This Day in History: D-Day, June 4, 1944

D-Day was JUNE 6, 1944. 156,000 troops landed on the Normandy coast of France in the largest invasion force in history.

Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight Eisenhower issued the order: "You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade...The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you...Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely...Let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking."

President Franklin Roosevelt stated JUNE 6, 1944: "My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation...I ask you to join with me in prayer: Almighty God, Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization...They will need Thy blessings...Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom." FDR concluded: "Help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith to Thee."
(From American Minute)

Commentary

All of the old men who bravely fought in the Great War are now mostly gone. My father fought in the Battle of the Bulge. I salute those who fought that we may be free.

The invasion and the hell of the Normandy beaches was the beginning of the end for the Third Reich. If the D-Day invasion had not been a success, the last 65 years of World history could have been much different and much worse. I am glad that pacifist of the day were not persuasive. The march of history is not predetermined. We could have lost World War II. I hope that those of us living today would be up to the challenge if called upon under similar circumstances. God Bless those who preserved our freedom and kept madmen and tyrants from ruling the world. God Bless America.

Top Stories

More Sotomayor 'toons

Top Stories

Sotomayor Cartoons

Top Stories

The love story of Ralph and Edna...

Just because someone doesn't love you the way you want them to, doesn't mean they don't love you with all they have.

Ralph and Edna were both patients in a mental hospital. One day while they were walking past the hospital swimming pool. Ralph suddenly jumped into the deep end. He sank to the bottom of the pool and stayed there. Edna promptly jumped in to save him. She swam to the bottom and pulled him out.

When the Head Nurse Director became aware of Edna's heroic act she immediately ordered her to be discharged from the hospital, as she now considered her to be mentally stable. When she went to tell Edna the news she said, 'Edna, I have good news and bad news. The good news is you're being discharged, since you were able to rationally respond to a crisis by jumping in and saving the life of the person you love. I have concluded that your act displays sound mindedness. The bad news is, Ralph hung himself in the bathroom with his bathrobe belt right after you saved him. I am so sorry, but he's dead.'

Edna replied, 'He didn't hang himself, I put him there to dry.

How soon can I go home?'

Happy Mental Health Day!

Top Stories

“Guns in Bars”, reconsidered

I know that most political pundits never admit to being wrong. I am sometimes wrong. Or at least, with more information or thought I sometimes change my mind. On January 26, 2008, in a post called “Guns is Bars,” I said:

Having been in a bar or two in my lifetime, I do not think firearms and alcohol are a good mix. This is a bad idea. I hope the House rejects it and if passed, the Governor should veto it.

Since that time, the bill I was speaking of has passed the legislature and the Governor has vetoed it. I now think the subject bill is not a bad bill and the state legislature should override the Governor’s veto. The bill is not really a “Guns in Bars” bill at all, despite the way I characterized it and despite the press’s continual characterization of the bill as such.

In Tennessee, a restaurant is an establishment that earns more than 50% of its revenue from the sale of food. The bill that passed the state legislature and that the Governor vetoed would allow guns in restaurants that sell alcohol. A licensed concealed handgun carry permit holder can already carry a gun into a restaurant that does not sell alcohol. This bill would allow a concealed handgun permit holders to carry his handgun into a restaurant that also sells alcohol, but not into a bar. This bill would allow that person to carry his gun into O’Charlie’s but not into Tootie’s. In addition, the bill would allow any restaurant that wanted to continue to ban handguns to do so by simply posting a sign prohibiting guns in their establishment

Today at a meeting of the First Tuesday Group I heard a presentation from Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey. He explained that there has never been a crime involving a gun, committed by any of the state's more than 200,000 licensed concealed handgun carry permit holders. To qualify for a concealed handgun carry permit said Ramsey, the applicant must pass a written as well as a firing range gun test, must pay a fee of $200, must have a criminal background check, must be fingerprinted including all ten digits and the palms of both hands. As Governor Ramsey said, these are not the people we need to worry about.

I will not feel less safe if this bill passes.

Top Stories

Boycott Lowe's Hotels!

If you are coming to Nashville, please do not stay at the Lowe's Vanderbilt. If you are going to be doing any traveling, please do not stay at a Lowe's anywhere. If you already have reservations, please cancel them. If you are a meeting planner, please consider moving your meeting. I am urging a boycott of Lowe's because they cancelled a contract with ACT, the day before the conference.

Let me make clear that I am not a member of ACT and I have never contributed to their cause. I have attended one of their presentations and found if informative but am not convinced that they do not exaggerate the threat from Muslim Americans. Knowing that Muslim extremist in Europe have recruited terrorist from among European Muslim, I am not so naïve as to think that immigrant Muslims could not be potential terrorist recruits in America. I support vigilance on the part of our government to keep us safe from terrorism. However, I am not as alarmed as ACT by the Muslim population in our midst. I do not accept that it is the Muslim faith that is our enemy. I have known some Muslims and have helped several Muslims become homeowner in the homebuyer education classes that I teach. The agency I work for has had many Kurdish and Somali refugees in the English as a Second Language classes that we provide. I support dialogue with and an understanding of our Muslim neighbors. I believe a Muslim can be a good Americans.

Unlike ACT, I was not outraged that Tyson’s Food’s let their Muslim employees have a Muslim holiday in place of Labor Day. I did not support English-only. So, I am tolerant if not somewhat liberal on immigration issues. Political correctness should not blind us to a genunine security theat but neither should concern over a perceived terrorist threat promote bigotry in America. We should not paint all of a group with the same brush.

So, while I think ACT may be providing awarness the public needs, I am not an enthusiastic supporter of ACT. I am, nevertheless, outraged that Lowe's would contract months in advance with ACT for them to have a conference at their hotel and then cancel the day before the event. Mr. Negri needs to be fired or reprimanded and ACT deserves an apology. Letting someone rent space from you does not imply an endorsement. Mr. Negri should not allow his own political prejudices to dictate to whom he rents and especially he should not be allowed to cancel a contract at the last minuet.

Here is the story from ACT:




ACTION ALERT! ACT! West Nashville Chapter

Freedom of Speech attacked in Nashville by Mr. Thomas Negri, Manager of Lowe's Vanderbilt Plaza Hotel. 1 June 2009

It's Time to Speak Up and Be Heard! We must react to this! This breach of our rights to free speech must not be ignored.

Here are the facts as reported by Ken Timmerman at Newsmax:

The manager of the Lowe's Vanderbilt Plaza Hotel, Mr. Tom Negri, cancelled a contract with a conservative foundation to hold a conference this weekend on radical Islam, apparently after learning that the group would feature a keynote address by controversial Dutch parliamentarian and filmmaker, Geert Wilders.

Thomas A. Negri, managing director of Loew's Vanderbilt Hotel and Office complex in Nashville, told Newsmax on Wednesday that he had taken the extraordinary step of cancelling the conference at the last minute "for the health, safety and well-being of our guests and employees." Negri did, however, allow a press conference today by the Coalition for Education about Immigration, a left-wing group involved with "immigration reform".

Negri refused to say why he felt the conference would adversely affect the "health, safety and well-being" of the hotel's guests and employees, except to refer to the website of the New English Review, the group organizing the conference. The website features articles that warn about radical Islam written by activists, journalists and scholars, including former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, and former Muslim scholar, Ibn Warraq.

One article, written by a retired U.S. army intelligence officer, Jerome Gordon, warns of the growing problems caused by the recent influence of several thousand Somali Muslim refugees who have come to work for a nearby Tysons Food plant to replace illegal Hispanic meat packers.

Negri appeared at a 2003 pro-immigration event on the same dias with a well-known Somali warlord, Gordon told Newsmax. In a written statement to the conference organizers, Negri said that the hotel had "not received any information related to a specific security threat concerning this event," and declined to provide any justification for cancelling it at the last minute.

One of the conference organizers told Newsmax on Wednesday that the group was considering a lawsuit against Negri and the Loew's hotel chain for "unlawful breach of contract." Negri also serves on the board of advisors of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, TIRRC, an activist group that states its mission "is to empower immigrants and refugees throughout Tennessee to develop a unified voice" and "defend their rights." The group boasts of having helped to defeat an "English only" amendment this January that would have required all Nashville government communications to be in English. Earlier this month, the group won an award from the Migration Policy Institute, which is funded by grants form the J.M. Kaplan Fund, a left-wing group that also funds the ACLU, the Tides Foundation, the Tides Center, the Sierra Club, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and other left-wing causes. The award singles out TIRRC for its "Welcoming Tennessee Initiative," to "foster constructive public dialogue on immigration within the state." When asked if he objected to Geert Wilders appearance at the conference, Negri refused to comment.

Action Items:

Contact Mr. Negri at tnegri@lowesvanderbilthotel.com

Contact the Front Desk Manager at Lowes dhuffins@lowesvanderbilthotel.com

Call Lowes Corporation public affairs office: Public Affairs Contact, 667 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10065-8087, Phone: (212) 521-2416 , PR@loews.com

Call or Write Mr. Jonathan M. Tisch, Co-Chairman of the Board and Member of the Office of the President, Loews Corporation Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Loews Hotels, 667 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10065-8087, Phone: (212) 521-2000.

Write to Tommy Tisch at Lowe's Corporation (described as the one "conservative" in the Tisch family that owns Lowes Corporation) Mr. Tommy Tisch, Loews Corporation, 667 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10021-808.

Contact the Nashville Better Business Bureau, Middle Tennessee Headquarters 201 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 100, P.O. Box 198436, Nashville, TN 37219, Phone (615) 242-4222,Fax (615) 250-4245, Email BBBNash@aol.com

Call the local ACLU in Nashville(615) 320-7142

About ACT! for America, West Nashville Chapter contact us!

Top Stories

Where is Bill Clinton?

With the run away spending, the bail-outs, Chris Dodd scandals, economic crisis, Tea Parties, Nancy Pelosie clarifications, the war, North Korea nuclear program, and the nomination of liberal jurist Sotomayor, I have had so much to think about that I just forgot all about Bill Clinton. It just dawned on me that I had not heard him mentioned in some time. I kind miss ole Bill. I always thought of him as a kind of rascally, likable, charismatic phony. He was personable and he was entertaining. Despite not liking his politics, I kind of liked Bill. He reminded me of a Pentecostal Televangelist or maybe a used car salesman. I thought he had loads of personality but was a little sleazy. He had that quality that attracts stupid girls. I thought he actually governed quite well, thanks to his malleability and a Republican congress that set the parameters.

By this time, I was sure he would have been in the news. I expected he would make some statement that was at slight variance with the official position of the administration and he would have caused Hillary all kinds of embarrassment. Or, I thought he would have been engaged in accepting some sort of honorarium or establishing some sort of business relationship with some faction interested in gaining government favor. Or, I thought we would hear reports of some bimbo fraternization or sexual scandal.

We have heard nothing! We really need some Bill Clinton for comic relieve. I know we have Joe Biden to occasionally say stupid and embarrassing things, but Joe Biden is no Bill Clinton. We need Bill! While I miss him, I want to commend him for being on his best behavior, keeping his mouth shut, keeping his pecker in his pants and his face off the evening news.

Top Stories

Please don't tell Obama

Top Stories

Your bill: $546,668 government debt per household

According to an analysis by USA Today, American taxpayers “are on the hook for an extra $55,000 a household to cover rising federal commitments made just in the past year for retirement benefits, the national debt and other government promises.” Federal obligations now stand at a record $546,668 per household, quadruple what the average U.S. household owes for all mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other debt combined.

This debt is composed of medicare obligations, social security, Federal borrowing, civil service retirement obligations, military pensions, and miscellaneous other debts. And, we are not through adding to this debt load. With national health care in the works and continueing massive government spending, the debt burden will only grow. More and more tax receipts will have to go just to pay the interest on the debt.

Does anyone really think that we can grow the economy sufficiently to pay off this debt? Government borrowing will freeze out private investment and with anti-growth policies like cap and trade being anticipated and with greater government involvement in the economy, I do not look for vigorous economic growth to pull us out of this hole. We are much like a household that is borrowing on the credit card to pay the electric bill and each month we must borrow more just to keep the lights on. The difference is that in a household, eventually the credit card will max out. Unlike a household, government can print money. The only way we can pay our debts is with cheaper dollars. Does anyone doubt that massive inflation is not in our future?

Top Stories

Is Obama following the George W Bush foreign policy?

While I have been extremely disappointed in Obama's economic policies, I have, so far, been pleased by much of his management of foreign affairs. Candidate Obama never presented himself as the most pacifist and isolationist of the Democratic field of candidates. He was much more centrist than Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson, yet he was very critical of the Bush administration’s foreign policy and promised a change. We have seen some real change and some superficial change and much of the same.

Some Republicans have criticized Obama’s recent making nice with Hugo Chavez. I don't. Reagan made nice with Gorbachev. Nixon made nice with Mao. FDR made nice with Joseph Stalin. There is nothing wrong with being diplomatic and friendly with your enemies. It may be beneficial to be on a first name basis with the bastards. Sometimes if is even necessary to ally ourselves with the most ruthless and despicable of people, as was the case in World War II. I am not so sure that Hitler was a lot worse than Joseph Stalin, but Germany was a threat and Russia was our ally and FDR had to make nice with Joseph Stalin. While Chavez may be irritating tin-horn dictator, he is hardly a Mao or Stalin.

Obama has also been criticized for changing our policy toward Cuba. Again, I think he is pursuing the correct policy and that our isolation of Cuba has been a mistake. I am glad to see us move toward normalization with that nation.

I am pleased that we are escalating the war in Afghanistan. I think Bush made a big mistake in going to go to war in Iraq and failing to pursue victory in Afghanistan. We cannot allow the Taliban to reestablish their rule in that country. I am pleased that we are pressuring and prevailing in persuading Pakistan to take a more aggressive role in suppressing the Taliban in that country. I am pleased that Obama has only tweaked the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and seems committed to exiting that conflict in an orderly fashion that will preserve the peace and stability and leave behind a sizable American presence. .

In the war on terror, which we no long call the “War on Terror,” Obama is essentially continuing the Bush policies. While Obama uses less bellicose language and does not have the cowboy swagger that irritated so many, there is very little to distinguish Obama from Bush. He sounds more moderate but his policies are the same. It was Teddy Roosevelt who said “talk softly and carry a big stick.” I am not displeased with the more moderate tone. I have mixed feelings about the continuation of some of Bush policies.

When Bush was president and prominent national conservatives formed the American Freedom Agenda, I cheered. I was concerned that the Federal Government was amassing unchecked power. I did not approve of the government claiming the authority for warrantless searches of Internet communications. I do not approve of torture. I did not approve of special rendition. I thought George W. Bush was exceeding his constitutional authority.

Many of the same policies that were continued or initiated by Bush are being continued under Obama. Special rendition is a policy that started in peace time under Bill Clinton. It is the practice of kidnapping suspected enemies and turning them over to other countries where they can be tortured. We are speaking of real torture not a gray area that may or may not constitute torture. By letting a third country do the dirty work we can claim to have clean hands and not have engaged in torture ourselves. George Bush expanded the rendition policy and Obama has not ended the practice.
.
One Obama proposal that should concern all civil libertarians is the Cyber-security Act of 2009, which is essentially the same as Bush’s Total Information Awareness but under a new name. It would grant the government authority to monitor and mine Internet traffic for patterns that indicate links to terrorist activity. My concern is that such authority will be misused. This seems to violate the constitutions prohibition against an unreasonalble search. The same people that were outraged about Total Awareness are very quite about Cyber Security.

Obama was very critical of the bush administration policy regarding prisoners held at Guantanamo. I do not think the issue of what to do with irregular forces captured on the field of battle is an easy riddle to solve, however I do not think that we should hold indefinitely people who may be innocent. Recently, when the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that non-Afghan detainees at the US Bagram Prison in Afghanistan, captured outside Afghanistan, had the same due process rights that the Supreme Court last year gave to prisoners at Guantánamo, the Obama administration argued they did not. Bagram is a less high profile prison than Guantanamo but the issue regarding Bagram is exactly the same as Guantanamo and the position of the Obama administration is exactly the same as the position of the Bush administration.

In a recent article in the Washington Post, columnist Charles Krathamer pointed out that on policy after policy the Obama administration is continuing the policy of the Bush administration. “The latest flip-flop,” writes Krathamer. “is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an ‘enormous failure.’ Obama suspended them upon his swearing in. Now they're back.”

I admit I am conflicted. On the one hand, Obama’s policies seem to vindicate the policies of George W. Bush. I could conclude that George W. Bush was right all along and when faced with the enormous responsibility of keeping this country safe, that Obama came to a realization that the only prudent course to follow was that that was set by his predecessor. When one does not have the responsibility for our country’s security it is easy to snipe from the sidelines. Obama put aside partisanship and campaign promises and did the right thing.

On the other hand, I could conclude that Obama is an opportunist who did a complete flip-flop. He would say anything to get elected but he is a power hungry opportunist who cannot turn down the occasion to amass more power. I don’t know which view is correct.

What I cannot understand is how civil libertarians and pacifist of the left, who loathed George W. Bush, are letting Obama get by with continuing the same policies they professed to hate. If these policies were wrong when enacted by George W. Bush, are they still not wrong?

Top Stories

Obama in Bush Clothing

By Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, Friday, May 22, 2009

[Excerpt] Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program.

The latest flip-flop is the restoration of military tribunals.

[Excerpt] Observers of all political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government. Victor Davis Hanson (National Review) offers a partial list: "The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e., slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e., the surge) -- and now Guantanamo." [Full Article]

Comment

While I have been extreamly disappointed in Obama's economic policy I have been pleasantly surprised so far by his management of foreign affairs. Some Republicans have criticised his making nice with Hugo Chavez. I don't. Reagan made nice with Gorbachav. Nixon made nice with Mao. FDR made nice with the world's number one tyrant Joseph Stalin. There is nothing wrong with being diplomatic and friendly with your enemies. Sometimes nations even have to have dispicable allies as was the case of FDR and Joseph Stalin. Obama has also been criticized for changing our policy toward Cuba. Again, I think he is pursueing the correct policy and that our isolation of Cuba has been a mistake.

Where I am most pleased with what Obama is doing in the field of foreigh affaris is in the War on Terror, although we no longer use that term "War on Terror." While Obama uses less and does not have the comboy swagger that iratated so many of the effete liberal intellegencia he is essentially continuing all of the Bush policies. Since Obama is pursueing so many other policies that please the left, such as the destruction of the

Top Stories

Obama Man Can

Top Stories