Featured Post

It seems Pope Francis needs to brush up on his Tertullian!

It has been reported (in The ChristLast Media, I must note) that the current Pope does not like the phrase "lead us not into temptation...

"Let no freedom be allowed to novelty, because it is not fitting that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture." -- Pope Sixtus III

Friday, June 06, 2014

Chester Nez, Requiescat in pace.

Chester Nez, last of the original Navajo code talkers, dies   - arstechnica.com

On Wednesday Chester Nez, one of the 29 original Navajo code talkers who worked for the US during WWII sending secret messages in their native language, died in his home in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Nez was 93, and his death was confirmed by Judy Avila, who helped him write his memoirs, according to The Los Angeles Times.

Nez was one of the first code talkers recruited for the job in 1942, while the US was seeing its codes broken over and over again by Japanese code breakers. According to AZCentral, he was in tenth grade when he was recruited by US Marines, who came to his boarding school in Arizona looking for native Navajo speakers.

Navajo has a complex grammar, and at the time there were few, if any, written records of the language. CNN notes that Nez and his peers were forbidden to speak Navajo growing up—until, of course, they were needed to devise a code based on the language. The 29 Navajo men attended boot camp at Camp Pendelton in California and there devised a dictionary with special words for military terms that did not exist in Navajo. They then memorized that dictionary, as the Naval History and Heritage Command recounts:
When a Navajo code talker received a message, what he heard was a string of seemingly unrelated Navajo words. The code talker first had to translate each Navajo word into its English equivalent. Then he used only the first letter of the English equivalent in spelling an English word. Thus, the Navajo words "wol-la-chee" (ant), "be-la-sana" (apple) and "tse-nill" (axe) all stood for the letter "a." One way to say the word "Navy" in Navajo code would be "tsah (needle) wol-la-chee (ant) ah-keh-di- glini (victor) tsah-ah-dzoh (yucca)."

Most letters had more than one Navajo word representing them. Not all words had to be spelled out letter by letter. The developers of the original code assigned Navajo words to represent about 450 frequently used military terms that did not exist in the Navajo language. Several examples: "besh- lo" (iron fish) meant "submarine," "dah-he- tih-hi" (hummingbird) meant "fighter plane" and "debeh-li-zine" (black street) meant "squad."
The Navajo code talkers were primarily employed in the Pacific Theater of Operations, and Nez himself served in the thick of fighting in Guadalcanal, Guam, Peleliu, and Bougainville.

“In developing our code, we were careful to use everyday Navajo words, so that we could memorize and retain the words easily,” Nez told CNN in 2011. “I think that made our job easier, and I think it helped us to be successful in the heat of battle. Still, I worried every day that I might make an error that cost American lives. But our code was the only code in modern warfare that was never broken. The Japanese tried, but they couldn’t decipher it. Not even another Navajo could decipher it if he wasn’t a code talker.”

The US Marines eventually recruited more Navajo speakers, and by 1945 somewhere between 375 to 420 were working as code talkers. The code talkers were forbidden from discussing their work until 1968, when the program was declassified.

This day will always be D-Day.

After Dwight Eisenhower left the White House, he asked to be reinstated in the US Army because, he said, five hundred years from now nobody will remember he was President of the United States but they will always remember he led Our Boys into Normandy.

The shade of Leonidas, King of Sparta, heartily agrees.

 photo d-day-map.jpg

 photo la_webster31.jpg

 photo Utahlanding01.jpg

 photo tumblr_mfx4z9bGc11qbjz0go1_1280.jpg

 photo dday8.jpg

 photo dday34.jpg

 photo dday7.jpg

 photo dday_n.jpg

 photo la-fg-dday-anniversary-pictures.jpg

 photo dday1.jpg

What have you done to keep America free?

Wednesday, June 04, 2014

Let's impeach the first black Clinton, too!


Nothing short of execution for treason would be just, but what the heck, let's give it a shot.

From Daily Mail:

Taliban prisoner swap was ILLEGAL and could lead to Obama's IMPEACHMENT

The swap of Bowe Bergdahl for five Guantanamo detainees 'violates the law against material support to terrorism,' argues an author who once put Islamist terrorists behind bars.

A couple of We Are Crutch nazis try to have a mass without a priest and discover...protestantism!

From National Catholic Reporter:

Head of We Are Church excommunicated for celebrating Mass without priest

 Martha Heizer, the head of the reform international movement We Are Church in Austria, and her husband, Gert Heizer, have been excommunicated by the Vatican for celebrating Mass without a priest present, according to a statement from the diocese of Innsbruck, Austria.

Bishop Manfred Scheuer said in the statement that "publicizing their practice of having 'private Eucharistic celebrations without the presence of a priest' " forced the bishop "to initiate legal action."

On Wednesday, the bishop read the final decree issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith to the Heizers at the diocesan court in Innsbruck in the presence of two judges of the diocese, according to a statement from the Heizers.
"This does not mean that we are not part of the church anymore," the Heizers said in the statement, published Thursday in Austrian daily Tiroler Tageszeitung and translated for NCR by Bernie Aurin. "By virtue of our baptism we remain part of the church as long as we ourselves do not choose to leave her."

Wrong. You have chosen to leave the Church by virtue of your defective will and who knows what else.

The diocesan statement, sent by email Thursday from diocesan spokesperson Michael Gstaltmeyr and also translated for NCR by Aurin, stated that the Heizers may apply within 10 days with the bishop for the "nullification or for a change in the stipulations of this decree, including a temporary stay."

Scheuer also said that "it was very clear to them what their actions would mean to the church. For me it is a defeat that we did not manage to get the couple to change their minds and avoid legal proceedings. Determining self-excommunication is never a victory, but always a defeat for the church."

The Heizers said they were expecting to be punished and that Scheuer had told the couple that their personal conscience should "not allow us to break church laws."
Celebrating the Eucharist unauthorized by the church is one of the "three most grave offenses," the statement from the Heizers said. "The other two offenses are breaking the confidentiality of the confessional and sexual abuse."

The Heizers said they are "appalled to find ourselves put into the same category as those priests that sexually abused minors. This is especially bitter for us because we are not aware of a single perpetrator of sexual abuse that was excommunicated."


The diocesan statement stated there is "hope that those persons responsible for holding 'private Eucharistic celebrations' will come to realize what they are doing, see the damage that they are causing to the church and change their ways."
However, the Heizers aren't backing down.

"We have not accepted the decree," their statement said. "We have refused it. ... We will continue to commit ourselves to the reform of the Catholic church. These proceedings illustrate very clearly how urgent the church needs to be renewed."

The We Are Church international movement was founded in Rome in 1996, according to the organization's website, and it is committed to the renewal of the church on the basis of the Second Vatican Council. We Are Church evolved from the Church Referendum in Austria in 1995 that was started after the child sexual abuse scandal surrounding Austrian Cardinal Hans Gröer.

Tuesday, June 03, 2014

It takes a cabal to cover up four murders.

Hitlery Schicklgruber, the once and future cow, prepares to mount the throne.

But "What difference at this point does it make?”

 photo hit1.jpg

From the Atlantic Wire via Yahoo News:

What's in the Benghazi Chapter of Hillary Clinton's New Book?

 "What difference at this point does it make?”

A 34-page chapter of Hillary Clinton's upcoming book, Hard Choices, is all about the Benghazi attacks. According to a copy of the chapter obtained by Politico, a substantial portion is clearly meant to address ongoing committee hearings convened by the GOP-led House of Representatives, who believe that Clinton was part of a conspiracy to cover up government knowledge of the attack. There's been a "regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media,” Clinton writes. 

The former Secretary of State goes on to say that she "will not be part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans," adding, "it's just plain wrong, and it's unworthy of our great country. Those who insist of politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me." 

 "What difference at this point does it make?”

Clinton has already given testimony at a House Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi in 2013, but that line is probably directed at the next step in the Republican investigation into the attacks: a big special committee, announced earlier this spring, that could keep the show going through the fall and into the final stretch of the midterm season. That committee is already working to establish their timeline of the events leading up to the attack, which the Republican leadership believes is incomplete, even after a Senate report and a State Department review. 

Politico's Maggie Haberman explains that the book is already being used to help Democrats to address Clinton's participation in the government response to the attacks. She writes: 
The section was obtained and reviewed by POLITICO on the eve of a meeting in which members of Democratic-leaning groups will be briefed by Clinton’s team about how she addresses the attacks in the book.
And in a sign of the concerted effort to rebut the ongoing controversy in a cohesive way, Clinton’s camp has brought on former National Security Council spokesman and longtime President Barack Obama hand Tommy Vietor to assist in the response to the book, a source familiar with the plan said.

And, Clinton herself will sit down with Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren for a lengthy interview to air June 17. The interview is part of her book tour, but the network's history of being very, very interested in Benghazi conspiracy theories (along with Clinton devoting an entire chapter to it) suggests that the attacks will be a topic of focus. 
"What difference at this point does it make?”

The chapter will address a number of specific points about the attacks: 

On the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in the attack: 
 Stevens's death was “a punch in the gut,” Clinton writes, adding, that the death of "fearless public servants in the line of duty was a crushing blow... as Secretary I was the one ultimately responsible for my people’s safety, and I never felt that responsibility more deeply than I did that day.”

 "What difference at this point does it make?”

The role of an anti-Islamic video in the Benghazi attacks:  
Citing "later investigation and reporting" (see: here) on the attacks, Clinton writes that the video was "indeed a factor." She adds that those at the consulate on that night had "different motives": "“It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.”

 "What difference at this point does it make?”

How Obama and the military responded to the attacks: 
 “[Obama] gave the order to do whatever was necessary to support our people in Libya. It was imperative that all possible resources be mobilized immediately. … When Americans are under fire, that is not an order the Commander in Chief has to give twice. Our military does everything humanly possible to save American lives — and would do more if they could. That anyone has ever suggested otherwise is something I will never understand.”

 "What difference at this point does it make?”

Whether she personally saw cables before the attacks requiring additional security:
 "That’s not how it works. It shouldn’t. And it didn’t," Clinton writes, noting that the cables bore her name as a "procedural quirk” and not because they went directly to her. 

 "What difference at this point does it make?”

Why she wasn't interviewed for the Accountability Review Board investigation, and whether that's proof that she rigged the entire investigation as part of the massive cover-up for Obama:  
"[the board] had unfettered access to anyone and anything they thought relevant to their investigation, including me if they had chosen to do so.”

"What difference at this point does it make?”

On Susan Rice's early statements to the press after the attacks: 

"Early", eh? Interesting adjective.  Fog of war and all that, no doubt. But ...

"What difference at this point does it make?”

  “Susan stated what the intelligence community believed, rightly or wrongly, at the time...That was the best she or anyone could do. Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people. There is a difference between getting something wrong, and committing wrong. A big difference that some have blurred to the point of casting those who made a mistake as intentionally deceitful.”

 "What difference at this point does it make?”

 Why she didn't go on the Sunday morning shows herself: 
 Some, she writes, "fixate on the question of why I didn’t go on TV that morning, as if appearing on a talk show is the equivalent of jury duty, where one has to have a compelling reason to get out of it. I don’t see appearing on Sunday-morning television as any more of a responsibility than appearing on late-night TV. Only in Washington is the definition of talking to Americans confined to 9 A.M. on Sunday mornings.”

"What difference at this point does it make?”

On why she said "what difference at this point does it make?” about the motivations behind the attacks: 
 "In yet another example of the terrible politicization of this tragedy, many have conveniently chosen to interpret [it] to mean that I was somehow minimizing the tragedy of Benghazi. Of course that’s not what I said...My point was simple: If someone breaks into your home and takes your family hostage, how much time are you going to spend focused on how the intruder spent his day as opposed to how best to rescue your loved ones and then prevent it from happening again?”
 "What difference at this point does it make?”

Hard Choices comes out on June 10. Read more on the Benghazi chapter at Politico.

"What difference at this point does it make?”

 "What difference at this point does it make?”

 "What difference at this point does it make?”

 "What difference at this point does it make?”

 "What difference at this point does it make?”

   photo hit2.jpg

What do you get when you cross a jug-eared commie, a coward [at best!], and a prison full of mass murderers?

From the Atlantic wire via Yahoo News:

Obama Stands by the Bergdahl Deal, Says He 'Consulted With Congress'

It's possible President Obama thought the Bowe Bergdahl deal would be the triumphant, feel-good story of the week. Instead members of Congress have promised to hold hearings on the prisoner trade, arguing that they were not properly notified beforehand. Obama, during a press conference in Poland, defended the deal, arguing that retrieving prisoners of war is a "sacred" American rule...

Obama defends decision to trade 5 Guantanamo detainees for Bergdahl - Washington Post   

The president, in Warsaw, acknowledged that some released detainees could pose threats.

Shinehead O'Connor is still an ignorant cow.

From Yahoo Music:

O'Connor debuts glam makeover 

 If she's the boss, you better get to work! A little more than two months before releasing her 10th studio album, Sinéad O'Connor unveiled its surprising cover featuring a nearly unrecognizable snapshot of the music legend.

Sporting a jet-black bob with dramatic bangs, smoky eye makeup, and a skintight black PVC leather dress (complete with a high neck and long sleeves), the singer looks like a heroine from a Quentin Tarantino film... who could do some serious damage with that glittered guitar.

Obviously, the whole sexy, futuristic superhero look for I'm Not Bossy, I'm the Boss is a major departure from her standard style, which is defined by a shaved head, light makeup, and relatively unfussy clothes. So what inspired such a dramatic about-face in the icon?

 Typical dumbass left-fascism. Words don't kill, commies kill. [And abortion mills!]

It was Sheryl Sandberg, or, rather, the women's empowerment movement Sandberg created. O'Connor took to her personal website to explain her change of heart.

"Originally I had a different title, The Vishnu Room, but a few months back when I saw the phrase 'I’m not bossy, I'm the boss' and became aware of the Ban Bossy campaign, I wished I could re-name the album, since indeed it can be tricky being a female boss and I think Sheryl’s campaign is a terribly important one."

 In fact, this power struggle is something the star has been dealing with for decades. Back in February, she explained that her iconic anti-glam image was an intentional act of rebellion against record executives when she was first starting out in the '80s.

"I got put into the record business at a time when record executives were a little frisky. Put it that way," O'Connor said. "You had to protect yourself straight off. You'd be better to have a bag on your head, really." But the execs had other ideas in mind.

"They wanted me to grow my hair really long and wear miniskirts and all that kind of stuff because they reckoned I'd look much prettier," O'Connor shared. "So I went straight around to the barber and shaved the rest of my hair off … to make myself as unattractive as I possibly could."
Silly bunt. All she had to do was start talking. That would be enough to sabotage any erection.

But even though there's no doubt that O'Connor is now the boss (and has been for a long time), changing the title of her latest album at first seemed impossible.
"At the stage I became aware of the Ban Bossy campaign, it was too late to change the album title because the sleeve was already in print," the star lamented in her blog post before explaining a fortunate turn of events. "Last week, when the record company received the promo shots, which included the cover shot you now see, they asked could they change the planned cover to the current one, and that allowed me the opportunity of changing the title."

About Me

My photo
First of all, the word is SEX, not GENDER. If you are ever tempted to use the word GENDER, don't. The word is SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! For example: "My sex is male." is correct. "My gender is male." means nothing. Look it up. What kind of sick neo-Puritan nonsense is this? Idiot left-fascists, get your blood-soaked paws off the English language. Hence I am choosing "male" under protest.


Blog Archive