAIR is now in the position of going through legal contortions to defend the idea of shariah law in America. In essence, they have screwed up in this matter. They have revealed their true colors. All we need do is to go back to a reputed quote from one of CAIR's co- founders, Omar Ahmad, which was reported in 1998 by a journalist named Lisa Gardiner who was present at a Muslim gathering in which Ahmad spoke.

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant, he said. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth, he said."

Ahmad and CAIR later denied the quote and demanded a retraction. Gardiner refused to retract the story.

Bottom line? CAIR is fighting a state law in Oklahoma that would prevent shariah from becoming part of the state's legal system. Does that mean that CAIR favors a legal system in the US based on shariah? Looks like that to me.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

The Legend Lives On!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

The Edmund Fitzgerald

On this day 35 years ago a great ship and her crew were lost at sea.  The Edmund Fitzgerald really was the "Pride of the American Fleet".

On February 1, 1957, Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin contracted Great Lakes Engineering Works (GLEW), of River Rouge, Michigan, to design and build a taconite bulk carrier laker for Northwestern. The contract contained the stipulation that the boat be the largest on the Great Lakes. GLEW laid the keel on August 7 of that year, and some time between then and its christening and launch on June 7, 1958, Northwestern announced their decision to name the boat for its President and Chairman of the Board, Edmund Fitzgerald, whose father had been a lake captain.

The completed vessel had a capacity of 26,600 short tons (24,100 t). Its large cargo hold loaded through twenty-one watertight hatches, 11.6 by 54.1 feet (3.5 by 16.5 m) of 5⁄16-inch (7.9 mm) steel. The boat's boilers were originally coal-fired, but would be converted to burn oil during the 1971–72 winter layup. With a length of 729 feet (222 m), it met the demanding stipulation of the contract and until 1971 was the largest boat on the Great Lakes.

More than 15,000 people attended the Fitzgerald's launch. The event was troublesome. When Mrs. Edmund Fitzgerald christened the boat by smashing a champagne bottle over the bow, it took her three swings to break the bottle. The launch was delayed 36 minutes while the shipyard crew struggled to release the keel blocks. Upon launching sideways into the water, the boat crashed violently into a pier.  Was it an omen of the violent end of the ship?
(CNN) -- The vicious, swirling storm that battered the Great Lakes region in late October inspired talk of a similar gale that brought about one of the great mysteries of the 20th century.

The mighty ore carrier Edmund Fitzgerald, one of the largest ships on America's inland seas, seemed invincible in its bulk and mass, but it was no match for a howling Lake Superior gale on November 10, 1975.

A day earlier, the 729-foot behemoth, operated by mineral company Oglebay Norton, had chugged away from port in Superior, Wisconsin, on a course that would take it across the length of Lake Superior, through the Soo Locks and down Lake Huron to Detroit, Michigan, a journey that should have taken about 48 hours.

With the storm bearing down on them the next morning, the Fitzgerald and another freighter, the Arthur M. Anderson, took a northerly route, hoping the Canadian shore would provide a buffer. Icy rain was driven sideways by hurricane-force wind and monstrous 25-foot waves crashed over the main deck, which rode less than 12 feet above the waterline.

Capt. Ernest McSorley, a 37-year veteran on his last sail before retirement, stayed in radio contact with the Anderson and another ship, the Avafors. At 3:30 p.m., he reported his ship had suffered minor damage and was listing, or leaning to one side, in the storm, according to the Coast Guard report on the accident.

Things only got worse as the afternoon dragged on.

"I have a bad list, lost both radars. And am taking heavy seas over the deck," McSorley radioed around 6 p.m. "One of the worst seas I've ever been in."

The Lost Fitzgerald Search Tapes

He tried to make a run for the safety of Whitefish Bay on Michigan's Upper Peninsula. But about 7:10 p.m., the ship suddenly disappeared from radar and radio, without a call for help.

The Arthur M. Anderson made it to Whitefish Bay, but Capt. Bernie Cooper and his crew agreed to go back out into the maelstrom to search for survivors, as did the William Clay Ford. The searchers "went out and got the hell beat out of them," one observer said, but all they found were two splintered lifeboats and a single, unoccupied life jacket.

Nearly a week later, a U.S. Coast Guard sonar ship found the Fitzgerald. It had been wrestled to the ice-cold lake bed 530 feet below, its steel hull ripped into pieces, its 26,000 tons of taconite pellets spilled, McSorley and his 28 crewmen entombed forever.

Not one body was ever recovered, and no one knows exactly what caused the Mighty Fitz to founder. The mystery grew into legend over the years, helped along by a National Geographic special and a haunting popular song by Canadian folk singer Gordon Lightfoot.

Full Story
29 men lost their lives that night.  Each year on the anniversary of the wreck, the ship's bell is rung in their memory.

The Crew:

Michael E. Armagost 37 Third Mate Iron River, Wisconsin
Frederick J. Beetcher 56 Porter Superior, Wisconsin
Thomas D. Bentsen 23 Oiler St. Joseph, Michigan
Edward F. Bindon 47 First Assistant Engineer Fairport Harbor, Ohio
Thomas D. Borgeson 41 Maintenance Man Duluth, Minnesota
Oliver J. Champeau 41 Third Assistant Engineer Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin
Nolan S. Church 55 Porter Silver Bay, Minnesota
Ransom E. Cundy 53 Watchman Superior, Wisconsin
Thomas E. Edwards 50 Second Assistant Engineer Oregon, Ohio
Russell G. Haskell 40 Second Assistant Engineer Millbury, Ohio
George J. Holl 60 Chief Engineer Cabot, Pennsylvania
Bruce L. Hudson 22 Deck Hand North Olmsted Ohio
Allen G. Kalmon 43 Second Cook Washburn, Wisconsin
Gordon F. MacLellan 30 Wiper Clearwater, Florida
Joseph W. Mazes 59 Special Maintenance Man Ashland, Wisconsin
John H. McCarthy 62 First Mate Bay Village, Ohio
Ernest M. McSorley 63 Captain Toledo, Ohio
Eugene W. O'Brien 50 Wheelsman Toledo, Ohio
Karl A. Peckol 20 Watchman Ashtabula, Ohio
John J. Poviach 59 Wheelsman Bradenton, Florida
James A. Pratt 44 Second Mate Lakewood, Ohio
Robert C. Rafferty 62 Steward Toledo, Ohio
Paul M. Riippa 22 Deck Hand Ashtabula, Ohio
John D. Simmons 63 Wheelsman Ashland, Wisconsin
William J. Spengler 59 Watchman Toledo, Ohio
Mark A. Thomas 21 Deck Hand Richmond Heights, Ohio
Ralph G. Walton 58 Oiler Fremont, Ohio
David E. Weiss 22 Cadet Agoura, California
Blaine H. Wilhelm 52 Oiler Moquah, Wisconsin

The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald

Some time during today will you take a moment and say a prayer for the men of the Edmund Fitzgerald!

Lost but not forgotten!

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Sign The Petition!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

The Tomb of the Patriarchs

Recently UNESCO declared (Without Proof) that The Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb were not Jewish Heritage Sites, but in fact they were designated Mosques.  This is being done to destroy any ancient connection between the Jewish people and the Nation of Israel by the Muslims who will stop at nothing to destroy every Jew in the World.

There's a petition online against UNESCO's actions in declaring Rachel's tomb to be a 'mosque' and trying to deny that the tomb and the Machpeila cave in Hebron are part of Israel's Jewish heritage.
We the undersigned protest The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) ruling that Israel has no right to add the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, where almost all of Israel’s patriarchs and matriarchs are buried, to the National Heritage list. The Tomb of the Patriarchs, the oldest Jewish shrine and the second holiest site in Judaism, centers around the Cave of Machpelah, an ancient double cave revered for almost 4,000 years as the burial site of the Hebrew patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their wives. The connection of the Jewish people to the Cave of Machpelah was established some 3,800 years ago, when Abraham, the first Hebrew, purchased it for the express purpose of using it as a burial site for himself, his wife Sarah, and their future generations. It is the cradle of Jewish history and the focal point of Jewish identity. The rectangular enclosure over the caves is the only fully surviving Herodian structure. Thus the Tomb of the Patriarchs is of inestimable historical value as well as great sacred significance for the Jewish people.

We also protest the decision by UNESCO to re-label as an Islamic mosque the tomb of Rachel, Israel’s other matriarch, and to demand that Israel remove the site from its National Heritage list. The Tomb of Rachel, Judaism's third-holiest site, has been the scene of prayer and pilgrimage for more than three thousand years, and has an especially meaningful connection for Jewish women. Rachel, the matriarch who died in childbirth and was buried at that spot on the road to Hebron, has been a comfort and hope to Jews since biblical days. “Thus says the Lord, 'Refrain your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears; for your work shall be rewarded…and they shall return from the enemy's land and there is hope for the future'… 'Your children shall return to their own country.” Jeremiah 31:16-17. Until 2000, the Palestinians recognized the site as Rachel’s Tomb. It was called “Rachel’s Tomb” in Al-mawsu'ah al-filastiniyah, the Palestinian encyclopedia published after 1996 and in PALESTINE, THE HOLY LAND, a Palestinian publication, with an introduction by Yasser Arafat. However, during the second intifada, Al-Hayat al-Jadida, a Palestinian daily, announced a new-found historical connection to Rachel’s Tomb, declaring that is was "originally a Muslim mosque.”

In an effort to erase Jewish history and supersede Jewish religious sites with Islamic institutions, Muslims have intentionally built mosques upon numerous synagogues and Jewish holy sites. The clearest examples are the Al-Aqsa mosque which sits on Jerusalem's Temple Mount, and the Dome of the Rock, which was built on Judaism’s holiest site of the two biblical Jewish Temples. This pattern repeats itself at the second and third holiest sites. Thus at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, there are domes over the tombs of Abraham and Sarah and a mosque over the tombs of Isaac and Rebecca. Photos from the early 1900's show no Muslim cemetery near the Tomb or Rachel. After 1948 Muslims built their own cemetery surrounding three sides of Rachel’s tomb and now claim that Rachel's Tomb is one of their burial plots and that it contains a Muslim rather than Jewish notable.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office decried the ludicrous nature of the UNESCO decision:
“The attempt to detach the Nation of Israel from its heritage is absurd. If the nearly 4,000-year-old burial sites of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish Nation – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah –are not part of its culture and tradition, then what is a national cultural site?”
“Sites such as the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb (which sits on the edge of Bethlehem) present an inconvenient truth for the pro-Palestine movement and its supporters, who want to claim that the Jews have no historic ties to this land.”

In cooperating with efforts to erase Jewish historical ties to Israel, UNESCO is aiding and abetting those who hope to and obfuscate Israel’s Jewish past and undermine Israel’s Jewish future.

The UNESCO mission states: “Heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations. Our cultural and natural heritage are both irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration.”

We demand that there be no exception to UNESCO’s mission when it comes to Jewish heritage. Israel’s Jewish legacy must be recognized and preserved and not swept away to conform with the pro-Palestinian narrative. In attempting to sever the Jewish cultural, religious and natural heritage bond with the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb, UNESCO denies the history it is mandated to preserve, engages in a political maneuver designed to weaken a member UN nation, and undermines its own principles. It aims to rob the Jewish people not only of two sacred sites, which are irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration, but also of their past and a legacy to pass on to future generations. We demand that UNESCO, whose purpose it is to protect heritage, also protect Jewish heritage, rather than deny it.


The Undersigned
Please sign the petition.  This destruction of Jewish Heritage is taken directly from Hitler's playbook.  If this angers you as it did me, then in addition to signing the petition, you can send a letter to your Congressman and Senator protesting the use of US funds for anti-Semitic actions.

Rachel's Tomb

Saturday, November 6, 2010

UC President Mark Yudof Speaks in Orange County

Gary Fouse

"One person's hate speech is another person's education."

Thursday night, I attended a speech by University of California President Mark Yudof at Temple Bat Yahm in Newport Beach. The topic was "Civil Discourse on College Campuses". The event was sponsored by the Orange County Jewish Federation. As previously reported, the Federation, in their inimitable style, attempted to tightly control the attendance of the event and the questions asked. Prior to the event, Yudof met with a group of Jewish UCI students for a private discussion and dinner. There is reason to suspect they were hand-picked.

The topic that was on everbody's mind was the on-going controversy involving the Muslim Student Union, their sponsored speakers and charges of anti-Semitism on the UCI campuses. The question that was hanging over the event was just how bad is it or isn't it for Jewish students at UCI. As I have said repeatedly, 99% of the students at UCI are not anti-Semitic in any way, yet, a tiny minority and their sponsored speakers have succeeded in dragging the reputation of the school into the mud. It was clear from the outset that one purpose of the event was to assure the audience that Jewish life is "thriving at UCI". Though the opening address by Bat Yahm's rabbi, Mark Miller, laid out in stark and unmistakable terms the anti-Semitism he had experienced while giving a lecture on the UCI campus, a student speaker from Hillel made it a point to state that the situation was by no means as bad as certain outside groups and individuals were describing it.

Then came a movie produced by Hillel, called "Jewish life at UCI" or something like that. It showed interviews with Jewish students talking about all the positive aspects of life on campus, happy Jewish students frolicking at parties and the "I-Fest" (the annual pro-Israel week of events.)

They might as well have called it "Springtime in Germany".

Then came Yudof. Briefly summarized, the thesis of his talk was that while he was not happy with many of the events that have gone on at UCI and other campuses, he explained that it was constitutionally protected expression. Other than that, he said nothing.

That left a central question hovering over the audience; was there anti-Semitism at UCI? If so, how bad was it? Did the film dispel those concerns?

While Yudof was speaking, there was a stir. A young female was being taken out of the room by one of the OC Federation security guards followed by the CEO of the Federation. What had this young woman done? She had begun to start filming the speech. (others were filming as well, but they were apparently filming for the Federation.) I happen to know the young woman. She has filmed many of the MSU events on campus, and a couple of years ago, was followed back to her car by several MSU males after an evening speech at UCI by Amir Abdel Malik Ali. She was blocked from leaving as the males tried to write down her license number. That incident has been previously described here on this blog. When the UCI campus police arrived, they refused to assist the young woman and another female who witnessed the event. It was a classic case of campus police acting like potted plants in the face of thuggery.

But I digress. Back to last night.

Another lady went to vouch for the woman's presence since she was registered and posed no security threat. Yet, there was the CEO of the Federation rudely demanding to know who the woman was and who she "was working for". Eventually, she was allowed to re-enter the room after agreeing not to film. (I am unaware of there having been any posted restrictions on filming the talk.) The whole affair was outrageous and spoke volumes about the nature of the Orange County Jewish Federation.

I told you this was a controlled event. Note to OC Jewish Federation; this is not the Soviet Union.

Then came the questions. As requested by the Federation, many questions were pre-submitted by audience members when they registered for the event online. As those questions were being asked, audience members could write down their own questions, which were collected by officials and delivered to the stage for selection by two moderators. Not surprisingly, most of the questions were about the UCI campus, the Muslim Student Union, their so-called suspension and questions of anti-Semitism on campus. A couple of questions were in connection with UC professors who used their classroom as a soapbox to shove their personal views down students' throats. (Some of the questions received more applause then Yudof's responses.)

If you are wondering at this point what Yudof's responses were, I can't help you much here. To summarize, I would say his answers were pretty mushy. Answers to questions regarding the MSU "suspension" were purposely avoided-as he mentioned-due to legal concerns. Many UCI-related questions were simply answered by saying it was a local matter (I am paraphrasing.)

Other than that, he said nothing. At times, his answers came across as cavalier, in my view. Judging from the audience's reaction and body language, I would guess that perhaps half of them were not impressed by Yudof's answers. I know I wasn't. How does one reconcile the images of the happy Hillel film with the one issue that brought nearly everyone to hear Yudof speak, that is, the incidents over almost a decade that have brought notoriety to the school. Finally, it was Yudof himself, seemingly realizing the tone of the audience who called for the "last question".

In case you are wondering if my question (which I signed) was read..........

the answer is, of course not.

Just for the heck of it, here is what I wrote (inspired by having watched the happy Hillel film);

"If things are so great at UCI, why did a group of Jewish students go to the Student Government and complain about anti-Semitism earlier this year. Also why did a group of 60+ Jewish professors at UCI write an an open letter complaining about anti-Semitism on the UCI campus (last May)?"

Somehow, there seem to be conflicting messages, would you not agree?