Y! Big Story: Lesser known truths about Fourth of July
By Vera H-C Chan | Yahoo! News – Tue, Jul 3, 2012
A divided nation? How very American of us.
As we commemorate the 236th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, revisiting our history helps remind us how far we've come — and just what still makes up the American character. For one thing, not all the 18th-century colonialists were keen on this whole independence thing: A good half-million were Loyalists to the British crown, and hung on to their royal connections in places like New York City, Long Island, and northern Georgia through the 1780s.
The Fourth of July is also a good time to give credit where credit's due, stamp out a few myths, and find out lesser-known truths that are even juicier than the folklore.
Neglected forefather? No argument -- founding fathers Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams have name recognition (it helps that two became president). Lost in historical footnotes are the remaining members of the so-called Committee of Five in charge of drafting the Declaration: Roger Sherman and Robert R. Livingston. And, even more neglected, is the man who first proposed the motion for a breakout from Britain.
Richard Henry Lee of Virginia was the classical yeoman farmer and a justice of the peace. The Virginia-born aristocrat benefited from an English private school education. At first an "indifferent figure," he later rose to the radical occasion and became an admired orator who, according to Patrick Henry, "reasoned well, and declaimed freely and splendidly" with a "deep and melodious" voice. At the second Continental Congress, he put forth the motion to cut maternal ties with Britain.
"That these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown; and that all political connexion between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved... Let this happy day give birth to an American republic." ("Lives of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence," 1856, via Colonial Hall)
As it was his proposal, Lee would have been chair of the Committee of Five and its likely scribe, but his wife's illness called him away. His sub: Jefferson.
Forget firecrackers -- let's burn some effigies: Pyrotechnics and pies are nice, but real Independence Day sticklers would fire off some muskets, burn some effigies of English royalty (sorry, Kate and William fans), ration out some rum, and declare war on England. Over the last 236 years, Americans have found extravagant ways to celebrate (many details courtesy of James R. Heintze, Librarian Emeritus of American University and author of "The Fourth of July Encyclopedia"):
—Pequoad Indians did a "wardance at their wigwam" in 1831 Virginia.
—Teetotalers threw a "Grand Total Abstinence Celebration" to commemorate temperance in 1842.
—An all-time record of 10,471 flags flew over the nation's capital for the 1976 Bicentennial.
—The shuttle Columbia unfurled the flag in space in 1992, but NASA outdid that in 2005 by deliberately crashing spacecraft Deep Impact into a comet.
—"The Star-Spangled Banner" is the acknowledged go-to tune but, as the Houston Chronicle points out, Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture" has become part of the musical salute. The ditty is actually about Russian forces vanquishing over Napoleon's at the Battle of Borodino. Credit the esteemed Arthur Fiedler and the Boston Pops for making the overture an adopted American anthem in their 1974 televised concert. Who's going to say no to 16 cannon blasts?
The occasion to fight for rights: Independence Day took on new meaning during the abolitionist fight: New York emancipated its slaves in 1827. Twenty-five years later, Frederick Douglass delivered his speech, "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?" In 1876, the 100th anniversary, the likes of Susan B. Anthony read the Declaration of Rights for Women at the Centennial Celebration.
During World War I, celebrations took on an international theme: In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson spoke of an "international Fourth of July celebration" and in New York, 40 nationalities were represented in the "pageant parade." That same year, about 100 ships launched to help Allied forces. Other fights for rights included the 1989 flag faceoffs, as Americans protested the Bush administration's proposal to ban flag burning.
Off by two days? Not that we Americans didn't wait for a government resolution as a reason to party since 1776. John Adams sent a letter to his wife extolling the "great anniversary Festival" that generations would celebrate with "Pomp and Parade...Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other." Except he had July 2 in mind, the date when the Continental Congress approved Lee's resolution. (And this year, July 2 would've fallen on a Monday and we wouldn't have all this should-we-take-a-vacation dithering.)
Other Fourth of July myths and truths:
— King George III did not write on July 4, 1776: "Dear Diary, Nothing of importance happened today."
—Adams and Jefferson did die July 4, 1826, the Declaration's 50th anniversary. James Monroe died on July 4, 1831, and Calvin Coolidge was born July 4, 1872.
—Paperwork took a lot longer in those days: The Declaration's signing didn't begin until August 2 and finished sometime in November.
—No, Nicolas Cage didn't find a map on the back of the Declaration of Independence, because if he did, he could pay off his debts and go back to doing good movies. The only thing on the back of the parchment is "Original Declaration of Independence dated 4th July 1776." There are, however, 26 copies (aka Dunlap broadsides) that do exist — all publicly owned saved one.
—Okay, if you really want a conspiracy coda, how's this: The Declaration's signatures are signed according to geography.
"John Hancock, the President of the Congress, was the first to sign the sheet of parchment measuring 24¼ by 29¾ inches. He used a bold signature centered below the text. In accordance with prevailing custom, the other delegates began to sign at the right below the text, their signatures arranged according to the geographic location of the states they represented. New Hampshire, the northernmost state, began the list, and Georgia, the southernmost, ended it." (National Archives)
Now here is something that should get everyone's attention.
EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016
U.S. military officers are told to plan to fight Americans
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.
At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled "Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A 'Vision' of the Future." It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an "extremist militia motivated by the goals of the 'tea party' movement" seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, "occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest." The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It's a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.
The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army's Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that "once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas." They claim that "the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment," not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.
The vision is hard to take seriously. As retired Army Brig. Gen. Russell D. Howard, a former professor at West Point, observed earlier in his career, "I am a colonel, colonels write a lot of crazy stuff, but no one listens to colonels, so I don't see the problem." Twenty years ago, then-Air Force Lt. Col. Charles J. Dunlap Jr. created a stir with an article in Parameters titled "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." It carried a disclaimer that the coup scenario was "purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction."
The scenario presented in Small Wars Journal isn't a literary device but an operational lay-down intended to present the rationale and mechanisms for Americans to fight Americans. Col. Benson and Ms. Weber contend, "Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil." This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.
A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson's case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.
Remember... Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
so there is planning not so far from the reality.....
2 Fairbanks Militia Members Convicted of Conspiracy to Commit Murder
By Rebecca Palsha, Chris Klint and The Associated Press Channel 2 News
3:05 p.m. AKDT, June 18, 2012
ANCHORAGE, Alaska— Alaska Peacemakers Militia members, including leader Schaeffer Cox, listened Monday as a federal jury found them guilty of several federal charges, including conspiring to kill federal officials and illegally stockpiling weapons.
The jury found Schaeffer Cox, Coleman Barney and Lonnie Vernon all guilty of conspiring to possess unlicensed silencers and grenade parts, but not guilty of possessing firearms. Cox and Vernon were found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, while Cox and Barney were found guilty of possessing grenade launchers and cartridges.
Cox was also found guilty of soliciting the murder of federal officials, as well as manufacturing and possessing silencers, possessing grenade parts and two counts of possessing machine guns. Barney was found not guilty of possessing grenade parts.
The jury also deadlocked on one count against Barney of conspiracy to commit murder, prompting District Court Judge Robert Bryan to declare a mistrial on the charge and ask that the partial verdict be read, despite requests from Cox’s attorneys to send the jury back for further deliberations.
Cox became angry as the verdict was read, telling jurors, "The prosecutors withheld evidence from you guys." He looked at his wife Marti Cox and cried as bailiffs led him away, refusing to speak with reporters.
Monday’s verdict against Cox, who along with Vernon and Barney faced a total of 16 felony charges, came after two full days of deliberations and a month-long trial. The jury received the case Thursday, when prosecutors completed their rebuttal to the defense’s closing arguments.
Federal agents conducted Fairbanks raids on militia members’ property in March 2011, seizing a cache of weapons including machine guns, grenades, launchers and pistols with silencers illegally attached. Five people -- the three defendants in the federal case, as well as Karen Vernon and Michael Anderson -- were initially arrested on charges including conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to commit kidnapping.
Prosecutors say Cox, Vernon and Barney were planning to act on an alleged “241” plot, which involved kidnapping two federal officials for every militia member arrested or killing two officials for every member killed. Their closing arguments cited “The Solution,” a Montana speech by Cox posted on YouTube in which he claimed to have 3,500 men at his command.
In closing arguments for the defense, attorneys claimed that the men were merely survivalists engaging in tough talk about what they might have to do following an overthrow of the government, characterizing it as speech protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. They also said many of the seized weapons weren’t functional, and that an FBI informant offering arms sales had entrapped their clients.
As Pearl Harbor was being attacked, 203 United States Marines in northern China were surrounded and captured by the Japanese. They spent from that day until mid September of 1945 as prisoners of war. This site is dedicated to the gathering of information on the experiences of those North China Marines. To this day there are children who know little or nothing about their father's years as POW slave labor for the Japanese. The information is presented here both to honor those men and to allow family members to research the history of members of that unit.
A major goal is to trace the specific POW camp sequence for each individual North China Marine captured in Chinwangtao, Peking, and Tientsin and provide descriptions of those camps. Many of the pages on this site also include information on Wake Marines and civilians. If you are the relative of a POW who died in a prison camp contact the Marine Corps at this number for info on a Purple Heart: 708-784-9340
The United States Marines in North China
US Marines served in China at various times and places from the days of the Boxer Rebellion of 1900. During the 1920's and 30's Marines were stationed at the American Embassy in Peking (Beijing). They were the Embassy Guard Detachment. In 1938 a unit was sent from Peking to Tientsin (Tianjin) to take over legation guard duty from the Army. A still smaller detachment was sent to Fort Holcomb at Chinwangtao (Qinhuangdao), about 140 miles northeast of Tientsin. This was the seaport through which all shipping for the embassy and the Marines had to travel. In the late 1930's the Embassy Guard Detachment in Peking consisted of about 300 men, the Legation Guard Detachment in Tientsin about 200 men, with about 20 men at Chinwangtao. (Spellings of Chinese cities are from that time period, not current usage.) In 1937 the Japanese invaded and conquered much of eastern China. While Japan controlled this area of China, various military units of other nations remained. The British, French, and Italians also kept forces in Peking. In November of 1941 the 1200 men of the US Fourth Marines in Shanghai were withdrawn and sent to the Philippines. This left only the men of the North China Marines in Peking, Tientsin, and Chinwangtao, by then totalling only 203 men. They were to depart China on the 10th of December, 1941. In preparation for this move all but their personal gear and weapons had been crated and sent to Chinwangtao to be loaded aboard ship for the move to the Philippines.
On the morning of 8 December 1941 (7 Dec stateside time) each of the units woke to find themselves surrounded. At Peking the Japanese had mortars and machine guns mounted on the Tartar Wall bordering the US compound. Given the number of Japanese, the number of Marines, the lack of weapons, and the distance to any friendly forces, Colonel William Ashurst had no choice but to surrender. Col Ashurst surrendered under the impression the Japanese would abide by the Boxer Protocol of 1901, which, it was assumed, contained a clause granting diplomatic status to the Marines. This meant they would be repatriated with the diplomats at the embassy in Peking and the consulate in Tientsin. (No documents seem to actually have had such a clause. This belief in a repatriation clause may have prevented a mass escape while enroute to Shanghai. See Escapes and Deaths page. Some sources say repatriation of military guard units was the norm at this time and that some nation's guard units actually were repatriated. The five men of the 4th Marines still closing up business in Shanghai were repatriated from Woosung in June 1942-McBrayer book page 97.) Upon surrender, the small unit at Chinwangtao was sent to join the men in Tientsin. (There were 140 men in Peking, 48 in Tientsin, and 15 in Chinwangtao. The total of 204 men included a 14 man Navy medical detachment consisting of 3 officers and 11 enlisted men.) The Marines in Peking were kept in their compound until 10 January 1942, at which time they also were sent to Tientsin. In late January the entire group of 204 Marines was sent by train to the Prisoner of War camp at Woosung, outside Shanghai. They joined there the approximately 1100 Marines and civilians captured earlier on Wake Island.
From this time until their rescue in September of 1945 the Marines were used as slave labor by the Japanese.(The SS President Harrison, which was to have picked up the Marines, was run aground by its captain. The Japanese salvaged it. Read that story at www.usmm.net/harrison.html On 1 or 2 November of 1942 a group of about 70 Marines and civilians was sent from Woosung to the northwest coast of Kyushu, the southernmost of the four main islands of Japan. There they were imprisoned at Fukuoka camp 3-B. This group included at least 25 North China Marines. This movement took place as is described in Terence Kirk's book, The Secret Camera. None of the other North China Marine books mention it. The Newell diary mentions an earlier group of about 70 civilians leaving in Sep and then the group of about 70 leaving in Nov. In December the camp at Woosung was closed and the entire group moved to nearby Kiangwan. In August of 1943 a group of about 500 POWs was sent from Kiangwan to camps in Japan near Tokyo and Osaka. This included at least 58 North China Marines. Later some of these POWs were sent to other camps in Japan, mostly in the general Tokyo area. The War Information Bureau report on Kiangwan lists another transfer of 150 men on 11 Nov 1943. The Biggs book also mentions this. No other information is yet available as to who went where. If this transfer actually happened, and is not just confused with the November 42 transfer, no North China Marines appear to have been part of it. In May of 1945 the camp at Kiangwan was closed. Most of the POWs were sent on their way to Japan. Along the way they spent time at Fengtai, near Peking, and then Pusan, Korea. They arrived in Japan at the end of June 1945. Some of the POWs were sent to camps near Osaka. Some civilians were sent to Yamagata, others to Niigata. The majority of the remaining POWs (approximately 450) ended up on the northernmost Japanese island of Hokkaido at the Hakodate camps #2, 3, and 4. There are 100 North China Marines known to have been part of this group.
The events of 6 and 9 August 1945 saved the POWs from death by starvation during the upcoming winter or murder at the hands of their guards. Most of the North China Marines were finally rescued from their camps about mid September. This site is a summary of their story. The pages here try to explain the details. Many of the facts listed above are from the book Behind the Barbed Wire by Chester M. Biggs, Jr.
Official figures below provided by CFIR, Inc
US military captured
Died while POW 1.1 % 35.7%
Alive January 2002 35.5% 17.4%
US civilians interned 4,749 13,996
Died while imprisoned 3.5% 11%
Alive January 2002 29.7% 9.2%
In World War II the United States had approximately 16.5 million men and women in uniform. Of these about 2% were killed. In World War II the US Marines had approximately 669 thousand men and women in uniform. Of these about 3 1/2% were killed. In World War I 3% of US Marine particpants were killed. In the Korean War 1% of US Marine participants were killed. In the Vietnam War 1.6% of US Marine participants were killed. What is my point? The POWs in the Pacific faced death and disease on a daily basis for almost 4 years. They died at a higher casualty rate than any war of the last two centuries. Since returning home they have died at a rate 3 times that of POWs from the European Theater of Operations. Yet many of them came away from that experience with a sense of shame, with a feeling they had not done enough. The Japanese constantly told them they did not deserve to live because they had surrendered. Try to find mention of them in history books, especially the North China Marines. Our government did little if anything to help them adjust when they came home. They did not receive their full back pay until 57 years after they returned home, and then in 1942 dollars and with no interest. (Feb 2010 - Now evidence has arisen they were not given the promotions they were actually due.) Interest was finally paid in 2007-to surviving POWs or their living spouses, only 17 North China Marines were still living. If they made a career out of the Marines and retired after 20 years, their disability pay is subtracted from their retirement pay. This issue is still not completely rectified. Many of them were awarded a Purple Heart on their return to the states. In most cases that award was not entered into their records-or was deleted. Today officials drag their feet on paperwork submitted for those Purple Hearts. In 2004 one North China Marine was recommended for a Medal of Honor for his actions in 1942. There was no action on that recommendation for a full year after it was submitted by a retired Marine general who was a witness to the event. Then the official finding was that since no medal had been awarded at the end of the war there would be none awarded now. Further paperwork was submitted as of October 2007. As of February 2010 there was still no action.
So it is easy to see how these former prisoners might feel the way they do. But there should be no shame. There should be a sense of having served their fellow Americans in a manner few others have, at a cost few others have paid. There should be pride.
These men should be seen as examples of what it truly means to be an American.
Remember... Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
> SEMPER FI !! > > DOWN TO ONE MARINE > > On Nov. 15, 2003, an 85-year-old retired Marine Corps colonel died of > congestive heart failure at his home in La Quinta, Calif., southeast > of Palm Springs. > > He was a combat veteran of World War II. Reason enough to honor him. > But this Marine was a little different. This Marine was Mitchell > Paige. > > It's hard today to envision -- or, for the dwindling few, to remember > -- what the world looked like on 26 Oct 1942. > > The U.S. Navy was not the most powerful fighting force in the Pacific. > Not by a long shot. So the Navy basically dumped a few thousand lonely > American Marines on the beach at Guadalcanal and high-tailed it out of > there. > > Nimitz, Fletcher and Halsey had to ration what few ships they had. > I've written separately about the way Bull Halsey rolled the dice on > the night of Nov. 13, 1942, violating the stern War College edict > against committing capital ships in restricted waters and instead > dispatching into the Slot his last two remaining fast battleships, the > South Dakota and the Washington, escorted by the only four destroyers > with enough fuel in their bunkers to get them there and back. > > Those American destroyer captains need not have worried about carrying > enough fuel to get home. By 11 p.m., outnumbered better than three- > to-one by a massive Japanese task force driving down from the > northwest, every one of those four American destroyers had been shot > up, sunk, or set aflame. And while the South Dakota -- known > throughout the fleet as a jinx ship -- had damaged some lesser > Japanese vessels, she continued to be plagued with electrical and fire > control problems. > > "Washington was now the only intact ship left in the force," writes > naval historian David Lippman. "In fact, at that moment Washington was > the entire U.S. Pacific Fleet. She was the only barrier between > Admiral Kondo's ships and Guadalcanal. If this one ship did not stop > 14 Japanese ships right then and there, America might lose the Pacific > war. .." > > On Washington's bridge, Lieutenant Ray Hunter had the conn. He had > just seen the destroyers Walker and Preston blown sky high. Dead ahead > lay their burning wreckage. Hundreds of men were swimming in the water > and the Japanese ships racing in. > > Hunter had to do something. The course he took now could decide the > war, Lippman writes. ''Come left, he said. ... > Washington's rudder change put the > burning destroyers between Washington and the enemy, thus preventing > her from being silhouetted by their fires. > > The move made the Japanese momentarily cease fire. Lacking radar, they > could not spot Washington behind the fires. ... Washington raced > through burning seas. Dozens of destroyer men were in the water > clinging to floating wreckage. Get after them, Washington! one shouted > > Sacrificing their ships by maneuvering into the path of torpedoes > intended for the Washington, the captains of the American destroyers > had given [ADM] China" Lee one final chance. > > Blinded by the smoke and flames, the Japanese battleship Kirishima > turned on her searchlights, illuminating the helpless South Dakota, > and opened fire. > Finally, as her own muzzle blasts illuminated her in the darkness, > Admiral Lee and Captain Glenn Davis could positively identify an enemy > target. > > The Washington's main batteries opened fire at 12 midnight precisely. > Her radar fire control system functioned perfectly. During the first > seven minutes of 14 Nov 1942, the "last ship in the U.S. > Pacific Fleet" fired 75 > of her 16-inch shells at the battleship Kirishima. Aboard Kirishima, > it rained steel. At 3:25 a.m., her burning hulk officially became the > first enemy sunk by an American battleship since the Spanish-American > War. Stunned the Japanese withdrew. Within days, Japanese commander > Istook Yamamoto recommended the unthinkable to the Emperor -- > withdrawal from Guadalcanal. > > But that was still weeks in the future. We are still with Mitchell > Paige back on the malaria jungle island of Guadalcanal, placed like a > speed bump at the end of the long blue-water slot between New Guinea > and the Bismarck Archipelago ... the very route the Japanese Navy > would have to take to reach Australia. > > On Guadalcanal the Marines struggled to complete an airfield. Yamamoto > knew what that meant. No effort would be spared to dislodge these > upstart Yanks from a position that could endanger his ships. Before > long, relentless Japanese counterattacks had driven supporting U.S > Navy from inshore waters. > The Marines were on their own. > > As Platoon Sgt. Mitchell Paige and his 33 riflemen set about carefully > emplacing their four water-cooled .30-caliber Brownings, manning their > section of the thin khaki line which was expected to defend Henderson > Field against the assault of the night of 25 Oct 1942, it's unlikely > anyone thought they were about to provide the definitive answer to > that most desperate of questions: How many able-bodied U.S. Marines > does it take to hold a hill against 2,000 desperate and motivated > Japanese attackers? > > Nor did the commanders of the mighty Japanese Army, who had swept all > before them for decades, expect their advance to be halted on some > jungle ridge manned by one thin line of Yanks in khaki in October of > 1942 > > But by the time the night was over, The Japanese 29th Infantry > Regiment had lost 553 killed or missing and 479 wounded among its > 2,554 men, historian Lippman reports. The Japanese 16th Regiment's > losses are uncounted, but the [US] 164th's burial parties handled 975 > Japanese bodies. ... The American estimate of 2,200 Japanese dead is > probably too low. > > You've already figured out where the Japanese focused their attack, > haven't you? Among the 90 American dead and seriously wounded that > night were all the men in Mitchell Paige's platoon; every one. As the > night of endless attacks wore on, Paige moved up and down his line, > pulling his dead and wounded comrades back into their foxholes and > firing a few bursts from each of the four Brownings in turn, > convincing the Japanese forces down the hill that the positions were > still manned. > > The citation for Paige's Congressional Medal of Honor picks up the > tale: > When the enemy broke through the line directly in front of his > position, P/Sgt. Paige, commanding a machinegun section with fearless > determination, continued to direct the fire of his gunners until all > his men were either killed or wounded. Alone, against the deadly hail > of Japanese shells, he fought with his gun and when it was destroyed, > took over another, moving from gun to gun, never ceasing his withering > fire." > > In the end, Sgt. Paige picked up the last of the 40-pound, belt-fed > Brownings -- the same design which John Moses Browning famously fired > for a continuous 25 minutes until it ran out of ammunition, glowing > cherry red, at its first U.S. Army trial -- and did something for > which the weapon was never designed. Sgt. Paige walked down the hill > toward the place where he could hear the last Japanese survivors > rallying to move around his flank, the belt-fed gun cradled under his > arm, firing as he went. > > And the weapon did not fail. > > Coming up at dawn, battalion executive officer Major Odell M. Conoley > was first to discover the answer to our question: How many able-bodied > Marines does it take to hold a hill against two regiments of > motivated, combat-hardened infantrymen who have never known defeat? > > On a hill where the bodies were piled like cordwood, Mitchell Paige > alone sat upright behind his 30-caliber Browning, waiting to see what > the dawn would bring. > > One hill: one Marine. > > But "In the early morning light, the enemy could be seen a few yards > off, and vapor from the barrels of their machine guns was clearly > visible," > reports historian Lippman. "It was decided to try to rush the > position." > > For the task, Major Conoley gathered together "three enlisted > communication personnel, several riflemen, a few company runners who > were at the point, together with a cook and a few mess men who had > brought food to the position the evening before." > > Joined by Paige, this ad hoc force of 17 Marines counterattacked at > 5:40 a.m , discovering that this extremely short range allowed the > optimum use of grenades. They cleared the ridge. > > And that's where the unstoppable wave of Japanese conquest finally > crested, broke, and began to recede. On an unnamed jungle ridge on an > insignificant island no one had ever heard of, called Guadalcanal. > > But who remembers, today, how close-run a thing it was -- the ridge > held by a single Marine, in the autumn of 1942? > > When the Hasbro Toy Co. telephoned some years back, asking permission > to put the retired Colonel's face on some kid's doll, Mitchell Paige > thought they must be joking. > > But they weren't. That's his face on the little Marine they call "G.I. > Joe." > > And you probably thought that was an ARMY Doll....!!! > Had friends that were there at that time Semper Fidelis Gy Moore
Remember... Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
This was very interesting and indeed so...One Marine,,one hill, now that is an equation worth remembering..
What this reminds my self of, is an incident whilst working in Saskatchewan. I was or thought was, over whelmed with a situation I had very little understanding of any resolution to use.
In desperation, I was to access the ears of my superior for advice and assistance...Of this I received very little, but I did receive after a display of distress was this::: One riot, one Mountie....
For as the RCMP training Academy was a bit of 1 Km from our office. I was to think of one Mountie after graduation, to be place in some remote village of trusting residences relying upon this one young Mountie for their entire safety no matter the situation.
This provided my self with the courage and determination to carry through with out any help, to simply think through the problem, create a solution, and work it through...A formula I have carried from that time to the present.
This report is disturbing. Hope to see more on verifying this.
AIPAC, decapitators inside US government: Intelligence analyst
By Gordon Duff Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:36AM GMT
Seventy hours ago, at this writing, while on Air Force One, President Barack Obama issued a press release that has been utterly ignored by the Western Press.
The president has openly announced a move against violent plotters inside the US government and espionage agents. He does not use the terms “AIPAC” or “the Israel lobby” but it is highly unlikely he could be referring to anything else.
In fact, we can think of no other group.
I was privately briefed on some of the reasons behind this document. On what is known, not “surmised,” I will explain:
There is, currently, within the US military, the Executive branch of government and among extremist “power brokers” in America an active plot to “alter” America’s form of government through “decapitation.”
Let me be clear. Where the memo, printed in full below, refers to “violent”, it means “assassination” of many top leaders in America including but not limited to the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and others.
The plot makes use of the resources of major private defense contractors and their intelligence and special operations personnel. There has been active recruiting that has been noted and is why the memo was released and why many members of the military have been subjected to investigation.
The Benghazi attack was planned and financed by this group.
Many writers in the alternative media have noted much of what is going on but not all. Some have shown access to very knowledgeable sources.
Behind the plotters are drug cartels that have penetrated the US government, former lobbyists who were moved into government during the Bush (43) administration and now are suspected of being involved in a coup attempt.
There is no direct evidence tying any foreign government to this plot though most are “fanatically” aligned with the militant Likudists in Israel under Netanyahu’s regime.
The President’s text below, unedited: The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release November 21, 2012
Presidential Memorandum -- National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs
Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies
Subject: National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs
This Presidential Memorandum transmits the National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs (Minimum Standards) to provide direction and guidance to promote the development of effective insider threat programs within departments and agencies to deter, detect, and mitigate actions by employees who may represent a threat to national security. These threats encompass potential espionage, violent acts against the Government or the Nation, and unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including the vast amounts of classified data available on interconnected United States Government computer networks and systems.
The Minimum Standards provide departments and agencies with the minimum elements necessary to establish effective insider threat programs. These elements include the capability to gather, integrate, and centrally analyze and respond to key threat-related information; monitor employee use of classified networks; provide the workforce with insider threat awareness training; and protect the civil liberties and privacy of all personnel.
The resulting insider threat capabilities will strengthen the protection of classified information across the executive branch and reinforce our defenses against both adversaries and insiders who misuse their access and endanger our national security.
A very real threat to world stability
To some, at a glance, this might actually sound like a response to leaks within the CIA and White House except for some extraordinary language. Please make very special note of the following:
“…to deter, detect and mitigate actions by employees who may present a threat to national security…These threats include…violent acts against the Government and the Nation…”
Please note that they refer to “violent acts” and speak of both the “government” and “nation.”
By “government,” they are indicting, with no “wiggle room,” assassination plots.
By “nation,” they may well be referring to false flag terrorism that may well include use of weapons of mass destruction. Britain was subject to such a threat during the London Olympics, one that would never have been successfully overcome without the help of journalists who put themselves at great risk.
The US government has had a twelve-year moratorium against arrest and prosecution of spies within our government and military other than those who can be tied to China.
The most famous Chinese “spy” was Wen Lee Ho, a nuclear scientist at Los Alamos Labs. He was arrested in 1999, held in solitary confinement for a year and then released.
In order to get an accurate picture I phoned two friends, one a senior FBI counter-intelligence operative and the other a very senior US Army intelligence officer.
The question I put before them, while eating breakfast, was: “Please list the nations that represent the greatest threat of espionage against the United States and, which nations, in order, are believed to represent the “penetration threat” that President Obama is referring to.”
From the FBI, their appraisal not intended for the “pop culture” media: “Our greatest direct threat is Israel and the Israel lobby. They have systematically penetrated every aspect of government and the military and, if they cannot get documents from those branches, friends in congress will give them access to anything that branch has available. After that is India, with every research facility at risk from RAW (Indian Intelligence) penetration and then Cuba, Mexico and Turkey.
The primary end users of this intelligence, the “clients,” are Russia and China.”
From the US Army:
“I agree with Israel and the rest but we have not had Turkey on our radar. The obvious end users are, of course, Russia and China based on capability.
The issue I have is how a presidential press release, an extraordinary and almost “draconian” document has gone without an uproar from congress and wide press coverage. Who has the power to suppress reporting on something like this, though, I know that you will say it is Israel, I would want proof.
Though there has been no official notification of this, I am of the impression that we now consider any mention of Israeli spying to be highly classified. Only Russia and China are officially listed, entirely out of concern not to offend lobbyists whose feelings outweigh real issues of national security.”
Then I turn on my television, hour after hour of TV shows about espionage and terrorism. Both American and British TV are the same.
All spies are from Iran and Pakistan; nations that our actual intelligence agencies indicate represent no espionage threat to speak of.
In fact, in my two Saturday morning phone interviews, which can, of course, be confirmed by Homeland Security who has tapped my phones, I have reflected with great accuracy. Thus, we ask you to read what President Obama really did not say “between the lines,” the message is quite clear.
We do not see a roundup of AIPAC spies, not like in the early days of the Bush administration although Attorney General John Ashcroft quashed that investigation.
What we are seeing is a hunt for traitors within the American government and military, some of which is working its way onto the news.
The question of the moment, however, is this:
How can a President of the United States announce that the government is infiltrated with terrorists and spies and no newspaper, television network or other form of media notices?
Remember... Four boxes keep us free: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.