(Bumped and reposted)
Paul Revere personally recounts his famous ride – In this undated letter Paul Revere summarizes the activities surrounding his famous ride on 18 April 1775. He recounts how Dr. Joseph Warren urged him to ride to Lexington to warn John Hancock and Samuel Adams of British troop movements. He arranged to signal the direction of the troops with lanterns from Old North Church and then had friends row him across the Charles River, borrowing a horse for his ride.
Revere wrote this letter at the request of Jeremy Belknap, corresponding secretary of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Revere signed his name to the letter but then wrote above it “A Son of Liberty of the year 1775” and beside it “do not print my name.” Nonetheless, the MHS included Revere’s name when it printed the letter in 1798.

EXPLORE THE DOCUMENT – Or Read Transcript below: (more…)

Today we were visited by someone who said,

I would encourage those who believe anything negative about Hitler to please have an open mind and do some further study.  We are lied to about almost everything these days.  Carolyn Yeager is a good source for this topic.

Two days ago was International Holocaust Remembrance Day.  This post should have been done that day, but it is never too late to remember – and to remind others – the horrors that were carried out by ordinary people like ourselves.
(more…)

The time capsule was unearthed back in 1855 (160 years ago), and replaced. It is set to be re-opened on January 6th, the feast of the Epiphany.
BOSTON (CBS) — The contents of a more than 200-year-old time capsule sealed in the State House by Sam Adams and Paul Revere will be unveiled on January 6, state officials announced Tuesday.

Sam Adams (left) and Paul Revere (right) 

The 10-pound capsule was put under the State House cornerstone in 1795 by then-Gov. Adams, Revere and William Scollay. It was extracted earlier this month while work was being done on the State House, and X-rayed at the Museum Of Fine Arts. (more…)

Sunday, December 7th, 1941 Admiral Chester Nimitz was attending a concert in Washington D.C. He was paged and told there was a phone call for him.
When he answered the phone, it was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The President told Admiral Nimitz that he (Nimitz) would now be the Commander of the Pacific Fleet.
(more…)

Those of you familiar with the Benghazi Brief will note the alignment and expectation of the Rogers/Ruppersberger report.  Their report is exactly as we anticipated it would be.
With a House Select Committee (Trey Gowdy) already in place, you might rightly ask yourself why did Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger even produce a report?  As you read their House Intelligence Panel Report on Benghazi it is important to note a few key aspects:

• Both Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger are members of the Congressional Gang of Eight.  They are the ONLY authors.

• This is not a House Intelligence “Committee” report on Benghazi.  This is only two committee members writing a report based on prior information.

• Both Rogers and Ruppersberger would have been briefed on the CIA operations in Benghazi during 2011/2012 as the covert operation began.

• President Obama signed a finding memo in 2011 permitting Operation Zero Footprint to begin. The congressional “gang of eight” held oversight responsibilities.

• Rogers, Ruppersberger along with Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Saxby Chambliss and Diane Feinstein would have been notified of the presidential authorization. In 2011 they were the congressional Gang of Eight.  Their lack of oversight reflected a willful blindness to the operation.

• In addition to the covert Zero Footprint Operation, the Benghazi CIA annex served as a rendition site. [We find this out in 2013 from Paula Broadwell, who was the pillow-talk recipient of information from 2012 CIA Director General David Petraeus. Broadwell and Petraeus had an extramarital affair.]

[scribd id=247819208 key=key-rry9o06IDR3YfzhJhGb3 mode=scroll]
The Rogers/Ruppersberger Report is specifically designed, by wording, to provide political cover to both parties – Republicans and Democrats within the Gang of Eight particularly  included, and protected.
It is professional obfuscation in structure, content and wording. Here’s an example: (more…)

(more…)

– Today seems a fitting day to review this again –

One of the frustrating realities of our polarized time is the media creating a skewed and left leaning view of all things political. However, even with this headwind, each day many more people choose to engage in an honest discovery and understanding of what’s going on. Whether because they stumble upon a concern, or whether they happen across some information that makes them rethink their prior position and views, it can lead to an engagement with us from a perspective of their only reality view having been determined by the lens of the media.
Indeed that can be, and often is, an incredibly frustrating conversation because the newly awakened bring an embedded and sometimes flawed bias into their narrative. One of the more common misunderstandings stems from the media hatred of George W Bush and his actions, aptly called Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).
What I want to do here is not change anyone’s mind, but rather to remind people what led to some of Dubya’s decisions in his own words.
I must first emphasize at the time of Dubya’s tenure in the White House I was not a supporter of many “Bush policies”, however, I did understand his reasoning.
Sometimes research into “why” was needed in order for us to understand this reasoning, but there were valid reasons nonetheless. It is unfair for the liberal media, or for any Johnny-come-lately to re-write his motivation as illicit, it was not. In hindsight some of his policies and approaches may have been wrong, but it generally is unfair to look in the rear view mirror to judge. Again, at times it is important to stop the conversation, pause, and remind ourselves what was going on at the time. (more…)

Rut Roh, what are the progs gonna do now ?   The libs were in a generally swoony state with the “progressive” Pope Francis.   However, now he’s calling up round #5 of the modern crusades – oh my.

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) – You know a situation is bad when a pope calls for an armed response. Pope Francis, widely appreciated as a practical and realistic man, is not just calling for a cease-fire or negotiations. Instead, he is inviting an armed response to the terrorism of the Islamic State.
Such a call is virtually unprecedented for a pontiff in modern times, but our age is an extraordinary one and the Islamic State has no interest in a bargaining table. Instead, the Islamic State is bent on genocide and barbarism, ruthlessly exterminating anyone who opposes them.
On Sunday, Pope Francis said he held “dismay and disbelief” over what is happening in Iraq. He called the Islamic State fighters terrorists and said there was a need for “a professional, well-equipped army.” “The situation is going from bad to worse,” he warned.
Meanwhile, Chaldean Patriarch Louis Sako of Baghdad said, “There is a need of international support and a professional, well-equipped army. The situation is going from bad to worse.” (more…)

For those who pay attention to the dysfunction of Obama’s foreign policy you’ll note there’s currently a battle between Obama and Clinton to distance and blame the other for the rise of ISIS and radical jihad.

They both agree the origin of ISIS is the Syrian civil war 2011 and 2012.   The argument between them is one of “who’s policy is to blame”?

Clinton argues she wanted to arm the rebels early in the 2011/2012 Syrian uprising.   And if the “moderates” had been supported the “radicals” would not have been able to rise.

“The failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad—there were Islamists, there were secularists, there was everything in the middle—the failure to do that left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled,”   ~Hillary Clinton

President Obama argues there was no option to arm the moderates because they were not capable of fighting.

The president rejected criticism that the military advances by ISIS in Iraq could have been prevented if he had been willing months ago to provide heavy armaments to the Syrian rebels who were fighting against ISIS and the forces of President Bashar al-Assad in that country.

“It’s always been a fantasy,” he said, “this idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth.”  ~ President Obama

The answer to who is correct is actually neither. (more…)

It’s about friggin’ time !   President Obama says the action is to prevent “genocide” and provide relief to thousands of Iraqi religious minorities who have fled to the Northern mountains of Iraq.  [Video ADDED 9:50pm EST More updates will follow soon]