Say hello!!!!!!!

Write us at:

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Say hello!!!!!!!Write us at:

Memorial Day, ‘Taps’, video:
'Il Silencio' (The Silence) played by 13 year old Melissa Venema with André Rieu and his orchestra at the 'Vrijthof' in Maastricht
Video Taps il Silenzio Memorial Day

Harry Truman Saved My Life, But Barack Obama Doesn’t Approve


It’s an incontrovertible fact that millions of lives were saved because President Harry Truman dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. I know because I’m one of them.

My father enlisted in the U.S. Navy the day he turned 18 in 1945. He finished his basic training as the Allies were preparing for “Operation Downfall” – the code name for the invasion of the Japanese mainland.
Experts predicted it would be ten times bloodier than Iwo Jima. Casualty estimates ran into the millions – for both sides.
Lest we forget, Imperial Japan was a ruthless warrior culture whose war crimes rivaled the Nazis. Surrender was not in their cultural vocabulary. At Iwo Jima, the Japanese fought to the death – literally committing suicide – rather than surrender.
Now imagine how they would have fought for their mainland. It would have been the bloodiest invasion in a long and bloody war.
The War Department had no illusions about this. They ordered the creation of 500,000 Purple Heart medals in anticipation of the casualties.
My dad would have been part of that massive invasion force. God only knows if he would have made it out alive.
God only knows how many other American fathers and grandfathers lived because Harry Truman had the guts to make a tough call.
In fact, God only knows how many Japanese are alive today because instead of firebombing all of their cities and turning them into moonscapes like we did Tokyo, we targeted two. And make no mistake, the death cult gripping Imperial Japan would have forced every non-combatant to fight to the death down to the last man, woman, and child – just like Iwo Jima.
President Truman knew this. He made the moral calculus. He took responsibility for it. The war ended, and we went about the business of rebuilding Japan and Germany.
Does anyone think the Imperial Japanese or the Nazis would have returned the favor had they won the war?
Of course not, but it doesn’t matter. They lost, and we won. And the world is a better place because we’re a moral people. That’s how we roll. Our Greatest Generation reached out a helping hand to their mortal enemies and made them peaceful economic rivals. That’s the beauty of the free market system.
It’s because of the free market – and the free exchange of ideas – that I, a daughter of a World War II vet, drive a Honda. My Sony TV is playing in the background, my Nikon camera is on the bookshelf, and I’ll probably order sushi for lunch.
However, that doesn’t erase the history of what happened. Harry Truman understood that. He lived with the decision to drop the bombs.
Years after he left office, Truman wrote, “I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war that would have killed a half a million youngsters on both sides if those bombs had not been dropped. I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again.”
And yet, here comes Truman’s successor, Barack Hussein Obama, on the eve of Memorial Day weekend to deliver the latest installment in his “Blame America First” Apology Tour.
Barack Obama’s speech at Hiroshima today was another attempt to strip away America’s moral authority. But this time it was even worse. He spat in the face of our fathers and grandfathers.
He dishonored our Greatest Generation by suggesting they’re no better than the butchers who committed the massacre of Nanjing, the rape of the Comfort Women, and the Bataan Death March.
There is no moral equivalence between America’s wartime leadership and the totalitarian regime that launched a sneak attack on us that left 3,000 Americans dead. None whatsoever.
There is no moral equivalence between American G.I.s and the death cult that raped and murdered Americans, Chinese, Koreans, and countless of our Allies. None whatsoever.
For an American president to even suggest otherwise is beyond vile. At the bare minimum, it deserves the censure of the United States Congress.
My father passed away in 2002. He was a kind and gentle man, a devout Catholic who went to mass every day and said the rosary every night before bed.
He never cursed and hated it when any of my siblings or I swore. He said he’d heard so much swearing in the Navy, that he never wanted to hear any more, certainly not from the mouths of his children.
But if my dad were alive to hear Obama’s speech today, I think he would allow me this one exception on his behalf:
President Obama, respectfully, go to hell.

Wife Finds Disabled Vet in Tears, Then Sees Shocking Thing Neighbor Did to Him

A U.S. Army specialist had deployed to Afghanistan with the 10th Mountain Division when he suffered a grievous wound that brought his military career to an end.
Former combat engineer Christopher Garrett had been shot in the gut while taking part in a night mission, ultimately earning a medical retirement and 100 percent disabled rating. Despite the nagging pain from the injury, the disabled veteran still did his best to maintain his home, including mowing his yard once or twice a week with an old-fashioned push mower.
According to Independent Journal, Garrett’s wife Brittany recently found him outside crying, and after determining that nothing was wrong, was absolutely blown away by what was actually right.

In a post to social media, she described how an anonymous neighbor of theirs had witnessed Garrett struggling with the old push mower and decided to bless him and his family with a brand new John Deere riding lawn mower.
Brittany Lynn Garrett

Where do I begin? Something AMAZING happened today! As I was getting ready for my day, my husband appeared at the door with tears in his eyes holding our son. My heart sank and I thought someone we love took a trip to Heaven....He quickly assured me that no one had died, but someone had just given him a very expensive riding lawn mower! I don't know who they are, but they have been watching my 100% combat disabled husband push mow our entire yard once or twice a week, and thought this would help make more time for the important things in life!!! THANK YOU WHOEVER YOU ARE!!! You don't know how much pain this is going to save him from!!!
Brittany Lynn Garrett's photo.
'Its amazing!!!'
Brittany Lynn Garrett's photo.

A note with the new mower read: “I hope this saves time for the things that matter most in your life. Thank you for your service and for my freedom. Sincerely, A grateful American”

Key Hillary supporter's offshore dealings surface in Panama Papers

By Peter ByrneHaim Saban, (l.), has given $3.5 million to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, (r.). (Reuters)
Haim Saban, (l.), has given $3.5 million to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, (r.). (Reuters)
One of Hillary Clinton’s key supporters – an Israeli billionaire who has donated more than $15 million to her presidential campaign and troubled family foundation – used a controversial Panamanian law firm to set up offshore companies and once admitted to a Senate panel that he used phony investment losses to dodge hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes.

Television and entertainment magnate Haim Saban, an Egyptian-born Israeli who made a fortune off of the “Power Rangers" children’s TV franchise and holds a lucrative stake in Univision, is among thousands of international movers and shakers whose names have surfaced in the Panama Papers. The vast trove of documents, leaked to a journalism consortium, show how celebrities, politicians and the rich use offshore companies to avoid taxes.

Saban and his American-born wife, Cheryl, are well-entrenched in the Clintons’ inner circle. They have donated $3.5 million to Hillary Clinton’s current campaign for president and more than $12 million to the Clinton Foundation, on which Cheryl Saban serves as a board member.

“For nearly two decades, Haim Saban has been a good friend, a loyal supporter, and trusted advisor to Hillary and me,” Bill Clinton told The New Yorker in 2010.

It is an odd relationship.

Hillary Clinton is promising voters that she will “close corporate tax loopholes and make the most fortunate pay their fair share.” Those pledges fly in the face of Saban’s tax avoidance practices.

sabanpic2Cheryl Saban, seen here with her billionaire husband, is on the Clinton Foundation's board of directors.(Reuters)

Based in Los Angeles, the Saban Capital Group controls a dozen multimedia companies around the globe. Saban’s estimated net worth is $3.6 billion.

As a dual citizen of the United States and Israel, Saban wields legendary influence in both countries. But his propensity to create offshore entities raises an important question: Is he hiding taxable income from authorities in both countries?

Saban, 72, declined to comment for this story.

Saban’s flagship business is incorporated in the corporation-friendly state of Delaware, but a web of offshoots were established in offshore tax havens with the help of Mossack Fonseca, the Panamanian firm whose leaked documents provide a roadmap for international tax dodging. Among them are Saban S.A., which was set up in the British Virgin Islands in 1998, and Saban Ventures Corp., registered in the Seychelles in 2008.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings examined by Fox News identify a key Saban partnership called Ap. Sb. Ar. Cayman L.P., registered in the Cayman Islands by co-investors Apax Partners, Saban Capital, and Arkin Communications. In 2005, that partnership privatized Israel’s government-run telecommunications system, Bezeq, in a billion-dollar buyout sanctioned by then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who called Saban his “dear personal friend.”

Saban financed the deal with loans from the government-owned Bank Leumi. Under Saban’s management, Bezeq paid huge dividends to its new shareholders before Saban sold it in 2010 for a "pre-tax” profit of $1.2 billion.

Months after buying Bezeq, Saban was spotlighted as a tax dodger by the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security’s investigative report called “Tax Haven Abuses: The Enablers, the Tools and Secrecy.”

The report detailed how in 2001, Saban sold his share of the Fox Family cable channel to Disney for a capital gain of $1.5 billion. He signed off on a deal to create $1.46 billion in phony investment losses in order to, as he told the Senate, “save money on taxes."

Criminal sanctions followed for Saban’s lawyer and his investment advisors, but Saban testified that he had not read the documents that he had signed. He reportedly paid $250 million in back taxes to the IRS to settle the issue. But he continued to play the offshore game.

In 2013, working through his web of Delaware corporations and limited partnerships, Saban took control of another Israeli telecommunication group, Partner Communications. Partner’s board of directors includes several former Bezeq directors, including Saban’s brother, Arieh Saban.

The Sabans donate to the Clinton Foundation and other entities through the Saban Family Foundation. It disburses regularly multimillion dollar grants to its favorites: the Clinton Foundation, the Brookings Institution, Friends of Israeli Defense Forces, and various lobbyists for Israeli interests in the United States.

But not all of the billionaire’s philanthropy supports his political and business agendas. In 2014, the foundation donated $11,000 to buy toys for “children across North America and around the world.” Saban also gave $5,000 to the Dream Center Foundation for “needs in the areas of homelessness, hunger, poverty, addiction, education, and human trafficking” and $1,500 to Girls Inc. to encourage “media literacy.”

Schilling throws heat at Obama over Japan visit
Boston Herald

In this Aug. 3, 2012, file photo, former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling looks on after being introduced as a new member of the Boston Red Sox Hall of Fame before a baseball game between the Red Sox and the Minnesota Twins at Fenway Park in Boston. Schilling is defending himself after making comments on social media about transgender people, saying he was expressing his opinion. (AP Photo/Winslow Townson, File)
Former Red Sox pitcher and broadcaster Curt Schilling, known for his controversial remarks, said he was sickened by President Obama’s visit to Hiroshima to “apologize” for the 1945 atomic bombing of the city.
“It makes me sick. It makes me sick to my stomach that anybody would apologize for the things that we’ve done as a nation since the 1940s,” Schilling said yesterday on Boston Herald Radio’s “Morning Meeting” show.
“The fact of the matter is nobody in the world would take up the mantle. Nobody in the world could take up the mantle, unless you wanted to leave it to Russia, and we didn’t want to leave it to Russia because we knew exactly what communism was at the time,” he added.
In a historic trip to Hiroshima yesterday, the first for a sitting United States president, Obama did not apologize for the bombing, saying instead that he hoped Hiroshima would be remembered as the beginning of a “moral awakening” while calling for an end to nuclear weapons.
Schilling, who was fired in April by ESPN for a controversial post on social media about transgender bathrooms, was adamant that in light of Memorial Day, Americans should not forget what preceded the drop of the bomb.
“Listen, in 1945, the world was on the brink of speaking German or Japanese,” he said. “There was no alternative. Here’s the thing, I don’t want to say this lightly because tens of thousands of people were killed in a blink of an eye, but the fact of the matter is Japan attacked the United States. Japan wanted to turn the United States into an Asian-speaking imperial nation. We defended ourselves and we defended the rest of the world.”
Obama opened his address saying: “Seventy-one years ago, on a bright, cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed. The flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself.
“Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in a not-so-distant past. We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women and children, thousands of Koreans, a dozen Americans held prisoner.”

Obama promises 'we shall not repeat the evil' at Hiroshima with no mention of Pearl Harbor

U.S. President Barack Obama hugs Shigeaki Mori, an atomic bomb survivor; creator of the memorial for American WWII POWs killed at Hiroshima, during a ceremony at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima, western Japan, Friday, May 27, 2016. Obama on Friday became the first sitting U.S. president to visit the site of the world's first atomic bomb attack, bringing global attention both to survivors and to his unfulfilled vision of a world without nuclear weapons. (AP Photo Carolyn Kaster)
HIROSHIMA, Japan (UPI) — President Barack Obama traveled to Hiroshima, Japan, on Friday, marking the first time a U.S. president has visited the site of the world’s first nuclear attack, carried out more than 70 years ago.
Obama arrived in Hiroshima Friday afternoon and along with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, laid a wreath at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial — a UNESCO World Heritage Site that was built in 1915. Thirty years later, it was nearly decimated by the atomic bomb dropped by the United States. The structure, in fact, was the only one left standing near the bomb’s hypocenter.
The president is in Japan for the G7 Summit in Ise-Shima, following a visit to Vietnam.
“Seventy-one years ago on a bright cloudless morning, death fell from the sky and the world was changed,” Obama said at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. “A flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city, and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself.”
GOPUSA Editor’s Note: Death first fell from the sky on December 7, 1941 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Barack Obama makes it sound like “death fell from the sky” for no reason… or perhaps he’s trying to imply (once again) that it’s just big, bad America’s fault. Message to Obama: We are NOT the bad guys!
As Obama visits Hiroshima, time for all nations to back down from nuclear brink
Hiroshima was the first of two U.S. nuclear targets intended to bring an end to World War II in August 1945. Just after 8 a.m. on Aug. 6, a 393d Bombardment Squadron B-29, called the Enola Gay, dropped the bomb known as “Little Boy” on the southwestern Japanese industrial town.
The bomb contained about 140 pounds of uranium-235 and took about 45 seconds to reach its explosion altitude of 1,900 feet.
“Let all the souls here rest in peace, for we shall not repeat the evil,” the president said. “We come to ponder the terrible force unleashed in the not so distant past. We come to mourn the dead.”
Survivors in the Japanese town would later say they remembered seeing an extremely bright flash in the sky and heard a loud boom. Up to 80,000 people — about a third of Hiroshima’s population — were killed by the initial blast and firestorm. Another 70,000 were injured. Thousands more died in the decades after from radiation sickness.
Three days later, the world’s second, and most recent, atomic bombing leveled the city of Nagasaki, about 250 miles southwest of Hiroshima. Six days after the second bombing, Japan surrendered and brought World War II to an end.
No U.S. president has visited the site before, and last month, Secretary of State John Kerry became the first U.S. official to see in-person the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, which was established in 1950. In 1996, it was was registered on the UNESCO World Heritage List based on the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
During Obama’s visit, he met with Abe to discuss ways to enhance bilateral relations over economic and security issues.
“We are under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, so Abe can’t do so much,” Obama said about U.S. protection of Japan. “China is expanding more and more” he said, and he acknowledged “the situation is getting a little dangerous,” he said.
After visiting Hiroshima, Obama was scheduled to depart Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, for Washington, D.C., with a scheduled refueling stop in Alaska.

G’ day
Ciao…….Moe & Helen  Lauzier

Friday, May 27, 2016

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Say hello!!!!!!!Write us at:

Portland public schools ban textbooks that cast doubt on climate change

Published May 22, 2016
Facebook10813 Twitter1259
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (right) greets Jim Yong Kim, President of the World Bank Group, as Al Gore, former vice president of the United States, looks on during welcome reception for the Climate Action 2016 summit on May 5, 2016.  (Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe)UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (right) greets Jim Yong Kim, President of the World Bank Group, as Al Gore, former vice president of the United States, looks on during welcome reception for the Climate Action 2016 summit on May 5, 2016. (Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe)
The Portland Public Schools board voted last week to ban any materials that cast doubt on climate change, the Portland Tribune reported.

According to the resolution passed May 17, the school district must remove any textbooks and other materials that suggest climate change is not occurring or that says human beings are not responsible for it.

“A lot of the text materials are kind of thick with the language of doubt, and obviously the science says otherwise,” said Bill Bigelow, a former Portland public school teacher who worked to present the resolution. Bigelow says textbook publishers are yielding to pressure from fossil fuels companies. “We don’t want kids in Portland learning material courtesy of the fossil fuel industry.”

One commenter to the Portland Tribune story responded to the news, saying, “I have never seen a case for homeschooling more clearly put forward. This is further proof that public schools are not interested in education, only political indoctrination.”

A petition, meanwhile, circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine(OISM) currently lists nearly 32,000 signers, including 9,000 Ph.D.s, who say, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Still, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says addressing the issue of global warming will help to improve public health, according to U.S. News & World Report.

"I don't want people to think that EPA is just about big rules, or that climate change is just about polar bears," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said. "It really is about direct public health issues like asthma and kids, like cardiovascular and pulmonary disease associated with air pollution."

The Portland decision comes weeks after Yale University announced its climate change program will close at the end of June.

The shuttering follows three consecutive years of budget cuts for the program, which was established eight years ago to conduct climate change research. The impending closure was announced in an email from the institute’s co-directors, geology and geophysics professors David Bercovici and Jay Ague, and reported by the Yale Daily News.

“While not all good things have to come to an end, sometimes they just do,” the email dated May 2 said.

Donald Trump: Obama ‘The Single Best Thing to Ever Happen to Jimmy Carter’

President Barack Obama shakes hands with former President Jimmy Carter, left, during a ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, Wednesday, Aug. 28,2013, at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. The president was set to lead civil rights pioneers Wednesday in a ceremony for the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, where Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech roused the 250,000 people who rallied there decades ago for racial equality. From left, Carter, former President Bill Clinton, Obama, and first lady Michelle Obama. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Evan Vucci/AP
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump says President Barack Obama is the best thing that ever happened to President Jimmy Carter.
“He is the single best thing to ever happen to Jimmy Carter because a lot of people are no longer looking at Jimmy Carter as our worst president,” Trump said during his campaign rally at Rimrock Auto Arena in Billings, Montana.
In fact, a poll in 2014 suggested President Obama edged out President George W. Bush, President Nixon, and President Carter as the nation’s worst president, according to The Washington Times.
In the “worst” competition, Mr. Obama barely edged out Mr. Bush, with 33 percent rating the incumbent the worst president of the post-World War II era to 28 percent for Mr. Bush. Richard Nixon, who in the wake of the Watergate scandal became the only president in history to resign the office, was a distant third at 13 percent, and Jimmy Carter was fourth at 8 percent.
A few months later, Carter commented on being compared to Obama as the worst president during an appearance on MSNBC.
MSNBC’s Ronan Farrow asked Carter, “John McCain reaching for the worst possible insult for President Obama earlier this year said this, ‘I have never seen anything like this in my life. I thought Jimmy Carter was bad, but he pales in comparison to this president in my opinion.’ The serious question is, what does is it feel like, and what is your response to, these moments of being used as an insult? Your legacy being used as an insult.”
Carter responded, “That’s a compliment to come from a war monger… I was lucky enough when I was president to keep our country at peace, and provide peace for others. I was lucky enough to go through my four years, we never shot a bullet or dropped a bomb or fired a missile.”

An investigation by the State Department's inspector general revealed damaging information about Hillary Clinton's improper use of a personal email server during her time as Secretary of State. In an 83-page report released on Wednesday, the government "watchdog" contradicted what Clinton has claimed since the scandal broke: that her use of personal email for government was "allowed." It wasn't.
A particularly stunning (and potentially incriminating) revelation is found on page 38 of the inspector general's report. It appears Clinton intentionally avoided using an official State Department email address to shield the content of her emails:
In November 2010, Secretary Clinton and her Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations discussed the fact that Secretary Clinton's emails to Department employees were not being received. The Deputy Chief of Staff emailed the Secretary that "we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam." In response, the Secretary wrote, "Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible."
These revelations ensure the email scandal will remain an albatross around the neck of the Democrat presidential frontrunner. Even liberal-leaning media outlets have begun to ramp up their criticism. The Washington Post's editorial board released a scathing opinion column yesterday entitled, "Clinton's inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules." Here's an excerpt:
What the new report from the State Department inspector general makes clear is that it also was not a casual oversight. Ms. Clinton had plenty of warnings to use official government communications methods, so as to make sure that her records were properly preserved and to minimize cybersecurity risks. She ignored them.
If you're a Democrat running for president and The Washington Post isn't on your side, you're in trouble. But's it's not just WaPo calling out Clinton. In an article published online this morning, The Associated Press reported: "[The] agency watchdog's discovery of at least three previously undisclosed emails has renewed concerns that Clinton was not completely forthcoming." Even the overwhelmingly liberal and Democrat-friendly editorial board of The New York Times admitted yesterday: "Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidency just got harder."

John Bolton on Hiroshima: Harry Truman’s Morals ‘Apparently Didn’t Quite Make it Up to Barack Obama’s High Standards’


Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton joined SiriusXM host Stephen K. Bannon on Friday’s Breitbart News Daily to talk about President Obama’s visit to Hiroshima.
Bolton agreed that it was inappropriate for the President to declare his visit was meant to honor Imperial Japan’s war dead, as well as the Allied soldiers who died defeating the Axis.
Bolton said:
I think the President’s other remarks, where he said the scientific revolution that brought us the splitting of the atom should have brought us a “moral revolution” as well, is a not-too-thinly veiled attack on Harry Truman, whose morals apparently didn’t quite make it up to Barack Obama’s high standards.
“This is a typically subtle Obama speech in many respects, but, make no mistake, it is the next stage, maybe the last act, of his apology tour,” he added.
He noted that mainstream media coverage of Obama’s Hiroshima visit has missed the point that Obama “simply does not believe that the exercise of American power leads to a more peaceful world.”
“He listed, in this speech, several causes of war,” said Bolton. “One of them that he did not list was self-defense, which was why we were in World War II to begin with. I think when you look at what he said overall, it’s a criticism of the United States. Maybe he doesn’t use the phrase ‘I apologize,’ but it’s certainly a confession of error, in his view.”
“Mr. High-Minded Obama doesn’t say what he would have done differently than what Harry Truman did, faced with the choice Harry Truman was faced with,” Bolton pointed out. “This is just typical of Obama. He lives in an ideological world that has little or nothing to do with American reality.”

Congress Must Censure President Obama over Hiroshima Speech

Obama in Hiroshima (Kimimasa Mayama / AFP / Getty)
Kimimasa Mayama / AFP / Getty

President Barack Obama told the world on Friday in Hiroshima that the American decision to drop nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945 arose from humanity’s worst instincts, including “nationalist fervor or religious zeal.”
The war that ended in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he said, “grew out of the same base instinct for domination or conquest that had caused conflicts among the simplest tribes, an old pattern amplified by new capabilities and without new constraints.”
The speech — delivered on the eve of Memorial Day weekend — was billed by the White House as anything but an apology, but Obama’s words betrayed his true sentiments.
Obama, a native of Honolulu who grew up near Pearl Harbor, said nothing about the fact that Japan started the war; nothing about the fact that the Japanese were responsible for the slaughter of millions of civilians throughout Asia and the Pacific; nothing about the fact that the Japanese refused to surrender after hundreds of thousands had already been killed in conventional bombing.
Obama implied that Americans had not yet considered the human cost of the atomic bomb: we had to “force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell” and “force ourselves to feel the dread of children confused by what they see,” he said.
He described the moral dilemmas of nuclear warfare as if no president, and no American, had considered them before. But he left out the moral case for ending the war, and the hundreds of thousands of deaths avoided because of Hiroshima.
The contrast to President Harry S. Truman could not have been clearer.
Reflecting on the decision to bomb Japan years later, Truman declared: “That bomb caused the Japanese to surrender, and it stopped the war. I don’t care what the crybabies say now, because they didn’t have to make the decision.”
As he has done before, Obama cast a moral equivalence between different civilizations, implying that Americans were just as bad as the Imperial Japanese, or anyone else.
But he went further, casting doubt on the American effort in World War II itself: “Nations arise telling a story that binds people together in sacrifice and cooperation, allowing for remarkable feats. But those same stories have so often been used to oppress and dehumanize those who are different.”
There is really only one response to Obama’s gesture, and it goes beyond media disputation and moral condemnation.
It must be made clear that at Hiroshima, Obama represented no one but himself — not the Greatest Generation who fought the war, and not the generations of Americans who have grown up enjoying the freedom that victory over Japan secured.
The U.S. Congress declared war on Japan the day after Pearl Harbor. Millions of Americans fought to save the country, and civilization. Hundreds of thousands died, often in brutal hand-to-hand combat against a fanatically determined Japanese enemy.
It is the inescapable duty of the Congress of the United States today to censure President Barack Obama for casting doubt on the sacrifices and motivations of the Americans who fought the Second World War — on the eve of Memorial Day, no less.

News and Views 2

Donald Trump is something else.  The further we go, the more I think the man is going to win in a LANDSLIDE in November.
The idea of debating, not the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee,Hillary Clinton, but her insurgent challenger, Bernie Sanders, and getting whatever television network that hosts the event to donate $10 million from the certain advertising bonanza for unspecified women’s causes, is absolutely brilliant.
It puts Trump on TV in primetime, where he shines and gets a tremendous amount of free publicity.  It undermines “Crooked Hillary,” who continues to be embroiled in Emailgate.  And it boosts Trump’s standing with women, a constituency he admittedly has been struggling with.
And here’s the thing: A Trump/Sanders debate might actually be far more substantive – pitting a successful capitalist vs. an avowed socialist – than the personal mudfest Trump and Clinton will engage in this fall.  Make it so, Number One.
Dr. Chuck Muth, PsD
Professor of Psephology (homeschooled)
Publisher / Irritator-in-Chief

Trump denies nuclear weapon interest in Japan, South Korea

Donald Trump said Friday that Hillary Clinton is lying when she says he wants Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear weapons arsenals. But less than two months ago, the billionaire himself suggested the U.S. would be "better off" if the two countries could defend themselves.
"I watched her last night and she lies so much and she was saying last night, 'Donald Trump wants to see Japan get nuclear weapons. He wants to see South Korea arm themselves and get nuclear weapons,'" Trump said of Clinton during an afternoon rally in Fresno, Calif.

"I never said that," he told the crowd.

But in late March, Trump told the New York Times he would consider allowing South Korea and Japan to develop their own nuclear warheads so the U.S. could reduce its military presence in both countries.

"Unfortunately, we have a nuclear world now," he said. "Would I rather have North Korea have [nuclear weapons] with Japan sitting there having them also? You may very well be better off if that's the case."

"If they're attacked," he said of both countries, "we have to come totally to their defense. And that is a that's a real problem."

Trump repeated the suggestion less than a week later during a televised town hall with CNN's Anderson Cooper.

"You have so many countries already – China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia – you have so many countries right now that have them," Trump said. "Now, wouldn't you rather, in a certain sense, have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons?"

Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga swiftly rejected Trump's suggestion, claiming his country's opposition to owning or developing nuclear weapons will "remain an important basic policy of the [Japanese] government."

This Photo Of A Teary-Eyed West Point Graduate Perfectly Captures The American Dream

'People where I'm from don't grow up to be pilots, right? Like they don't dream of flying a helicopter. That's not something you do.'

A photo of a tear-stained graduate standing at attention during West Point’s 214th graduation ceremony quickly went viral for an incredible reason.
The man in the photo is 2nd Lt. Alix Schoelcher Idrache, who grew up in a Port-au-Prince, Haiti, watching American troops provide humanitarian assistance to people in his home country — where he says becoming a pilot wasn’t a realistic goal.
“People where I’m from don’t grow up to be pilots right? Like they don’t dream of flying a helicopter, that’s not something you do,” Idrache said, according to a West Point press release.“You don’t just say I’m going to be a pilot and make it happen. There’re no aviation, there’re no helicopters, no flight schools. There’re none of that.”
In 2009, Idrache was only able to speak basic English when he arrived in the United States to join his father, who had come to America to provide a better opportunity for his family. When becoming a U.S. citizen, Idrache was required to enroll in the Selective Service, and he eventually joined the National Guard “because of a free T-shirt!” he said.
In 2016, he graduated as West Point’s top-ranking graduate in physics.
“My dad always said, ‘Education is the only gift I can always give you, because I don’t have anything material to give,’” he said.

Yes, Dropping Atomic Bombs On Japan Was A Good Thing

Yes, Dropping Atomic Bombs On Japan Was A Good Thing
Editor's Note: In light of President Obama's visit to Hiroshima, I've re-published this post from last week. Please read Cortney's post about Obama's speech.
Yesterday, President Obama visited Hiroshima. It was the first time a sitting president has done so. Of course, we’ve entered another arena of liberal debate: were the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ethical/justified/moral? The answer is yes to all three. First, let’s delve into something a bit disconcerting, which is that an increasing number of Americans feel that the bombing was wrong (via WaPo):
In the first Gallup poll from 1945 just after the bombings, a huge 85 percent of Americans approved the bombings. However, figures from 2005 show a significant decline to 57 percent. Meanwhile, another poll conducted by the Detroit Free Press in the United States and Japan in 1991 found that 63 percent of Americans thought that the bombings were justified in a bid to end the war, while just 29 percent of Japanese did.
When Pew followed up on that question in 2015, they found that the numbers of people who thought the bombings were justified had dropped in both America and Japan — to 56 percent among Americans and just 14 percent among Japanese. The total percentage of people who thought the bombings were unjustified stood at 79 percent in Japan, up from 64 percent in 1991. In America, those who thought they were unjustified rose to 34 percent, from 29 percent in 1991.
This change may have contributed to a generational shift seen in Pew's research: Just 47 percent of Americans 18 to 29 years old said the use of atomic weapons was justified when asked last year, compared to 70 percent of those 65 or older.
We nuked the Japanese, so you can bet that approval for these bombings weren’t going to reach high points. Granted, the majority of Americans still approve of the bombings and think it was justified. For my generation who appears to be confused (and it’s not just this issue), I suggest watching Ken Burns’ The War, or read any history book that deals with the Pacific theater or World War II—specifically the twilight months of the war. The Battle of Okinawa saw the entire 100,000+ Japanese garrison annihilated, with American casualties soaring over 70,000 in 82 days of combat. If the bombs weren’t dropped, total American casualties were expected to be at least 500,000, while the Japanese were projected to be at least a million maybe more.
Just looking at Japan’s southern most home island, Kyushu, the casualty rate alone was estimated to be over 100,000, according to the Joint War Plans Committee (viaCIA):
On 15 June 1945, the Joint War Plans Committee submitted its draft of the requested paper to the Joint Planning Staff. (24) The paper presented essentially the same case for an invasion of Kyushu that had been made in the earlier debates preceding the operational directive of 25 May. It also incorporated the same forecast of Japanese forces (six combat divisions, two depot divisions, 350,000 men) that had been presented in intelligence estimates going back to mid-1944.
In response to the presidential request for casualty estimates, the Joint War Plans Committee report laid down strong caveats on uncertainty and emphasized that the level of opposition and the time required to complete the operation could result in major variations. The report then offered the following figures as an "educated guess"
The JWPC assessment did not give a specific breakdown for each area individually, but a nominal breakdown can be derived by comparing the component figures given for each scenario. For example, the differences between the second and third scenarios for total casualties and numbers killed are 87,500 and 21,000, respectively. The operational difference between these two scenarios is the inclusion or absence of an attack on the Tokyo Plain. Thus, an interpretation could be made that the estimated casualty total for the attack on the Tokyo Plain was 87,500, including 21,000 killed. Subtracting these figures from the first scenario would yield figures for southern Kyushu of 106,000 total casualties and 19,000 killed, and a similar calculation shows 26,500 total casualties and 6,000 killed for northwestern Kyushu.
Attacking Kyushu would have meant invading an island many times larger than Okinawa; southern Kyushu alone is well over twice Okinawa's size in square miles. Kyushu was initially expected to be garrisoned by Japanese ground combat forces roughly three-and-one-half times the size of the forces on Okinawa. (82) Kyushu also had a civilian augmentation potential many times greater than Okinawa's. The initial estimates by the Joint War Plans Committee and MacArthur's staff of casualties that would be incurred in capturing southern Kyushu (105,000-106,000) were a little more than twice the Okinawa total.
By the first week in August, the estimated total of Japanese Army and naval ground combat troops on Kyushu was more than six times what it had been on Okinawa. Intercepted communications had been showing Japanese preparations to employ the same kinds of suicide attacks and other unconventional tactics and devices that had caused so many casualties in the Okinawa operation. The number of US Army and Marine troops to be committed in the landing was about three times the force that had been launched against Okinawa.
These figures are insanely high, and the Japanese were ready to fight to the death if Operation Downfall went into effect before President Harry Truman decided to use atomic weapons. PBS noted that Kyushu’s invasion plan–codename Olympic–had a casualty rate range of 31,000 for the first 30 days to 280,000 total. This does not include the Coronet phase­–the invasion of the largest island, Honshu, which includes Tokyo, which Truman did not sign off. Given what we know, more people would have been killed, Japanese and American combined, if we hadn’t used nuclear weapons against Japan. It was the right thing to do. It was the moral thing to do. Between the two bombings, 262,020 people were killed. This includes Japanese civilians who were instantly killed by the bombs and the radiation fallout that ensued.
Subtract the very conservative casualty rate (on both sides) of 1.5 million with that of those atomized in August of 1945, and you get 1,237,980. That’s a lot of saved lives—and that figure is probably higher since the Japanese casualty rate would certainly be in the millions. The atomic bombings saved lives and ended mankind’s most destructive war. Prolonging this theater of carnage would be immoral. Losing over 100,000 for an island that was to be used as a staging ground for the main island assault is ridiculously high. By these figures, more people (on both sides) would’ve died on Kyushu and those Japanese vaporized in Nagasaki. Is it because the two bombs were atomic?
If so, that’s a very silly reason. For months prior to the atomic bombings, Americans were bombing whole slates of Japanese cities, destroying at least 25 percent of its urban areas. In some instances, whole cities would be bombed back to the Stone Age. In one night, the United States killed over 100,000 civilians when we firebombed Tokyo in March of 1945. Where’s the outcry over that act, which went into the books as the most destructive air raid in history.
The late former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara gave a good counterpoint to the atomic bombings when he doled out how much of each Japanese city was destroyed by American airpower in the 2003 documentary The Fog Of War. He was trying to explain how proportionality should be a guideline in war. And that the destruction of the country’s cities through our serial air raids should’ve been taken into account when we dropped the atomic bombs. I still disagree due to the fact that the Japanese weren’t going to surrender, and (again) it would’ve saved millions of lives looking at the total butcher’s bill from the operation.
The atomic bombings weren’t pleasant. In fact, they were horrible. But so would’ve been sending millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of American troops into the meat grinder when two bombs ended up being the closing chapter in this brutal fight. Yes, there’s the argument that Truman wanted to scare the Russians. Yes, we sort of lucked out since the Japanese thought we had more atomic bombs—we didn’t. Nevertheless, they surrendered, and countless lives were saved. That’s rather righteous.

Obama, Hiroshima and the Left’s destructive compulsion to apologize

The president seasons his globe-trotting with apologies
Illustration on Obama's practice of apologizing for America by Alexander Hunter/The Washington TimesIllustration on Obama’s practice of apologizing for America by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times
By Monica Crowley
During President Obama’s first term, there were reports that he considered apologizing to Japan for the U.S. decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima during World War II. The White House denied it.
On Friday, however, Mr. Obama will visit Hiroshima, becoming the first sitting president to tour the bombing site. And while the White House still says he will not apologize, he doesn’t really need to. He’s done enough apologizing over the past nearly eight years to cover a multitude of U.S. “sins.”

Publicly, Japan and the United States have sold the visit as an affirmation of the alliance. But apologies on both sides — whether formally delivered or not — are the backdrop (despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans believe the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the war to an end and saved countless American and Japanese lives). As one U.S. official put it, “Part of the subtext is telling this and future Japanese leaders that ‘If I can go to Hiroshima and take flak for it at home, you can certainly do a little more to own up to what Japan did.’ “

In Vietnam earlier this week, he did not outright apologize for the war but did acknowledge American “mistakes,” adding, “We correct course and you know, take different steps.”

The left has long held that America should be in a constant state of penitence for past global injustices. Mr. Obama offered explicit apologies as a powerful symbol of the New American Humility, sorry for the multi-century ruckus we’ve caused.

Early on, Mr. Obama bowed to the Japanese emperor, perhaps a signal to Tokyo that an eventual trip to Hiroshima was a priority. Mr. Obama also bowed to Saudi King Abdullah. These acts were graphic representation of the moral and power equivalence he was cultivating — as well as of the American decline he was accelerating.

In 2008, before he had even locked up his party’s nomination, Mr. Obama gave a speech in Berlin, during which he got the apology ball rolling: “I know my country has struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.

Once he entered office, he jacked up the apologies.

He told the French that the United States had failed “to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world” and that we’d displayed “arrogance” and been “dismissive” and “derisive.”

He told the Germans that “the [economic] crisis began in the U.S. I take responsibility, even if I wasn’t even president at the time.” This was a way of appearing to accept responsibility while really placing it elsewhere.

He appeared on Al Arabiya television and flatly declared that America “dictates” without considering “all the factors involved.” He continued, “Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect.”

At the Summit of the Americas, he said that the United States had been “dictatorial” but pledged “that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and no junior partner in our relations.” Then, after listening quietly to anti-American Marxist thugs like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega bash the United States, Mr. Obama asked all of Latin America for forgiveness for failing to carry out “sustained engagement with our neighbors.”

In Prague, he declared that America had “a moral responsibility to act” on arms control because we were the only nation that had ever “used a nuclear weapon.”

In Cairo, Mr. Obama legitimized Muslim grievances against the United States, suggested that the war in Iraq was an unjustified act of aggression by the U.S., apologized for the CIA’s role in the 1953 coup in Iran, and invoked “resistance” as a euphemism for Palestinian terror.

In Turkey, he blamed the United States for the “strain” in “many places where the Muslim faith is practiced.” He went on to ask for Islamic absolution of America’s sins.

After the successful drone strike that had killed American-born Islamic terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, Team Obama called the family of Samir Khan, a top al Qaeda propagandist who was also killed in the attack — to apologize.

Other Obama administration officials carried out their own apology tours.

In China, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the United States must take responsibility for being the top emitter of greenhouse gases. In Indonesia, she said that our policy of sanctions against Myanmar had failed. In Mexico, she declared that it was America’s big appetite for drugs that was largely driving the narcotics-related violence there.

One of her top lieutenants, Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner, told the professional human rights violators in the Chinese government not to worry about their human rights record because ours was just as bad.

With apologies all around, the stage was set for the building of Mr. Obama’s vision of a new world order, in which the United States would relinquish world leadership to anti-American “global institutions” and see to it that the traditionally solid relationships with allies and clear-eyed approaches to enemies were shattered.

Whether or not he officially apologizes at Hiroshima, by his presence he has made his point: America’s crimes make it unfit for global leadership. The lasting damage of this grotesquely immoral posture may be incalculable.

Monica Crowley is editor of online opinion at The Washington Times.
G’ day
Ciao…….Moe & Helen  Lauzier

About Me

My Photo
As of 1-1-2016 our blog is by Helen and me. We will attempt to provide adult oriented issues and topics.

Blog Archive