Navy Veterans

THE CHRISTMAS TRUCE OF 1914

The Christmas Truce of 1914

pic 1During World War I, in the bitter winter of 1914, on the battlefields of Flanders, one of the most unusual events in all of human history took place. The Germans had been in a fierce battle with the British and French. Both sides were dug in, safe in muddy, man-made trenches six to eight feet deep that seemed to stretch forever.

All of a sudden, German troops began to put small Christmas trees, lit with candles, outside of their trenches. Then, they began to sing songs. Across the way, in the “no man’s land” between them, came songs from the British and French troops. Incredibly, many of the Germans, who had worked in England before the war, were able to speak good enough English to propose a “Christmas” truce.

A spontaneous truce resulted. Soldiers left their trenches, meeting in the middle in fortified pic2trenches to shake hands. The first order of business was to bury the dead who had been previously unreachable because of the conflict. Then, they exchanged gifts. Chocolate cake, cognac, postcards, newspapers, tobacco. In a few places, along the trenches, soldiers exchanged rifles for soccer balls and began to play soccer in the snow.

According to Stanley Weintraub, who wrote about this event in his book, “Silent Night”, “Signboards arose up and down the trenches in a variety of shapes. They were usually in English, or – from the Germans – in fractured English. Rightly, the Germans assumed that the other side could not read traditional gothic lettering, and that few English understood pic 3spoken German. ‘YOU NO FIGHT, WE NO FIGHT’ was the most frequently employed German message. Some British units improvised ‘MERRY CHRISTMAS’ banners and waited for a response. More placards on both sides popped up.”

Rare photo shows German soldiers of the 134th Saxon Regiment and British soldiers of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment meeting in “no man’s land” on December 26, 1914.

It truce didn’t last forever. In fact, some of the generals didn’t like it at all and commanded their troops to resume shooting at each other. After all, they were in a war. Soldiers eventually did resume shooting at each other. But for a few precious moments there was peace on earth good will toward men. There’s something about Christmas that changes people. It happened over 2000 years ago in a little town called Bethlehem. It’s been happening over and over again down through the years of time.

Although the Christmas Truce of 1914 may seem like a distant myth to those now at arms in parts of the world where vast cultural differences between combatants make such an occurrence impossible, it remains a symbol of hope to those who believe that a recognition of our common humanity may someday reverse the maxim that “Peace is harder to make than war.”

Photos: From The Illustrated London News of January 9, 1915: “British and German Soldiers Arm-in-Arm Exchanging Headgear: A Christmas Truce between Opposing Trenches”
A cross, left in Saint-Yves (Saint-Yvon – Ploegsteert; Comines-Warneton in Belgium) in 1999, to commemorate the site of the Christmas Truce. The text reads: “1914 – The Khaki Chum’s Christmas Truce – 1999 – 85 Years  “Lest We Forget”
German soldiers of the 134th Saxon Regiment and British soldiers of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment meet in no man’s land, December 26th.

*Courtesy “Together We Served” Dispatches

HOMELESS VETERANS ARE SNUBBED IN FAVOR OF ILLEGALS!

No Room for Vets in the Inn”  by Katie Kieffer,  Dec 22, 2014

homeless-veteranHomeless American veterans shiver in the bitter cold while illegal immigrants receive subsidized four-year degrees. At midnight, in Bethlehem, in piercing cold, Christ was born in a stable after his parents were turned away by every innkeeper. Joseph and Mary did not respond with entitlement: “If you don’t shelter us, then you’re racist.” Rather, they used their ingenuity to find an alternative birthplace for their son among friends—farm animals, shepherds, kings, and angels—beneath the light of an extraordinary star.

“And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.” Luke 2:7

Earlier this month, I spoke at American Legion Post 3 in Lincoln, NE. I was impressed by how veterans—many of them disabled or elderly—are actively working to serve homeless veterans in their community. The post commander distributed a long list of items including bath towels, silverware and blankets that he wanted help gathering for local homeless vets. Post 3 American Legion Riders and the Legionnaires were also planning monthly pancake breakfasts where homeless veterans could receive warm meals served by friendly faces.

Veterans who are active within the American Legion are working very hard to help their brothers and sisters who have served their country—only to find themselves on the streets. However, it is troubling to see that our federal government seems to be prioritizing aid for illegal immigrants over care for our homeless veterans.

American Legion National Commander Michael D. Helm has taken a firm stand against the current administration’s recent executive order, which will essentially grant amnesty to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants. On November 20, Helm wrote

“The American Legion urges the President in the strongest possible terms to put our security, and our citizens’ interests and wishes, ahead of providing amnesty for millions of immigrants here illegally. …we have reached out to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to offer our help in bringing immigrants to full citizenship. Rewarding illegal immigration is a slap in the face to those who have obeyed the law and patiently went through the process.”

Indeed, legal experts such as American Center for Law and Justice Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow call the President’s executive order “an unconstitutional power grab of historic proportions.” ArthurSchwab, federal judge in United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, authored a 38-page ruling last week showing that the President’s order violates the Constitution’s “Take Care” clause, which states: [The President] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed….”

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the President enforce the laws. Only Congress, per the Constitution, may make laws. Since the executive order changes U.S. immigration law by decree of the President rather than through an act of Congress, it is unconstitutional.

Amnesty proponents often cite the economic contributions of illegal immigrants. Certainly, many illegal immigrants do backbreaking work. They have also broken our laws. Veterans, in contrast, served while risking their lives to defend our laws. Until every homeless veteran is in permanent housing, we should not be granting work permits and college financial aid packages to illegal immigrants.

Plus, here’s the dirty little secret: the current executive order is not about helping destitute people achieve the American Dream. It’s about buying votes. A careful read of a Dec. 14 New York Times article reveals that organizations fronting as advocacy groups are brainwashing illegal immigrants to abhor Republicans so as to secure millions of future votes for Democrats.

Immigration is a non-partisan issue, and Latinos should not be used as pawns for lobby groups, non-profits and crony capitalists. The current administration has used young people (Millennials), gays, blacks and women to win votes while abandoning and betraying our veterans like Lt. Clint Lorance and Sgt. Rob Richards. Now, the administration is using Latinos for votes.

Here’s the real humanitarian crisis: our political leadership has no respect for veterans. Veterans were denied access to the WWII, Vietnam and Korean War memorials in Washington, D.C.—while amnesty advocates were allowed on the National Mall and the state of California confiscated millions of taxpayer dollars to bankroll the education of illegal immigrants.

50,000 veterans will cope with homelessness every night this winter—while the President promises protection from deportation and work permits for up to 5 million illegal immigrants.

Away on a bleacher, no cot for a bed, a veteran lay down his sweet head. The stars in the bright sky looked down where he lay—in solidarity with the little Lord Jesus asleep in the hay.

In 2015, demand that your government make room for vets in America—“the inn” they fought so hard to defend.

Read the entire article at TownHall.com

 

President Ronald Reagan’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamation 1981

reagan2_largeAmerica has much for which to be thankful. The unequaled freedom enjoyed by our citizens has provided a harvest of plenty to this nation throughout its history. In keeping with America’s heritage, one day each year is set aside for giving thanks to god for all of His blessings. On this day of thanksgiving, it is appropriate that we recall the first thanksgiving, celebrated in the autumn of 1621. After surviving a bitter winter, the Pilgrims planted and harvested a bountiful crop. After the harvest they gathered their families together and joined in celebration and prayer with the Native Americans who had taught them so much. Clearly our forefathers were thankful not only for the material well being of their harvest but for this abundance of goodwill as well.

In this spirit, Thanksgiving has become a day when Americans extend a helping hand to the less fortunate. Long before there was a government welfare program, this spirit of voluntary giving was ingrained in the American character. Americans have always understood that, truly, one must give in order to receive. This should be a day of giving as well as a day of thanks. As we celebrate Thanksgiving in 1981, we should reflect on the full meaning of this day as we enjoy the fellowship that is so much a part of the holiday festivities. Searching our hearts, we should ask what we can do as individuals to demonstrate our gratitude to God for all He has done. Such reflection can only add to the significance of this precious day of remembrance.

Let us recommit ourselves to that devotion to God and family that has played such an important role in making this a great Nation, and which will be needed as a source of strength if we are to remain a great people. Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 26, 1981, as Thanksgiving Day. In witness where of, I have here unto set my hand this twelfth day of November, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and sixth. ~ by Ronald Reagan, November 12, 1981.

HAPPY 239TH BIRTHDAY UNITED STATES NAVY

NAVY PRIDE RUNS DEEPOct. 13 marks the U.S. Navy’s 239th birthday. For many Sailors & Veterans the Navy’s birthday is a time to remember tradition and legacy. The U.S. Navy traces its origins to the Continental Navy, established by the Continental Congress, Oct. 13, 1775, by authorizing the procurement, fitting out, manning and dispatch of two armed vessels to cruise in search of munitions ships supplying the British Army in America.

In 1972, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt authorized recognition of Oct. 13 as the Navy Birthday, encouraging a Navy-wide celebration of this occasion, “to enhance a greater appreciation of our Navy heritage, and to provide a positive influence toward pride and professionalism in the naval service.”

The Birth of the Navy of the United States

On Friday, October 13, 1775, meeting in Philadelphia, the Continental Congress voted to fit out two sailing vessels, armed with ten carriage guns, as well as swivel guns, and manned by crews of eighty, and to send them out on a cruise of three months to intercept transports carrying munitions and stores to the British army in America. This was the original legislation out of which the Continental Navy grew and as such constitutes the birth certificate of the navy.

To understand the momentous significance of the decision to send two armed vessels to sea under the authority of the Continental Congress, we need to review the strategic situation in which it was made and to consider the political struggle that lay behind it.

Americans first took up arms in the spring of 1775, not to sever their relationship with the king, but to defend their rights within the British Empire. By the autumn of 1775, the British North American colonies from Maine to Georgia were in open rebellion. Royal governments had been thrust out of many colonial capitals and revolutionary governments put in their places. The Continental Congress had assumed some of the responsibilities of a central government for the colonies, created a Continental Army, issued paper money for the support of the troops, and formed a committee to negotiate with foreign countries. Continental forces captured Fort Ticonderoga on Lake Champlain and launched an invasion of Canada.

In October 1775 the British held superiority at sea, from which they threatened to stop up the colonies’ trade and to wreak destruction on seaside settlements. In response, a few of the states had commissioned small fleets of their own for defense of local waters. Congress had not yet authorized privateering. Some in Congress worried about pushing the armed struggle too far, hoping that reconciliation with the mother country was still possible.

Yet, a small coterie of men in Congress had been advocating a Continental Navy from the outset of armed hostilities. Foremost among these men was John Adams, of Massachusetts. For months, he and a few others had been agitating in Congress for the establishment of an American fleet. They argued that a fleet would defend the seacoast towns, protect vital trade, retaliate against British raiders, and make it possible to seek out among neutral nations of the world the arms and stores that would make resistance possible.

Still, the establishment of a navy seemed too bold a move for some of the timid men in Congress. Some southerners agreed that a fleet would protect and secure the trade of New England but denied that it would that of the southern colonies. Most of the delegates did not consider the break with England as final and feared that a navy implied sovereignty and independence. Others thought a navy a hasty and foolish challenge to the mightiest fleet the world had seen. The most the pro-navy men could do was to get Congress to urge each colony to fit out armed vessels for the protection of their coasts and harbors.

Then, on 3 October, Rhode Island’s delegates laid before Congress a bold resolution for the building and equipping of an American fleet, as soon as possible. When the motion came to the floor for debate, Samuel Chase, of Maryland, attacked it, saying it was “the maddest Idea in the World to think of building an American Fleet.” Even pro-navy members found the proposal too vague. It lacked specifics and no one could tell how much it would cost.

If Congress was yet unwilling to embrace the idea of establishing a navy as a permanent measure, it could be tempted by short-term opportunities. Fortuitously, on 5 October, Congress received intelligence of two English brigs, unarmed and without convoy, laden with munitions, leaving England bound for Quebec. Congress immediately appointed a committee to consider how to take advantage of this opportunity. Its members were all New Englanders and all ardent supporters of a navy. They recommended first that the governments of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut be asked to dispatch armed vessels to lay in wait to intercept the munitions ships; next they outlined a plan for the equipping by Congress of two armed vessels to cruise to the eastward to intercept any ships bearing supplies to the British army. Congress let this plan lie on the table until 13 October, when another fortuitous event occurred in favor of the naval movement. A letter from General Washington was read in Congress in which he reported that he had taken under his command, at Continental expense, three schooners to cruise off Massachusetts to intercept enemy supply ships. The commander in chief had preempted members of Congress reluctant to take the first step of fitting out warships under Continental authority. Since they already had armed vessels cruising in their name, it was not such a big step to approve two more. The committee’s proposal, now appearing eminently reasonable to the reluctant members, was adopted.

The Continental Navy grew into an important force. Within a few days, Congress established a Naval Committee charged with equipping a fleet. This committee directed the purchasing, outfitting, manning, and operations of the first ships of the new navy, drafted subsequent naval legislation, and prepared rules and regulations to govern the Continental Navy’s conduct and internal administration.

Over the course of the War of Independence, the Continental Navy sent to sea more than fifty armed vessels of various types. The navy’s squadrons and cruisers seized enemy supplies and carried correspondence and diplomats to Europe, returning with needed munitions. They took nearly 200 British vessels as prizes, some off the British Isles themselves, contributing to the demoralization of the enemy and forcing the British to divert warships to protect convoys and trade routes. In addition, the navy provoked diplomatic crises that helped bring France into the war against Great Britain. The Continental Navy began the proud tradition carried on today by our United States Navy, and whose birthday we celebrate each year in October.

Establishment of the Navy, 13 October 1775

This resolution of the Continental Congress marked the establishment of what is now the United States Navy.


Resolved, That a swift sailing vessel, to carry ten carriage guns, and a proportionable number of swivels, with eighty men, be fitted, with all possible despatch, for a cruise of three months, and that the commander be instructed to cruise eastward, for intercepting such transports as may be laden with warlike stores and other supplies for our enemies, and for such other purposes as the Congress shall direct.

That a Committee of three be appointed to prepare an estimate of the expence, and lay the same before the Congress, and to contract with proper persons to fit out the vessel.

Resolved, that another vessel be fitted out for the same purposes, and that the said committee report their opinion of a proper vessel, and also an estimate of the expence.”


Source: Journal of the Continental Congress, 13 October 1775, in William Bell Clark, editor, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, Vol. 2, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966): 442.

th5D0OF9UM

Obama Administration Puts Public at Risk – Releases 36,000 Criminal Aliens

Article re-blogged from Judicial Watch (Obama Administration Puts Public at Risk – Releases 36,000 Criminal Aliens by Tom Fitton, President~ weekly Corruption Chronicles Blog Headlines October 3, 2014) ~JGT

When you’re living outside of Washington, D.C., and the word “criminal” is put in front of the phrase “illegal alien,” you may find that a bit redundant. But, to political insiders, it is simply typical Washington double-speak. And that may help explain why last year the Obama administration released 36,000 convicted illegal aliens on an unknowing American public. Each had been convicted of violent and other serious crime. To be clear, I’m talking about crimes such as murder, sexual assault, kidnapping and aggravated assault.  And, if you aren’t upset enough already, the criminal aliens who are now in circulation throughout the country have almost 88,000 convictions.

That’s why on July 21, 2014, your Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to obtain vital information about a report from our friends at the Center for Immigration Studies that found Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released 36,007 criminal aliens who were the subjects of deportation hearings. We filed our FOIA lawsuit after the DHS, which includes ICE, ignored our May 15, 2014, FOIA request for the following basic information:

Any and all records of communications including, but not limited to, emails to or from personnel in the office of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (including its component offices, such as the Office of Public Affairs), from May 1 to May 15, 2014, concerning, regarding, or related to the report published by the Center for Immigrations Studies concerning the release of 36,000 criminal aliens.

A simple request designed to get to the heart of the decision that put untold innocents at risk – completely ignored by the misnamed Department of Homeland Security.  What agency dedicated to providing Americans “security” would release criminal aliens who should have been deported who had, collectively:

  • 193 homicide convictions (including one willful killing of a public official with gun)
  • 426 sexual assault convictions
  • 303 kidnapping convictions
  • 1,075 aggravated assault convictions
  • 1,160 stolen vehicle convictions
  • 9,187 dangerous drug convictions
  • 16,070 drunk or drugged driving convictions
  • 303 flight escape convictions

Immediately following the release of the CIS report, former House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) issued a statement terming the action, “the worst prison break in American history.” The representative laid the responsibility at the feet of President Obama, adding, “[I]t was sanctioned by the President and perpetrated by our own immigration officials … The Administration’s actions are outrageous. They willfully and knowingly put the interests of criminal immigrants before the safety and security of the American people.”

Obama administration officials, of course, took a far more casual attitude towards the “worst prison break in American history.” Three weeks after the release of the report, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was he was still trying to understand what happened, and declined to provide further details as to how the criminal aliens were freed or who was responsible. Johnson told the committee, “I am aware of the reports that in Fiscal Year 2013 thousands of individuals with criminal convictions who may be removable were released from custody. I have asked for a deeper understanding of this issue.”

By the way, do you know why the Secret Service, also “run” by Mr. Johnson, would leave the front door of the White House open and allow the president to be put in an elevator with “security contractor with a gun and three convictions for assault and battery“?

According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch in May 2013, this is not be the first time Obama immigration policies have resulted in lax treatment of dangerous or potentially dangerous illegal aliens. The documents, obtained in accordance with an October 2012 FOIA request, revealed that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) abandoned required background checks in 2012, adopting instead costly “lean and lite” procedures. The documents also revealed that, contrary to administration claims, that Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policies applied only to minors who came to this country illegally “through no fault of their own,” the directive actually created a new wave of chain migration, whereby immediate relatives of DACA requesters could be approved for amnesty. As a result, according to an agency memo from District 15 Director David Douglas, “some of the districts closer to the U.S./Mexico border have been inundated.”

The fact is, time and again, the Obama administration has rolled out the red carpet for illegal immigrants. And we now know that once they arrive, they are encouraged to stay, even if they have wreaked violent mayhem on the unsuspecting public. The American people deserve to have their own ‘deeper understanding’ of who authorized the release of these dangerous, convicted felons. And JW is going to court to find out.

In Washington, you get fired, and rightly so, for not doing your job and leaving the president unprotected.  But if you ignore the law and release criminals and guns onto the streets and get Americans killed, you get to be Attorney General, head of Homeland Security, and a seat behind the desk in the Oval Office.

For more info & other stories & opinions log to http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/

WOO HOO! America’s first ‘MUSLIM FREE’ shooting range

After the Oklahoma beheading by a Muslim and ongoing threats from the Islamic State (ISIS), Arkansas Firing Range becomes the first to ban Muslims.

Bearing Arms  In an act that will no doubt result in lawsuits, The Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range in Hot Springs, Arkansas, has declared itself a “Muslim free zone” due to concerns over domestic Islamic terrorism. The ban was announced yesterday by range owner Jan Morgan in an article posted to her web site where she cites ten points justifying her position.

Among the points cited are prior attacks in the United States that the federal government refuses to classify as terrorism, including the Fort Hood attack, the Boston Marathon bombing, and the last week’s Oklahoma City beheading. Morgan has also received death threats in the past for her writing about Islam.

Another incident that weighed heavily in Morgan’s decision was an incident at her firing range several weeks ago, which she relayed to Bearing Arms this morning.

Morgan claims that two Muslim men who spoke only broken English came to her range and requested to rent semi-automatic firearms and ammunition. One of them could not produce any identification showing that he was in the country legally, and the other had a California driver’s license. Neither had any apparent firearms training. She allowed them to rent one firearm, and stood behind them the entire time they were on the range, her hand on or near her holstered Glock 19. All other patrons voluntarily vacated the firing line while they were shooting.

She brings up a very valid point that gun stores and ranges have both a legal and moral obligation to ensure the safety of their patrons. Because of this, they may refuse service to anyone they deem to be under the influence, mentally unstable, or otherwise a potential threat to themselves, or others. FFLs are afforded a great deal of latitude in this regard, as the federal government would rather err on the side of caution.

While FFls and range operators have a great deal of latitude in their business dealings, it is doubtful that a blanket ban based upon religion is remotely viable on First Amendment grounds. This is no more legally viable than a ban on Baptists or Catholics.

Morgan expects that she will be sued over the decision for civil rights violations, and is gearing up for a court battle.

 

WOO HOO! America’s first ‘MUSLIM FREE’ shooting range.

NAME CHANGE (But, hey~ it’s all in the name of Political Correctness; right?)

WHAT’S IN A NAME? by D.F. Howard©June 2014 

What’s all the hub-bub about the NFL trying to force a name change on the owners of the Washington Redskins? Who exactly is running this Bull Shit attempt at “Political Correctness”; all in the name of racism? The last time I checked in on America~ we are still a free country, with a Constitutional right of Free Speech under the First Amendment! Okay, so let’s forget all that for a minute and instead think about who exactly is trying to “wag the dog” here as well as their reasons for it because we really all know that it is the radical left  wing of our Federal Government!  Come to think of it, never mind; my original question for now & instead let’s just try these scenarios on for size. ~ JGT

Many, not the majority, but many~ Native Americans don’t like the name, “Redskins”. Many would say that the meaning; of the word ‘redskins’ is equivalent to the word, “Warriors” which in American Indian culture is considered a great honor, but dammit~ we Politically Correct (PC)  people don’t want to offend them, so in the spirit of PC, let’s just deprive the NFL redskins-cartoon-mckee-495x324owners (Americans) of their First Amendment rights instead. But, hey~ it’s all in the name of Political Correctness; right?

So what’s next? Oh, I know~ how about the Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Braves, Chicago Blackhawks & the Cleveland Browns? Why not? It’s all about Indians and skin-color; right? Indeed, while we’re at it, let’s get rid of the Carolina Panthers too because, after all~ doesn’t that team name keep alive the memory of the militant blacks that formed the Black Panthers in the 1960’s? White people would definitely be offended by that name; wouldn’t they? But, hey~ it’s all in the name of Political Correctness; right?

Now, although I’m a Jersey Girl~ I have to wonder about a team named the New York Yankees? Doesn’t the name offend those people that live in the south? I don’t know of any team named for the confederacy. Do you? I don’t see the southern states uprising over a team that could have been named something like the “Atlanta Rebels” or the “Carolina Confederates”; do you?  But, hey~ it’s all in the name of Political Correctness; right?

What about all the teams named after religious organizations? Christian & Judea references here must be totally obliterated in the name of political correctness according to the PC Police. They will have a field day there! The New Orleans Saints, Los Angeles Angels, San Diego Padres & St. Louis Cardinals will be forced to change their team names because (3) three atheists out of  318 million people in the U.S. don’t like it.  But, hey~ it’s all in the name of Political Correctness; right?

While we are at it, let’s get rid of all the team names that glorify historical criminals, those that raped & pillaged their way through life. Let’s start with the Minnesota Vikings, Oakland Raiders; Tampa Bay Buccaneers & those horrible Pittsburgh Pirates!  They are evil names referring to criminal men in our history so let’s get rid of them too because it sends a bad message. But, hey~ it’s all in the name of Political Correctness; right?

Now that all that PC stuff is out of our way, let’s see what teams are sending a horrible message to our children. The San Diego Chargers are promoting irresponsible spending habits! So, they have to go!  The New York Giants & San Francisco Giants promote childhood obesity~ a real epidemic for the young!  The Cincinnati Reds promote drugs (downers & barbiturates).  And let’s not forget the Milwaukee Brewers~ doesn’t that go without saying? It’s a message to our kids to drink beer which = alcohol. After all!~ we can not tolerate anything that promotes drinking to our young; can we? But, hey~ it’s all in the name of Political Correctness; right?

But wait a minute~ don’t you think that the state of Oregon should change their Women’s Athletic Team name to something other than “Beavers”! Isn’t that offensive to women? But, hey~ it’s all in the name of Political Correctness; right?

In Obama’s United States of America, the needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the few ~ or the one. Twisted principles from the socialist mindset of a twisted man! (Thanks, Mr. Spock!) ~ dfh

 

HOW IS OBAMA IS LIKE HITLER?

255156774_obama_the_dictator_1_12_2013_xlargeLast March (2014) I published an article here entitled, “Why is Barack Obama Like King George III of England“?  The comparison of the two was so interesting to me that I began making comparisons between Barrack Hussein Obama & Adolf Hitler.  Hitler’s “T-4 Program” is another comparison that I attribute to OBAMACARE and I published that opinion because I believe the Obama Administration and NOW the Veteran’s Administration are now finally in sync to murder any Americans whom the Federal Government believes are too old,  too conservative, too patriotic, too pro-American ~ thus too inconvenient to the radical, socialist agenda of liberal people who have either been indoctrinated into socialistic policies that reward the politicians in power & do NOTHING for the working class in general OR are hell-bent on destroying the very foundation and principles of the American Constitution, including but not limited to;  our Freedoms under the Bill of Rights. Free Speech, Religion & our Right to Bare Arms have all come under attack by the Socialist Liberals & Secularists currently running OUR government! ~ JGT

COMPARISON OF  OBAMA TO HITLER © by Dorian F. Howard 2014

The similarities are terrifying, the conclusion inevitable. On March 23, 1933, the German Parliament met to consider passing a bill that Adolf Hitler had created called the Enabling Act. It was officially called the ‘Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.’ Why were the German people in such distress? Because their government was in utter chaos, and the German leaders wanted to reassure the people that everything would be okay. The only fly in the ointment was that the Nazis had, behind the scenes, caused the distress themselves by creating the crisis, so that they could step in and solve it.  Sound familiar? ~JGT

Hitler promised the German people that the government would “make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures. The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one.” So the German congress voted on the bill, with the end result being the legal destruction of the German Democratic Republic. The bill gave Hitler enormous, unprecedented powers to do as he saw fit for the government of the German people. It was the act that officially created a legal dictator who was answerable to no one. The people cheered, and National Socialism became the law of the land from that day forward. Today, Barack Obama is changing times and laws in America, giving himself unprecedented power never before seen. His Obama Care bill, now the law of the land; empowers him to create his own private army, forces citizens to abide by unconstitutional laws, and will use the IRS in much the same way that Hitler used his brown shirts * eventually the SS to make people get in line behind his policies. Many Americans will awaken from their “Obama Dreamy-Eyed Coma” too late to the fact that Obama has subverted the United States Constitution, and stolen our precious liberties and freedoms. That’s why Obama’s followers are encouraged and taught to follow and have faith in Obama the man, and not in our God or in our country. This is exactly the ploy that Hitler used to great and terrible effect in Nazi Germany.

Some people would balk at the comparison between Hitler and Obama, saying it was unfair. After all, Hitler started WWII and killed 11,000,000 Jews and Gentiles in death camps, and Obama has done nothing like that. Well, it’s only unfair if you compare Hitler at the end of his rule to the beginning of Obama’s. But if you compare Hitler and Obama at the beginning of their rise to power, it’s extremely fair. Both Hitler & Obama held rallies in outdoor stadiums to excite and inflame people’s passions. Frequently, women would faint or break into tears. If that’s not enough, check out the following:

  Both Hitler and Obama wrote ghost-written autobiographies prior to the start of their run for political office. Hitler wrote ‘Mein Kampf’ (My Struggle), and Obama wrote ‘Dreams Of My Father’. Some doubt exists that Obama actually wrote his so-called autobiography believing instead that it may have been ghost-written by William (Bill) Charles Ayers, a former leader of the terrorist Weather Underground. A friend of Obama’s before he ran for POTUS. ~ Both Obama & Hitler then wrote a second book talking about their goals for German and America. Hitler wrote “A New World Order”, Obama wrote “The Audacity of Hope”. Yeah, pretty audacious! ~JGT
  Both Hitler and Obama originally had last names that were changed later in life. Hitler used to be Schickelbruber, and Obama’s last name was Soetoro. In other words, each used & uses an alias! ~JGT
  Both Hitler and Obama hid their real identities. Hitler had a Jewish ancestry, and Obama a Muslim one. But unlike Hitler, Obama flaunted his Muslim roots in his start as a politician in order to defuse the inevitable firestorm. His ploy of “hiding in plain sight” worked very well. ~JGT
  Both Hitler and Obama’s supporters followed them blindly, and without question. They’re what’s known as Obama Zombies! ~ JGT
  Both Hitler and Obama used political power and coercion to conceal and hide their birth certificates from coming to public view. Hitler made his disappear, and Obama is unwilling and unable to produce his REAL long-form birth certificate. Call it whatever you want. There are too many discrepancies with Obama’s so-called Hawaiian birth registration to prove it’s authentic! ` JGT
  Both Hitler and Obama advocate using young people as a driving force to create an “army” of youth dedicated to their Ideals. Hitler had his Hitler Youth, and Obama his Obama Youth Brigade.The federal government calls them FEMA Corps. But they conjure up memories of the Hitler Youth of 1930’s Germany. Regardless of their name, the Dept. of Homeland Security graduated its first class of 231 Homeland Youth in Oct. 2012. Kids, aged 18-24 and recruited from the President’s AmeriCorp volunteers, they represent the first wave of DHS’s youth corps, designed specifically to create a full time, paid, standing army of FEMA Youth across the country. Scary~ huh? ~JGT
  Both Hitler and Obama were known for their tremendous oratorical skills. Albeit~ Obama uses a teleprompter. God forbid it fails to work! ~JGT
  Both Hitler and Obama received Messianic comparisons, and both men had songs of adoration written about them and for them. Do you remember the song~ “Barrack Hussein Obama ~ mmm, mmm, mmm”? ~JGT
  Like Hitler, Obama rules in direct disregard to the will and wishes of the people. The American People mean nothing to Obama! `~JGT
  Like Hitler, Obama has an obvious distaste for the Jews, and sides with the Muslims every chance he gets. Thus~ he ignores crimes against Christians & Jews all over the world! Typical of Islamic Radicals! ~JGT
  Both Hitler and Obama were able to mesmerize the people even when it was obvious that what they were saying was not true. Again~Obama Zombies! ~ JGT
  Both Hitler and Obama used domestic terrorists to launch their careers. Hitler had his Brown Shirts from his beer hall days, and Obama had people like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and many other radical leftists including Rashid Khalidi & Reverend Jerimiah Wright. All long-time friends of the Obamas. Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn were former leaders of the 1960s’ Weather Underground, America’s first terrorist cult.  One of their bombing targets, as it happened, was the Pentagon. ~JGT
  Like Hitler, Obama advocates using murder as a means of population control. From taxpayer funding of abortions in America and around the world, to the funding of the creating and destruction of human life in embryonic stem cell research with your tax money; from the absolute refusal to cut off public funding to Planned Parenthood to the stacking of the Supreme Court and federal courts with hardcore abortion advocates, pro-life groups say Obama has left every unborn child behind. Last year Planned Parenthood announced that Obama is the most pro-abortion president in history! ~ JGT

Earlier today, the entire nation heard the news that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl (held by the Taliban for 5 years in Afghanistan) had been released because of a “back-room” deal made by POTUS Obama in exchange for 5 of the most deadly (battle-field )captured Terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. If Obama had not already sealed his fateful legacy as being the biggest Spender POTUS & biggest Cover-up POTUS & Laziest POTUS & most Scandal-Ridden POTUS & worst Foreign Policy POTUS & biggest Liar POTUS in the History of the United States~ then today he added Naivety, Cowardice, Stupidity,  Constitutional Law-Breaker & Traitorous Acts by Negotiating with Terrorists to his resume’ as in my opinion the “WORST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

I am an American. I am a Patriot. I am a U.S. Navy Veteran & I am a Jersey Girl. And~ for the first time in my life~ I am ASHAMED of my Country today! ~JGT

NEW JERSEY SET TO BAN COMMON HUNTING RIFLES

2nd-amendmentA bill has been sent to Governor Chris Christie’s desk in New Jersey that would have the effect of prohibiting many fixed-magazine weapons commonly used in hunting, and almost never in murders. The Truth About Guns has the scoop.

The gun ban that has gone to New Jersey Governor Christie for signature has been described as a “gun magazine restriction“, but it bans numerous common sport and hunting rifles. The ban has no exemption for rifles with fixed magazines, including most common .22 rimfire rifles that are used for sport and small game hunting…and almost never used in crimes. Assembly Bill 2006 bans rifles that meet this definition: (4) A semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding [15] 10 rounds . . .

As Dean Weingarten notes, some common rifles have been modified from an original 17 shot clip capacity down to 15. The new New Jersey legislation would outlaw the modified ones as well.

John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog adds, “This ban on America’s most common and most inoffensive long gun has gone to Governor Chris Christie for signature. It seems almost inconceivable that any state could ban the .22 rifle in most of its iterations, but that is the age we live in. So this is an easy test for Christie: he should veto the .22 rifle ban. If he does so, it won’t tell us much except that he isn’t a complete fool. If he fails to veto the .22 ban, he will be exposed as a phony conservative who can’t be trusted with even the easiest of decisions.”  Governor Chris Christie has been inconsistent at best on 2nd Amendment issues, but last year he vetoed three gun control measures. So there may be hope yet in the Garden State.

Here is a list of common sporting rifles that would be banned by the law:

Browning  Semi-Auto .22
Colt Colteer and variants
Franchi Centennial .22
Marlin model 60 and variants
Norinco ATD .22 (Browning Clone)
Remington 6A and variants
Remington Nylon 66, clones, and variants
Remington 552
Remington 550
Remington 241
Savage model 87A and variants
Winchester model 74
Winchester 190, 290 and variants

(Article excerpted from TownHall.com & TheNation.com)

Last year, Governor Christie refused to sign three closely watched gun control bills, including a ban on .50 caliber sniper rifles.  Christie fully rejected the ban on .50 caliber rifles, five-foot-long snipers that can be loaded with palm-length cartridges designed to penetrate heavy armor a mile away; and that are, according to Christie, necessary for “recreational pastimes.” Christie carved up the two other bills and sent them back to the legislature with conditional vetoes. From a bill that supporters called a “national model” for overhauling how states conduct background checks and issue firearm permits, Christie cut provisions to digitally embed firearm permits in a gun owner’s driver’s license, to include private sales in the instant background check system and to require prospective gun owners to take a short safety course. “None of the technology necessary for this system exists,” Christie said that would link firearm permits with state ID. Christie also gutted a law requiring state officials to report data about lost and stolen firearms, along with those seized in association with a crime, to federal databases. ~ JGT

GOP CELEBRATES 160 YEAR ANNIVERSARY

An important milestone for one of the two major political parties in the United States. Exactly 160 years ago today (March 20, 1854) the Republican Party, commonly known as the GOP – an acronym for the Grand Old Party – was founded.

The party’s history began in a little schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, in 1854, where some 50 anti-slavery, abolitionists gathered to fight the expansion of slavery. The name “Republican” alludes to Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party and its commitment to the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

The GOP’s unofficial symbol – the elephant – represents Republican strength.

This Jersey Girl finds it interesting that the current Republican establishment (politicians in Washington) find it easier to cave in to the liberal demands of Obama & his Democratic minions; thus enslaving Americans to the government by way of “entitlements”. This is in total opposition to the original purpose and mission of the original abolitionists who founded the party in 1854. ~dfh

In all, there have been 18 Republican Presidents. The first was Abraham Lincoln, who vigorously supported the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery throughout the United States. The most recent Republican President was George W. Bush, serving between 2001 and 2009. The Republican party’s platform is generally based on American conservatism, in contrast to the Democratic Party, whose members endorse more liberal policies. The GOP currently holds a majority of seats in the US House of Representatives and a minority – in the US Senate.

The party’s platform is generally based upon American conservatism] in contrast to the Democratic Party, whose members endorse more liberal policies. American conservatism of the Republican Party is not wholly based upon rejection of the political ideology of liberalism; some principles of American conservatism are based on classical liberalism. Rather, the Republican Party’s conservatism is largely based upon its support of classical principles against the social liberalism of the Democratic Party that is considered American liberalism in contemporary American political discourse.

Unlike the Democrats, members of the Republican party advocate tax cuts, free trade and are in favor of reducing illegal migration. They speak for strengthening the role of religion in public life, morality and family values, as well as the rejection of homosexuality and abortion. The Republican Party’s core principles are as relevant today as they were back at the Party’s founding. We have one Party in this country that is Democrats who believe in the continued expansion of centralized government. They believe in expanding the size and the scope of the federal government and in increasing presence and the role of government in American’s daily lives, in their ability to conduct business and go about achieving whatever they deem happiness to be. The Republican Party is the Party of people as opposed to being a party of government. The GOP believes in freedom, self-determination and the ability of every individual to achieve success however they define success without government in their lives.

 Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. — Ayn Rand