Saturday, August 17, 2013

Give Me Your Children And I'll Change Society In Ten Years

Update: These children are trained to kill... Kill YOU !!!

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. ~ Abraham Lincoln
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”  ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero

So you still don't believe me...then watch this: 

Homosexuality in the Classroom

by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
A recent chance conversation with a homosexual activist revealed a wicked and terrifying undercurrent below the surface of our society. He commented that many homosexuals were no longer battling for same-sex marriage in the courtrooms or at the polls, because they know it will be a “non-issue” in ten years. When I asked what he meant, he informed me that rather than fighting to have laws changed, activists have changed tactics, and are now focusing the battle in the public school classroom. He noted that if they could teach tolerance and acceptance in the schoolroom, then it would be a piece of cake to have the laws overturned in a decade or so, once those students were of voting age.
This gentleman’s words reminded me of the quote that is attributed to Adolf Hitler: “Let me control the textbooks, and I will control the state.” During a speech he delivered on November 6, 1939, Hitler stated: “When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already.... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’” Chilling words—given the recent change in tactics by militant homosexuals who are teaching our children to accept everything and everyone, and that the only real sin is the sin of intolerance.
Consider also that within the past few years the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) has been formed in an effort to normalize homosexuality in public classrooms. Kindergarten students are now being taught about “human differences” while activists establish youth homosexuality clubs on campuses so that kids can be “initiated” into alternative lifestyles. With each passing day our children are being methodically trained to reject the moral beliefs of their parents and God.
If you were an avowed racist and got voted into office does that mean all who voted for you are also racists?  By deductive reasoning one could say, "Yes."  And I tend to lean in that direction.  But most, if not all on the Left, preach a good sermon in order to get elected and once elected they turn into little devils.  What else could you call them?  The people who voted for them have no clue what an Alinskyite (links here and here) is, they just believe in the sermon.  In any event, it sure seems like the majority of voters in San Antonio, Texas are either ignorant or they are racists...  Ya can't be both when it comes to voting!  How else did they select an avowed racist for their mayor?  ...and it gets really doubtful about their ignorance when they voted for the mayor's twin brother, another avowed racist.  Conclusion, the majority of voters in San Antonio, Texas are ifs, or buts!
~ Norman E. Hooben
I'm not white, I'm not black, I'm not upper class, I'm not lower class, I'm not middle class, I'm not French, I'm not Irish, I'm not Asian, I'm not European, I'm not Hispanic, My children are not half Hispanic...They are and I am what I am, An American! And I'm not hyphenated! ~
Julian Castro is the mayor of San Antonio, Texas
Joaquin Castro is a U.S. Congressman
 And if you're not worried about a couple of racist hispanics try this ↓

I hope you watched the above video because America is next...

The Obama Voter...Yes, YOU ! You going put up with this crap?

Say, what did she say?
Clearly Bill Clinton wasn’t just the nation’s first Black president. He was also its first Muslim president. ~
Say what!
Obama Appointee Claims Sharia Law Is Superior to American Law - Claims Founding Fathers Were Inspired By The Quran
Source: United States Defense League
Azizah Yahia Muhammad Toufiq al-Hibri
Obama has announced the appointment of Azizah al-Hibri to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Al-Hibri (full name, Azizah Yahia Muhammad Toufiq al-Hibri) is a Muslim professor and the granddaughter of a Sheikh, who claims that the Koran inspired Thomas Jefferson and the Founders and that the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one because it accepts blood money from murderers.
Appointing a Muslim scholar to a commission on international religious freedom is only justifiable if that scholar recognized that much of the injustice in the world originates from Islamic law. But Al-Hibri has made her career whitewashing Islamic law and even presenting it as superior to American law.

While she has been called a reformer, her call in 2001 for a return to the fundamentals echoes Wahhabi rhetoric. Rather than examining the incompatibilities of Islamic law and the modern world, and urging the appropriate adjustments, as genuine reformers have done, Al-Hibri instead builds myths that uphold the Islamist agenda.

According to Al-Hibri “Islamic fiqh is deeper and better than Western codes of law”. She favorably compares Saudi Arabia’s willingness to accept blood money bribes to excuse a murder, to the “impersonal and powerful” American justice system.

Al-Hibri is often billed as a Muslim feminist, but she is equally hypocritical on women’s rights. Rather than conceding that Islamic law discriminates against women, she whitewashes its discriminatory treatment of women, arguing that guardianship is meant to protect “inexperienced women”.

Rather than trying to bring Islam in line with the modern world, Azizah Al-Hibri pushes for the modern world to be brought in line with Islam. Rather than reforming Islam, it is America that she would like to reform to Islamic standards.

Placing a woman who believes that American law is inferior to that of the Koran on an American commission to promote international religious freedom perverts the purpose of the commission and promotes religious tyranny instead.

Given a forum to call for reform, Al-Hibri unerringly insists that there is nothing to reform. At the UN, Al-Hibri expressed outrage that the Koran, which “established acceptance of others, now needed to be defended” and insisted that Islam “guaranteed freedom of thought”.

Listening to her defend Mohammed’s tyranny as an early form of democracy at the UN is a reminder of the era when Soviet representatives to the UN angrily defended their record on human rights and insisted that there is no freedom outside of Communism.

In Al-Hibri’s distorted history, the wave of genocides and conquests that turned the multicultural Middle-East into a desert of brutality governed by minor variations of Islamic ideology, was actually a wave of enlightenment. The massacres of the region’s Jews and the purge of all other religions from the area never occurred in Al-Habri’s history book.

Revisionist history of this kind would be dangerous even if it were not coming from a woman in a position to influence opinion leaders.

The twin approaches of the Islamist narrative may be described as the Caliph Omar bridge. When the Muslim armies of the Caliph reached the great Library of Alexandria, he decreed that it should be burned, for if the library’s scrolls held the same ideas as the Koran they were redundant, and if they opposed the Koran, they were heretical.

While some Islamists attack the United States Constitution as a heretical document and Western Civilization as worthless– others more cleverly represent the Constitution as an inferior version of the Koran and Western Civilization as derivative of Islamic civilization. Either way they must burn along with the Library of Alexandria.

But the second approach is more seductive. Rather than launching a direct attack, it seeks to construct a bridge that connects Islam and the West. But the structure of the bridge is only a more insidious form of attack.

These bridge builders don’t come bearing a torch, rather an argument that since American law is derived from Islam, it must ‘revert’ to the higher standards of Islamic law. By contrasting the reality of American law with an ideal version of Islamic law that does not exist anywhere in the world, they manage to make the system that protects human rights seem shabby, while the system that represses women and minorities appears noble and righteous.

That is the kind of revisionist history that Al-Hibri traffics in, creating a noble Islamic creed contrasted with a flawed American system.

Al-Hibri appears to transmute the rhetoric of Islamism into sweet music to progressive ears, and her associations only reinforce that image. She served on the advisory board of Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council, defended it in print against accusations of extremism and made joint appearances with Alamoudi even after his statements in support of terrorism.

In 1995 she even testified at a congressional hearing against the Comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Act’s ability to cut off funds to terrorist groups, because, “it gives the President the ability to designate, with no effective recourse, certain groups as terrorist”.

The America Muslim Council, whose national advisory board Al-Hibri sat on, had reason to fear that portion of the act. Some years later the AMC would be caught encouraging donations to the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation, both charities affiliated with terrorists.

In the early days of 2001, Al-Hibri traveled to the Afghan border and criticized the Western press for “sensationalizing” Taliban atrocities and using them “as an opportunity to attack Islam”. After the attacks of September 11, she cautioned against bombing Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets during Ramadan. And that same year she defended Wahhabism as part of Islam’s “religious diversity” and its “marketplace of ideas”.

Al-Hibri appeared at an ISNA panel two months ago to call on Obama to stand up for Muslims against their American critics. And her insistence that no Muslim country practices true Sharia law appears to echo a familiar Islamist slogan. When the Archbishop of Canterbury endorsed bringing Sharia to the UK, Al-Hibri gave an approving quote. Last year at the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association she called for a “a council of scholars” to serve as a central authority on Islam for the United States.

Azizah Al-Hibri’s feminist credentials rest heavily on Karamah, an organization of Muslim women lawyers, primarily funded by her brother Ibrahim El-Hibri and nephew Fuad El-Hibri’s “El-Hibri Charitable Foundation”.

The El-Hibri clan are a curious footnote in the War on Terror. Ibrahim El-Hibri had made a fortune doing business with Saudi Arabia. His company dominates the manufacture of the anthrax vaccine and suspicions have been raised by the Wall Street Journal about leaks from their company into the hands of terrorists. Regardless of all that, there is something ironic in Azizah Al-Hibri’s feminist organization being funded by her brother’s charitable trust with a board of trustees that includes two male members of the family, but not her.

Another donor to Karamah was Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of the famously progressive Saudi royal family. A kingdom well known for promoting feminism and women’s rights, which no doubt in between banning women from driving cars and distributing such feminist tracts as “Women Who Deserve To Go To Hell” funds organizations that empower women. Rather than organizations that put a faux feminist face on the Islamic repression of women.

Yet the oddest moment in Al-Hibri’s career of promoting Islamic law in the United States may have come when before Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, she actually wrote an article discussing how a sitting President of the United States might be tried under Islamic law.

“Had the President been testifying in an Islamic court, he would not have been placed in this terrible predicament in the first instance,” Al-Hibri wrote. As an added bonus, to Bill, she added that under Islamic law, it would be his accusers “would be punished for committing the crime of qathf”.

In a further reminder of the Islamic commitment to freedom of speech; “Others who violated his privacy and broadcast his behavior are guilty and, if not repentant, are punishable.” We can only guess if this involved stoning Matt Drudge.

Al-Hibri went on to point out that four witnesses to the crime were lacking. The same law that makes it so easy for gang rapists to accuse their victim of adultery, while leaving her helpless to defend against the charges.

Then she wrote, “Coming from a religious background, the President may have understood the religious significance of penetration and hence avoided it.” Clearly Bill Clinton wasn’t just the nation’s first Black president. He was also its first Muslim president.
At no point in this surreal article did Al-Hibri acknowledge that adultery is a crime punishable by death or vicious corporal punishment in much of the Muslim world. Instead she used a congressional investigation into presidential malfeasance to misrepresent Islamic law, which lashes or stones adulterers to death, as a more liberal code.

What can such a woman offer to the cause of international religious freedom? Only Obama and Bill know.
Bonus of the least watched videos on YouTube whereas it should be watched by every American, or at a minimum, all those looking for a job.

Friday, August 16, 2013

How did the Muslim Brotherhood gain power in Egypt?

Obama removed all stops.

The following from Al Jazeera

For years the Muslim Brotherhood was officially banned by Egypt's government, but following the 2011 revolution, the fall of Hosni Mubarak and the country's first free parliamentary elections, the Brotherhood - with its political arm, the Freedom and Justice Party - has emerged as Egypt's most powerful political force.
The Muslim Brotherhood's gradually integrated into the Egyptian political system - despite the attempts of Mubarak to suppress the organisation during his 30-year rule.  ...continued

Stop the Killing-Stop the Hate ~ Attention All Muslims...this means you!

One would think that the world would rise up as one and call for an end to the insanity.

Source Radar Site
Friday, August 16, 2013
Muslims: Stop the Killing-Stop the Hate
Gary Fouse fousesquawk

With some 30 or so Christian churches going up in flames in Egypt and Christians fleeing for their lives in Syria, is it not time to drop the pretenses? All across the Islamic world, non-Muslims are being persecuted, raped, arrested, murdered and their places of worship burned. We would be reading the same about the Jews, but they fled back in the late 1940s. Most settled in Israel, which the Arab world would incinerate tomorrow if they could. And make no mistake; that conflict is not about land. It is about religion. If the Israelis were Muslims, this would not even be an issue.

Even in Europe, Jews dare not walk the streets lest they be assaulted or spit upon by Muslim punks roaming the streets like rat packs. And if there are no Jews or Christians to kill, well, why not kill each other? Just yesterday in Iraq, another 30 or so Muslims were killed by car bombs set by other Muslims-Sunnis vs Shia.

One would think that the world would rise up as one and call for an end to the insanity. It doesn't, however. Instead, the world wrings it hands over charges of "Islamophobia" when anyone cries out over the horrors of the Middle East, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Nigeria, the beheadings, the stonings of women, or the crimes and assaults committed by Muslim immigrants in Europe. When people point out the calls for murder coming out of mosques and identify the passages and the texts that are the basis for these fatwas, they are called "Islamophobes".

Because Islam is a religion of peace.

That is what Muslim leaders here in America tell us over and over again neglecting to mention that Islam is also a political ideology-and a totalitarian one at that, which does not recognize any division between religion and the state.

I have personally heard Imam Muzammil Siddiqi, formerly the head of the Islamic Society of North America and one of the most influential Muslim leaders in the country, tell an audience in California that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. Really? Where is the peace? Where is the tolerance?

I have also heard an Ahmadi Imam tell an audience at UC Irvine what a forgiving man the Prophet Mohammed was. He forgave and released his enemies.

"The Koran tells us, "If you kill one man, it is if you killed all of humanity. If you save one man, you save all of humanity." That is true, but in other so many other parts (written later in time) it calls for the killing of people. That is because the Prophet was then at war.

But back to Egypt. Who are we to blame for the bloodshed in Egypt? Is it corrupt military leaders trying to hold onto power? Or is it the Muslim Brotherhood trying to install an Islamic caliphate and spread it as far as they can? A combination of both?

Who is burning the churches? It is not the military. Safe to say, the work is being done by Muslims who support the Muslim Brotherhood.

Even in Syria, which some say is a war that has nothing to do about religion, we see rebels (whom we support) executing their captives to cries of "Allahu Akhbar" and "Takbir". Meanwhile, Syrian Christians are fleeing for their lives from those same rebels that we support.

Is it not time for all of us to stand up and ask, "If Islam is a religion of peace then why all the killing? Why all the hate directed at non-Muslims?" Is it not time to drop the term, "radical Islam" and admit that it is simply Islam?

But that would be "Islamophobic". Such a statement would wind up in the files of the learned professor Hatem Bazian's Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project up at UC Berkeley all neatly filed and tied with a ribbon and bow for the day they can be turned over to Eric Holder's Justice Department for criminal prosecution.

No. It is high time we openly told these Muslim leaders that if Islam is a religion of peace, it is time to demonstrate it and live by it. It is not just for little people like me to say it; it is time for the leaders of the Western World and those parts of Asia that want to remain free to say it. It is time to tell the Islamists and jihadists to forget their dreams of Islamic domination because we as free people will not submit. Furthermore, we will not allow good Muslim citizens of our own countries to be abused by somebody's vision of sharia law that mandates death for things we in the West do not even consider criminal, such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and homosexuality, to say nothing about so-called "honor killings".

It is also time for foolish pastors and rabbis to forget these inter-faith conferences in which they allow themselves and their flocks to be misled by imams whose real agenda is bringing about an eventual Islamic caliphate right here in America and the West. I am thinking specifically about Pastor Ed Bacon of the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, who last year allowed the Muslim Public Affairs Council to hold their annual conference at his church and who proclaimed that Christians "could be so hateful" and that "the history of Christianity is littered with acts of evil" -giving as an example, "Evangelical Zionism". I am also thinking of those misguided rabbis in Boston who were cozying up to the radical-linked Islamic Cultural Center in Roxbury and its sister mosque in Cambridge, from which sprouted the Tsarnaev brothers. Those same Jewish leaders excoriated Charles Jacobs of Americans for Peace and Tolerance within the Jewish community when he warned them of the radical affiliations.

Look at them now.

Enough. If people want to stand up for human rights, then we must stand up to this jihad-both the violent one and the more "peaceful" but deceitful civilizational one. We cannot say we defend women if we turn a blind eye to stoning and the obvious misogyny and second-class citizenship of women who have to live hidden behind the veil. We may not be able to change it in the Middle East, but we can prevent it from taking root here. We cannot say we defend gay rights when we turn a blind eye to the fate of Iranian gays who are being hanged for their sexual orientation. It is all according to shariah. Any claims that shariah law is compatible with our Constitution are flat out lies.

The problem is that we
do ignore it. It would be too inconvenient to talk about it-at least for our leaders. In Europe it could land even the common guy in jail. It may yet do that here in the US soon if this current administration has its way. We also ignore the rampant anti-Semitism which did not appear out of nowhere. It is in the Islamic texts. Read it. It's all there; the anti-Christianity, the anti-Semitism. Listen to the words of Yusuf al Qaradawi, one of the most highly respected Islamic scholars in the world and the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. Read the opinions coming out of Cairo's prestigious Al Azhar (Islamic) University. Read the interpretations of the most-respected al Bukhari school of Islamic thought about all these questions.

But we concern ourselves with "Islamophobia" because, after all, Islam is a religion of peace.

Of course it is. That's why the churches are burning in Egypt. That's why the Jews are being driven out of Europe-not by Europeans, but by Muslim immigrants. That's why Sunni and Shia kill each other.

"But," you say. "not all Muslims are like this. Most are decent."

True. But where are their voices amid all the outrages? The fact is that they make themselves irrelevant through their silence. Is it fear? Is it that those non-Arabs don't know Arabic and can't really interpret the Koran or the Hadith? Is it a recognition that they cannot win the theological debate with the jihadists? I don't know; perhaps, it is a combination of all of the above.

But I know one thing.

The daily acts of terror around the world contradict claims that Islam is a religion of peace.

The daily acts of intolerance toward Christians and Jews contradict claims that Islam is a religion of tolerance.

It is an incontrovertible fact that it is Muslims who are carrying out almost all of the terror and intolerance around the world. It is happening in the Middle East. It is happening in Pakistan. It is happening in Africa. It is even happening in Europe, the US and the West. And it is all being done in the name of their religion.

But Islam is a religion of peace.

Is that why we experienced 9-11?

Is that why British soldier Lee Rigby was slaughtered recently on the streets of London? The killers told us why they did it.

Is that why Mohammed Merah went on a killing rampage at a Jewish school in Toulouse, France. He told the cops why he did it before he was shot and killed.

Is that why European cities are being subjected to riots?

Is that why car bombs are killing people by the dozens every few days in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Is that why two Chechen "refugees" set off bombs in Boston?

Isolated incidents? How many more would you like me to list? There have been over 20,000 just since 9-11.

Islamophobia? How do you define it? No matter how you do, you cannot condemn people for having fears or negative feelings about Muslims and their faith, religion, political ideology, or however you define it. It is logical, and there is every reason to feel fear, mistrust, or even hate. I still cling to the, perhaps, naive notion that most Muslims are good people and should not suffer for all that is happening around us.

But don't expect us to swallow the mantra that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.

Note: To comment on this article please go to the originating site. RADARSITE (link)

The Most Dangerous And Inept ---------* In History

*I refuse to call him president!

Thursday, August 15, 2013

More Proof That Obama Hates The Military ...a real insult to injury

Aside from increasing the taxes on retired military pay and a host of military budgetary cuts this latest show of disdain for our military has got to be the epitome of saying one thing and doing the opposite...  Obama is the poorest excuse for a Commander-In-Chief that ever existed...the disgace of a once proud country... and there's not a soul in Congress that has the intestinal fortitude to do anything about it.  Wake up America!  ~ Norman E. Hooben
Update: See also... Obama preparing for America's Surrender

The following from: Fox News  Other posting here: America's military - being left high and dry
Insult to Injury: Wounded warriors snubbed at Walter Reed dining hall
by Justin Fishel, Jennifer Griffin
If video does not load click here.

In a disturbing revelation about the treatment of America's most severely wounded troops, Fox News has learned the military earlier this month decided to invalidate meal tickets and reduce hours for the sole dining facility in the Walter Reed building where they are recovering.
The decision affects the Warrior Cafe located inside building 62, home to all multiple amputees and long-term, recovering patients at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md.
The decision would mean wounded warriors who would normally have a government-funded meal just down the hall would have to walk, wheel or limp nearly a half-mile across the Walter Reed campus to the temporary "food trailer" for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
"I mean it's called the Warrior Cafe, you would think it is for us," said Sgt. Josh Wetzel, who lost both his legs when he stepped on a pressure plate IED outside Kandahar, Afghanistan in May 2013. He's been recovering at Walter Reed since and has been a daily customer at the cafe.
The status of the military's decision may be in flux.
After Fox News submitted multiple inquiries with senior military officials earlier this week, the Pentagon responded late Wednesday. Lt. Col. Catherine Wilkinson, a Pentagon spokesman, told Fox News that Dr. Jonathan Woodson, assistant secretary of Defense for health affairs, has decided to reverse the changes.
Yet so far, no patients at Walter Reed have been notified of that decision and there has been no formal announcement.
"It makes a lot of people mad that they can't get into their wheelchair and wheel down to the Warrior Cafe," Wetzel said. "Now they have to wheel all the way across base to use their meal cards."
'It's called the Warrior Cafe, you would think it is for us." - Sgt. Josh Wetzel, who lost both legs in Afghanistan
Wetzel's wife Paige is nine months pregnant with their first child and is due this coming Monday. She says she's worried about how much time and effort her husband will have to spend seeking food between appointments, while she is in the maternity ward.
"In my opinion it's a total independence thing," Paige said. "If I were to leave for a day or two I would know Josh could go right down the hall, feed himself and he'd be fine. Now the only alternative is to leave our building."
Walter Reed has already closed the cafe on weekends. Paige says the Army offered to have Josh order his meals in advance. "They explained that we could use our squad leaders to order meals for the weekend, but it has to go through the squad leader (and then) through the first sergeant," Paige said. "So how do you plan for that to make sure you get what you need for the weekend?"
In addition to the weekend closure, the base also decided to reduce the cafe's hours from 60 to 50 a week. Instead of closing at 8 p.m. it now closes at 6 p.m., making it difficult for those getting occupational therapy to get there in time.
The patients of building 62, many of whom have endured 50 surgeries or more and are expected to spend up to two years recovering at Walter Reed, were told of the decision to end meal tickets at the Cafe in an Aug. 7 text message from their squad leader. The message explained that the changes to the meal tickets will take place on Sept. 3. That message was followed by a heated town hall meeting last week.
"I was very upset," said Carolee Ryan. She is the mother of Marine Staff Sgt. Thomas McRae, a triple amputee, partially blinded, single father whose wife left him after he sustained his injuries in January of 2012 in Sangin, Afghanistan.
She was one of the mothers who made her voice heard during that town hall meeting.
"I felt it was a slap in my son's face as a service member. As many times as he has been deployed -- what they were doing to him was a disservice," she said.
Paige Wetzel said the families felt the decision was made without their input and for reasons that are hard to understand. "It felt like the money had been deemed appropriate somewhere else and I don't see how that could happen," Wetzel said.
Officials in the Pentagon and at Walter Reed did not respond to questions about why the changes were made, but congressional sources with knowledge of the decision say it was based on concerns that government funds for the warrior meals were being misappropriated. They said that because the cafe is listed as a "self sustaining" business, it is not allowed to receive government subsidies, such as the meal tickets and appropriated funds. So the military decided the cafe could no longer accept the government meal cards.
The families and patients have a slightly different take. Many of them who spoke to Fox News are under the impression that the government doesn't like paying for the higher prices that come with the better food.
"The food quality is not nearly as good (at the trailer) as it is at the Warrior Cafe," Josh Wetzel said. "The Warrior Cafe has something for everyone like a grill, hot food, salad bars, sandwiches and drinks."
Carolee Ryan says the trailers specialize in "processed food."
Walter Reed plans to eventually replace the trailers with a new cafeteria, though it's not expected to be completed for months. But even the new cafeteria will be a haul for the wounded occupants of building 62. For now, Josh's best options are to pay for a meal using his modest Army paycheck or to walk on his prosthetics to the trailer.
"I would say it's close to half a mile ... for guys who are on their wheelchair or using prosthetic legs -- you know that is a long way to go," he said.
Adding insult to injury, there are only two handicap-accessible tables in the trailer, and neither the bathroom nor the exit doors has push-button access.
"It's quote unquote handicap accessible, but for guys who have serious mobility injuries -- like they can't use their hands that well -- you know it is tough for them," Josh Wetzel said.
Thomas McRae's mother says the whole situation breaks her heart. She said her son told her he would consider going hungry before wheeling himself to the trailers.

"Now I get it," Ryan said. "Back in the Vietnam War when all the men and women were coming home (I understand) how they felt ... and I didn't think it would come to this."

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Short Story...hard to believe but its true...

Dateline Berlin, Germany, January 1980 ...along the Berlin wall:  ~  I talked about this photo throughout the years and thought that I had lost it somewhere along the way from there to here.  Today, while rummaging through a bin full of books stored in the basement, I saw something that looked like a book-mark and upon pulling it from between the pages was overjoyed with my discovery.  But before we look at the picture I have to explain the significance of an otherwise simple photograph of two children standing in the snow with a graffiti covered wall in the background.

While stationed with the Air Force in Germany in the early 80's I took the opportunity to visit the infamous Berlin Wall along with some friends.  While touring Berlin and East Berlin (The East was occupied by the Soviets at that time) I took numerous pictures of, among other things, the wall.  As we walked along one segment of the wall my daughter Terrye asked, "Dad, why are you taking so many pictures of this wall?"  My immediate response was, "This wall got your daddy into this uniform." as I pointed at my Air Force blues (I should note that I originally got my military draft notice during the Berlin Crisis of 1961 while the wall was under construction). 
So now, long story short...  Without looking at the wall I asked my two children to stop for a moment while I took their picture.  You also have to realize this was in the old days when you had to buy film to put in the camera and then bring the film somewhere to be developed.  It was about a week or so later while back in Frankfurt that I got the picture(s) back from the developer and the first thing I noticed was the graffiti on the wall (I swear on a stack of bibles I did not notice the graffiti at the time I took the picture).  I mentioned that my daughter's name is Terrye...but did you know that my son's name is Mark!  Now look at the picture ↓