Saturday, July 12, 2014
Any Illegal Alien Does Not Have American Rights And Should Be Electronically Monitored 24/7 Regardless Of Age.
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!
Redskins Dilemma -- Give In To Ridiculous Rules Or Fight? In Respect For Their Name, The Latter Is The Right Decision!
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.
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
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:
DID MILITARY LEADERS INITIALLY BELIEVE THE TROUBLE RESULTED FROM A STREET PROTEST?
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."
WAS A FOUR-MAN TEAM HEADED FOR BENGHAZI ORDERED TO STAND DOWN?
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.
RIGHT OR WRONG, WASN'T THAT AN ORDER TO "STAND DOWN"?
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."
DID CLINTON GIVE A "STAND DOWN" ORDER, AS SOME REPUBLICANS HAVE THEORIZED?
"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."
WHAT DID THE MILITARY DO TO HELP?
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.
WHY DIDN'T THEY SCRAMBLE THE F-16 FIGHTERS?
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.
COULD THE MILITARY HAVE DONE MORE?
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.