Obama Blesses Planned Parenthood and Their Work

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/26/obamas-5-most-controversial-statements-about-abortion-and-womens-rights-during-his-planned-parenthood-speech/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/17/obama-accused-of-blasphemy-by-prominent-faith-leader-after-saying-god-bless-you-to-planned-parenthood/

In the Orwellian twilight of the West-

That quote, taken from Colin McEvedy and first applied to today in this post*, was originally used to describe the societal conditions of the last decades of the Western Roman Empire. When we consider the utter deluge of word-play, making the bad good and vice-versa, to which we are continually subjected, I find that it is more applicable now more than ever.

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/04/washington-state-sues-florist-for-gay.html

After praising the staff and actions of Planned Parenthood last month, Obama added a finishing touch that outdid anything that George Orwell could have imagined:

"According to the transcript, Obama concluded his speech by thanking the organization and by invoking God: “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you. God bless America. Thank you."
I guess that the first and main point that should be made is that Obama was not blessing PP and their staff of bloody henchmen in the Christian sense. His conclusion gave no hint of a Christ-like compassion followed by a directive of  "Go and sin no more". No, he was invoking the blessings of the Creator and Father for their actions that make PP what it is - a taxpayer-driven machine of slaughter and degradation of women, young and old alike and an organization that encourages men to use women without consequence.

In magic, the being which is being invoked is supposed to be bound to act by the words of the speaker. This differs considerably from Christian thought, which holds that,  in the words of consecration for example, it is God himself who is not only doing the work of changing the substance of the offerings but is also the cause of the Priest's words and actions. Catholic teaching is clear on this - even the most mundane good act is a direct  result of God's grace; it is not the work of man. 

I suspect that Obama somehow decided that, in calling God's blessings on those who commit these crimes and the gruesome products of the same, his act would compel the Creator to bless those who labor to destroy his very acts of creation. 

The pastors that remarked on Obama's statement were quite correct in referring to it as blasphemy. 

Yet again we see 1984's Newspeak and Doublethink applied to confuse speech and thought. Acts that defy God and undo his work are not only good, they are also to be sanctioned and blessed by the same undermined Being - at the bidding of a man who inexplicably has more than on place of birth. The people are treated as if they cannot comprehend the difference between right and wrong, and some revel in their self-imposed deception.

One thing is certain - Obama has no fear whatsoever of He who made him.

I can only reassert my position that we have no option but to effect a divorce of our already-irreconcilably split society. By fighting abortion, euthanasia, radical atheists suing against a cross in a park, enslavement by welfare of many, purposefully-imposed illiteracy in our schools**(At bottom), the attacks on our historical legacy in the same, legislative play-acting for fake marriages, and every other piece of destruction, we are barely putting out flare-ups while a conflagration grips our nation.We have to do what we can to save a remnant of our society that was also given to us by God. See posts below:

To paraphrase the ten northern tribes of Israel - "What share have we in the House of The United States of today? To your still-salvageable states, Oh America!"

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/11/in-consideration-of-secession-part-i.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/11/in-consideration-of-secession-part-ii.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/11/in-consideration-of-secession-part-iii.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/01/hannity-brings-up-secession.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/11/secession-why-panic.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/03/texas-schools-more-anti-us-propaganda.html

On forced illiteracy-

**http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/01/common-probably-all-too-common-theme-of.html

**http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/05/follow-up-on-enforced-illiteracy-in.html

Venezuela Goes USSR - Toilet Paper Shortage

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/16/white-house-releases-100-pages-e-mails-notes-related-to-benghazi/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/benghazi-emails-talking-points-changed-state-depts-request/story?id=19187137

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/16/republicans-press-for-more-documents-on-benghazi-dems-say-case-closed/

-Not much new on Benghazi. The State Department appears to be allowing their staff to be set up as the scapegoat. The Democrats are, in classic Orwellian mode, affecting to have the base closed because  well, they say it's closed.

"Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez also said on the Senate floor Thursday that the issue has been "fully vetted.' "

I wish that I could do that with my house projects. "The lawn, tree branch cutting, foundation painting - they're all done."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/16/already-short-some-foods-venezuela-is-facing-toilet-paper-crisis-government/?intcmp=obnetwork

Very little time to type tonight.

Venezuela has gone the way of the old USSR in a big way. They have officially run out of toilet paper.

First milk, butter, coffee and cornmeal ran short. Now Venezuela is running out of the most basic of necessities — toilet paper.

Blaming political opponents for the shortfall, as it does for other shortages, the embattled socialist government says it will import 50 million rolls to boost supplies.

That was little comfort to consumers struggling to find toilet paper on Wednesday.

"This is the last straw," said Manuel Fagundes, a shopper hunting for tissue in downtown Caracas. "I'm 71 years old and this is the first time I've seen this."

A 71 year-old Venezuelan, having grown up in a poor nation, has seen some tough times, and this is the first time that he can't get toilet paper.

Price controls and central planning have run Venezuela's economy  one that is bolstered by loads of easily-gotten petrodollars, right into the ground.

This is in no way President Maduro's fault (Although he is also a huge dufus). This baby is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Hugo's.

For those who have, understandably grown weary of trying to convince committed Leftists, Progressives, the "Left-of-Center, or plain liberals, here is a quick blaster of an interrogatory(ies) for them:

After noting the past failures of Marxist/Socialist economies to provide a reasonably supply of basic items (Look them up - it will be a fun search), ask them at what point would they drop their affection for a system that was dead on arrival in the The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Will  it be when gasoline is rationed? Coffee? Cosmetics? Items for personal hygiene? How about nice shoes and handbags?

If it does get to that point in which you will have had enough, what would you do then?

Don't be afraid to press the  for an answer. Remember that it is they who are starting the problem by voting for the same people and advocating their positions. No nation has survived price controls, central planning, or the incessant taking of other's property or cash to just give it to others.

Even Classical history gives us a lesson. When the Roman Empire in the West ran into serious economic troubles, Diocletian opted to go with central planning. Prices were fixed, taxation was taken to the absolute limit, and people had to be forced to do certain jobs. Why forced? Well, it turned out that it was a better deal to be on the public dole or to drop everything that you owned  and just work and live as a tenant on an estate.

The people lost what vigor they still had left, and the economy continued to deteriorate. In the end, the people, who had long been without any property and also avoided even military service like the plague, found that the State no longer had even enough debased (Forget the good stuff at this point) currency to pay the mercenaries that had become indispensable. The Empire was not seized by invasions; raids-however bloody and painful, were repulsed or the leaders bought off. The former mercenaries and those that followed just walked right in and took what was now theirs. What was left of Roman administration were tiny enclaves of  revolted generals or merged with the rule of the new kings. While we, with the history books available, see the end here, the truth is much sadder. The last decades of the Empire were of such darkness and dysfunction that it was a long time before anyone even realized what it meant that the last emperor had been deposed and that an entirely new system had been put in place. The change was barely recognizable to the people of that time.

Holder Projects His Shame Onto Issa

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/15/holder-testifies-at-house-hearing-says/

The lowest of the low will inevitably accuse others of acting exactly as they do:

"Eric Holder lashed out at his chief antagonist Wednesday at a congressional hearing where the attorney general was questioned on recent administration scandals, telling Republican Rep. Darrell Issa at the end of a tense exchange that his conduct is "shameful."

Holder’s comments came after Issa accused him of purposely and repeatedly keeping information from Congress.

“No, that’s what you typically do,” Holder responded. Following crosstalk, Holder added, “That is inappropriate and is too consistent with the way in which you conduct yourself as a member of Congress. It’s unacceptable and it’s shameful.”....."

In psychological terms, it is called Projection - the act of pushing your faults off of you and onto another. In this case, it serves a double-purpose. By asserting "I don't do that, that's what you do.", Holder tries to force the label he earned onto Rep Darrell Issa. It also is a play right out of the Progressive/Leftist/Democratic Party playbook. Just as when Obama calls for fiscal responsibility while he is spending like mad and when he accuses Republicans of dirty tricks while he and all of his are making such acts a fine art, Holder seeks to use the witness chair as a political tool to attack the opposition.

The disgrace of an Attorney General has again played the "I don't know" card in regards to the Associated Press phone records scandal. A brand-new lawyer, fresh out of Law school and having just passed the bar exam, knows that you don't walk in to a hearing or trial without being unprepared, yet this is just what Holder pretends to be doing. A job applicant for an entry-level position knows as much. In all fairness, acting the idiot is probably the best move since any true statements that he would make would bring the administration one step closer to having to leave town.

The seizures of the phone records, at first glance shocking when one recalls our rights of a free Press, only makes sense in light of what this administration has made common practice:

-Fast and Furious

-The targeting of Conservative groups by the IRS

-Benghazi

-The deadly hamstringing of our troops by indescribably restrictive "Rules of Engagement" in Afghanistan

-The Pigford Scandal

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/01/Pigford-s-players-signal-bigger-scandal-worthy-of-investigation

-The bringing of staff who have direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood into top government posts or postitions of influence

-Bribery

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/01/bribery-compromised-officials-leave-indicted-financial-crime-suspects-free-from-prosecution-under-holders-doj/

-ACORN (Need we say more on that one?)

-Just deciding on their own to refrain from enforcing Immigration Law and the Defense of Marriage Act

-A few ones that I had forgotten about (Can I really be blamed here?)

http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/obama-holder-among-most-corrupt-politicians/

Roughly half of US voters elected Obama and all those in his train - twice.

German Homeschoolers Lose Key Court Case

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/14/german-homeschooling-familys-request-for-asylum-denied-by-u-s-government/

The US Sixth Circuit Appeals Court handed down ruling that is nothing less than a travesty of justice.

"The Romeike family has for years been battling for the right to educate their children as they see fit. Today, the United States government has denied their request.

Originally from Germany, Evangelical Christians Uwe and Hannelore Romeike wanted to homeschool their six children, but it is against the law in Germany. They faced threats of legal action from the government and crippling fines before choosing to immigrate to the United States in 2010, seeking political asylum.

U.S. Immigration Judge Lawrence Burman granted the Romeike’s request, but it was overturned in 2012 by the Board of Immigration Appeals, after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcementchallenged the decision.

Today, in the words of the Home School Defense League Association, which has represented the family: “The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Obama Administration’s denial of asylum granted to the Romeike family"........."


The Romeike family, although clearly terribly wronged by The White House and by our courts, is only a pawn in yet another soft totalitarian scheme of the Obama administration. Originally granted asylum by an immigration court, the White House, eager to earn a win by Case Law that would declare that home schooling is not a right, appealed the ruling and the Romeike's lost in Immigration Appellate Court. That ruling was in turn appealed by the Romeike family. That is how the Sixth Circuit Court got the case.

The reasons that the court gave for their ruling are extraordinarily weak - the ruling can be read in an embedded file on the top link. It seems to have stopped short of declaring definitively that homeschooling is not a right, but the fact that it was not addressed does not make this pill any easier to swallow.

Governments are good things when they are meant to protect life, liberty and property. In Common Sense, Thomas Paine referred to them as necessary evils. Either way, we must remember that are nothing but artificial constructs - they exist by virtue of the will of the people and have no inherent authority to abrogate basic rights of citizens. Public, taxpayer-funded schools? Great (My kids were not homeschooled), but no State can claim the authority to force me to send my kids there or to take them from me and put them in a classroom as long as I am not depriving them of an education. No change in the Natural Law ever occurred that compels me to send my kids to a place that I find teaches my children poorly or wrongly.

What we need to realize is that the Obama administration, and the Left in  general, want to get their controlling mitts on homeschoolers. If they cannot ban it outright, they will, by Case Law, enact more restrictive regulations on what parents teach their children. In short, the anti-US/West and pro-everything else material taught in our public school textbooks and in CSCOPE lessons will in all probability be required to be taught to homeschooled kids. We will then have no refuge for our kids from the mind control of the Left.

We are moving ever closer to the Year Zero of the US, when the Left will be able to declare that nothing that occurred prior to the new era will have any bearing on decision-making or determinations of rights.

The Romeike's are have not exhausted the appeals process, but I am gravely concerned about their chances in the future. The federal courts are bursting at the seams with Progressive and full-blown Leftist judges, and most would certainly want to get their names on a ruling that would have massive implications for free people.

As I noted in an earlier post, the handwriting is on the wall, and unlike the Babylonian rulers, everyone can read it*. Unfortunately, as one young parent noted to me today, he is "busy putting food on the table". That is exactly how the Statists want us - too tied up with work and chores and other scheduled things to be bothered with what is breathing down our necks.

The Republicans and Democrats are laboring to grant de facto amnesties to over ten million people who entered the nation illegally, but they are spending money and working even harder to push a single German family out of the country. Why? Well, the illegals don't run around asking for any real freedoms for one.

I have not even heard about any offcial protest from the German government demanding that the Romeike's be returned to the Fatherland.

The people had better realize what a successful deportation will mean for all of us. This case cries out for a massive show of public support both for the beleaguered family and for our own rights. They need to be made aware that we will not give in - not without a fight, but not at all.

This is where a sovereign state can come into the picture. Yes, the Constitution grants authority on immigration issues to the national government, but we do have precedent that allows individual states to grant more liberty and protection to the people than does the federal/national government. In the US, once you bring your garbage to the curb for collection, it can be taken and searched by law enforcement authorities without a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches and seizures. In New Jersey however, the police can take your garbage bags prior to collection by sanitation staff, but they cannot open and search these unless they are granted a search warrant. This will not happen unless a sworn affidavit stating both that probable cause exists and that there is an expectation of what will be found is accepted by the judge.

It is not a perfect analogy in any way, but here is a chance for a US state to grant residency to a family that has done nothing wrong. It can also provide criminal penalties for any officer that attempts to seize or remove such a person(s). I submit that the people would support such a move and that, if it is done, the White House would back off rather than touch off a major legal conflict. If it fails, we will have yet another reason to know that there is no longer any doubt about the intentions of the ruling elite.

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-handwriting-on-wall.html

-From a previous post:
http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/04/interview-with-german-homeschooling.html

".....Make no mistake - Obama needs this one, and badly so. The existence of homeschoolers presents a direct threat to the Left. Having a portion of the American electorate that has not been subjected to the propaganda of the Progressives is something that cannot be tolerated. Obama certainly would at least want to pave the way for attacking homeschooling here in the US, and a successful deportation ordered under a legal ruling that homeschooling is not a right is the most effective means of doing so.

Set the precedent and work from there.

Please watch the video. Aside from the obvious fact that declaring a previous grant of asylum to this family to have been wrongful would be a crime and a stab in the back to people who just needed help, sending this family back to Germany will set us up for big trouble.

This is the perfect example of an issue that screams out for civil disobedience. If the Romeike's fail in their final appeals, they need to be helped by Americans. DHS must not be allowed to get their hands on them. We must act for their sake and for ours. I have to imagine that the US was the only nation that would give them a fighting chance of the basic right of choosing how to educate their kids. Western European nations were most likely out of the question; they are farther gone down the sinkhole than we are."

Gates Joins Royalists in Benghazi Probe

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/12/robert-gates-i-would-have-made-the-same-decisions-during-benghazi-attack/


Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has thrown his lot in with the administration.

"Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates defended the Obama administration’s decision-making during the Benghazi assault, saying he would have made the same calls if he were still on the job.

Gates, who served under both President Barack Obama and George W. Bush, said there wasn’t time to reach the American compound during the attack.

“I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were,” Gates said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” noting that he hasn’t been briefed on the situation by U.S. officials and has only followed the developments through media reports.......

“Based on everything I read, people didn’t really know what was going on in Benghazi contemporaneously,” he said. “To send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think it would have been very dangerous and I would not have approved that.".........."

For Gates to come out and join in the choruses of "we didn't know enough" and "there wasn't enough time" leaves me wondering what motivated him to shred what credibility he, up until this point, still had. I can only imagine a few possibilities:

-A survey of the current climate convinced him that decided that Congress can't win a full investigation of Benghazi, so he has his money on the White House.

-Hoping for a new blood-money appointment as a reward for his actions, he rolled the dice on a win for the administration.

-He was made aware that a skeleton in his closet would be let out if he did not come on board with the cover up.

-He fears that, in the event that this does come down to an impeachment, the ensuing mob violence will be too much for the nation to bear, so he took the (In this case) shameful path of discretion rather than that of valor.


This development underscores the situation that we face in the nation today. The US has two options. The first is to take the timeworn path, telling oneself that the dead are gone and that the consequences of doing Justice are not worth the trouble that it will bring. The other is that our bolder and noble leaders accept that failing to do Justice is a far greater crime than the original act itself and that holding back from action due to fear of the mob does nothing but embolden the opposition.

They are at war with us, and their aim is silencing and subjugating the people, leaving us wallowing in ignorance.They will work tirelessly to wreck our nation regardless of what we do. An abused spouse should never remain with the batterer simply because she fears what her husband will do if she leaves. An employee can not ignore his boss's illegal practices to save his job. Citizens and their elected/appointed leaders do not have the option of allowing fears of media-fomented anger to deter them from doing what is right for the nation.

Unless Robert Gates recants his statements, he will have earned himself an infamous note in the history books of the future. Like the shameful post-republic officers of Rome featured in The Annals of Imperial Rome* by Tactitus, we will have the story of a man who, when given the chance to do a great service for his nation and its citizens, instead chose to either take the coward's way out or to gain a short-term reward for selling his reputation - and most likely for cut-rate at that.

We are sadly far gone from the days when a schoolteacher, after risking everything in the service of his young nation and getting caught, uttered these lines inspired from the contemporary play Cato as he was about to be hanged:

"I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country."

* Ancient classics such as The Annals can be purchased from publishers such as Penguin Group. They make inexpensive paperbacks that provide a wealth of information, lessons, and inspiration.

http://www.penguin.com/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/13/benghazi-emails-underscore-state-departments-concern-over-failure-to-act-on/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/13/fact-check-timeline-statements-raises-questions-on-obamas-benghazi-claims/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/12/dianne-feinstein-says-benghazi-hearing-was-really-about-discrediting-hillary-clinton/

New Saints - Murdered for Their Faith by Tolerance

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/12/pope-francis-catholic-new-saints

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-battle-that-saved-the-christian-west

Happy Mother's Day to all Moms.

Pope Francis' canonization of 813 Christians who were murdered during an Ottoman invasion of Italy in 1480 brings to new light a period that has been largely ignored and virtually suppressed by Academia. To consolidate Muslim control of most the Mediterranean, and most importantly, the final Patriarchal seat of Christianity that had not (But still remains in their sights) fallen under Islamic rule*, Italy again fell victim to the armies of Islamic tolerance. The most tragic result of this was that over 800 Christians - those who were not sold into (Mostly sex) slavery, were beheaded one-by-one for refusing to renounce their faith in their God and Savior.

The period following the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was a dark one for Christendom. When the walls of the great city were breached by the Ottoman artillery, her defenders, including the last Emperor, Constantine XI Dragases of the Palaeologus dynasty, were cut down in the streets in a last act of defiance against the enemy. The most effective and vicious assault troops were the Janissaries, Stockholm Syndrome-exemplars who had been taken as youths from conquered Christian communities and raised as Muslim slave-soldiers to be deployed against their former coreligionists. The women, many of which had fled to Hagia Sophia as a final refuge were taken - nuns, commoners and nobility alike, as sex slaves. Three days of pillage ensued.

- The gates to the West were now wide open.

The West awoke to the realization that her indifference to the plight of the Eastern Christians did nothing but leave them as the next target. (There is a lesson for us as we ignore that is happening to the Christians of the Middle and Near East today) Centuries of non-cooperation and even sometimes shameful warfare between the East and West of Europe had borne their bitter fruit. Often bolstered by tributary auxiliary contingents of conquered Christian nations, the Ottoman swarm seemed unstoppable. Mohammed's vision appeared to be within reach.

It was like closing the barn door after the horses had already gotten out.

After a second and ultimately successful siege, (1522) the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman had expelled the Knights of St. John (Hospitalers) from Rhodes. Later he would move against their new bastion on Malta. The heroic and selfless defense of that island, particularly that of the 30-day stand in the outpost Fort Saint Elmo, should be read by all:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-466818/Historys-bloodiest-siege-used-human-heads-cannonballs.html

While the first and unsuccessful siege of Rhodes (1480) was ongoing, the Sultan Mehmet II, the conqueror of Constantinople diverted some of his forces to begin the conquest of Rome. Purposely glossed over by an anti-Christian Academia and forgotten among the events that rocked Christian Europe of that time, few in the West have even heard in passing of this invasion. Here begins the account of the Martyrs who were canonized:

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-the-800-martyrs-of-otranto-saved-rome

"...........Mehmet halted the ongoing siege of Rhodes—brilliantly defended by the Knights of Rhodes—and ordered large elements of the Turkish army and navy there to set sail for the Italian peninsula. The fleet comprised at least 90 galleys, 15 heavily armed galleasses, and 48 lighter galliots carrying over 18,000 soldiers. Their initial target was the Italian port city of Brindisi, in Puglia (or Apulia), the southeastern corner of the peninsula along the Adriatic Sea. The city was an ideal choice as it offered a large harbor for the ships. The commander of the Ottoman force, Pasha Ahmet, was one of the most formidable of Mehmet’s generals. He intended to capture the port and then advance immediately north toward Rome while Ottoman reinforcements arrived to consolidate the seized territory............

The city’s walls afforded a wonderful view of the Adriatic, but on the morning of July 29, an ominous sight appeared on the horizon: The Ottoman fleet had landed nearby. Thousands of soldiers and sailors began marching toward Otranto, where the garrison of soldiers numbered only around 400. Messengers were sent north to alert the rest of the peninsula of the danger that had arrived from the sea.

The castle had no cannons, and the garrison commander, Count Francesco Largo, was aware of the limited supplies and water. Medieval warfare, even after the emergence of cannons, was predicated on stark and often grim choices on the part of the defenders of any city or castle under siege. The defenders could either hope to hold out (especially if a relief army was on the way), or they could negotiate a surrender. Surrender was an option to be considered as early as possible, for the longer a siege went on the harsher the terms might become. Should a city or castle fight to the last and have its walls breached, staggering violence usually followed as the conquering force pillaged, vented its pent-up frustration, and searched for loot and treasure.

Surrender or Die

For the citizens of Otranto, the siege of Constantinople was still well-known. When that city fell, Ottoman troops were allowed to pillage parts of the city, but the key moment came when they reached the famed church of the Hagia Sophia. After breaking down the church’s bronze gates, the Turkish troops found inside a huge throng of Byzantines who had taken refuge and who were praying that the city might be delivered by some miracle. The Christians were seized and separated according to age and gender. The infants and elderly were brutally murdered; the men—including some of the city’s most prominent senators—were carted off to the slave markets; and the women and girls were taken by soldiers or sent into a life of slavery.

At Otranto, the terms of the Pasha were ostensibly generous. If the town surrendered, the defenders would be permitted to live. Otranto was forfeit. The answer to the Pasha’s demands was firm: The Christians would not surrender. When a second messenger was sent to the walls to repeat the demands, he was met with arrows from the walls. To settle the issue, the leaders of the castle defense climbed to the top of the tower and threw the keys of the city into the sea. When the determined defenders awoke in the morning, however, some of the soldiers had fled by climbing down the walls and running for their lives.

The few hundred inhabitants of Otranto now faced 18,000 fierce Ottomans with barely 50 Neapolitan soldiers. The siege engines and Ottoman cannons brought down a relentless torrent of stones, and waves of Ottoman soldiers crashed against the walls and tried to climb up to get at the frantic defenders. The people of the town boiled oil and water to pour down upon the enemy while others hurled rocks, statues, and furniture.

The struggle went for nearly two harrowing weeks until, in the early morning of August 12, the Ottomans breached a part of the wall with their cannons. A spirited defense was waged amid the rubble of the broken wall, but the people of Otranto were hopelessly overmatched, lacking any training in vicious hand-to-hand combat, and exhausted by the ordeal of the siege.

Slaughter, Sacrilege, and Slavery
Turkish troops slaughtered the stalwart defenders and then rushed through the city killing anyone in their path. They made their way to the cathedral. As in the Hagia Sophia, the invaders found the church filled with people praying with Archbishop Stefano Agricoli, Bishop Stephen Pendinelli, and Count Largo. The Ottomans commanded the archbishop to throw away his crucifix, abjure the Christian faith, and embrace Islam. When he refused, his head was cut off before the weeping congregation. Bishop Pendinelli and Count Largo likewise would not convert and were also put to death, reportedly by being slowly sawed in half. As was the custom, the priests were murdered and the cathedral was stripped of all Christian symbols and turned into a stable for the horses. The Ottomans then gathered up the surviving people of Otranto and took them as captives. Their ultimate fate was in the hands of Pasha Ahmed.

The people of Otranto faced the same end as the Christians of Constantinople. All of the men over the age of 50 were slaughtered; the women and children under the age of 15 were either slain or sent away to Albania to be slaves. According to some contemporary sources, the total number of dead was as high as 12,000, with another 5,000 pressed into slavery. (These numbers are almost certainly an exaggeration as Otranto did not likely have a population that high.) Nevertheless, worse was still to come.

Death before Apostasy

The Pasha Ahmet ordered the men of Otranto, 800 exhausted, beaten, and starved survivors of the battle, to be brought before him. The Pasha informed them that they had one chance to convert to Islam or die. To convince them, he instructed an Italian apostate priest named Giovanni to preach. The former priest called on the men of Otranto to abandon the Christian faith, spurn the Church, and become Muslims. In return, they would be honored by the Pasha and receive many benefits.

One of the men of Otranto, a tailor named Antonio Primaldi (he is also named Antonio Pezzulla in some sources), came forward to speak to the survivors. He called out that he was ready to die for Christ a thousand times. He then added, according to the chronicler Giovanni Laggetto in the Historia della guerra di Otranto del 1480:

'My brothers, until today we have fought in defense of our country, to save our lives, and for our lords; now it is time that we fight to save our souls for our Lord, so that having died on the cross for us, it is good that we should die for him, standing firm and constant in the faith, and with this earthly death we shall win eternal life and the glory of martyrs. [author translation]'
At this, the men of Otranto cried out with one voice that they too were willing to die a thousand times for Christ. The angry Pasha Ahmed pronounced his sentence: death.

The next morning, August 14, the 800 prisoners were bound together with ropes and led out of the still-smoking battleground of Otranto and up the Hill of Minerva. The victims repeated their pledge to be faithful to Christ, and the Ottomans chose the courageous Antonio Primaldo as the first to be executed.

The old tailor gave one final exhortation to his fellow prisoners and knelt before the executioner. The blade fell and decapitated him, but then, as the chronicler Saverio de Marco claimed in the Compendiosa istoria degli ottocento martiri otrantini ("The Brief History of the 800 Martyrs of Otranto"), the headless corpse stood back upright. The body supposedly proved unmovable, so it remained standing for the entire duration of the gruesome executions. Stunned by this apparent miracle, one of the executioners converted on the spot and was immediately killed. The executioners then returned to their horrendous business. The bodies were placed into a mass grave, and the Turks prepared to begin their march up the peninsula toward Rome. Otranto was in ruins, its population gone, its men dead and thrown into a pit, seemingly to be forgotten..........."

They were not forgotten, neither to God nor to men. Their refusal to abjure their faith stands as a lesson and an inspiration to all of us.

*-Of the five original Patriarchal seats of Christianity, only one remains free of Islamic rule. I'll give you a hint, "When in ----, do as the ------ do." The significance of the continued freedom of that city is not lost on Muslims. (See below link)

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2011/12/islam-and-christian-patriarchates.html

States Rights Showdown in Kansas

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/03/kansas-governor-attorney-general-holder-spar-over-new-state-gun-law/?intcmp=obnetwork

First things first - The American Civil War began not as an issue about states rights but about protecting the institution of slavery. States rights were not even raised as an issue at the time that the first seven states declared that they were no longer part of the Union. The Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, made that point clear when he noted that "Slavery is the cornerstone of the Confederacy". As not one of his fellow secessionists uttered a word of rebuke, protest, or clarification to their VP's claim, we can consign the later-flowered claim to the dustbin of revisionist history.

What we do have today, however, is a situation in which states rights have truly become an issue. Our national* government has taken numerous steps that would be most generously described as overreaches of its authority. A number of states, such as Montana, Idaho, Alaska, and Kansas have in recent years crafted legislation that, in a limited manner, asserts their authority and sovereignty.

What has been done is simple yet effective. State laws have been specifically made to make it legally impossible for the federal/national government to enforce portions of the US Code.

"U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has told Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback that a new state law attempting to block federal regulation of some guns is unconstitutional and that the federal government is willing to go to court over the issue...........

Kansas' law declares that the federal government has no authority to regulate guns, ammunition and accessories manufactured, sold and kept only in Kansas. The law also makes it a felony for a federal agent to enforce any law, regulation, order or treaty covering those items.

The new statute says that Kansas-only guns, ammunition and accessories aren't a part of interstate commerce, which the federal government regulates under the U.S. Constitution. But in a letter to Brownback, Holder said the Constitution prohibits states from pre-empting federal laws."

The argument is a good one. The US has laws that regulate firearms, but the only real authority that the Constitution gives the government to enforce these is the Commerce Clause. What these states are doing is declaring through the medium of state law that firearms (Or other related devices) made, sold, and possessed in their respective states do not fall within the legislative or regulatory authority of the government of the United States. 

An interesting facet of this situation is that a legal battle over such laws will likely call into question the ruling of the US Supreme Court in the case of Wickard v. Filburn.  This case is a standard reading in virtually every class that covers Constitutional Law. A farmer named Roscoe Fillburn was fined for growing more than the allowable amount of wheat on his farm. In an era in which many people had too little cash to buy food, the price-fixing scheme of  FDR (What didn't he think he could regulate?) took the authority of the US government right to to the gate of one's own farmland in order to keep prices high. Fillburn did not sell his wheat but kept it to feed his cattle, so his argument was that he actions did not affect interstate commerce. Several rulings and appeals ensued, with Fillburn winning a key victory in US  District Court. A common-sense approach or course would be that neither the Commerce Clause nor any other law or regulation can tell someone what they can or cannot do on their own property as doing as it was not inherently illegal, such as dumping hazardous waste. Yet here we were, with Fillburn's case appealed yet again by the US government and going to the Supreme Court.

FDR, the Obama of his day, and an admirer of Mussolini and Uncle Joe Stalin, had had enough of the Supreme Court and all of their silly what-is-Constitutional-or not arguments. He wanted to rule by decree. His answer was to threaten to pack the court with more justices (The number was nine but that was not etched in stone at the time) that would support the tyrant. That threat worked; the vote in favor of FDR's plan was 8-0 with one (I believe it was ) abstention.

The majority opinion justified the regulation and fine by the following twisted explanation.

Since Fillburn grew enough wheat to provide sufficient feed for his livestock, his actions fell under the purview of the Commerce Clause. The fact that he did not need to buy wheat on the market, even within his own state, was deemed to affect interstate commerce.

Like Kelo v. New London and the Obamacare decisions, Wickard is the law of the land. If Obama gets another open space on the court for an appointee of his choosing, the remnant of protection that we have in the Supreme Court, which is literally hanging by a thread, will be gone.

I admit that I was surprised that Justice Roberts, in casting his lot with the soft totalitarians, chose to blatantly lie and pretend that the mandate to purchase health insurance could be considered a tax instead of falling in line with Wickard v. Fillburn. 

Roberts may have feared the implications of the 1995 ruling of United States v. Lopez**. Wickard took a hit in that ruling, a fact that no doubt chafes at Obama. In that case, the US government tried to push the Commerce Clause to mean that it could order local schools about.

I hope that Kansas and the other states do not back down from Holder's threats. This is a case that they have more than a fairly decent chance of winning. Even if they lose, the people will then have no reason to deny to themselves that the Constitutional machinery of our nation is gone, so even a failure in this case would be a blessing.


*The use of the term "Federal" was a clever move by supporters of our Constitution to lend weight to their arguments in support of what came to be our noble Law of the land. While the document provided for a national government, the supporters wisely grabbed the term "Federalist" to force opponents of the document to be referred to as anti-Federalists. The strategy worked. The US has a national government with federalist elements.

**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

"The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:
“ To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do. ”


The Court specifically looked to four factors in determining whether legislation represents a valid effort to use the Commerce Clause power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce:
Whether the activity was non-economic as opposed to economic activity; previous cases involved economic activity.
Jurisdictional element: whether the gun had moved in interstate commerce.
Whether there had been Congressional findings of an economic link between guns and education.
How attenuated the link was between the regulated activity and interstate commerce.

It is important to note that although the ruling stopped a decades-long trend of inclusiveness under the commerce clause, it did not reverse any past ruling about the meaning of the clause. Later, Rehnquist stated that the Court had the duty to prevent the legislative branch from usurping state powers over policing the conduct of their citizens. He admitted that the Supreme Court had upheld certain governmental steps towards taking power away from the states, and cited Lopez as a decision that finally stepped in to check the government's authority by defining clearly between state and federal powers"

Revised - Scientists, Academia, Play Jackals on Israel

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/10/white-house-scrambles-to-contain-benghazi-gate-fallout/
Not much new on Benghazigate. Jay Carney is earning his blood money/salary by repeatedly denying that the White House (I first mistyped "Hose", or was that a Freudian slip?) engaged in the least bit of dishonest or misleading actions:

"Carney lashed out at Republicans, accusing them of leaking the emails in an effort "to politicize this."

Further, he said: "These documents bear out what we've said all along."......."

This guy must be in place to make Obama look honest by comparison.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Added 5/11/13 - I realized that I forgot a main point that I wanted to include.

Guys like Hawking have Einstein to thank for an immeasurable amount of labor and thought without which Hawking and his superbia-driven buddies would not be able to do near what they can today.

In addition to being intelligent enough to (And sufficiently aware of man's inherent inability to know it all), steer clear of Atheism, Einstein was a staunch Zionist. He recognized that the Jews needed a homeland, that they had already purchased more than considerable amounts of property in the land of their ancestors, and that this (Israel-then Transjordan) was the only place in which there was a real chance to make such a homeland work.

By smugly denying both God and Israel's right to exist, Hawking shames himself by disdaining that what Einstein was too humble and too intelligent to do. Hawking assumes that he is far greater than his predecessor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen Hawking, in a move that as become standard procedure for the hyper-intellectual types, has opted to join in on the boycott of an academic conference in Israel. My understanding in that Shimon Peres is the official host of this event. I once had the honor of meeting the then-Deputy Prime Minister and found him to be a dignified and courteous gentleman. He has enjoyed a reputation as a fair and honest man. He is a leader in a nation that provided a forum (Unique for that region) for great minds to work together.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/09/political-science-hawking-rapped-for-israel-boycott/

One can look at this from several angles. 

Arabs in Israel have far more rights than their ethnic/cultural colleagues in other Muslim majority countries. (Hawking seems to be OK with this fact) Israel has very strong arguments to support their moves to protect themselves. The man who was arguably the most hawkish of Israeli leaders, Ariel Sharon, gave the Palestinians back Gaza on a silver platter, (Which included forceful removals of Jewish families from their homes) only to have rocket attacks and tunneling/kidnapping begin promptly upon the assumption of Palestinian power in the strip. As impossible as it may seem, Hamas may outdo the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank in corruption. Both organizations route the bulk of the more than substantial aid monies into private accounts and use the rest to fund terror operations rather than help their people. When Prime Minister, Ehud Barak came within a hairs breadth of giving the Palestinians all that they claimed to want, only to be snubbed by Yasser Arafat. 

Western intellectuals have gone all-out to attack the very culture and societies that made their way of life possible. The West has long been the place to be if one was curious*, needed the earlier work of others on which to build, a free or almost-free environment for both their studies and the publicizing of the same. 

*From ancient Greece to the late Middle Ages and Renaissance, no society approached the West in the curiosity and experimentation game. Even contemporary Chinese societies are noted for an appalling lack of curiosity; comets and other astrological events, for example, were recorded in the dutiful manner of a police blotter, never to be investigated for the causes or what indications they gave for similar events in the future. Medieval Islamic societies had a few individuals who achieved much, but many of these were not Muslims but subject people such as Christians with Arab names. And, Muslim or not (Some of course were Muslim), their work was generally held suspect and literally nothing came of their work once they passed away. The incurious societies of the Koran had no use for abstract, theoretical, or philosophical works.

The same intellectuals  have also, almost to a one, abandoned God completely. Reports in the last couple of years include claims that science has now proven that matter could have come into existence by itself. This attempt was an effort to defeat the question posed by believers (Or just those with common sense) - That even, with a Big Bang (Not a problem for most of us), how did the stuff that was involved in that Bang come to be? We read all sorts of reports from Hawking and his buddies in which they claimed that they have proven that matter could come to exist by itself. Then we read the rest of the same articles and found that they were utilizing the specific definition of matter (OK fine again) but quickly noting that other phenomena (Dark matter, dark energy, etc.) reacted in whatever manner in which they theorize to create matter.

-So the hypothetical layman raises his hands and tries to clarify:

OK, you are telling us that matter could come into existence by itself, then you tell us that this other stuff reacted to create matter. Well and fine, but you only theorized another step and failed to tell us how the other stuff/things came to be, so what you are actually telling us is that you still have not provided anything close to proof that the universe came into existence without a Creator.

These people leave me confused and torn; not so much with their theories, but as to why they take such foolish and cynical  positions. Is it pressure from their academic colleagues, intellectual hubris, or is it the the basic stereotypical problem with hyper-intelligent people - that their ability to comprehend things that boggle our minds leave them without a modicum of common sense?

I tend to go with hubris. Pride was the first sin. It is more devious and powerful than greed. It motivates peoples to control others, to belittle them, and to make oneself the supreme judge of the facts. In my mind, the latter is the motivating principle behind the denial of God. With a Creator in the picture, we are figuring out some of the details of the work or creation, but are still learning. Without Him, one can claim to be the one who "gets it" when no one else does. It is a Leftist type of mindset; the intelligentsia have it all worked out. We have made all of your silly little beliefs obsolete. You need to listen to us.We will  let you know what needs to be done.

-From a previous post on the academic dog-pile on Israel 

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/israel-one-staters-tell-them-to-be.html

On the subject of Israel, the big thing for the Leftist community is the One-State Solution. In case you are wondering, that was not a typo. The One-State idea starts off with the presumption that not only is Israel's existence wrong in the first place, but that Israel has not negotiated fairly with the Arabs who created their Palestinian identity long after after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.(The opposite is true- negotiating with Palestinians is like dealing with the Mafia) Until that point, these people called themselves Arabs. They just lived under Ottoman administration.The whole Palestinian identity gained ground to counter the Zionist movement. I won't treat the One-State idea today (Read the above link please). The parallel demand that the Jews just give up and admit that they are Arabs (That is not a joke), demands a quick summary of the region and currently used names of its people.

Palestine was the word that the Romans used to name the region of Judea, Later, there were two regions with the name Palestine. As this occurred under Diocletian's rule, I will avoid going into detail on that subject other than to note that the addition of Palaestina Secunda to Palaestina Prima occurred long after the Jewish revolts and included areas traditionally outside modern Israel.

The whole idea of renaming the Roman province of Judea was to remove any sense of Jewish connection, claims, or identity to that region. The Jewish revolts, to put it simply, made all the other revolts by other peoples against Roman rule look like three militia dudes in the US barricading themselves in a barn and threatening to take on the Federal government. The revolts were near catastrophes for the Roman. The amount of Legionaries (And Legions) that were lost was staggering. Although she was eventually able to viciously put down these uprisings, Rome was humiliated. Hadrian decided that the region (And Rome) would benefit from a judicious application of relabeling. Thus Judea was now to be referred to as the land of the Philistines, the old enemies of the Hebrews back in the days when they first were settled in Israel. The Philistines as an identifiable people has been long gone by that point, but Rome needed to make a point. Interestingly, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that the Philistines were largely or almost entirely composed of Achaean (Or Mycenaean if you have archaeological sympathies - my sympathies are with Homer) Greeks who had been driven out of the Balkans by the Dorian invasions after 1200BC.

Anyway, Syria Palaestina came into being due to Hadrian. Most of the Jews had been expelled, and the region remained under Roman rule (Later Eastern Roman or Byzantine) until a brief occupation by the Sassnanid Persians. After the Byzantines retook the area in the final war which had thoroughly exhausted both the Empire and the Sassanids, neither was prepared for the onslaught of Islam in the 7th century. Does the idea of fighting each other until both sides are worn out just before an full-out attack by Islam sound familiar?

From that point on, aside from another relatively brief rule by Crusader forces, that region was, until the collapse of the Ottomans and the British Mandate, always under Islamic rule after that and had no identifiable Arab population that could be considered distinct from other Arabs.

Now, back to the topic:


http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/the_one_state_conference_at_harvard_march_madness.html


Good ol' Hahvaard.

The One-State conference was a typical Leftist display of attacks on the sovereignty of the only Democratic nation in the Middle East. Again, for the sake of space please read the above post for details on that part.

A few quotes from the post concerning the responsibility of the Jews to drop the whole Jewish thing and just be Arabs like they are supposed to do:


"This concept was shared enthusiastically by the numerous Jews and Israelis, including rabbis, at the conference. Indeed, panelist Rabbi Brant Rosen of Evanston, Illinois, announced that he routinely preaches that Zionism is idolatry. "My Torah," he said, "is the Torah of universalism and humanism."

The protestors on the sidewalk outside, alarmed at the potential extinction of the Jewish state, had thus ironically nailed the precise outcome hailed by the participants. A "Jewish" state is the problem they came to solve. Indeed, the word "Israel" came up only in its context as conqueror, occupier and supremacist. Otherwise, it was supplanted in the conference vocabulary by "Palestine," which will be the name of the proposed single state.

One questioner, a rabbi without a congregation, asked a panel member whether "Jews, even Lefties like me, will be able to live in Palestine." After the desired approbatory chuckle, the participants were unanimous in emphasizing the absolute equality of Palestinians and Jews in the coming state. This sentiment was repeated in every panel, but the quid pro quo would of course be a "voluntary" dismantling of all the modalities of Israeli power and identity. Everyone agreed this won't be easy for the Jewish Israelis, which is why they also stated repeatedly that change must come from the bottom. The Occupy movement was suggested as a model. Incidentals such as Article 7 of the Hamas Charter ("The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight Jews and kill them") were not considered, perhaps because of time constraints.

One possibility for the newly disempowered Israeli Jews, said Leila Farsakh, associate professor in political science at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, would be to"reconnect with their Arabism." Indeed, the term "Arab Jew" became ubiquitous toward the end of the conference. Or, as Marc Ellis, director of the Center for Jewish Studies at Baylor University, himself a Jew, said, "Becoming un-Jewish is the first step." After that would come, in his words, "revolutionary forgiveness." [All Italics were added]



So we get the idea- Jews are really just Arabs, and if they can get it through their thick skulls that a Jewish identity is the core cause of all of the problems in that region, everything would be OK.


Now a brief lesson on the Semitic peoples is appropriate:


Semitic peoples were the inhabitants of all of Arabia, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, almost from the dawn of history (Aside from the northern areas peopled by the Sumerians, Kassites, Hurrians, etc). There was no clearly defined Semitic groups at the time. After the Chacolithic age got into full swing in all of the Semitic-speaking regions, many moved North and West to populate the regions named above. These were the nascent groups from which all Semitic peoples were to develop ( Hebrews, Syrians (Who are not Arabs but Arabized), Edomites, Moabites, Canaanites, Arabs, etc.) Many of these people also had admixtures from the Arameans, also Semites who started from the Northern limits of Semitic-speaking regions such as modern-day Iraq and moved westward around the time of the arrival of the Dorian Greeks into Greece proper. (By 1200BC)


Earlier, by 1600BC, Amorite (Probably the source of Abraham's clan) tribes had moved West from the Northernmost (Not Arabia proper) reaches of Semitic speakers and inhabited Lebanon, Syria and parts of Israel. That region itself was ruled on and off by the Egyptians but not colonized by them to any appreciable extent.


As I mentioned, the Philistines, very possibly the "Sea Peoples" that also attacked Egypt came into the picture (That whole tumultuous 1200BC thing). They were likely Greeks displaced by the Dorians and may well have included Luvians and Phrygians of modern-day Turkey (Thraco-Cimmerian origin - not Turks who were a long way off) who also were affected by the turmoil of Achaean Greek movements, such as the sack of Troy and the natural push of hard-pressed Achaeans as they fled Greece.


Aside from expulsions of tribes by the conquering Assyrians and Babylonians (Not permanent for Jews expelled by Babylon), who were also Semitic but not Arabs, the ethnic and cultural situation in the Levant was fairly static for some time after that. The Macedonian Greeks (I hold the the position that Macedonians were mostly ethnically Greek) Roman, Byzantine, and Persian rulers did not push any people out of the region.


Other than the first southern Arabian cities of Sheba, Maan, Qataban, and Hadramut, the first Arab state at the Northern limits of Arab/Arabic peoples was the Nabatean kingdom, which can be positively identified after the arrival of Alexander. They inhabited the areas south and southwest of the Levant (Modern-day Israel, Lebanon, and some of Syria) and about a third of the way down the western Arabian coast. These Arabs are not the same ones that inhabited Mecca, Medina, etc.They slowly moved northward along the Roman frontier (After they arrived of course) through the years but were kept out of the region. The Nabatean Kingdom fell to the status of a province during Trajan's reign. After that, especially following the advance of Islam, Arabs sort of cease to have markedly different groups.


Again, the region's ethnic makeup is static until the arrival of the Islamized Arabs from Southern Arabia. The floodgates were then open for all sorts of movements of Arabs, both southern and northern.


I know that this post was too long, but I had to dispel the absolute falsehood that Jews are Arabs. Jews/Hebrews never were Arabs. Jews, Arabs, Syrians, Canaanites, and others were Semites/Semitic-speakers. This does not mean that all Semites are Arabs. That would be like saying that, since Italics or Germanics* were descended from the same Indo-European body/groups of peoples from which the Greeks or Iranians sprung (As noted in earlier posts, modern-day Iran is peopled by those Iranians descended from the Medes, Parthians and Persians - the Iranian/Iranic group was huge and included the Scythians, Aryans, and others), Italics, Germanics, and others of Western Europe should drop the whole identity thing and just admit that they are Iranians. Lumping ethnic/cultural groups of distant cousins into one group was exactly what Hitler did when he claimed that Germans were Aryans.

Bengahzi - Lies and Counter-Accusations

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/09/issa-seeks-more-whistle-blowers-after-dramatic-benghazi-hearing/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/09/sen-graham-challenges-joint-chiefs-chairman-on-benghazi-testimony/


-An old joke among cops was, when brought before an Internal Affairs detective, to follow these simple steps:

Admit nothing, deny everything, demand proof, and make counter-accusations.

Firstly, a few brief updates:

House Speaker Boenher has upped the ante by pushing the administration to release emails, sent after the White House indisputably aware that the attack was the work of terrorists, that were written so that Susan Rice would be tasked with  continuing with the lie that the attack was preceded by the movie protest that never occurred. At this point, I think that the administration was parceling out the lies so that it would be harder to nail down just exactly who was responsible for their illusory story, and that if caught, Rice would be ultimately removed from her post and given a new job as payment for her loyalty.

Senator Lindsey Graham has taken the bold step to challenge what we were originally told by General Martin Dempsey. What needs to come out is not if, but who were aware of and passed along any "stand down" orders to commanders who were preparing to respond to assist, evacuate, or provide relief to the besieged staff at the consulate.

 Libyan President Magariaf, who had made it clear that there was no question about whether or not the attack was an act of terrorism, was reportedly so insulted by the "go pound salt" attitude of the White House as they went on with their movie lie that he subsequently was less than helpful in the ensuing investigation.

-From the top link:

"Hicks argued that Rice's comments so insulted the Libyan president -- since they contradicted his Sept. 16 claims that the attack was premeditated -- that it slowed the FBI's investigation.

"President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced," Hicks said, adding that the president was apparently "still steamed" two weeks later.

This bad blood, he claimed, contributed to the FBI team being stuck in Tripoli for about 17-18 days.

"I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi," he said, adding that the U.S. could not even get the Libyans to secure the crime scene during that time. ......"

Now for the counter-accusations:

The media is running hither and yon, giving air time to Democrat politicians and commentators who, concerned far more with their multi-pronged program of economic and societal stagnation and decay, are ignoring that something ugly occurred and  doing their best to make all involved with exposing the facts look bad.

As noted the above linked article, the response to accusations of this being, even entirely, politically motivated should be a collective "So what?".

Let's not pretend that every major showdown in our history did not have an element of political motive. None of that, though, matters in any way. If a wrong has been committed, the relationship between the accuser/investigator and the accused simply is not a factor. If I have broken the law or an administrative or regulatory code, the fact that my worst enemy or someone who hates me due to my political/religious affiliation or my race made the initial report or filed the charges against me does not mean that the investigation should be dropped. I may later try to prove that my due process rights were violated, but that is for a separate hearing or my trial - I don't just get off because that guy doesn't like me. An employee cannot show up for late for work repeatedly and feel secure that his boss cannot discipline or fire him because they don't get along.

In recent decades, we had Watergate, Iran-Contra hearings, and more that of course featured individuals who had an ax to grind against the respective administrations that were involved . Not only did that fact not  a stop the investigations from continuing, the Media conspicuously and enthusiastically reported on every report and  testimony that they could. We must also note that the same Media poured their own available resources into their own acts of investigative journalism to get the facts - something that is certainly not happening with Benghazi.

The pathetically weak attempts to confuse the issue or frighten people away by accusations of racism or political agendas reminds me of a child support payment case that I once had the pleasure of witnessing. Due to a severe personnel shortage, I had to provide security one morning in a courtroom. A nice young woman, intelligent and articulate, had apparently gotten mixed up with a seedy bum of a guy, who fathered her child and had until that day done very little to help. Having ignored all instructions on his summons except the part that ordered him to appear, he sat before the hearing officer with no proof of income or any other required paperwork. Clearly trying, mostly by avoiding properly answering questions in a vain attempt to walk away without an order of payment by the court, he made the hearing officer more and more visibly angry. It came to a head when, interrupting the hearing officer, the bum pointed to the child's mother and said-

"She's only doing this because I'm not interested in her anymore."

While the hearing officer did all that she could to avoid exploding in anger, I for one was more confused as to why she was interested him in the first place.

All accusations need to be quickly shelved by the accused. There is work to do. One only helps the opposition by defending oneself. "That is clearly not true. I will not comment further. I call on my accuser to join in to assist with the investigation if he or she wished to do so." should be more than sufficient.


The following link below also treats this issue:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/09/political-motives-dont-change-facts-in-benghazi-probe/

Special Prosecutor Needed For Benghazi Investigation

The enemy is circling the wagons.

As expected, accusations of racism are being leveled by Democratic politicians at those who are either looking for or daring to speak the truth about Benghazi. Others are complaining that we have already had too many hearings on this matter, implying that all of this is just "Water under the bridge", and shamelessly labeling the hearings as political attacks. The Washington Post published in a live blog that the majority of those tweeting about the Benghazi hearings are white and middle-class. It further notes that these individuals  have to gall to support Chick-fil-A. Dead white males are a favorite target of the Left for denigration and excision from the history books, and these guys have fulfilled two of the three criterion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/08/the-benghazi-hearing-live-blog/?hpid=z2#liveblog-entry-39984

The manner in which the administration left the staff of the US consulate to fend for themselves reminds me of an event from our cultural and spiritual (To quote Dickens) "long past". King David, his head swelled with power, pride and lust and remaining  in his palace while his army was campaigning, seduces Bathsheba, the wife of one of his officers, Uriah the Hittite. No doubt feeling compelled to submit to the King, she becomes pregnant by him. David, trying to avoid a scandal and the probable brutal execution of Bathsheba (A terrible fate for a victim of pride and lust), tries to cover up his act by having Uriah brought home from the army in the hopes that the pregnancy will be seen as his.

Failing in this attempt (Uriah is too honorable to accept comforts while his men are in the field), the King conceives a plan to make the problem, like too many modern pregnancies, go away. He instructs his General Joab to ensure that Uriah is stationed at the point where the fighting is at  its most fierce and then to pull back all supporting troops, leaving the loyal soldier to be cut down - alone.

Whether their main intention was to fabricate a reason to limit free speech in the US, to cover for Obama's preparations (Probably getting some sleep) for his fundraising junket that he just had to attend, or a combination of both, the administration knowingly left our fellow citizens to be murdered.

The only wrinkle for the King was that the problem did not go away. The Prophet Nathan later exposes David's crimes and tells him of the punishment that will visit him and his family.

Not generally being the beneficiaries of direct revelation from God, what we need is a Special Prosecutor to play the civil part of Nathan. Crimes such as this demand the appointment of someone who has greater powers of subpoena and can demand rather than request answers from the White House, the CIA, and the State Department. In particular, military personnel such as Lt. Colonel Gibson and General Carter Ham must be freed of their restrictions from speaking out.

From what I gather at this point, Speaker of the House John Boenher has not demonstrated any inclination to call for such an a necessary officer, but at least one brave Senator and some others have done so:

http://www.examiner.com/article/senator-calls-for-appointment-of-special-prosecutor-benghazi-investigation


"Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said today that he would support the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of a State Department and White House cover-up regarding the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, if Wednesday’s whistle-blower testimony before a congressional committee points to a cover-up. The attacks left four Americans dead including Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Roberts, the senior senator from Kansas who is a former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, joins an ever-growing chorus of congressional leaders, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R -Fla.), frustrated by an eight-month investigation into the attacks that has thus far resulted in more questions than answers........"

The truth is starting to come out:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/08/who-is-lt-col-gibson-and-does-he-hold-the-key-to-who-gave-stand-down-order-in-benghazi/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/08/benghazi-whistleblower-i-was-demoted-after-questioning-susan-rices-talking-points/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/08/Five-Key-Points-from-Today-s-Benghazi-Hearing-So-Far

The above article contains three things we now know for certain, but - 

".......The key question remains unanswered:

What did President Barack Obama do when he learned the consulate was under attack, and why?"

Pray that the necessary steps are taken to, in old cop talk,  blow this case wide open.

Abortion Supporter Biden Pitches Gun Control to Clergy

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/07/biden-wants-pastors-rabbis-and-nuns-to-tell-their-flocks-enacting-more-gun-control-is-the-moral-thing-to-do/


Abortion (Both surgical and by pill) supporting, government control of church advocating,  filthy-mouthed, and pretend friend of nuns and clergy Joe Biden got back in the gun control game, this time working to get his victims to back more restrictions on the people.

"WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Vice President Joe Biden has a commandment for pastors, rabbis and nuns: He wants them to tell their flocks that enacting gun control is the moral thing to do. But another vote may have to wait until Congress wraps up work on an immigration overhaul.

Biden met for two-and-a-half hours Monday with more than a dozen leaders from various faith communities – Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh, to name a few. Both Biden and the faith leaders encouraged each other not to give up on what has been an arduous and thus far fruitless effort by Biden and President Barack Obama to pass new gun laws in the wake of December’s schoolhouse shooting in Connecticut..........

Citing what he described as misinformation* from the National Rifle Association and others, Biden said the renewed push for gun control must correct misconceptions about what the proposals do and don’t do, participants said. He asked clergy to keep up the pressure and to reframe the debate for their followers in moral terms...."

Unfortunately,  the Jewish and Christian representatives who attended this meeting will probably find support for the administration's plans back at their respective organizations  While they are relentlessly hammered with one immoral requirement after another by the White House and the rest of the Leftist Progressives, they tend to be very cooperative when it comes to governmental control of the people. The Catholic Church has today has more high ranking members than other Christian bodies who have called for restricting firearm ownership to military and police personnel. I don't know if this will change under Pope Francis, who seems to have both a clear picture of the Natural Law and, from his days in Argentina, firsthand experience of what a armed government can do to an unarmed people, but we will have to wait and see. The Pope must also realize what would have happened to the people of the Leftists won against the maligned former military government of Argentina.

The sorry state of Judaism and much of Christianity when it comes to standing by the Natural Law is frustrating for many of the faithful. Christianity and Judaism both recognize that the individual has an absolute obligation to protect his God-given life and those of others, and arms are the principle means by which such an act is accomplished. Some may elect to, while say living alone as a hermit, abstain from all violence, even when attacked, but when a believer lives in a community his insistence on refraining form all violence hurts others by omission and makes one guilty of the sin of pride. 

The inherently artificial but coercive power of the State should be welcomed by the Church to maintain a preventative presence, investigate crimes and charge offenders, and perform any other reasonable functions. To ask for or to agree to more than this, especially for bodies for which the unmatched-in-history horrors of the 20th century is a recent and painful memory, is at best a case of gross neglect of duty. Nothing that happened in the world before the mass-crimes of  armies and governments of the last century is remotely comparable. Too many Church leaders have convinced themselves that governments have worked out all of the kinks and now are able to remain tyranny-free. Not only is this mindset contrary to common sense, it ignores the right of the people to excise their own rights under the Natural Law- the first one being the defense of one's own life. 

Although I hold that women too have the obligation to protect themselves and their families, laws that render the people weapon-free particularly targets men. In their quest to placate radical feminists, too many Christian Churches and Jewish groups have been willing to render men, the first-line of defense of any society, into job-holding but otherwise worthless creatures who have to smother their own attributes-and natural mentality that their God utilized to make them.

Here is one Jewish group that understands why all people should refuse to be disarmed by a government:

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

http://jpfo.org/

*- This from the universally recognized King of Lies:

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/02/biden-lies-about-shotguns-for-home.html

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/biden-rewrites-history-bin-laden.html