State of Israel born – ‘I deplore any attempt to take it away from Israel’-Truman via American Minute
Against all odds, Israel survived.
The Armistice between Israel and her enemies was negotiated by Ralph Bunche, the first African American to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
“I want to tell you how happy and impressed I have been at the remarkable progress made by the new State of Israel.”
“I remember well our conversations about the Negeb…and I deplore any attempt to take it away from Israel.
I had thought that my position would have been clear to all the world, particularly in the light of the specific wording of the Democratic Party platform…
I have interpreted my re-election as a mandate from the American people to carry out the Democratic platform – including, of course, the plank on Israel.”
President John F. Kennedy remarked opening the Ouachita National Forest Road at Big Cedar, Oklahoma, October 29, 1961:
“We take our lesson…from the Bible and the story of Nehemiah, which tells us that when the children of Israel returned from captivity they determined to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, in spite of the threats of the enemy.
The wall was built and the peace was preserved. But it was written, ‘Of them that built on the wall…with one of his hands he did the work, and with the other he held the sword.'”
In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated:
“America and Israel have a common love of human freedom and a democratic way of life…
Through the centuries, through dispersion and through very grievous trials, your forefathers clung to their Jewish identity and their ties with the land of Israel.
The prophet Isaiah foretold, ‘And He shall set up an ensign for the nations and He shall assemble the outcasts of Israel and gather together the dispersed of Judah from all the four corners of the earth’…
History knows no more moving example of persistence against the cruelest odds.”
In April 3, 2002, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay stated in a speech at Westminster College:
“No one can ignore the horrible aggression in the Middle East.
A democratic government is fending off an orchestrated onslaught of death. The State of Israel has been targeted by groups committed to her complete elimination.
And on the basis of our shared principles and democratic values, America has an undeniable obligation to stand squarely with our democratic ally against those attempting to end the State of Israel…
Israel and America are kindred nations. The founders of both countries were profoundly influenced by faith. Both countries drafted governments that practice religious tolerance.”
Tom DeLay continued:
“Both countries are filled with immigrants summoned by dreams. For people fleeing the storms of persecution, both countries have been safe harbors…
No one should expect the people of Israel to negotiate with groups pursuing the fundamental goal of destroying them…”
Congressman Tom DeLay concluded:
“America has a clear duty to stand beside a democratic ally that is besieged by terrorists…The terrorists attempting to destroy the State of Israel should know that America will never allow that to happen.”
The following post is reprinted with permission and it is a must read for anyone with children and grandchildren. It is also a must read for educators. Please do take time to check the links and read the other posts available!
Debunking the Common Core “The Emperor’s New Clothes” Narrative….
- by Gretchen Logue
- January 7, 2013
…and why are education reformers/politicians ascribing to fairy tales for policy?
Should Common Core State Standards be considered an educational version of the story “The Emperor’s New Clothes”? The standards are the promise of new clothes for education but is there basis for believing there are any clothes at all? From Wikipedia:
“The Emperor’s New Clothes” (Danish: Kejserens nye Klæder) is a short tale byHans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes that is invisible to those unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent. When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!” The tale has been translated into over a hundred languages.
Christopher H. Tienken, Editor of AAASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice provided commentary in the Winter 2011 publication entitled Common Core State Standards: An Example of Data-less Decision Making.
His research may just expose the standards to be unfit and fallacy to those who are critical thinkers asking for data determining their stated validity. This article should be studied by educators, politicians, taxpayers, to understand the colossal farce Common Core standards are in terms of providing promises of educational improvement for American students as they are unproven and untested.
Tienken writes the standards have not been validated empirically and no metric has been set to monitor the intended and unintended consequences they will have on the education system and children (Mathis, 2010). So why would governors and private trade organizations spend millions of taxpayer dollars on theories instead of verifiable researched data? The CCSS proponents have bought into these two arguments:
- America’s children are “lagging” behind international peers in terms of academic achievement, and
- the economic vibrancy and future of the United States relies upon American students outranking their global peers on international tests of academic achievement because of the mythical relationship between ranks on those tests and a country’s economic competitiveness.
Where’s the data supporting the CCSS proponents’ arguments? There isn’t much put forth by the education reformers. So why are states and school districts implementing unproven and untested theories? He defines the acceptance/lack of data for the unproven and untested CCSS assessments and implementation allegedly designed to enable students to become “globally competitive” with such sentences/phrases as:
- An unbelievable suspension of logic and evidence
- To believe that economic strength of the United States relies on how students rank on the Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) or the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), rather than reliance on policy (tax, trade, health, labor, finance, monetary, housing, natural resources policy)…”is like believing in the tooth fairy”
- The “critical skills necessary to compete in the 21st century” are repackaged 19th century ideas and skills…they are “inert, sterile, socially static”…the CCSS are stuck in a curricular time machine set in 1858
- Connecting an individual’s education achievement on a standardized test to a nation’s economic future is not empirically or logically acceptable and using that mythical connection for large-scale policymaking is civically reckless…when school administrators implement programs and policies built on those faulty arguments, they commit education malpractice
- More countries with national standards underperformed the US than did countries without national standards
- To think that every student in this country should be made to learn the same thing is illogical—it lacks face validity…we should have learned from the Soviet Union that central planning does not work in the long-run
- Standardization and testing are so entrenched in Singapore that every attempt to diversity the system has failed, leaving Singapore a country that has high test scores but no creativity
- (CCSS) creates a standardizing apparatus…we should respect differences among children, not try to extinguish them…there is a lot more going on here on the societal level than meets the eye…it’s more complex than the creators and vendors of the standards either understand or wish to present
- Children have a right to a quality education. School leaders, those who prepare them, and the people who lead our professional organizations have a duty to help provide the quality…if some education leaders choose to drink the snake oil then they should expect to get sick. If some help sell it, they should resign.
He backs up his findings with 48 independent referenced sources. It is worth your time to read his commentary that destroys the CCSS proponents’ arguments with methodical precision based on actual data. Compare/contrast his research/reference with the data CCSSO and the NGA use:
Many school districts or schools have “data committees” that make school-widedecisions based on some type of data. Surely there must be quality data available publically to support the use of the CCSS to transform, standardize, centralize and essentially delocalize America’s public education system. The official website for the CCSS claims to provide such evidence. The site alleges that the standards are “evidence based” and lists two homegrown documents to “prove” it: Myths vs Facts (NGA, 2010) and the Joint International Benchmarking Report (NGA, 2008).
The Myths document presents claims that the standards have “made use of a large and growing body of knowledge” (p. 3). Knowledge derives in part from carefully controlled scientific experiments and observations so one would expect to find references to high quality empirical research to support the standards.
When I reviewed that “large and growing body of knowledge” offered by the NGA, I found that it was not large, and in fact built mostly on one report, Benchmarking for Success, created by the NGA and the CCSSO, the same groups that created these standards; Hardly independent research.
The Benchmarking report has over 135 end notes, some of which are repetitive references. Only four of the cited pieces of evidence could be considered empirical studies related directly to the topic of national standards and student achievement.
The remaining citations were newspaper stories, armchair magazine articles, op-ed pieces, book chapters, notes from telephone interviews, and several tangential studies.
Many of the citations were linked to a small group of standardization advocates and did not represent the larger body of empirical thought on the topic”.
Tienken’s report needs to be sent to school boards, superintendents, state educational agencies, educational reform groups, governors and state legislators for their response to his research and conclusions. These private and/or public entities need to asked why they support common core standards and provide the data to back up their beliefs and use of the standards. If you get shocked faces and declarations from these groups/politicians such as “I do whatever _________ tells me to” (fill in the blank: state agency, federal government, governor, etc), you know the right to direct your school’s educational direction is in dire jeopardy.
Tienken writes those who perpetuate bad ideas based on flawed data are practicing poor leadership. If some school leaders and their organizations do not want to stand up for children then they should stand down and let those who are will assume the leadership reins.
How do you believe these organizations/politicians will respond (if they do) to Tienken’s research? Tienken welcomed rebuttal on his 2011 commentary:
“I welcome your rebuttals but please remember: Leave the opinions and ideology behind and bring the evidence”.
Do the CCSS proponents have anything other than opinions and ideology? This commentary was published in Winter 2011. I haven’t seen any data backing up CCSS proponents’ assertions, have you? That’s odd as they state CCSS is data driven. If they insist CCSS should be data driven, shouldn’t the foundational theory of their reforms consist of verifiable data to determine the veracity of their argument?
Dr. Tienken’s academic profile:
Christopher Tienken, Ed.D. is an assistant professor of Education Administration at Seton Hall University. He has public school administration experience as a PK-12 assistant superintendent, middle school principal, and elementary school assistant principal. He began his career in education as an elementary school teacher. Dr Tienken’s research interests include the effect and influence of professional development on teacher practice and student achievement, the construct validity of high-stakes standardized tests as decision-making tools about student achievement and school effectiveness, and curricular interventions used in schools to improve achievement. His research about the effects of professional development on student achievement has been recognized by the Institute of Education Sciences and the National Staff Development Council awarded him the Best Research Award in 2008.
Is the Obama administration doing this? We have seen several examples of with one of the latest being their “truth squad” to counter any examples of what they consider wrong or misleading information. Never mind that they are constantly putting out wrong and misleading information…
They seem to think that they have the right to control what everyone does, thinks, says, or learns of in any type of media or even from one neighbor to the next. They are using the same tactics that were used in the Soviet Union in order to close down any type of dissent.
has a story that may just be another example of that. If it is it is another off the wall abuse of power by this administration and at some point in time, I sincerely hope that these people are held to some kind of accountability. Read it for yourself…..
IS OBAMA USING THE IRS TO SILENCE OPPOSITION VOICES?
Posted on February 14, 2012 at 4:56pm by Mike Opelka
Many of us joke about being audited by the IRS because our views are not in sync with the White House. President Obama himself has even joked about it back in 2009, when a visit to Arizona State University caused many to speak up against the President receiving an honorary degree:
That was back in 2009. And it was a joke, right?
Or was it? Read the rest at at Blaze
Cain’s Commentary, “America’s Role in the World: Peace Through Strength and Clarity“
America’s Role in the World: Peace Through Strength and Clarity
NOVEMBER 21, 2011
A few days ago, after coming under criticism for my answer to a question about Libya in an interview, I made a lighthearted comment that reflected all this – that I’m not supposed to know everything (most of the media quoted me as saying “anything”) about foreign policy
Bizarre things happen when you run for president, one of which is that statements like this go viral, with people claiming I had somehow made the case that no knowledge of world affairs is required for the job.
I obviously don’t think that, but I’m also quite willing be honest about my strengths. My background is in the business world, and my greatest strength concerns the economy. My motivation in running for president is to apply my leadership skills to all issues – foreign and domestic. But clearly, as I have met with foreign policy luminaries like John Bolton and Henry Kissinger, I have done a lot more listening than talking – because they know a lot more about it than I do, and it would be absurd for me to claim otherwise.
That said, a man taking the oath of office for the presidency must have a sense of America’s place in the world, and must have a clear idea of the challenges, threats and opportunities that present themselves. Otherwise, success on the economic front likely goes for naught, as mistakes in the international arena tend to be costly both in the short term and in the long term.
My approach to foreign policy is to apply a general set of principles to each situation we face, and I have summarized these principles as peace through strength and clarity. This is a modernized version of the Reagan philosophy that helped bring down the Soviet Union and the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, and also won a series of victories – though not a complete and lasting victory – in South and Central America.
In a broad sense, it means that I would not retreat on initiatives that strengthen America’s strategic standing in order to buy some sort of accommodation with those who do not have an interest in our security. For example, I would not have welched on America’s commitment to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe because the Russians didn’t like it. The security of the U.S. and our allies would take precedence over the concerns of a nation whose strategic interests are often contrary to ours.
That is one of the reasons I would not have signed the New START treaty, as President Obama did in 2010. Not only did that treaty commit America to arms reductions that the Russians would not necessarily have to match, but it permitted them to maintain a sizable advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, while ignoring programs and ambitions of other nations like Iran, North Korea, China and Pakistan. But more to the point, we simply don’t need to be signing treaties like this with unfriendly countries. The United States can make its own decisions about the nature and the volume of strategic assets we want to deploy. We don’t need to ask anyone’s permission.
As president, I intend to be a strong supporter of America’s strongest allies, and that absolutely includes Israel. I agree with the statement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that if Israel’s enemies were to lay down their weapons today, there would be peace, whereas if Israel were to lay down its weapons, there would be no more Israel. Supporting Israel is crucial not only because it is an important strategic ally, but also because it is the most free and democratic nation in the region, and a threat to Israel’s security is a threat to freedom everywhere.
Peace through strength and clarity means there is no doubt about where we stand, for what we stand and with whom we stand. We stand in support of free nations who respect the rights of their people and do not threaten their neighbors. And we treat our allies like allies. President Obama’s lukewarm treatment of Great Britain has served to create tension within the most important strategic relationship we have ever had. Likewise, his friendly embrace of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez during a meeting of regional leaders sent exactly the wrong signal, as did his naïve statement during the 2008 campaign that he would sit down and talk to Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without conditions.
Peace through strength means recognizing that we are the United States, and we are the ones who approach these things from a position of strategic superiority. Clarity means we treat our allies like allies, and others have to earn the right to stand with us (and that especially applies to those who hope to receive aid from us – that isn’t happening if you are hostile to us or to our allies).
I agree with former President George W. Bush that the United States should promote free democratic movements throughout the world, and that it is in our strategic interests to do so. That does not mean we try to “impose democracy at the barrel of a gun,” as some of Bush’s rather disingenuous critics claimed he was doing. It means we support these movements where the opportunity presents itself (as President Obama should have in Iran and Syria) or when strategic necessity compels us (as I believe President Bush correctly did in Iraq in 2003). And you don’t always have to use force.
Peace through strength and clarity also recognizes the danger posed by nuclear proliferation, particularly when it involves regimes like Iran or North Korea, which give every reason to believe they may initiate the use of nuclear weapons against other nations. The U.S. must be willing to use its power to stop nuclear proliferation. If we regard such action as beyond the pale, then we essentially concede that all non-proliferation agreements are meaningless.
The most effective application of strength is that which is rarely used. Our troops are already overstretched and our financial resources are limited. An America that is capable and ready, and backs up what it says, won’t have to take action all that often. The world’s bad actors will know we are serious.
I think it’s clear by now that I am not going to score the best of all the candidates on media pop quizzes about the details of current international events. Some have claimed that I take some sort of perverse satisfaction in not knowing all these details. That is not true. I want to know as much as I can. But a leader leads by gathering all the information available in a given situation, and making the best decision at the time based on that information, and in accordance with sound principles. As president, I would not be required to make decisions on the spur of the moment based on a question from a reporter. I would make them the way I made them as a CEO – based on careful consideration of all the facts and the best advice of the best people.
But it is crucial to understand that my foreign policy decisions will always be based on the principles I have laid out here. That will not change, because these are the principles that best represent America’s heritage, and best advance our interests, as well as the interests of all freedom-loving nations and peoples.
Why Grandpa carries a gun
> PEOPLE ASK WHY?
> Why Carry a Gun?
> My old grandpa said to me ‘Son, there comes a time in every man’s life when he stops bustin’ knuckles
and starts bustin’ caps and
> usually it’s when he becomes too old to take a– whoopin.’
> I don’t carry a gun to kill people…
> I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
> I don’t carry a gun to scare people…
> I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
> I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid…
> I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
> I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil…
> I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
> I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government…
> I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
> I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry…
> I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be
> I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone…
> I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere
> I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man…
> I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
> I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate…
> I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
> I don’t carry a gun because I love it…
> I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
> Police protection is an oxymoron…
> Free citizens must protect themselves.
> Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and
then call someone in to clean up the mess.
> Personally, I carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take a– whoopin’…..author
unknown (but obviously brilliant)
> A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
> In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others
who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
> China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> —- ————- ————-
> Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56
> You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
> Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely
affect only the law-abiding citizens.
> Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
> The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
> With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.
> During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
> If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.
> The purpose of fighting is to win.
> There is no possible victory in defense.
> The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.
> The final weapon is the brain.
> All else is supplemental.
> SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
> SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
> SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
> IT’S A NO BRAINER!
> DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING
CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
> I’m a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!
> If you are too, please forward.
Check out dmparkman’s blog for more great stories and reports. He is one of the most thorough investigators our there and resourse’s his work extremely well! visit him at…
Some of you know this already, for those that don’t, Grumpy is in the process of moving to a larger and more reader friendly home.. The new site is designed to make easy to find the articles you want to read, without have to spend time scrolling past things you might not find so interesting..
via 2012 Patriot
- 10 Super Congress Czars = Dictatorship !!! (via 2012 Patriot) (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
- The Committee of 13 (mountainrepublic.net)
This is a snippet of a post from Grumpelder and it is simply a must read. Please go to the site and read all the material he has there. It will simply shock you! Please go read the rest, this is just a small portion!
I’m sure that many of the folks on the left, will quickly denounce this as a modern version of McCarthyism which is fine. Most Americans don’t know, and neither the media or the Democratic Party is in any hurry to tell them, Joe McCarthy was much closer to the truth than anyone guessed.. Much closer.
In 1995 an entire series of National Security Agency intercepts were declassified. Known as the Verona Papers roughly 2,900 documents, (a deliberately meaningless code phrase) The documents were were radio messages from the top KGB agents in Washington and New York to their superiors in Moscow from sometime in 1943 into 1948.
From the Claremont Instute
But by far the greatest villain among Red-hunting politicians was, of course, Wisconsin’s Republican senator Joseph McCarthy, who raised the issue of Communists in government in February 1950 and rode it triumphantly for four-and-a-half-years, acquiring an immense popular following, until the Senate itself voted to “censure” him in December 1954. He died, of liver failure induced by alcoholism, in May 1957, at the age of 48. By the 1960s the CPUSA, reduced to a few thousand members, had been almost wholly superseded by the New Left, and barely survived to see the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. via Grumpelder: