Have you ever heard of the Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg Conference? I had not, until my husband pointed it out to me. He suggested that although he doesn’t prescribe to the many conspiracy theories that abound, this one could be cause for concern. Other conspiracy theories we have all heard? Oh, you know, the moon landing, 9/11, Jim Morrison’s death was faked…I think those are about the most famous ones that I have actually researched and absolutely do not believe!!
The Hubby said he read that this is a group operating under the guise of creating a "One World" Government and suggested that it already was a shadow government. I balked at the idea and have not done near the research necessary to even leave a mark.  But what I took away form our conversation was that this group of people get together and try to manipulate all things to the advantages of their respective nations. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with that- we all want the best for our people, Country and it's overall survival. But, in secret, that does kinda get under my skin. 
As our political parties have changed dramatically and we are at war, how much of this is truly impacting us, what goes on in secret? My beef is the secrecy and not necessarily tying it to a conspiratorial tree.
Well, strangely enough, I went and tried to research this “phenomenon” of secret meetings of the so-called Bilderberg Group/Conference-what ever it is called. And, I found a lot of stuff on Wikipedia, which of course begs for big fat warning signs not trust it’s content or anyone citing it for documentation purposes because one never knows who can hack the site and change it.

I also found various individual websites that discuss the secrecy of these meetings and who attends them. There are copies of documents for this and that...photos of other things(a lot of photos of Margaret Thatcher and the hearsay that the Bilderberg had her canned and put Major in her place). The implications of several places are that the people who become “members” eventually end up in high places (or very low places to equal dead, fired or ruined). Bill Clinton attended while he was governor of AK and when he was President, several of the people he associated with eventually wound up dead.

There is so much to read, I don’t know what to believe, if only who attended. Though republicans and democrats alike attend these meetings, it is said that they attend as “private citizens” and are not to held to the rule of law, meaning that no person of the US per the Logan Act may attend a secret meeting with foreign nations that is not approved by the US Government, or they are in violation of this law.(Did someone say Red Nanny?) Just his year The governor of Texas (Perry) attended Bilderberg in Turkey, and quipped about learning the secret handshake. When questioned about his attendance and the Logan Act, no answer was given and it went unchallenged. My question is WHY? Isn't anyone curious???

It is my observation that if such “powerful people” are attending these meetings to include royalty and business heads of foreign lands and the meetings goings-on are not public knowledge, I would say that constitutes “secret.” Not only that, but none of these meetings is openly covered by the press…to mean that they apparently censor the writings of whomever is allowed to “cover” the meetings. A scant one or two journalists. It seems a little scary to think that attendees are heads of state and that as attendees that the conversations and/or lectures would not somehow turn to relevant issues of a particular Country’s economic, military or foreign policy. You can be relatively sure they are not there to knock back a few drinks and shoot the shitt, right? . That is simply naive. It is also naive to think that people would not give away vital information to those in positions of power if they thought it would help further any agenda or increase their own power base.

If the Bilderberg Group had power to establish that “One World” bs, I am sure it lacks the credibility it once held, largely because as the internet becomes more accessible, things are likely to surface much more quickly and they have.

For example, I am fairly certain that there are documents to be found in caches of prior attendees homes or archives if you will (Sandy Bergerlar comes to mind). But, I have only been able to find info on the internet as far back as 1991. It may be that I was in adequate. Others are not, and the info is out there somewhere. And as fast as things tend to travel via the ‘net I put a bit of stock in the idea that the more people who read, the more who question and thereby take away some of it’s power. (Bilderberg) I do not believe that one group of men and women can wield the kind of power suggested.

In reading many of the docs out there, I did come across another group called the Trilateralist Commission. I believe both Bush 41,43, and Reagan were members. (www.trilateral.org) It seemingly is not shrouded in the same secrecy as Bilderberg, and there is decent information readily available for anyone to read.

I continue to wonder several things.

1. If world leaders (public servants), think they are entitled to such “private affairs” then, perhaps they should not be holding the positions that serve the taxpayers of any Country, or hold public office if they see a need to operate in secrecy. (Secrecy IMO, is for conducting wars and no, the public is not entitled to the info that details the National security of the Country in which we live.)

2. If indeed public servants attend such functions and it does move into the realm of nations solving problems at the behest of one another behind the secrecy smokescreen, and a so-called “Bilderberg honor” system, do you believe the said individuals (of the US, at least ) are breaking the law, specifically the Logan Act?

3. At what point do we as citizens stand up and demand accountability for such acts? How long do we tolerate the dissonance of those who claim to have our best interests at heart?

This is going to take a lot of reading on you, the bloggers, to get through. I am only posting the links to get you there. This should really scare people to death…no pun intended. As we know there have been many deaths of people who have been associated with the Clintons and “The Machine.” The Clinton Supporters and other Dems continue to deny that there are connections between them and the deaths of these people.

And the MSM is clearly not touching any of this particular expose. Why? Because even those institutions fear the retribution of the woman who wants to be President of the United States!!! The paper trail and some video are proof of her lies and proof that she has the power to destroy even the insiders in hers and the former President’s midst. What it boils down to is that this Country has the potential to be destroyed by the Clintons and the power they and their cronies wield.

Did any of you reading this know that there were lawsuits against the Clintons? When it was originally brought to court, A judge appointed by WJC, said it was so far removed from Hilary, it was dismissed!!! What a surprise!!! It is moving forward in California, thank God. The Clintons are a dangerous pair. This just goes to show what they are willing to do to anyone that gets in the way of their hunger for more power.

Why would anyone vote for someone so corrupt and devoid of a single shred of decency?? She caused this man to go bankrupt, put him in jail in Brazil, in order to have her suit dropped because he became a “fugitive.” Go figure. And within days of the said event, he was trashed in the newspaper and continually lied to. Which eventually lead to this lawsuit. I daresay that Peter Paul is putting his life on the line to get at the truth. Put yourself in his shoes, would you have the balls to do the same?

This was put up on You Tube on t and has had hundreds of thousands of hits and remains the #1 video as of 10/312007. Tomorrow the one hour DVD is going to be released or I believe viewable for a nominal amount of money. I encourage you to view these 13 minutes, anyway. It will leave you speechless.

Well, I’ve been on a roll this week with the blog stuff, why stop now?!!! I am absolutely pisssed off!! Why? Well, somebody, a single individual, has made a complaint about the Flag-Folding ceremony at military funerals. The complaint was in regard to religion. But, before I get into that, have any veterans out there ever participated in a military funeral and folded, presented a flag? I never did. So to educate the rest of the crowd, let’s get down and dirty to learn what all the folds mean. Remember that our Country was founded on religious principles and I daresay the person who has the chutzpah to complain doesn’t understand anything about the founding. I’ll take a stab that it’s a liberal atheist hating Jew…The eleventh fold is prompted the complaint.

The sea (canton) of blue and the stars represent the states of the veterans who served and honors them. The canton field of blue dresses from left to right and is inverted when draped as a pall on a casket of a veteran who has served our country in uniform. Every military person reading this knows of Reveille and Retreat. Retreating the flag every evening, and then hoisting it at Reveille as a symbol of the soldier’s resurrection.

And, did you know the presentation of the stars after folding represents the words “In God We Trust.” It is our national motto. I did not know we had a national motto. So is that one more thing our kids won’t learn because, shitt, it has the word GOD in it!!

(My brother had a saying in High School…It’s when you think you know it all, that begins the real learning…)

That one complaint would prompt this banning this ceremony, the last debt we pay to our fallen, is despicable. And has it garnered any attention in the MSM? I don’t even know where I found the story…but the date is October 25^th 2007. There are 125 National Cemeteries in 39 States. WTF??? Why are people not standing up against the establishments that make the rules. This is an outrage and completely unacceptable!

Just another example of the weak governing body we have to exclude the principles of our Founding. So effing what if the Flag-folding it not part of the US Flag Code. (US 36-10,sec174)?

WE all know the honor that should be given. And, I am reasonably sure that the families of the fallen have some say in the funeral arrangements, unless the soldier had provided specific details. Would those reading agree?

Here is a link to the article, which I did not read past the photo of the two men…I was too incensed!!

The indoctrination Phenomenon

Of Higher Learning

I might be way behind the 8 ball o this one, but I saw this and had to share…

Have you heard about this??? Well, we all know that our college campuses are being over-run by the aging “Age of Aquarias Gang” who never did grow up and our kids educations at institutions of higher learning are anything but a mere place for the profs to stump every damn day rather than teach. It seems that one individual has started a movement, by way of film. And by God, I cannot wait to see it. Evan Coyne Maloney’s film Indoctrinate U is about to gear up for some major screenings. I went to the website and copied this, simply because it is written better than what I could have done. The italics are my comments. Be sure to go to the video clips.

“Speech codes. Censorship. Enforced political conformity. Hostility to diversity of opinion. Sensitivity training. We usually associate such things with the worst excesses of fascism and communism, not with the American universities that nurtured the free speech movement. But American higher education bears a disturbing resemblance to the totalitarian societies that are anathema to our nation's ideal of liberty. (No shitt?) Evan Coyne Maloney's documentary film, Indoctrinate U, reveals the breathtaking institutional intolerance you won't read about in the glossy marketing brochures of Harvard, Berkeley, Michigan, Yale, and hundreds of other American colleges and universities. (And you know there isn’t much tolerance by anyone that is liberal-minded. I say ‘minded‘, instead of ‘thinker’ because I have realized my folly…they may have minds, but they do not think.)

"When we think of going to college, we think of intellectual freedom. We imagine four years of exploring ideas through energetic, ongoing, critical thinking and debate," Maloney said. "But the reality is very far from the ideal. What most of us don't know is that American college students check their First Amendment rights and individual freedom at the door." (and we know how true it is. My own child would not wear a t-shirt with an expression of We support the troops on it because she feared grade retribution).

Maloney spent two years traveling to campuses across the country, interviewing students, professors, and administrators to find out what life on campus is really like. Instead of the vibrant debate, intellectual diversity, and academic freedom we like to associate with universities, Maloney found violent protests at UC Santa Cruz and San Francisco State, persecution of student members of a conservative club at Cal Poly and the University of Tennessee, divisive racial and ethnic politics at the University of Michigan and Yale, doctrinaire teaching at Duke and Columbia, and much more. (That is no surprise to me about either university and the racial tensions just aggravated by faculty alone. They love to make any non-white a victim unless-oops, they happen to be Asian. Did I say that out loud?)

Far from functioning as bastions of serious thought and reasoned debate, Maloney found, campuses today operate as mental processing plants, doing more to tell students what to say and think than to teach them to think for themselves. ( Does he mean to say the faculty is using their classroom learning time to spout off the lies and meaningless values of the left?)

"Students are being robbed of their educations--to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars a year," Maloney said. "As it currently stands, higher education in America is a lie perpetrated on young adults at parents' and taxpayers' expense." (I believe this is what is known as the elite professorial game. They get away with it because everyone believes the name supports the education. By that I mean, using Yale as an example. Surely they hire unbiased teachers who truly care about what our students learn and by golly, they are brilliant because Yale is paying them. They have not been called on it, ever.)

A production of On the Fence Films with the support of the Moving Picture Institute, Indoctrinate U is an explosive portrait of how colleges and universities across the country routinely compel students to check their First Amendment rights at the door. Hard-hitting and humorous, Indoctrinate U makes the campus culture wars--often treated as an abstract, hopelessly partisan battle of ideas--intensely personal and unforgettably human.

At once a warning and a wake-up call, Indoctrinate U is bound to stir up controversy and to spark essential debate. As such, it has the potential to force our campuses to make changes they have long denied they need to make.” (When it comes to my town, I will take my kids and if it doesn’t, I am ordering a DVD per kid as part of the Mommy sends you to college Handbook!)

Now, consider this little “trailer” if you will. It starts out with a an umbrella-carrying male…and leads up to a chat that describes the crock of shitt people are calling education. Rest assured- None of my children will get any of my money for what you hear in the link below!! When the link appears, click the window for playing.

Don’t even think about missing it!!

Another Update...


Brian McGough has his own website. (http://www.broken-skull.com/)   I attempted to have a discussion on the "I respond" column of his. It was deleted because I asked a question that I can only asssume was deemded "off topic" by the owner. I asked if he supported Brandon Freidman's statements on a talk show which basically sounded like whining to me. The fact is that Mr. McGough beleives Rush doctored the transcript (I listened to that show live.. That is exactly how it was said!!) so Media Matters has it correct, according to him. He says he was not used and that people from Rush's audience are sending him hate mail. "My readers" know where I stand. Read the quotes below of what Freidman said and tell me what your thoughts are.
Secondly, I also posted here. (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10833835&postID=2965514505593063805 Those of you who know me, will know which one is me. This was "a challenge" for Rush Fans?!!
My aim was to be objective because essentially, it seemed to me that Mr. McGough was placing blame on Rush because his kind of support was not what "he" wanted to see. Why wasn't Rush talking about the mental health of soldiers, the PTSD, etc...Those who are anti-war and want to believe that Rush is anti-Troop are saying his verbal support is not enough. As if there is a different standard because they don't  like how he comes across. In my opinion, Rush is a great advocate and does as much as he can. He is damned if  does, damned if he doesn't. As BrianR notes: there will always be the disenchanted servicemembers. My initial thoughts are always to turn it into positive. I don't agree with McGough's interpretation of Rush's words, and nor do I agree with how Votevets is going about trying to garner support for their "mission". I truly believe that they are being used. 

If McGough wants to advocate, it shouldn't have anything to do with Rush, that is stupid. Rather put the perspective on the things he wants to change to his congressman. And, one letter isn't going to do it. In business, approach is every- thing. The veterans who are against the war are saying that people putting a Yellow Ribbon on their cars isn't acceptable. Well, who the fukk are they, I ask you? That is all some folks have to offer. Since when do they get to be the judge and jury? Does serving in a combat zone put them above the fray? XXXXX!!! That kind of BS pissses me off. I bust may tail, physically, monetarily and mentally to support the troops, the mission and victory and have three Ribbons on my car. I dare anyone of them to challenge me or what my friends do. Besides running their mouths, what are they actually doing? I want to know. (You see? Isn't it silly to try and Quantify who does what, where, when and how?) The point is that whatever support is offered should be taken, not quantified so that one group can be superior.  Man, is it jsut me being hard-headed or what?





Freidman: The problem I have with Rush Limbaugh is that he enables policy makers who have gotten our country into a lot of trouble.  We're in a lot of trouble.  I mean, we've got some serious problems with Islamic extremism globally, and we can't address those problems correctly --(How can Rush enable policy makers? He is not a lobbyist, he does not go to the Hill to testify and actually he is just a voice...If he has that much infleunce as a private citizen then how do I get some?)

HUMPHRIES:  Why?
FRIEDMAN:  -- because we're bogged down in another country's religious civil war.
(And then Humphries continues on...and listen to the gist of the statement)
HUMPHRIES:  Again, he talked about this Jesse MacBeth the day before, he talked about him on that show, the day of the show, the day after the show. He's explained himself and still you're going to continue, and you support what Harry Reid said, taking this out of context?  Come on, Brandon, that's not fair.  That's not right. I could take what you said out of context.  I mean this guy explained, and explained, and explained, and you're still spreading these lies, saying that he called a soldier a suicide bomber?  And what about Tom Harkin?  Do you think it was okay for Tom Harkin to accuse Rush Limbaugh to be on drugs?
FRIEDMAN:  Yeah, maybe it's not appropriate for the Senate floor, but it's true. (if this kid had a brain he wouold know that Rush is drug-tested all the time by the state of FL. But, naturally his hate and whining come from the fact that there is not a voice for the likes of his group that can be heard because all they do is spew hate.)




UPDATE AND WELL- DESERVED SMACKDOWN!!!!

I have not had the oppportunity to see if HalD ever gave me a link. But I must have missed what was said on Rush's site. Here is what HalD PROBABLY BASED his lousy shitt statement on, like a typical leftminded SFB. (that would be Shitt-for brains) Here is my smackdown of the asshat named Hal Donahue.~ You lied and you took advantage of Brian McGough's views of the war....I hope you are proud of yourself,you freaking loser!  IF this is how you like to use people as props to get your views across,you should be ashamed. Really ashamed. You made him look as dumb as bucket of rocks. How can you honestly think you were doing a service to this veteran?? How? You owe that kid an apology for using him, you assshole. You are lower than low. Just like all of your ilk at the huffpo and Daily Kos.

Here is HalD's puff piece: (Get your barf bucket handy)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hal-donahue/limbaugh-compares-wounded_b_67028.html
http://www.votevets.org/


Here is what Hal considers his f-ing reference point...Olberman, Scarborough, O'Donnell (whom I thought was conservative...)is it any wonder Hal the Sheeple just follows this and thinks himself educated and better than the rest of us who served and/or are civilians (oh, sorry-he calls them mercenary fighters)working to support the mission?
You're nothing but a shitt bird democratic tool and they've got you where they want you. 

Hal must have watched the these lovely guys at the ever slanted MSNBC--

RUSH: We have Joe Scarborough of MSNBC, John Roberts of CNN, Willie Geist of MSNBC, somebody else on MSNBC, and Norah O'Donnell all talking -- you know, this poor guy, Brian McGough of VoteVets.org, he's running around saying that I called him a suicide bomber yesterday on this program. And, of course, he says it, there's no questioning it, and here's the montage of the Drive-Bys reacting to it. Sit tight, Dawn. Dawn's about to explode in there. She came in today, "I am never going to watch or listen to Geraldo again after last night, and Alan Colmes." Just chill. Everything's under control here. It's going our way. Here's the montage.

SCARBOROUGH: We're going to hear for the next five days how Rush Limbaugh called this guy a suicide bomber.

ROBERTS: Rush called this guy a suicide bomber

GEIST: He used a metaphor to say he was like a suicide bomber.

OLBERMANN: Comparing that soldier to a suicide bomber.

O'DONNELL: Essentially comparing him to a suicide bomber.

RUSH: All right, anybody care what I actually said about this? Would you like to hear what I actually said? This was Tuesday on the program, and I was talking about the ad that they are running.

RUSH ARCHIVE: You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into. This man will always be a hero to this country with everyone. Whoever(his supposed anti-war supporters) pumped him full of these lies about what I said and embarrassed him with this ad has betrayed him. They're not hurting me. They're betraying this soldier. Now, unless he actually believes what he's saying, in which case it's just so unfortunate and sad when the truth of what I said is right out there to be learned.

Asshat Hal only used half the quote, no surprise, there.  Maybe you should apologize to Brian McGough, hey SFB?

Unless I am dumber than a bucket of rocks, the "metaphor" escaped me as I have read the quote over and over and I did not take away the comparison of HalD and "Suicide Bomber".  Read my italics below for the "take on how I read it")



Original piece

 Woo-hoo! Was I surprised that he raked Rush over the coals with his spew (“Rush made a career of insulting military service from Max Cleland to Jack Murtha to Brian McGough. Limbaugh reached the point where he thinks nothing of insulting any military person who oppose.”) NOT!!
Brian McGough is an Iraqi veteran who is in a new ad put up by Votevets.org. And, somehow, despite the fact that the transcript is available, retorts to Rush in regard to the words ‘phony soldiers’ only. He makes a fool of himself, frankly. Does that mean I don’t respect his service to our Country? Nope. Just means he did not utilize all the information he could have before making himself look stupid. He states in the ad:

"Rush, the shrapnel I took to my head was real. My traumatic brain injury was real. And, my belief that we are on the wrong course in Iraq is real. Until you have the guts to call me a "phony soldier" to my face, stop telling lies about my service."

Rush must have seen the ad and states on his show:

"He discusses his service in Iraq, the wounds he suffered there, and he says to me in this ad, "Until you have the guts to call me a 'phony soldier' to my face, stop telling lies about my service." You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media in a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into."

Now, HalD (for delusional) called this statement horrendous! There is nothing horrendous in these words other than Rush alluding to the fact that he believes this vet is being used for their personal agenda. Every soldier knows they should never say or do anything if means they haven’t covered their asss. He did not get the whole quote!! That is as plain as it gets. And, Rush instead of calling Mcgough stupid or foolish, said his fellow vets lied to him to get him to do the ad. Now, in my opinion, that is sticking up for the Veteran and not calling him phony. Brian McGough, Rush Limbaugh did not call you phony and if you or any other persons read the transcript below, to the end, you will see the truth as it stands.

HalD also said that Rush compared McGough to a suicide bomber and I have not found any facts or quotes anywhere to back it up. I asked for them, but we'll see if I don't just get more spew. (Okay...so Rush says they're giving him the lies and he's strapping them to his belt by (believing it,) so who is the comparison for??? Vote vets.org, not Brian MCgough!!! The HalD spin is amazing!!
The facts are the facts and they cannot be changed. TCAaka censoredaka anchorbabyaka anything you can think of to get back on TH, along with mamadummydeus cherry- picked the statement and frankly, I feel the record needs to be straight...They stop their analysis of referral to Macbeth at the statement below "alot of people." Smart people read to the end. Those extreme left trolls do not get it and won't. Yet, I do feel the need to fight on.  Mega dittos!!!

The bold Italics are mine.


Here is the Tanscript in its entirety.

Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don't understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that's over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so.

RUSH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. The next guy that calls here I'm going to ask them, "What is the imperative of pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out?" I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "When's he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe," whatever. (note he is going to ask the next caller-not referring to the troops like he does not care)

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

CALLER: A lot of people. (join up to go to Iraq)

RUSH: You know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.

CALLER: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I've done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they're using in their IEDs. They're using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it didn't really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It's a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we're never going to find it.

RUSH: Well, that's a moot point for me right now.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that's moot. What's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much. (and though about two minutes has gone by in this exchange with Mike, he continues on to discuss the phony soldiers he discussed in his morning updates)

Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

END TRANSCRIPT

Below are some links to more stories….