Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Any Illegal Alien Does Not Have American Rights And Should Be Electronically Monitored 24/7 Regardless Of Age.

McCain wants ankle bracelets for those awaiting deportation hearings

July 3, 2014: Hondurans stopped by U.S. Customs and Border Protection Services agents after crossing the Rio Grande near McAllen, Texas.AP
Arizona’s two Republican senators are set to introduce legislation next week to deal with unaccompanied children and others illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border that includes ankle-bracelet monitors for those awaiting deportation hearings, an alternative to President Obama’s request for an additional $3.7 billion to help with the continuing surge of illegal immigrants.
“Today we face a humanitarian crisis along our southern border,” said senior Sen. John McCain. “Congress must act to amend our immigration law and provide law enforcement the ability to return these children home as safely and expeditiously as possible.”
McCain announced plans Thursday with junior GOP Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, two days after Obama asked for the additional billions in emergency spending to hire more immigration judges and asylum officers, build more detention facilities, boost deterrence and enforcement and increase surveillance along the border.
Obama said in a formal letter of request that the money was needed to "address this urgent humanitarian situation."
But by Friday, a key House Republican was suggesting the proposed package was too big to get approved by the GOP-led House.
“It’s too much money,” said Kentucky GOP Rep. Hal Rogers, chairman of the chamber’s Appropriations Committee, which controls spending. “We don’t need it.”
Rogers previously had sounded open to the spending request for more immigration judges, detention facilities, State Department programs and other items. But he now says the committee will look at the parts of Obama’s request that would go for immediate needs and less urgent needs could be handled through Congress’ regular spending bills, though no final action is likely until after the November midterm elections.
There are also concerns about some of the money in the Obama request purportedly going to the Department of Health and Human Services for school and extraordinary health care for the thousands of children who have entered the country illegally in recent months.
McCain and Flake’s proposed Amend the Trafficking Victims Prevention Act also attempts to amend a 2008 law to give the United States more authority to return undocumented children from non-boarding countries such as Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. And it would allow for their “swifter” return, according to the senators.
They say that the U.S. has so far this year repatriated only 890 of the roughly 55,000 unaccompanied minors from Central America who have been apprehended, a number projected to rise to 90,000 by the end of the year, citing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement statistics.
The bill also wants to increase the number of immigration judges to hear cases and create a separate immigration docket to hear the cases of juveniles, citing backlogs in U.S. immigration courts that often result in one- to two-year waits before cases are heard. 
The idea of the ankle bracelets was reportedly being considered last month by the administration.
Illinois GOP Sen. Mark Kirk reportedly wants the children to be put through criminal background checks with their embassies to make sure they don’t pose a threat.
“The federal government will only stem the flow of unaccompanied minors to the United States when their parents see us sending them right back,” Flake said. “This legislation gives the administration the flexibility it has requested so it can begin to do just that.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Christians Supporting Israel Are Different From Their Ancestors. They Are Called By Genesis 12:1-3. This Is A Strong Indication That The Messiah Is Coming!

A Gift from God: Christian Support for Israel (Part 1)

After 2,000 years of Replacement Theology, the existence of devout Christians who support the Jewish State of Israel is a mind-blowing reality. Both Jews and Christians involved in this world should not take this support for granted.
Careful examination uncovers a number of unexpected things about this phenomenon that most call Christian Zionism. Why are these people remarkable? Who are they? How many are there, really? And in a growing environment of global animosity toward Israel, how should Jewish and Christian Zionists proceed in their common passion, in their common call?
So why are Christian Zionists remarkable?
The fact that a number of Christians support today’s Jewish State is remarkable. After a 2,000-year infusion of Replacement Theology into the heart of religious Christianity, it would seem that none should be aligned with Israel, defending and promoting its existence, its life, as a fully sovereign Jewish State among the world’s nations. After all, the vast majority of Christian traditions regard the church and Israel as one-and-the-same, a transcendental entity without borders or boundaries in this world.
Accordingly, the real Jerusalem is a not regarded as a city here on earth. Instead it is a metaphysical place that exists in a spiritual, heavenly dimension. What’s more, it is a place to which the only gate is inside human hearts that, for their part, unlock the entryway with the singular key of believing in Jesus as Divine Messiah and Savior.
Although in differing degrees, these are the interpretive filters through which the Bible is read and understood by all branches of Christianity. Accordingly, unless they convert, Christianity concludes that the human family of Jews has no biblical claim to the identity of Israel or to the place of Jerusalem.
Even the founder of Protestantism and hero of Evangelicalism, Martin Luther, concluded that these things were obvious. The entire Jewish race, he railed with righteous indignation, is guilty of deicide and cursed by God.
“Either God must be unjust,” he wrote in a publication called Table Talks, “or you, Jews, wicked and ungodly. For you have been in misery and fearful exile 1,500 years, a race rejected of God, without government, without laws, without prophets, without temple.” Thus, “for us Christians,” he stated in On Jews and Their Lies, Jews “stand as a terrifying example of God’s wrath.” Five hundred years later, Adolph Hitler concurred, easily justifying Jewish genocide to his fellow countrymen by the doctrinal teachings and social prescriptions of their own spiritual father in the name of Jesus.
For its part, the Synagogue is keenly aware of Christian conduct as a direct consequence of Replacement Theology. It has inspired inquisitions, provoked pogroms, excused expulsion, and authorized theft. Ultimately, it sanctioned the Holocaust, facilitating Jewish genocide.
The Nazis quoted Luther in almost everything they wrote about Jews. At his Nuremberg trial, Julian Streicher, founder and publisher of Der Stürmer, declared, “Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants’ dock today, if this book [The Jews and Their Lies] had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution.”
Streicher, found guilty and executed, was right. Luther brought reformation to the practice of Christianity but brought to fruition the anti-Semitism embedded in its DNA. His arguments still resound throughout the church’s various expressions. Christianity’s anti-Semitism—and all that it portends—remains.
Who are These People?
There is, however, a unique exception in the Christian world. It appeared about 100 years ago. Depending upon the denominations from which they come, some Christians have turned 90-to- 180 degrees in how they regard Jews and the State of Israel. With origins in Great Britain, these Christian Zionists played a vital role in rebirth of the Jewish State. Their continued support remains vital today. Who are these people?
My own involvement in Jewish-Christian relations began 13 years ago. Knowing almost nothing about the Christian world, I have since followed a specific call to facilitate dialogue between Jews and Christians; most of the time this is between Modern Orthodox Judaism and Charismatic Christianity. The more I learn, the more I am amazed by the exceptional segment of everyday Christians who stand with the Jewish people and their Homeland State.
I am amazed because the more I learn, the more I see for myself how entrenched Luther’s articulation of anti-Semitic thought remains in all branches of Christianity, including Evangelical varieties. How is it that some Christians overcome such thoroughly engrained thinking? And yet they do. What’s more, the process of stepping away from community consensus means their path is frequently costly, often lonely.
Count and Motivation
How many are there? Popular estimates range from 70 to 100 million in the United States alone. These numbers are mesmerizing. But are they true? There may be that many Evangelicals in America. Perhaps most of these would tell pollsters that they support Israel’s right to exist. But it simply is not accurate to say that all of them love Israel.
I believe there are 5 to 7 million, less than 10 percent, have a discernable passion for Israel. This does not mean the majority of Evangelicals are anti-Israel. It does mean, however, that they are mostly indifferent. Israel, Jews and Judaism simply do not appear on their religious radar.
Among the fraction of those who are proactive for Israel, most tend to describe their passion as a “call” or “download from heaven.” Many tell the same story. They were walking in one direction with God—vis-à-vis their Christian faith—when they received a divine interruption, telling them to stand with today’s Jewish State.
What do they do with this call? Most respond with regular prayers. Some give money to Israel-related charities. Others take part in celebratory events or political advocacy. Very few, however, visit Israel, perhaps 80 to 100 thousand each year. Most of these come on what might be called a “Jesus template” tour, visiting various sites but almost never interacting with Jews who call the country home.
Yes, some will visit Yad Vashem (Israel’s Holocaust Museum) and walk through Jerusalem’s Old City. But in the end, the vast majority will completely miss the Divine miracle of our lifetime: God’s restoration of Zion and His elect.
There are a small number of Christian Zionists who come to the land to learn from political leaders, security experts, and business entrepreneurs. A segment of them also come to learn about the Hebraic roots of their faith and are willing to pursue such education from observant Jewish educators with expertise in Jewish-Christian relations.
My point is that, instead of 100 million U.S. Evangelicals who are passionate about Israel, committed to firsthand knowledge of its culture, prosperity and religion, there are, perhaps, more like several hundred thousand. With such a modest number from the United States, it is not unreasonable to estimate that the population of like-minded Christians elsewhere in the world is smaller still.
For Part 2, click here
Reprinted with author’s permission from Charisma Magazine
To read part 1, click here
Together, how should Jewish and Christian Zionists proceed in this chaotic world of uncertainty? This is and should remain an open question by all concerned. Even so and for now, here are three suggestions:
First, we need to begin with mutual recognition that, like Israel itself, our shared passion is a miracle. It is, in fact, a “God thing” that is not going to disappear. Support from the core of Christian Zionism is not going to wane. Rising winds from a 21st century storm of Replacement Theology aimed at Evangelicals may rile the shallow waters of those whose support is little more than response to a poll, but it will only make small ripples on the surface among those with a deep commitment to the Jewish State, Christians who see its rebirth as fulfillment of God’s irrevocable covenants with the Jewish people.
Second, both sides need to address the larger population of global Evangelicals and traditional Christendom, especially with proactive initiatives in response to two very different trends, the so-called Prosperity and Social Justice “gospels.” As expressions of authentic faith, there are aspects of each that resonate with Judaism.
There are troubling aspects too. Is Genesis 12:3 a formula for getting rich? Is social justice the raison d’être for redemption? No and no, of course. Still, in both cases, the question is, how can we plug into the positive aspects of these trends, maintaining a balance between faith and works? And in the social justice stream, how can we do so without being bamboozled by Palestinian Liberation theology that delegitimizes Israel’s existence?
Third, we need to build better and more meaningful alliances with Christian Zionist organizations so that their constituents develop a deeper understanding of Israel’s people and culture. NGOs like the Christians United for Israel, Eagles Wings, International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, the International Christian Embassy of Jerusalem, Bridges for Peace, Christian Friends of Israel, AIPAC and Heart to Heart are nurturing the larger number of Christian Zionists who pray for Israel and are open to learning more about the unique passion God has given them for our reborn nation. How can we help these and other organizations like them nurture and strengthen their constituents’ real but nascent passion?
Of equal if not greater importance, how can we help them reach the children of their constituents, especially those attending Christian universities, places where there is almost no understanding of Judaism, Jews or the culture of Israel?
The prevailing view is to strengthen advocacy primarily by helping supporters understand the modern history of Israel and its contributions to science, technology, medicine and agriculture. For its part, the Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation—the CJCUC—believes theology must come first.
Christianity’s engrained anti-Semitism, as expressed by Martin Luther, is the fundamental reason for atrocities by the Church against the Synagogue. The task of addressing theology requires a new form of communication, a framework that allows all parties to walk down paths of dialogue without tripping landmines that blow up relationships. In essence, the safeguard is mutual commitment to understand the other’s point of view.
Understanding, both sides must acknowledge, does not mean agreement. CJCUC has learned that 90 percent of Jewish-Christian relations in the matter of theological discussion is simply a matter of listening, and to do so without the need to teach, preach or proselytize.
Notably, a focus on theological dialogue must not be limited to the age 50-plus demographic of Christian Zionists. It is critically important that the priority of biblical, ideological discussion include the campuses and curricula of Christian schools. It is easy, but dangerously inaccurate, to assume that the children of Christian Zionists are building on the foundation of what these parents have learned. The fact is that many Christian universities and colleges have not corrected Martin Luther’s anti-Semitism in their Bible, Theology or Missions departments.
Like Israel’s rebirth, a passion to nurture the nation is a miracle found in the hearts of most Jews and some Christians too. Still, many fellow Jews are inclined to protest, “Christians? We should join forces with them? Really?”
This skepticism is entirely understandable. Many Jewish Zionists come from families who survived the Holocaust. When this unspeakable result of Christian anti-Semitism is combined with 2,000 years of church atrocities against the synagogue, it is natural and easy to assume that all Christians share the sentiments that justified these evil acts. Christians who genuinely stand with Israel? Christians who are Zionists? They must have ulterior motives, perhaps to covertly convert. How is it possible that they are really different than their religious ancestors?
I have shared all of these concerns. But after 13 years of working, living and studying with core Christian Zionists, a called-out remnant if you will, I know their passion is genuine and righteous. It’s true, they really are different!
Theirs is a calling nuanced with the simple faith that blessing Israel means receiving blessings from God as stated in Genesis 12:3. Theirs is a mandate to be Watchmen on the Wall as mentioned in the Psalms. Theirs is the responsibility to do as Esther did when Mordecai told her that if she did not act for God’s chosen people, He would bring salvation from someone else.
The former Chief Rabbi of England, Jonathan Sacks, once said that today’s strain of Anti-Semitism is a moral infection that cannot be cured or defended by Jews alone. We need the help of others. I concur. God is raising up these “others” that we need. We must acknowledge that He is doing this; that He is moving in mysterious ways, stirring up the hearts and minds of Christians around their world to boldly stand with Israel.
Judaism and Christianity share more than common values—much more. We believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; we share a common Scripture that is the Word of God; and we share a common mission to be His agents for redemption in a broken world.
For nearly 2,000 years, the Synagogue and the church have been at odds. Now, like a gift, we are presented with unprecedented opportunities to dialogue and work together for the betterment of humanity. We can, we must, accept this gift and put it to work as a team, recognizing and responding to God in each other.
Reprinted with author’s permission from Charisma Magazine

Note to readers:
To read more about Genesis 12:1-3, the following site should help you.
United States Council Of Catholic Bishops  -

Israel Is Fighting The Battle On Two Fronts. It Must Win Both!

Fighting Enemies from Within and Without

Israel faces a difficult, violent period ahead. But there are certain imperatives of freedom that we cannot shirk.
Sixteen-year-old Muhammad Abu Khdeir was doing his own thing last Tuesday when he was abducted by Jewish terrorists, who slaughtered him. They killed him because he was an Arab, and they are racist murderers.
The police made solving Abu Khdeir’s murder a top priority. In less than a week, they had six suspects in custody. Three confessed to the murder.
There are dark forces at work in Israeli society. They need to be dealt with.
And they will be dealt with harshly.
They will be dealt with harshly because there is no significant sector in Israeli society that supports terrorism.
There is no Jewish tradition that condones or calls for the murder of innocents. In Jewish tradition, the line between protecting society from its enemies and committing murder is long, wide, unmistakable and unmoving.
This is why, for instance, at the memorial service for 20-year-old Shelly Dadon, who was murdered by an Israeli Arab terrorist from the Galilee in early May, the placards held up by the 2,000 participants called for the police to protect the public.
“Our blood is not worthless,” “Today it’s Shelly, tomorrow it could be you,” and, “Death penalty for murderers,” they read.
Not surprisingly, when on Sunday the police revealed both that they had arrested Abu Khdeir’s Jewish killers and that they had arrested Dadon’s Muslim murderer, public interest in the former story far surpassed interest in the latter.
The story of an Israeli Muslim terrorist murdering an Israeli Jewish woman is a dog bites man story.
The story of Israeli Jewish terrorists murdering an Israeli Muslim teenager is a man bites dog story.
The same goes for violent rioting.
The anti-terror demonstration in Jerusalem scheduled for last Tuesday quickly became a violent anti-Arab riot with rioters assaulting helpless Arab passersby. The police arrested 47 Jewish rioters. And the public as a whole condemned them.
Without public support, such deviant behavior has little longevity. Mob violence, as a general rule, plays to the audience at home. With no public support, the riots were over after one night.
In contrast, Jerusalem Arabs began rioting on Wednesday night. The riots spread to the north and south of the country by the end of the week. And there seems to be no end in sight.
There are several factors prolonging them. The most troubling is the depraved state of Arab society – both Palestinian Arab and Israeli Arab.
Whereas aside from fascist soccer fan clubs there are no significant Israeli Jewish groups that condone terrorism or racial violence, hatred of Israel and support for terrorism and the destruction of the Jewish state are widespread among Israeli Arab leaders and the general Arab public.
As for the Palestinians, there are no significant forces in Palestinian society calling for peaceful coexistence with Israel. The only voices celebrated are those calling for murdering Jews and destroying the Jewish state.
There is also the issue of the unfortunate timing the current violence.
The month of Ramadan has only just begun. During Ramadan, Muslims generally sleep during the day, wake up in the evening to eat and stay up all night long. With the widespread societal support for committing violence against Jews, rioting after the holiday meal is an attractive option for young people.
Moreover, we are in the midst of summer vacation. Teenagers with nothing to do can easily keep rioting through the night until school starts on September 1.
Monday night was witness to some encouraging signs. Several Arab mayors took to the streets to discourage continued rioting. The mayor of Kalansuwa, whose residents firebombed Jewish cars over the weekend and beat their drivers, began cleaning up the road. But the rioting is far from a spent force.
Beyond the local cause for their continuation, there are the outside forces itching to take over the action.
Israeli Arabs do not operate in a vacuum.
If the rioting continues, the current situation, in which much of the violence is spontaneous and locally organized, is not likely to last.

In 1987, the Palestinian uprising began as a spontaneous riot in Gaza City following a traffic accident involving an Israeli driver. At the time, from its distant base in Tunis, the PLO was searching for a way to be relevant.
Yasser Arafat and his goons quickly seized on the riots in the territories and took control of them through a campaign of bribery, extortion and murder.
Today Fatah and Hamas are in the midst of a power struggle. Each is keen to take control of the riots to assert supremacy over the other.
In Fatah’s case the effort still appears limited to incitement. On Monday for instance, Fatah’s Facebook page addressed Israel saying, “Sons of Zion, this is an oath to the Lord of the Heavens: Prepare all the body bags you can for your body parts.”
As Palestinian Media Watch has reported, this post was of a piece with other posts Fatah has published in the past week, all making clear that Fatah supports the riots and wishes to subsume them into a larger Fatah-led terror campaign against Israel.
Hamas today faces severe challenges.
Egypt is starving Hamas by blocking the smuggling tunnels from Egypt to Gaza. Fatah is starving Hamas by refusing to pay its employees’ salaries.
Internally Hamas in Gaza is facing a growing challenge from Islamic Jihad on the one hand and al-Qaida and ISIS affiliated terror cells on the other.
As Hamas sees it, no doubt rightly, the best way to rally its people behind it, weaken Fatah and alleviate Egypt’s stranglehold of Gaza is to go to war against the Jews. Operationally, it believes that it has a momentary advantage because a significant number of Israeli forces are tied down in Judea and Samaria.
The Netanyahu government gave Hamas good reason to believe it should press its perceived advantage.
By openly calling last Thursday for a cease-fire with Hamas, the government demonstrated severe weakness at a critical moment. It is not at all surprising that by Monday Hamas had escalated its attacks and extended the range of the rockets it has deployed to the outskirts of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
Nor is it surprising that by Monday night, the government was compelled to launch Operation Protective Edge to destroy Hamas’s missile arsenal.
The Jewish terrorists who murdered Abu Khdeir have made a bad situation much worse for Israel. The largely anti-Semitic international community had difficulty denying Israel’s right to self-defense after Naftali Fraenkel, Gil-Ad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah’s bodies were found last Monday.
Now, despite the obvious differences between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the man-bites-dog story these Jewish terrorists created has relegated Israel again to its normal position of defendant in the continuous Kafkaesque trial that is the Jewish state’s diplomatic fate.
Unfortunately, we cannot stand down because we are mortified by the sick margins of our society.
We must build on these first signs of remorse and quell the Israeli Arab riots as quickly as possible. Aside from their obvious human toll, every day the riots continue, the prospect of Palestinian terror groups taking over and directing the violence expands.
So too, Israel has no choice but to fight another round of war with Hamas. And it must win this one decisively.
It would have been far more advantageous if Israel could have sat back and watched as Hamas and its foes destroyed one another. But this is not an option. Hamas is determined to fight. Israel must defeat it.
Once the dust has settled, or even as it continues to storm, Israel will have to deal with our Jewish terrorist problem.
The weeds of our society must be uprooted. And we must take action to heal Israeli Arab society. We cannot repeat the mistake we made in 2000, by appointing a commission that strengthened the most dangerous forces in Israeli Arab society in an attempt to appease them.
We must build on the actions of the Arab mayors who have begun to stand up to the rioters and actively encourage Israeli Arabs to integrate into Israeli society while enforcing the laws without prejudice against those who incite, condone, facilitate, organize or otherwise abet mob violence and irredentism among Israeli Arab society.
Israel faces a difficult, violent period ahead. But there are certain imperatives of freedom that we cannot shirk.
Defeating enemies – from within and without – who act to destroy us is one of them.
Reprinted with author’s permission from The Jerusalem Post


Redskins Dilemma -- Give In To Ridiculous Rules Or Fight? In Respect For Their Name, The Latter Is The Right Decision!

John Hawkins
There was a time when you could afford to ignore insane ideas in America, but these days you can barely manage to blurt out, "Nobody can be that stupid," before some liberal starts calling for them to be made into laws on MSNBC. So it is with the demands that the Redskins change their name, but this time 50 Democrat senators and bureaucrats at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are tagging along with the Left-Wing loon patrol. That really shouldn't surprise anyone because it has become the standard modus operandi for liberals. Pick a group of people (In this case, Indians), choose some trivial wedge issue that does nothing of significance to improve their lives, and declare that's the only issue that matters to them and that anyone who doesn't agree, hates them. It's division, it's hatred, it's destruction, and it's what liberals are all about. While it's impossible to critique every dumb liberal idea in any one article, it's not hard to explain why pushing the Redskins to change their name is foolish.
1) The word "Redskin" isn't a racial slur: "Redskin" began as a descriptive term just like "black" or "white." No one uses the word "Redskin" as a racial slur for Indians -- and there's debate over whether anyone EVER did. On the other hand, if someone drops the "N-bomb," Jessie Jackson talks about "Hymietown," or Chris Rock talks about "crackers," those are recognized as racial slurs. So in essence, what liberals are trying to do is create a racial slur out of thin air. Maybe conservatives should try that some time. "(Gasp) You said Joe Biden? Why do you hate white people so much?"
2) Redskin apparently isn't offensive to most Native Americans: In modern America, you can find people who are offended by just about anything. So, it's no surprise that there are some Indians who don't like the term Redskin. However, in 2004 a National Annenberg Election Survey found that 90% of Native Americans had no problem with the name. Furthermore, there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that shows Native Americans don’t find the word “Redskins” offensive. In Anadarko, Oklahoma, which is often billed as the "Indian Capital of the Nation" where seven tribes make their home, there has been a Redskin Theatre there for 60 years. Red Mesa High School, which is located on a Navajo reservation in Arizona has a Redskin mascot and logo. Is the idea here supposed to be that these Indians are too stupid to know that they’re being insulted?
3) It’s not the government’s business: At the end of the day, the Redskins are going to be fine whether they change their name or not, Daniel Snyder is still going to be filthy rich, and the liberals who claim to be horribly offended by this will claim to be horribly offended by something else. However, it’s grating to have the government involved in this issue. We have an illegal alien invasion happening on our southern border, the debt is out of control, IRS employees are taking the 5th, Iraq is falling apart, the economy still stinks, we have a record number of Americans that have dropped out of the labor force, and the Senate Majority Leader and many of his colleagues are obsessively focusing on the Redskins while the patent office is playing political games with the name of the team. It’s like our house is burning down with the kids upstairs and the government is too busy obsessing over who Jennifer Anniston is dating these days to do anything about it. Who cares? Take care of the real problems we have and if the fans decide they don’t like the name of the Redskins enough to stop buying tickets and merchandise, the name will take care of itself.
4) The Redskins are more in touch with Native Americans than the people complaining about them: When the Left CREATES an issue like this, the implication is always that these terrible, insensitive people are treating someone badly and liberals are going to come along and make things right because they’re so sensitive and in touch with what people want. Except, the Redskins HAVE BEEN sensitive and in touch with Native Americans right from the get-go. As Daniel Snyder of the Redskins has noted in a public letter,
As some of you may know, our team began 81 years ago -- in 1932 -- with the name “Boston Braves.” The following year, the franchise name was changed to the “Boston Redskins.” On that inaugural Redskins team, four players and our Head Coach were Native Americans. The name was never a label. It was, and continues to be, a badge of honor.
In 1971, our legendary coach, the late George Allen, consulted with the Red Cloud Athletic Fund located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota and designed our emblem on the Redskins helmets. Several years later, Coach Allen was honored by the Red Cloud Athletic Fund. On the wall at our Ashburn, Virginia, offices is the plaque given to Coach Allen -- a source of pride for all of us. “Washington Redskins is more than a name we have called our football team for over eight decades. It is a symbol of everything we stand for: strength, courage, pride, and respect -- the same values we know guide Native Americans and which are embedded throughout their rich history as the original Americans.
The Redskins have done more to reach out, consult with, and take into consideration the feelings of Native Americans than 99% of the people criticizing them – and certainly more than any of the Democrats in the Senate. They’ve also created the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation, which actually does something to help Native Americans, unlike all these demands that the Redskins change their name.
5) There is no end to this: When liberals make insane demands like this, some people are tempted to give in to them in hopes that it will shut them up and they’ll go away. “Oh, just change the name of the Redskins and then we won’t have to hear about this anymore.” It NEVER works like that. Just to name one example of what comes next, there are already liberals demanding that the military change the name of Apache helicopters because that’s supposedly racist. There are also already demands being made that the Braves, Indians, Blackhawks and Chiefs change their names as well. Just to give you an idea of how far the liberals would go with this if they were able, when James O’Keefe was at Rutgers, as a goof, hemanaged to get Lucky Charms temporarily banned at his college by claiming they were racially insensitive to the Irish. If you want to spend your whole life placating the world’s most easily offended people, keep rewarding whiners for whining.

What Happened In Benghazi? Military Leaders Who Were NOT There Testify.

Testimony Reveals What Military Did While Benghazi Post Burned

Image: Testimony Reveals What Military Did While Benghazi Post Burned A vehicle in flames after it was set on fire inside the U.S. consulate compound in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012. (Getty Images)
Saturday, 12 Jul 2014 09:20 AM

  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
|  A   A  
One by one, behind closed doors in Washington, D.C.,, military officers explained what they did and didn't do the night the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, burned.
Together their 30 hours of testimony to congressional investigators gives the fullest account yet of the military's response to the surprise attacks that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans the night of Sept. 11, 2012, and early the next morning.
Transcripts of the interviews, with some names and classified information blacked out, were released Wednesday
The nine officers, including retired Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the military's U.S. Africa Command, described making on-the-fly decisions with only sparse information about the crisis unfolding at a diplomatic post and the nearby CIA compound.

None of them was in Benghazi. The closest? Some were 600 miles away in Tripoli, the Libyan capital; others gave orders from command headquarters in Germany or Washington.
They did not witness what went on in the White House or at the State Department. Ex-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and others have testified about Benghazi. More hearings are coming.
The nine officers shed light on the nature of the attacks; speculation that the military was ordered to "stand down" from helping Americans; suggestions that the U.S. should have rushed jets or a special operations team to Benghazi; and early misperceptions that the attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.
Some lingering questions about the Benghazi attacks and what the officers told the House Armed Services Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this year:
Some heard that, some didn't; nothing was clear about events on the ground at first.
One of the earliest reports came from Ambassador Chris Stevens, who told his deputy in a phone call cut short: "We're under attack."
"We started calling it an attack from inception," said Army Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, who was at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. "We never referred to it as anything else."
Another military official in Tripoli, whose name was withheld, said he wasn't sure how to interpret that word — "attack" — at first.
He had heard about protesters who scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier that night. "It could be, you know, vandals are attacking," he said.
Retired Vice Adm. Charles "Joe" Leidig Jr., deputy commander of AFRICOM, said he was awoken in the night at his headquarters in Germany with word that "there had been protesters, and they had overrun the facility in Benghazi."
But Ham, who was alerted while visiting the Pentagon, said he heard no mention of protesters.
So he's sure he didn't pass on anything like that when he informed Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of the attack. Dempsey and Panetta personally took word to President Barack Obama at the White House.
Speaking for the Obama administration, then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on Sunday talk shows five days later and suggested the attacks were born from regional protests against an anti-Islamic video. The administration later recanted that position but never thoroughly articulated what they believe happened. Republicans say Obama soft-pedaled a terrorist attack to protect his re-election.
Over the two days when the attacks were occurring, there was "very, very little discussion that I can recall about why did this happen." Ham said. "There just wasn't time for that, frankly."
Technically, no, the team was not ordered, as some have asserted, to stand by as militants attacked Americans 600 miles away. But they were told not to go to Benghazi and instead to stay and protect personnel in Tripoli. In hindsight, the attacks were over by then, anyway.
The special operations officer leading that team and the commander who gave him the order both told investigators that it was the right decision.
The team, led by Gibson, was in Tripoli to help train Libyan special forces. When the Benghazi attack began, Gibson's first duty was to protect the embassy in Tripoli amid fears that it also would be targeted. He helped evacuate the staff to a classified, more-secure location. Once he felt they were safe on the morning of Sept. 12, Gibson was ready to rush to Benghazi to help.
One Libyan plane carrying a six-man U.S. security team already had taken off. Gibson wanted his group on the second chartered flight. He called the special operations command center for Africa to say they were heading to the airport.
He was told, "Don't go. Don't get on that plane."
"Initially, I was angry," he recalled. "Because a tactical commander doesn't like to have those decisions taken away from him. But then once I digested it a little bit, then I realized, OK, maybe there was something going on. Maybe I'm needed here for something else."
Rear Adm. Brian Losey, who gave the order, said he needed Gibson's team in Tripoli in case trouble started there.
Although some Republican lawmakers have suggested the team might have helped repel attackers in Benghazi, their flight would have arrived after the final assault that killed two CIA contractors.
Losey dismissed the notion that the foursome could have been much help in Benghazi, where Americans already were moving to the airfield for evacuation with the aid of Libyan forces and the U.S. security team from the first plane. Losey noted that Gibson's group consisted of a communications specialist, a medic and a weapons operator with his foot in a cast.
"That's not a security team," Losey said. Sending them in "didn't make a lot of sense."
Gibson said if his group had flown to Benghazi, their flight would have crossed paths with the first plane as it returned bearing wounded Americans. Because they stayed, his medic was there to meet two seriously injured people at the Tripoli airport. The medic is credited with saving one's life.
Not according to Losey and Gibson.
Civilians might say that Losey ordered Gibson to stand down from his race to the scene. But Losey and Gibson say in their military parlance, standing down means ceasing operations.
"It was not a stand-down order," Gibson said. "It was not, 'Hey, time for everybody to go to bed.' It was, you know, 'Don't go. Don't get on that plane. Remain in place.'"
"It was never an order to stand down," Losey said. "It was an order to remain in place and continue to provide your security role in Tripoli."
"No," said Losey.
"I never received any orders from the secretary of state or heard of any orders from the secretary of state," said Leidig, also based in Stuttgart, Germany.
"No," said Ham, who commanded the Africa operations. "And we would not receive direct communications from the secretary of state."
Ham said no one else ordered him to stand down, either, and no one tried to stop him from helping the Americans in Benghazi any way he could.
"The conversation really was more along lines of, you know, 'What do you need? What can we do?'" he said. "And every request for forces that I asked of the secretary of defense was approved."
Following the first report of trouble about 9:40 p.m. local time on Sept. 11, officials began looking for military planes that could head to Benghazi for evacuations. None would be available for hours.
An unmanned drone already in Libya was quickly sent to survey the situation at the diplomatic post. Nighttime darkness limited its usefulness.
Two military members — both from Special Forces — were in the six-man team that flew from Tripoli to Benghazi around midnight and aided with the defense and evacuation of the CIA base.
An Air Force C-17 transport plane flew the Benghazi evacuees from Tripoli to Germany the night of Sept. 12, about 24 hours after the attacks began.
A U.S. anti-terror team sent from Spain arrived in Tripoli after the evacuees had gone.
Two military teams — one in Croatia and the other in the U.S. — prepared to go but, as the situation changed, weren't brought to Libya. They would have arrived too late.
Not until the morning of Sept. 12 was the 31st Fighter Wing in Aviano, Italy, ordered to get four F-16 jets and four pilots ready to respond if needed. The call to Benghazi never came.
Military leaders decided early on that jets armed with 500-pound bombs were unsuited for the chaotic crisis in an urban area.
"Ultimately, it was my decision that said no, not the right response in this circumstance," Ham said.
He didn't have anyone on the ground to provide target information for airstrikes. He didn't want to harm innocent people or risk inflaming more Libyans to join the attack. He believed some militants had missiles capable of downing a plane.
"Had I made a different decision, had strike aircraft deployed, we don't really know what the outcome would have been," Ham said. "Maybe it would have been positive, but maybe it would have got shot down. Maybe it would have killed civilians."
Brig. Gen. Scott Zobrist, then the wing commander at Aviano, had similar worries. He said that, even if called right away, it would have taken 20 hours to get jets to Benghazi from the base in Italy normally used for training flights.
Pilots would have to be recalled from their homes, bombs loaded onto planes, the 1,000-mile route planned. The jets would need refueling along the way, which meant coordinating with tanker planes stationed in England — something that typically takes days to plan.
In hindsight, Ham said, he should have reached out to his Libyan contacts and other U.S. officials to get Americans evacuated from Benghazi faster. That might have saved the two lives that were lost hours after the first attack at the diplomatic post.
While the evacuation from Benghazi was being planned by the embassy and the CIA, Ham said, he switched his focus toward gearing up a possible hostage rescue mission, because the ambassador was still missing.
Meanwhile, surviving U.S. personnel were gathered at the CIA base in Benghazi. Ham said he believed they were relatively safe. He and other military leaders said they weren't told that the CIA compound already had come under gunfire and rocket-propelled grenade attacks in the middle of the night.
The U.S. security team that arrived at the Benghazi airport after midnight was detained by Libyan officials for several hours. That delayed the evacuation, Ham said, and "allowed sufficient time for the second attack to be organized and conducted."
During that attack, around 5 a.m., mortar fire killed two CIA security contractors on the roof and wounded other Americans.
Less than an hour later, the evacuation of all American personnel from Benghazi began.

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.