Saturday, April 30, 2016
The Battle of Camarón
Via David
The Battle of Camarón (French: Bataille de Camerone) which occurred over ten hours[1]:21 on 30 April 1863 between the French Foreign Legion and the Mexican army, is regarded as a defining moment in the Foreign Legion's history. A small infantry patrol, led by Captain Jean Danjou and Lieutenants Clément Maudet and Jean Vilain, numbering just 65 men[1]:5 was attacked and besieged by a force that may have eventually reached 3,000 Mexican infantry and cavalry, and was forced to make a defensive stand at the nearby Hacienda Camarón, in Camarón de Tejeda, Veracruz, Mexico.
The conduct of the Legion, who refused to surrender, led to a certain mystique — and the battle of Camarón became synonymous with bravery and a fight-to-the-death attitude.[2]
The Battle of Camarón (French: Bataille de Camerone) which occurred over ten hours[1]:21 on 30 April 1863 between the French Foreign Legion and the Mexican army, is regarded as a defining moment in the Foreign Legion's history. A small infantry patrol, led by Captain Jean Danjou and Lieutenants Clément Maudet and Jean Vilain, numbering just 65 men[1]:5 was attacked and besieged by a force that may have eventually reached 3,000 Mexican infantry and cavalry, and was forced to make a defensive stand at the nearby Hacienda Camarón, in Camarón de Tejeda, Veracruz, Mexico.
The conduct of the Legion, who refused to surrender, led to a certain mystique — and the battle of Camarón became synonymous with bravery and a fight-to-the-death attitude.[2]
More @ WIKI
The Saddest Day Of My Life, Bar None: The Fall Of Saigon April 30, 1975
Re-post x?
My
boss and good friend, Bob Goodpaster took this while I was
covering a demonstration. May he RIP and also the American, VNCH and
allied troops who breathed their last here.
The Fall of Saigon Slideshow - Powerful
| Vietnam Babylift, My Story |
THE SUICIDES ON APRIL 30, 1975
For Mother: James Brown & Luciano Pavarotti - It's a Man's World
Re-post
I wish Mother could have witnessed this. Luciano was her favorite.
Official (Politically Correct) Islam versus the Truth
Time to Clear Our Thinking and Act on Truth
Part 3 of a Series on the Foundations of Islam
Mike Scruggs
In the last two articles on the Foundations of Islam, I have pointed out that the violent coercion of Jihad is deeply embedded in its founding doctrinal texts: the Koran, the Hadiths, and the Sira. These are essentially the alleged revelations to Muhammad of Allah’s words in the Koran and of Muhammad’s words and example recorded by his closest companions in the Hadiths and Sira. Sharia Law is also based on this textual trilogy. The only way to judge the true nature of Islam is through the Koran and the words and example of its Prophet, Muhammad. It will not do to call Islam a religion of peace, when 9 percent of the Koran and 31 percent of Islam’s doctrinal trilogy is about Holy War on all non-Muslims, and Muhammad claims that he is called by Allah to make Islam the only religion and that all nations should be subject to Sharia Law. None of the Jihad spoken of in these doctrinal standards is a “spiritual struggle” of prayer and fasting, as is falsely claimed by Muslim Brotherhood propagandists. One of the most shocking incidents of Muhammad’s early leadership is the beheading of 800 Jewish prisoners of war in Medina, because they would not accept the Muslim faith. This ghastly massacre is taught approvingly by Muslim scholars and leaders. There are 328,000 words in the Islamic trilogy devoted to political violence, almost all against non-Muslims, whereas the Hebrew Bible has only 34,000, and the New Testament has almost none.
Far from being a religion of peace and tolerance, a huge portion of Islamic doctrine is devoted to Holy War, coercion, deception, and trickery against unbelievers, and that has been the Muslim pattern for 1400 years, because that was the example of Muhammad, 91 times called the perfect Muslim in the Koran. Muhammad is the golden rule of Muslim conduct.
Yet the prevailing official belief about Islam in the U.S. and many Western governments is taken from Muslim Brotherhood propaganda dispersed through our educational, media, cultural, and government institutions. It is that Islam is a harmless religion of peace and tolerance much like Christianity and Judaism. Politicians of both major parties continually repeat Muslim Brotherhood deceptions like “Islam is a peaceful religion hijacked by extremists.” The fact that suicide terrorists are a small minority of Muslims blinds our political leaders to the fact that most Muslims support Sharia Law, and few are willing to deny the teachings of Jihad and Islamic Supremacy. Widespread subjugation of Muslim women and astonishingly high rates of sexual assault and rape of non-Muslim women and girls is ignored and blamed on Western prejudice. Because we have some personal anecdotal evidence of some apparently nice or moderate Muslims, we dismiss the danger of massive Muslim settlement. We dismiss the high probability that significant Muslim immigration will lead to political fifth columns that strongly oppose most American religious, cultural, and political values.
Most of the Republican Presidential Primary candidates in 2016 have been too politically correct to oppose President Obama’s massive importation of unvetted Muslim immigrants. George W. Bush and Barack Obama both hold to the fairytale that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.
Here are a few disconcerting quotations from Bush:
"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam….Islam is peace." 9-17-2001.
“There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know—that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion.”
“The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to one God, as revealed through the Holy Quran. It teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy, and peace.” 11-15-2001.
“Islam brings hope and comfort to millions of people in my country, and to more than a billion people worldwide.” 12-4-2002,
On October 26, 2004, Bush gave this answer to ABC’s Charles Gibson’s question on whether Christians and non-Christians and Muslims go to heaven: “Yes they do. We have different routes of getting there.” This contrasts sharply with John 14:6; Acts 4:12; and 1 Timothy 2:5.
Bush’s universalist leanings were made clearer in an October 11, 2007 interview with Al-Arabiya TV:
“Well, first of all, I believe in an almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace…. See, I believe there is a universal God. I believe the God that the Muslim prays to is the same God that I pray to. After all, we all came from Abraham. I believe in that universality.”
Here are two quotes from President Barack Obama:
“This great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence.” 11-11-2010
“The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam. The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer.” “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” 9-25-2012.
Contrast these quotes with those of the past in the U.S. and Europe:
“I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad.”—Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859).
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.”—Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
“Those who have declared Jihad against the West, and Western values, such as freedom of speech, are doing all in their power to mobilize against us the large Muslim communities living in our midst. Unbelievably, Washington is urging Europe to admit Turkey to the EU. Were that to happen, the Muslim population of Europe would skyrocket to 100 million — an act, in my view, of consummate folly. Already Judeo-Christian Europe is under siege from a tidal wave of Islamic immigration. The admission of Turkey would hasten its demise...”—Winston S. Churchill (1940-2010), grandson of Winston Churchill.
Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007 was as politically correct on Islam as George W. Bush in 2001, but this 2016 quote shows he is coming closer to the truth:
“There is not a problem with Islam... But there is a problem within Islam, and we have to put it on the table and be honest about it. There are, of course, Christian extremists and Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu ones. But I am afraid that the problematic strain within Islam is not the province of a few extremists. It has at its heart a view of religion—and of the relationship between religion and politics—that is not compatible with pluralistic, liberal, open-minded societies. At the extreme end of the spectrum are terrorists, but the worldview goes deeper and wider than it is comfortable for us to admit. So, by and large, we don’t admit it. This has two effects. First, those who hold extreme views believe that we are weak, and that gives them strength. Second, those Muslims--and the good news is that there are many—who know the problem exists, and want to do something about it, lose heart.”
Common sense national patriotism must prevail against the deadly cultural and political poisons of multiculturalism, political correctness, and hysterical diversityism. Failure of our next President and Congress to comprehend the true nature of Islam and take strong and immediate action to correct our misguided immigration and refugee resettlement policies would be national suicide.
Healing the Wounds of War
Over the years, countless thousands the New Yorkers have passed by monuments in their city that were dedicated to two eminent physicians who were related by marriage, but there is little doubt that few of them, until recently at least, had ever realized that the statues were erected in memory of former Southerners. The two men of medicine were Dr. James Marion Sims of Lancasterville, South Carolina, and his son-in-law, Dr. John Allan Wyeth of Guntersville, Alabama. Dr. Wyeth had been a Confederate cavalryman who served under Generals John Hunt Morgan, Joseph Wheeler and Nathan Bedford Forrest, and whose 1899 biography, “That Devil Forrest,” effectively dealt with the charges that the general had been responsible for the massacre of Union troops, mostly African-Americans, at Fort Pillow in Tennessee and had been a leading member of the Ku-Klux Klan from 1867 to 1869. It is, however, the statue of Dr. Sims, a man who had never served the Confederacy in any capacity, that has become the focus of racial controversy and cries to have his monument removed.
More @ The Abbeville Institute
Lee’s Loyalty and Interest
AMEN!
Bernhard Thuersam, www.Circa1865.com The Great American Political Divide
Lee’s Loyalty and Interest
“[Royce] maintains that Lee fairly considered and honestly decided the question at issue between Virginia and the United States and was steadfast therein. Charles Francis Adams came to the same conclusion. “As to Robert E. Lee individually,” says Adams, “I can only repeat . . . [that] I hope I should have been filial and unselfish enough to have done as Lee did.”
Now it must be conceded that every man in the seceding States, whether he would or no, had to decide whether he would adhere to his State or to the Nation, and if he decided honestly and put self-interest behind him, he decided right.
With Lee it was not a question of the constitutional right of Virginia to withdraw from the Union; a more trying ordeal confronted him: What should be his action after Virginia actually withdrew? In this situation Lee had no misgivings; his allegiance was to Virginia.
But, in arriving at this decision, he was not dogmatic, for he realized that there might be two sides to the question. In a letter of April 20 to his cousin, Roger Jones, of the United States Army, he stated that he entirely agreed with him in his notions of allegiance, but he could not advise him. “I merely tell you what I have done that you may do better.”
This sentence has been subjected to criticism, yet it is characteristic of the style of Lee and of Southern conservatives generally. Though it is not self-deprecating it is not an admission of error. It does not affirm that there is something better, but that if there is the young man should do it. The sentence is susceptible of another construction: Lee was quietly boasting and implied that there was nothing better! But the context leads to the opposite conclusion. Such under-statements mark the cultured Southerner of the period.
Lee did not complain of Southern officers who felt it their duty to remain in the Union – other might choose this course but he could not. No more could have laid violent hands on Virginia than on his own father. If to fight against the Union caused him to shed tears of blood, to have fought against Virginia would have caused him to lose self-respect.
[George H.] Thomas, a Virginian, remained true to the Union; so did [Montgomery] Meigs of Georgia, and [Winfield Scott . . . That these men were loyal Lee did not doubt. When Thomas was asked how he could fight against Virginia, he replied, “I have educated myself not to feel.”
As to Scott, he was an old man and had no local ties; he was as much at home in London as in Richmond. [Lee’s cousin] Admiral Samuel P.] Lee was once asked the question propounded to Thomas and answered, “When I find the word Virginia in my commission I will join the Confederacy.” This reply seems technical.
If Washington had so concluded, when he read the King’s Commission, he would not have led the Continentals against the Crown. And what Washington did, Lee did. “For,” as Lee declared, “Washington found no inconsistency in fighting, at one time, with the English against the French and, at another, with the French against the English.”
Lee, indeed, saw an analogy between the Revolution of 1776 and the Revolution of 1861. Colonists threw off the yoke of Great Britain, in ’61 eleven Southern States threw off the yoke of the North. In each the act was one of revolution. Lee maintained that a government held together by coercion – such as Lincoln’s call for troops would create – was but the semblance of a government. He remembered that Washington himself had declared, “There is nothing that binds one country or one State to another but interest.”
(Robert E. Lee, a Biography, Robert W. Winston, William Morrow & Company, 1934, pp 94-96)