Harold Estes, World War II Veteran, Letter to Obama

From Harold's Letter: I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man. So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.

You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like: "We're no longer a Christian nation" "America is arrogant" -- (Your wife even announced to the world, "America is mean- spirited." Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don’t think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said, "America hasn’t lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.

You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.

And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes

===============

UPDATE:

Hawaii Loses a Great Patriot - Harold B. Estes, U.S. Navy (ret.)

BY DUANE A. VACHON, PH.D. - Harold B. Estes and many of his peers are part of a generation that is known as “The Greatest Generation."  Estes, a World War II veteran credited with helping bring the USS Missouri and Bowfin museums to Hawaii, and who gained Internet fame with a letter written to President Barack Obama telling him to "shape up and start acting like an American," died Tuesday May 17, 2011.

Bringing the battleship Missouri to Pearl Harbor started as an idea tossed around in 1994 by Estes, retired Adm. Ron Hays and Navy veteran Edwin Carter, according to the museum.

It was a day in mid-February 1994 when Ronald Hays, a retired four-star admiral who had headed all U.S. forces in the Pacific, said to Estes, a retired chief boatswain's mate, something like: "Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get the Missouri here?".

Anyone who has served in the United States Navy knows that the people who get things done in the Navy are chief boatswain’s mates.  This includes four-star admirals.

Estes,  who had been out of the Navy since 1954, had worked with Carter to arrange for the deactivated submarine USS Bowfin  to be brought to  Pearl Harbor as the centerpiece of a submarine memorial complex.

Estes served over 20 years in the Navy.  He took to the Navy like the proverbial duck takes to the water. Estes loved the Navy and the Navy returned that love.  His first ship was the battleship California, later sunk at Pearl Harbor.

When Estes called Carter about the Missouri, Carter arranged for Estes and Hays to meet with him for lunch at the Waialae Country Club. "Cheap lunch," Carter has been quoted as saying.  "Nobody ordered booze."

All three - the admiral, the chief boatswain's mate and the naval reservist - agreed it should be possible to get the deactivated Mo here. Hays, who was going back east on a business trip, said he would  talk to our congressional delegation (all approved) and to the vice chief of naval operations, Stanley Arthur, who had been a fighter pilot over Vietnam with Hays.

Arthur approved, too. Interestingly, he shared a story about a Japanese delegation that  had startled him by asking to have the Missouri towed to Tokyo Bay in 1995 for the 50th anniversary of the surrender ceremonies on the battleship.

“Why?” Arthur asked them. The Japanese delegation told him that the Missouri represented a new beginning.  It turned the rhetoric of democracy, freedom and prosperity into reality for Japan.

This idea was welcomed by the three. As it has turned out, the Japanese have become major visitors to the Missouri.

It’s interesting to note that when the Missouri opened as a museum ship at Ford Island, it become a "bookend" to the Arizona Memorial. The beginning and end of the Pacific war is dramatically portrayed by these two ships.

This Author of this article had the pleasure of meeting Estes. I can attest that he was a true gentleman. He didn’t have a political bone in his body, and  he loved America and his fellow veterans.  I have no doubt that Harold Estes and Fred Ballard are sitting together with the Supreme Commander talking story.

A letter critical of Obama penned by Estes several years ago went viral on the Internet and references to it are still numerous. Estes began his letter with these words, "One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.”

Estes will join his wife Doris at Court 11, niche 129P,  at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific.

Posted via email from Global Politics

United We Stand, Divided We Fall (A Simple Example)

The Four Oxen and the Lion

A LION used to prowl about a field in which Four Oxen used to dwell. Many a time he tried to attack them; but whenever he came near they turned their tails to one another, so that whichever way he approached them he was met by the horns of one of them. At last, however, they fell a-quarrelling among themselves, and each went off to pasture alone in a separate corner of the field. Then the Lion attacked them one by one and soon made an end of all four.

“UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL”

Posted via email from Global Politics

How Long Will Your Cold Last?

 by Cassie Shortsleeve

Bad news: That annoying cough isn’t going away any time soon, according to a review of research published in the Annals of Family Medicine.

Researchers at the University of Georgia analyzed the results of 19 studies on acute coughs (i.e. acute bronchitis or the common cold) and found quite a discrepancy between when you thinksymptoms fade (7 to 9 days), and when they actually fade: 17.8 days.

But you’re only going to be hacking for that long if you have a chest cold, not a head cold, which lasts 7 to 10 days. The difference? A chest cold originates—well—in your chest, meaning you don’t see as many nasal symptoms like a stuffy nose and clogged sinuses, says study author Mark Ebell, M.D., M.S., professor at the College of Public Health at the University of Georgia.

The bad news: An acute cough is usually caused by a virus (which antibiotics have little or no effect on), and nothing will kill it faster, says Dr. Ebell. In many cases, your body’s response to the virus—inflammation—is what’s making you cough. So until it runs its course, you just have to wait it out.

Dr. Ebell says to call your doc if you have asthma, are short of breath, cough up blood, have symptoms for more than 3 weeks, or feel too sick to function—but if it’s just the nagging cough, here are three ways to make the waiting game a little less painful.

Go with Aleve
When faced with the daunting task of the medicine aisle, stick with Aleve. Studies have shown that it doesn’t just help with fevers and body aches (which sometimes accompany a coughing illness), but it may also reduce the cough itself, says Dr. Ebell. Researchers speculate it’s the drug’s anti-inflammatory properties that can reduce inflammation, and thus the secretion causing your cough.

Beware of DM
Antihistamines, drugs used for everything from the common cold to allergies, will suppress your cough, too. But beware of the popular guy, dextromethorphan (DM)—you’d know it from titles like Robitussin DM. “While DM has always been recommended for a cough, it is not well studied,” Dr. Ebell says. In fact, a study in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology found it to have little difference on symptoms. Your move: At bedtime, choose a med like Benadryl and look for two main ingredients: diphenhydramine and chlorpheniramine, which may be more effective than DM and have the added benefit of making you drowsy enough to hopefully sleep through your cough.

Go Natural
A tablespoon of honey may shut your cough up. When kids with coughs were given honey before bed, their cough symptoms subsided more than those who didn’t use honey, according to research at Tel Aviv University. What’s the secret ingredient? Researchers aren’t sure—it could be everything from the antioxidants in the syrup to the thick, sweet texture and taste

Posted via email from WellCare

5 Ways to use your mouse more effectively

---by Kim Komando

2/2/2013 by Kim Komando For my readers that don't use your mouse's right button, you really should. Right-clicking on practically anything in Windows or your favorite programs can bring up a list of helpful options you wouldn't see otherwise. Once you start right-clicking, you won't stop! When you combine your mouse and the keyboard, however, things really get fun. Here are a few of my favorite mouse tricks you can use. Almost all of them work on laptop track pads, too! Double (or triple) your clicking, double your fun: The double-click has been around for ages. I bet you use it every day to open programs and files. That's not all it can do, however. Say you're writing a document and want to select a word. Instead of holding down the left mouse button and dragging the cursor to select a word, you can simply double-click on the word to highlight it. Then you can right-click on it for more options, or use one of your helpful new keyboard shortcuts. Instead of double-clicking, try a triple-click! It highlights the entire section or paragraph you're working on. You don't have to triple click rapidly - most programs can figure out what you want. Give it a try and you'll find it beats clicking-and-dragging any day. Shift into high gear - What if you need to highlight more than just a paragraph of text? You can combine the Shift key with your mouse to quickly highlight any amount of text. Just click at the start of the text you want to highlight. Hold down the Shift key and click at the end of the text you want to highlight (you don't have to press Shift until you're ready for the second click). Then let go of the Shift key. All the text you want will be highlighted and it just takes a second. Or, double-click to select a full paragraph of text. Then hold the Shift key and start single clicking other paragraphs. They'll be highlighted as well. Holding the Shift key and clicking works with anything else that you might want to highlight, from cells in a spreadsheet to Windows icons and files. Select the first item, hold Shift and then select the last one. It's that easy. Take full control of your clicks - What if you want to highlight words, icons or spreadsheet cells that aren't right next to each other? With the Shift key, you're going to grab them all. That's where the Control (Ctrl) key on your keyboard can save you. In Word, hold Ctrl and start double-clicking on words to select them. For files in Windows, hold Ctrl and single click on each item you want. You can release the Ctrl key at any time and then press it again to add more items. Did you accidentally highlight something you didn't mean to? Hold Ctrl and click the highlighted item again. It will be deselected. In fact, you can highlight an entire group of items using Shift + click and then deselect individual items using Ctrl + click. In Word and some Web browsers, you can hold the Ctrl and singe click on a word to select an entire sentence. Or, as I mentioned above, you can hold Ctrl and double-click to select individual words. In many programs, including Web browsers, you can zoom text by holding the Ctrl key while moving your mouse's scroll wheel. Just push the scroll wheel up to zoom in and down to zoom out. Not just for scrolling - Your mouse's scroll wheel can do so much more than move the page up and down. It just told you how to use it for zooming text. Did you know that it also acts as a button? Press down on the scroll wheel and you'll hear a click. This is commonly called a "middle-click." The middle-click does different things in different programs. For example, in your Web browser, hover your mouse cursor over a link and middle-click. This automatically opens the link in a new tab. This is much faster than right-clicking on the link and choosing "Open in a new tab." You can also middle click on an open tab to quickly close it. Middle-click on a blank spot on the page and it brings up a navigation tool. You can then move your mouse to navigate the page for more controlled scrolling. Try experimenting with middle-click in some of your favorite programs to see what happens. Customize your mouse - The middle-click acts as a third button, but some mice come with even more buttons. If you have a mouse with multiple buttons, it should come with software that helps you customize it. You can change the way a more generic mouse works, too. Just go to Control Panel>>Hardware and Sound>>Mouse. Here, you can change what the buttons do, how fast they respond and all sorts of other details. You can even change the way your mouse cursor appears on screen. I know many people find the larger cursors much easier to use. Now that you've graduated from mouse and keyboard shortcut academy, it's time to take it to another level! Microsoft has plenty of keyboard shortcuts, but you can program your own. Make up your own shortcuts with this free program.  A wireless mouse comes with all sorts of perks compared to a wired one.Find out if a wireless mouse is right for your computer.  As much as you use them, your mouse and keyboard can become a hotbed for germs. Clean your mouse, keyboard and other gear.  advertisement

Are Angels No Longer Active?

by Billy Graham

Q: I know the angels were very much a part of Jesus' birth (for example, in making the announcements to Mary and the shepherds), but do they still do anything? Or are angels no longer active? -- Mrs. J. McL. 

A: The Bible makes it clear that God's angels are still very much at work, although their ministry is largely unseen by us. Even when they take human form (as they can do on occasion), they may not be recognized as angels. The author of the book of Hebrews wrote: "Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it" (Hebrews 13:2). 

What do the angels do? Occasionally, God may entrust them with special messages, just as He did when the angel Gabriel told Mary she would become the mother of the Son of God, Jesus Christ (see Luke 1:26-38). I've heard reliable reports of people today who live in countries with no access to the Gospel, but who have come to Christ because of an angelic visitation or vision. 

But for the most part the angels have been given the unseen task of watching over God's people and guarding them from spiritual and physical harm. Only in heaven will we realize just how much they did for us. The Bible says, "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" (Hebrews 1:14). 

We aren't to worship angels or become overly preoccupied with them. But we should thank God for sending them to watch over us, and they should cause us to trust Him more fully every day. Because of them we know our lives are safely in God's hands, and that some day they will take us into His presence forever. 

Posted via email from Religion

1,100 GREEN BERETS SET RECORD STRAIGHT ON GUNS!!!

From WND..............

'AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic'

 by BOB UNRUH

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

Politicians, pundits and private citizens have been sounding off on Barack Obama’s new push for gun bans, but what do the professionals whose job it is to use guns in the protection of their nation, their fellow countrymen and themselves say?

Watch out.

An open letter has been posted on the Professional Soldiers blog that has been signed as of this writing by more than 1,100 current and former U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers, the Green Berets.

The soldiers say first it’s important to define the issue and set the record straight.

“The terms ‘assault weapon’ and ‘assault rifle’ are often confused,” they say. “According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, ‘Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assaults rifles.’”

The Green Berets, who use the weapons, point out the M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle.”

Keep your gun rights: Sign new petition

“The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The ‘AR’ in its name does not stand for ‘Assault Rifle’ – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!”

Likewise, they say, a ban on “high-capacity” magazines would be irrelevant, pointing to the shooting by Eric Harris at Columbine High School as proof. The letter explains that when the first weapons ban was adopted in 1994, manufacturers retooled their products to meet the requirements of the law.

“One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.”

And, underlying the issue, the letter says, is the Constitution’s assurance of protection for the “sacrosanct” right of self-defense.

“Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression,” they say..

They write that it is easy to blame guns, but weapons aren’t really the problem. Civilized society already proves it, they contend.

“We cite the experience in Great Britain,” they write. In 1987 was the Hungerford massacre that killed 18, and the government followed with a 1988 law banning semi-automatic guns. But eight years later, a “disturbed” man murdered 16 children and a teacher the Dunblane school. Immediately the law was amended to ban “all private ownership of handguns.”

Somehow, criminals apparently didn’t get the message, the letter suggests.

“Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35 percent over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes… Gun related homicides were up 32 percent over the same period. … Gun related crime had increased 65 percent since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world,” the letter says.

“In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9 percent from the 2005 high,” the letter says, citing FBI statistics.

Since gun bans don’t really impact violence, what is the issue at hand?

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny,” the Green Berets say.

“Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the Second Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.”

But school shootings are horrible and need to be addressed, they write.

“First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem.”

The military veterans say local schools should make their own decisions and plans.

“Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.”

Further, those individuals with diagnosed conditions that impact their ability to make decisions can be addressed with programs of treatment.

“In each of these mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable,” the Green Berets says

Firearms safety programs in schools could help, and a repeal of laws making them gun-free zones should be considered by local officials.

Also, the violence in video games needs to be addressed.

“”War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said, ‘War is hell!’ Leave war to the professionals,’” the letter says

“This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set,” they write.

Posted via email from Global Politics

GOP LEGALLY BARRED FROM FIGHTING VOTE FRAUD

Do you know about this legal consent decree SIGNED BY THE GOP 30 YEARS AGO?  Most people don't.  Many complain about voter fraud and why nothing is done about it.  Most of these folks simply don't know, NOTHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT.  30 years ago, the GOP agreed to this consent decree before a Federal Judge.  Today this decree remains valid, which means even if VOTER FRAUD  can be proven, there is NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT!! 

"30 years later, consent decree violation claims still threaten"

Published: 11/20/2012 at 8:01 PM

by BOB UNRUH

Voting machines suspiciously defaulting to Barack Obama? Buses loaded with strangers appearing at polling stations? Even ballots turning out 100 percent for one candidate in precinct reports?

In short, suspicions of vote fraud?

That’s too bad, because a race-based consent decree negotiated by Democrats against the Republican National Committee a generation ago still has tied the RNC’s hands, and GOP officials could be cited for contempt – or worse – if they try to make sure American elections are clean.

Impossible?

No. Fact.

The case is the Democratic National Committee vs. the Republican National Committee, originally from 1982.

Democrats alleged Republicans were trying intimidate minority voters in New Jersey and brought the legal action. The RNC, inexplicably, decided to agree to a consent decree before a Democrat-appointed judge rather than fight the claims.

The judge, Dickinson Debevoise, appointed by Jimmy Carter, later retired but decided he would continue to control the case. The decision requires the RNC – but not the DNC – to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose.”

The rest of the agreement essentially requires the RNC to follow applicable state and federal election laws.

But the section cited above has been used for decades to warn off Republicans from any challenge to evidence of voter fraud in districts with “racial or ethnic populations.”

The law has remained, even though the RNC recently challenged it at the appellate level only to be turned down by Judges Joseph Greenaway Jr., appointed by Bill Clinton; Dolores Sloviter, appointed by Carter; and Walter Stapleton, appointed by Ronald Reagan, in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

It now is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

But two election veterans both told WND it still is hurting the fight against voter fraud in the United States.

Attorney James Bopp of the James Madison Center said the threat that the RNC has faced is that someone will allege a violation of the decree, and party officials will be standing in a courtroom on Election Day.

Bopp’s organization was founded to protect the First Amendment right of all citizens of free expression and “to support litigation and public education activities in order to defend the rights of political expression and association by citizens and citizen groups as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Bopp himself has taken part in more than 60 election-related cases, including recounts, redistricting and constitutional law challenges to state and federal election laws.

He said the agreement even today, amid reports of fraud across the country, prevents the RNC from doing any anti-voter fraud activity on Election Day.

“It is way too restrictive,” he said. “It prevents the RNC from working with state parties in conducting voter integrity activities. It has been used by the DNC to harass the leadership of the RNC with false allegations of violations of the consent decree.”

He said the reason why the RNC originally agreed to the decree, rather than fight the allegations, was unclear. But he said he investigated the issue.

“It was very troubling that the RNC’s effort to ensure the integrity of the vote would be undermined,” he told WND.

While there have been periods in U.S. history in which there have been concerns about minority voting, the restrictions today, he said, are “completely unjustified.”

“It’s become absurd,” he said, noting that the GOP has had a black chairman.

Voters, he said, would be best served to have both political parties watching for vote fraud.

Also responding to questions about the issue was Cleta Mitchell of the Washington firm of Foley & Lardner.

Mitchell is on the firm’s political law practice team and has 30 years of experience in law, politics and public policy, advising candidates, campaigns and others on state and federal campaign finance law, election law and compliance issues. She practices before the Federal Election Commission.

“The RNC has been completely prohibited from doing anything in ballot security since 1982,” she told WND. “The Democrats repeatedly over the years have gotten the RNC officers into court on the weekend before the election.

“What it means is that for 30 years there has been no way to institutionalize, to help train state parties, to work with candidates [on vote fraud prevention issues],” she said.

Problems can be caused by malfunctioning equipment, programming errors, or “sheer incompetence” of local elections officials, she said. And sometimes by vote fraud.

“The problem is there’s nothing that the RNC can do in that regard because of that consent degree,” Mitchell said.  “A lot of things need to be done to improve state laws. … Democrats are able to be involved as they want to be.”

Republicans have tried to change the decree since 2009, after Obama took office. But Debevoise has ruled that they failed to show that conditions in the U.S. had changed since 1982.

Debevoise said that since most minority voters support Democrats, the RNC still has an incentive to suppress minority votes.

He dismissed the idea of voter fraud and extended his own supervision of the case until 2017.

In March, the 3rd Circuit issued its affirmation of Debevoise’s decision.

WND recently has reported on allegations of voter fraud, including a claim by a poll watcher in Pennsylvania who said votes reverted to Obama by default, no matter who the voter selected.

The incident took place in the state where officials claimed Obama received a total of 19,605 votes in 59 voting divisions to zero for Mitt Romney and not far from the 100 precincts in Ohio in which Obama got 99 percent of the vote.

With evidence mounting that the vote tabulation did not reflect the true choices of voters, talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh declared: “Third-world, tin-horn dictators don’t get [these percentages]. I mean, the last guy that got this percentage of the vote was Saddam Hussein, and the people that didn’t vote for him got shot. This just doesn’t happen. Even Hugo Chavez [of Venezuela] doesn’t get 100 percent or 99 percent of the vote.”

It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”

He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes.

Posted via email from Global Politics

Time to Stop Confusing Real Meaning of 2nd Amendment

Opponents confuse the Founders original intent to argue that they never intended to allow citizens to be armed with semi-automatic rifles. This common error in constitutional interpretation is failing to examine the Constitution according to its original meaning.

James Wilson, one of only six founders to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, was nominated by President George Washington as an original Justice on the Supreme Court, exhorted: “The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.”

The Founders framed the Second Amendment as a certification to protect what was frequently called “the first law of nature”—the right of self-protection, an inalienable right—guaranteed to every citizen individually.

Understanding the Second Amendment’s intention that secures the right “to keep and bear arms”, it is important to establish the source of inalienable rights constitutionally. 

Constitution signer John Dickenson, like many of the others in his day, defined an inalienable right as a right “which God gave to you and which no inferior power has a right to take away.”

Our Founders believed that it was the duty of government (an inferior power) to protect inalienable rights from encroachment or usurpation. This was made clear by Justice Wilson, while a serving Justice on the Supreme Court; he taught his law students that the specific protections found in our government documents did not create new rights, rather secured old rights – that our documents were merely “…to acquire a new security for the possession or the recovery of those rights…which we were previously entitled by the immediate gift or by the unerring law of our all-wise and all-beneficent Creator.”

Justice Wilson asserted that “…every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.”

The Founders understood the basic concept that government is not the source of rights; that self defense is an inalienable right the Second Amendment guarantees; that each citizen is guaranteed the tools necessary to defend their life, family, or property from aggression, whether from an individual or a government.

Posted via email from Global Politics

The Battle of Athens (True Story)

2 AUGUST 1946

I. Introduction

On 2 August 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest, open elections. For years they had asked for state or Federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud -- forged ballots, secret ballot counts, and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies -- by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans' absolute refusal to knuckle-under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government. These Americans had a choice. Their state's Constitution - Article 1, Section 26 - recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few "gun control" laws had been enacted.

II. The Setting

These Americans were Tennesseeans of McMinn County, located between Chattanooga and Knoxville, in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah.

McMinn Countians had long been independent political thinkers. They also had long:

• accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the Sheriff to overlook illicit whiskey-making and gambling;
• financed the sheriff's department from fines - usually for speeding or public drunkenness - which promoted false arrests;
• put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and Republicans.

Tennessee State law barred voting fraud:

• ballot boxes had to be shown to be empty before voting;
• poll-watchers had to be allowed;
• armed law enforcement officers were barred from polling places;
• ballots had to be counted where any voter could watch.

III. The Circumstances

The Great Depression had ravaged McMinn County. Drought broke many farmers; workforces shrank. The wealthy Cantrell family, of Etowah, backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, hoping New Deal programs would revive the local economy and help Democrats to replace Republicans in the county government. So it proved.

Paul Cantrell was elected Sheriff in the 1936, 1938, and 1940 elections, but by slim margins. The Sheriff was the key County official. Cantrell was elected to the State Senate in 1942 and 1944; his chief deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff. In 1946, Paul Cantrell again sought the Sheriff's office.

IV. World War II Ends; Paul Cantrell's Troubles Begin

At end-1945, some 3,000 battle-hardened veterans returned to McMinn County. Sheriff Mansfield's deputies had brutalized many in McMinn County; the GIs held Cantrell politically responsible for Mansfield's doings. Early in 1946, some newly-returned ex-GIs decided:

• to challenge Cantrell politically;
• to offer an all ex-GI, non-partisan ticket;
• to promise a fraud-free election.

In ads and speeches the GI candidates promised:

• an honest ballot count;
• reform of county government.

At a rally, a GI speaker said, "'The principals that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county.'" (Daily Post-Athenian, 17 June 1946, p. 1).

At end-July 1946, 159 McMinn County GIs petitioned the FBI to send election monitors. There was no response. The Department of Justice had not responded to McMinn Countians' complaints of election fraud in 1940, 1942, and 1944.

V. From Ballots to Bullets

The election was held on 1 August. To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed "deputies". GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African-American voter, was told by a Sheriff's deputy, "'Nigger, you can't vote here today!!'". Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted; the enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been "shot in the back"; he later recovered. (C. Stephen Byrum, The Battle of Athens; Paidia Productions, Chattanooga TN, 1987; pp. 155-57).

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot count "public". A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. "The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, "his gun raised high ...shouted: 'You sons-of-bitches cross this street and I'll kill you!'" (Byrum, p. 165).

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack, by the "people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history." (Byrum, pp. 168-69).

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard Armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols, and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war's end.

By eight p.m., a group of GIs and "local boys" headed for the jail to get the ballot boxes. They occupied high ground facing the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail's defenders an easy way out.

VI. The Battle of Athens

Three GIs - alerting passersby to danger - were fired on from the jail. Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire. Those inside the jail mainly used pistols; they also had a "tommy gun" (a .45 caliber Thompson sub-machine gun).

Firing subsided after 30 minutes: ammunition ran low and night had fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent radios, the GIs' rifle fire was un-coordinated. "From the hillside, fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply 'shooting at the jail'." (Byrum, p. 189).

Several who ventured into "no man's land", the street in front of the jail, were wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered. Most sheriff's deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs.

At about 2 a.m. on 2 August, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs county threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail's porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, almost having been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield's deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned: the GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sun-up.

VII. The Aftermath: Restoring Democracy in McMinn County

In five precincts free of vote fraud, the GI candidate for Sheriff, Knox Henry, won 1,168 votes to Cantrell's 789. Other GI candidates won by similar margins.

The GIs did not hate Cantrell. They only wanted honest government. On 2 August, a town meeting set up a three-man governing committee. The regular police having fled, six men were chosen to police Athens; a dozen GIs were sent to police Etowah. In addition, "Individual citizens were called upon to form patrols or guard groups, often led by a GI. ...To their credit, however, there is not a single mention of an abuse of power on their behalf." (Byrum, p. 220).

Once the GI candidates' victory had been certified, they cleaned-up county government:

• the jail was fixed;
• newly-elected officials accepted a $5,000 pay limit;
• Mansfield supporters who resigned, were replaced.

The general election on 5 November passed quietly. McMinn Countians, having restored the Rule of Law, returned to their daily lives. Pat Mansfield moved back to Georgia. Paul Cantrell set up an auto dealership in Etowah. "Almost everyone who knew Cantrell in the years after the 'Battle' agree that he was not bitter about what had happened." (Byrum, pp. 232-33; see also New York Times, 9 August 1946, p. 8).

VIII. The Outsiders' Response

The Battle of Athens made national headlines. Most outsiders' reports had the errors usual in coverage of large-scale, night-time events. A New York Times editorialist on 3 August savaged the GIs, who:

"...quite obviously - though we hope erroneously - felt that there was no city, county, or State agency to whom they could turn for justice.

... "There is a warning for all of us in the occurrence...and above all a warning for the veterans of McMinn County, who also violated a fundamental principle of democracy when they arrogated to themselves the right of law enforcement for which they had no election mandate. Corruption, when and where it exists, demands reform, and even in the most corrupt and boss-ridden communities there are peaceful means by which reform can be achieved. But there is no substitute, in a democracy, for orderly process." (NYT, 3 Aug 1946, p. 14.)

The editorialist did not see:

• McMinn Countians' many appeals for outside help;
• some ruthless people only respect force;
• that it was wrong to equate use of force by evil-doers (Cantrell and Mansfield) with the righteous (the GIs).

The New York Times:

• never saw that Cantrell and Mansfield's wholesale election fraud, enforced at gun-point, trampled the Rule of Law;
• feared citizens' restoring the Rule of Law by armed force.

Other outsiders, e.g., Time and Newsweek, agreed. (See Time, 12 August 1946, p. 20; Newsweek, 12 Aug 1946, p. 31 and 9 September 1946, p. 38).

The 79th Congress adjourned on 2 August 1946, when the Battle of Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings, Jr., from Tennessee decried:

• McMinn County's sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield;
• the Justice Department's repeated failures to help the McMinn Countians.

Jennings was delighted that "...at long last decency and honesty, liberty and law have returned to the fine county of McMinn...". (Congressional Record, House; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946; Appendix, Volume 92, Part 13, p. A4870.)

IX. The Lessons of Athens

Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee:

• wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our Constitutional order;
• had repeatedly tried to get Federal or State election monitors;
• used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers;
• showed little malice to the defeated law-breakers;
• restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows:

• how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force;
• why the Rule of Law requires unrestricted access to firearms;
• how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of "law and order".

Dictators believe that public order is more important than the Rule of Law. However, Americans reject this idea. Criminals can exploit for selfish ends, the use armed force to restore the Rule of Law. But brutal political repression - as practiced by Cantrell and Mansfield - is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.

Since 1915, officials of seven governments "gone bad" have committed genocide, murdering at least 56 million persons, including millions of children. "Gun control" clears the way for genocide by giving governments "gone bad" far greater freedom to commit mass murder.

Law-abiding McMinn Countians won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control". McMinn Countians showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the Rule of Law. We are all in their debt.

Posted via email from Global Politics

New Take On 2nd Amendment by Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont 's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun. Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as'a clear mandate to do so'. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals. Vermont ’s constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent." Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so," Maslack says.

Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .... it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. *This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.*

" America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns.

Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way. Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!

Posted via email from Global Politics