24 Dead

100+ Wounded

A school demolished and children missing.

Pray for them all!

The Israeli government spent years and millions of Shekels to prove what the French courts already have proven.

Dr. Yehuda David

Dr. Yehuda David, who was sued for libel by the father of Muhammad al-Dura – and eventually won his case – expressed great satisfaction at the issuing of a report by a special report by a government panel that revisited the infamous incident, in which IDF soldiers were accused of killing the 12 year old Arab boy at the start of the second intifada. The committee determined that not only were the allegations – and a report by French television purporting to show IDF soldiers shooting and killing the boy – a lie, but that the al-Dura is not even dead.

According to David, the whole incident stinks of a coverup – and the evidence that shows that not only was al-Dura not killed, but that the entire story was a hoax, perpetrated with the assistance of a French television station, is there for all to see.

Jamal al-Dura and his 12-year-old son, Muhammad, were filmed by Talal Abu Rahma, a local Arab cameraman freelancing for France 2, as they sought cover behind a concrete cylinder after being caught in crossfire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian security forces.

The footage, which lasts just over a minute, shows the pair holding onto each other, the boy crying and the father waving, then a burst of gunfire and dust, after which the boy is seen slumped across his father’s legs.

Fifty-nine seconds of the footage were initially broadcast on France 2 with a voiceover from Charles Enderlin, France 2′s bureau chief in Israel, who did not witness the incident himself but his only information was received by phone from the cameraman.

Enderlin reported that the al-Duras had been the “target of fire from the Israeli positions,” and that the boy had died. After an emotional public funeral, Muhammad was hailed throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds as a martyr.

An IDF investigation in October 2000 concluded Israeli soldiers “probably did not shoot the al-Duras.” Three senior French journalists who saw the raw footage in 2004 said it was not clear from the footage alone that the boy had died. They noted France 2 had cut the final few seconds of video in which he appeared to lift his hand from his face.

David, a physician at Tel Hashomer hospital near Tel Aviv, entered the al-Dura fray on December 13, 2007 when he told Israel’s Channel 10 that he had treated Jamal in 1994 for knife and axe wounds to his arms and legs sustained during an Arab gang attack. David said the scars Jamal claimed as bullet wounds from the 2000 incident were actually scars from a tendon repair operation that David performed in 1994, leading Jamal to sue him for libel. He was initially convicted of a charge, but that decision was overturned by the French Supreme Court in February 2012. The decision was widely seen as a national victory for Israel.

The Israeli committee, in its final word on the subject, said Sunday that “as opposed to the media reports that stated that the child was killed, an examination of the raw video shot by the France 2 staff shows the child alive,” the committee said. That portion of the video was never broadcast. “In addition, there is a great deal of evidence to indicate that al-Dura and his father were never hit by any bullets. The investigation shows that it is very unlikely that the bullet holes seen in the pair came from shots fired by IDF soldiers.”

The new report also questions whether or not the younger al-Dura was even killed. The fact that he was still alive at the end of the French television video, after the gunfire had stopped, could mean that the boy is alive even now. “Since this issue was first raised there have been many contradictions and cold trails, based on the story the French television company told. There are many unanswered questions about many aspects of this incident,” the committee said.

According to David, the answer to this question is clear, and is supported by evidence. “We know that a child whose name is Mohammed al-Dura was taken to Shifa Hospital in Gaza at 9 AM,” David told Arutz Sheva, relying on publicly released information. “We know that the event in which it was claimed that the child was killed actually only began at 3 in the afternoon. So how is it possible that there was a dead child at 9 AM, and they want us to believe that it is the same child who was shot by Israeli soldiers at 3:00?”

So who was the child in the famous video? Most likely a brother of Mohammed, David said. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest this already, David said: According to the results of an investigation by a German group, for example, the shape of the skull of the buried child was different than the shape of the skull of the child seen in the video. The real identity of the child could be confirmed by disinterring him. David is willing to bet that the child will turn out to be the “real” Mohammed al-Dura, the one who died in Shifa Hospital in the morning, as opposed to the “fake” one – the one seen in the video, who is alive and well.

David said that it was regrettable that it had taken the state so long to take a definitive stance on the hoax. “Now we know that Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government acknowledge the truth – that Jamal al-Dura is a liar, and that all the information supplied by France 2 during the event on September 30, 2000, is a hoax. This has caused a tremendous sacrifice of Israeli lives, because it was the beginning of the second intifada, which led to the loss of 2,500 Israeli lives,” he said, including the victims of the 2012 attack by a Muslim fanatic on a Jewish school in Toulouse, France, who specifically said he was “avenging” the death of al-Dura.

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Click here if the video doesn’t load.

Source

Jamal al-Dura is demanding an international investigation into his son’s death.  In other words, a group of anti-Semites to determine that the lie is true.

I say bring it on.  Either the grave is empty or the body in it doesn’t have the DNA of Jamal or any of his family.  Want to make a guess on how long he will cave in once an international forensic team is assembled?

The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation.

Here is what happened:

Following World War II in 1946, violence erupted when returning American soldiers discovered their Tennessee county had been taken over by political corruption. Their plan to take it back involved bullets—lots of bullets—and dynamite.

Why Athens in McMinn County, Tennessee became a battleground was due to Paul Cantrell, a Democrat running for sheriff in the 1936 election. He won over his Republican opponent, although the victory was tainted by rumors of fraud. Cantrell was a corrupt sheriff—for example, since state law allowed his office to collect fees for each person booked, jailed, and released, deputies boarded buses passing through the city and arrested passengers on bogus charges of drunkenness, forcing them to pay fines. Prostitution, gambling, and kickbacks from illegal drinking establishments were commonplace.

The tide began to turn in 1945 when GIs returning to Athens were subjected to arrest on the flimsiest excuses and heavily fined. When the fed up soldiers attempted to support their choice for sheriff against Pat Mansfield (by then, Cantrell had been elected to the state Senate and backed Mansfield’s bid), matters boiled over into direct conflict on Election Day 1946.

Mansfield hired several hundred armed “deputies” to patrol the voting precincts in Athens—and no doubt to assist in the typical ballot stuffing and voter intimidation. The volatile situation escalated when Walter Ellis, an ex-GI and volunteer poll watcher, was arrested by Mansfield’s deputies and held without charge. A black resident, Tom Gillespie, was refused the right to vote, beaten, and shot. More GIs were arrested and threatened with violence. By the end of the day, the former soldiers had enough.

They broke into the town armory for weapons and besieged the jail, where Mansfield and his deputies had taken the ballet boxes. Battle continued sporadically throughout the night, resulting in wounded on both sides. When the GIs ran out of bullets around dawn, they began throwing dynamite. The deputies inside the jail surrendered.

The highly publicized Battle of Athens not only ousted corruption from one county in Tennessee, the lesson learned would ultimately lead to great reforms in Southern politics.

**************************************************************************

This is a part of American history that all elected official should learn and remember.  When the government forgets whom they serve and dictates to the American People what to think, do, say, read, and how to vote, it is incumbent upon the citizens of that town, city, county, state or nation to rise up and remove (By force if necessary.) the dictator.

What happened in Athens, Tennessee was the most extreme example of citizen action.  The last resort of a desperate people.

In such desperation the American people will do anything to return their rights to them.  Something every politician in this nation should remember.

Why the government won’t seal the southern border

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Recently, I heard more false claims that the US stole much of the land that is now the southwestern states from Mexico.  It’s TOTAL BUNK!

The mainstream media continues to publish those claims without counterbalancing them with the truth.  That does two things.  It emboldens those perpetrating those false claims against the US – and — it is accepted as truth by our woefully undereducated citizenry. 

Over three years ago we attempted to bring truth to the discussion by explaining that the US did, in fact, purchase that land. It is a matter of historical fact.

As the months have gone by, I have seen no attempt to set the record straight.  This, dear reader, is how revisionist history becomes so successful.  No one refutes it.  It is the first rule of propaganda: tell the lie long enough and loud enough and it will eventually be accepted as truth.

It would seem that is what those groups in the United States, whose aim it is to push AMNESTY for Illegal Aliens legislation through the Congress and onto Obama’s desk for his signature, are endeavoring to do.  We refer, of course, to the new Immigration Reform Bill.   I mean, how can we insist that those people abide by the law and apply for citizenship in the US legally, because, after all, IT IS THEIR LAND.   

OK, let’s take another shot at setting the record straight and look at some facts.

First, The Mexican War:

The Mexican War between the United States and Mexico began with a Mexican attack on American troops along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846. Fighting ended when U.S. Gen. Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14, 1847; a few months later a peace treaty was signed (Feb. 2, 1848) at Guadalupe Hidalgo. In addition to recognizing the U.S. annexation of Texas defeated Mexico ceded California and, New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ending the Mexican War, was signed on February 2, 1848, by Nicholas P. Trist, for the United States, and by a special commission representing the collapsed government of Mexico.

Under the treaty, Mexico ceded to the United States Upper California and New Mexico (including Arizona) and recognized U.S. claims over Texas, with the Rio Grande as its southern boundary. The United States in turn paid Mexico $15,000,000, assumed the claims of American citizens against Mexico, ($3.25 Million) recognized prior land grants in the Southwest, and offered citizenship to any Mexicans residing in the area.  Then a few years later, the US bought the land that is now Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico for another 6 million dollars.

Why did we need that additional land?

After the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, border disputes between the United States and Mexico remained unsettled. Land that now comprises lower Arizona and New Mexico was part of a proposed southern route for a transcontinental railroad. US President Franklin Pierce was convinced by Jefferson Davis, (Later the First President of the Confederate States of America)  then the US Secretary of War, to send James Gadsden (who had personal interests in the rail route) to negotiate the Gadsden Purchase with Mexico. Under the resulting agreement, the U.S. paid Mexico $10 million.  There was a problem with the money, however: Even though the agreement specified $10 million, the US Congress only agreed to pay $7 million. When the money finally arrived, in Mexico City, $1 million was found to be lost, thus making $6 million the amount Mexico actually got for the sale of that land.  Hey, they set the price… we paid it!

Run the numbers and you will find that the US paid Mexico $24,250,000.00 (24 million, two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand) US dollars for the land in the Southwest US which many claim, today, we (The US) stole!

You know,  I get a bit tired, and even short-tempered, with folks who attempt to perpetuate an untruth by the act of sheer omission.  As  a Southerner, I know how that can hurt.  To say the US stole all that land in the Southwest is a flat-out lie.  So, 24 and-a-quarter-million isn’t much money?  Not by today’s standards perhaps, but back in the mid 1800’s we’re talking about somewhere in the area of $600,000,000.00!  Now that IS big bucks!

So, next time you hear someone prattling on about how the US stole all the southwestern United States from Mexico, set them straight.  Tell them we bought it and paid for it.  If they refuse to believe you refer them to the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty and the Gadsden’s Purchase a few years later.  It’s all there.  It’s a part of history — a part of history students in the American government schools apparently never hear about.

Of course, the claims that we stole the land from Mexico is all a part of the propaganda being employed to saddle Americans with more undeserved guilt.  People who feel guilty will ofttimes respond in the way those prodding them wish them to respond.  That is what is hoped for with all the unmitigated garbage heaped on America today.

Actually, as I view the relationship between the US and Mexico today, I have to wonder if there really is a move afoot to combine the three nations of the North American Continent into one nation, or one entity as in, say, the European Union.  

Some form of union of America, Mexico, and Canada has been discussed or proposed in academic, business, and political circles for decades now.  The NAU (North American Union) is a theoretical economic and political union of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The concept is loosely based, as we said, on the European Union, occasionally including a common currency called the “Amero” or the North American Dollar. You may read more about this here.

Before you brush this aside (As I did years ago!), ask yourself why, exactly, is the US government refusing to seal the southern border with Mexico?  Why?

I’m tired of supporting the country of Mexico with the billions of US dollars a year pouring into Mexico from Mexican citizens who have burglarized the US.  The total amount is staggering.

The US has a huge number of problems these days that must be dealt with.  But we must not let our guard down for one minute else an amnesty bill for illegal aliens (The New Immigration Reform Bill) will be passed by the Congress and signed by the President into law.

Eternal vigilance truly is the price of freedom.

****************************************************************** 

You can find a copy of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Purchase here.

Solar activity is high.  During a 24 hour period straddling May 13th and14th, the sun unleashed three X-class solar flares.  These are the strongest flares of the year so far, and they signal a significant increase in solar activity.  The source of the flares, a large sunspot on the sun’s eastern limb, appears poised to erupt again as it turns toward Earth.

Check SpaceWeather.com for more updates.

This article was so good, that I had to share it here in its entirety. Credit goes to Daniel Greenfield (AKA Sultan Knish), and the original can be found on Daniel Greenfield (AKA Sultan Knish), and the original can be found here.

***********************************************************************

America is becoming a more tolerant nation, we are told. Each new thing that we learn to tolerate makes us more progressive. But tolerance is a relative thing. For every new thing we learn to tolerate, there is a thing that we must stop tolerating.

Tolerance can only be allocated to so many places. The balance of tolerance and intolerance remains the same no matter how progressive a society becomes. A tolerant society only allocates its intolerance differently.

America today tolerates different things. It tolerates little boys dressing up as little girls at school, but not little boys pointing pencils and making machine gun noises on the playground.

The little boy whose mother dressed him up in girlish clothes once used to be a figure of contempt while the little boy pretending to be a marine was the future of the nation. Now the boy in the dress is the future of the nation having joined an identity group while the aspiring little marine is suspected of one day trading in his sharpened pencil for an assault rifle as soon as the next gun show comes to town.

The Duke of Wellington once said that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton. What battles will the boys playing on the playgrounds where dodgeball is banned and finger guns are a crime win and what sort of nation will they be fighting to protect?
The trouble with tolerance is that there is always someone deciding what to tolerate. A free society does not tolerate people; it allows them to live their own values. And a tolerant society is not free. It is a dictatorship of virtue that is intolerant toward established values in order to better tolerate formerly intolerable values.

A free society does not tell people of any religion or no religion what to believe. A tolerant society forces them all to pay for abortions because its dictators of virtue have decided that the time has come to teach this lesson in tolerance.
An open society finds wisdom in its own uncertainty. A tolerant society, like a teenager, is certain that it already knows all the answers and lacks only the means of imposing them on others. It confuses its destruction of the past with progress and its sense of insecurity with righteousness.

To the tolerant, intolerance is the most powerful act possible. They solve problems by refusing to tolerate them. School shootings are carried out with guns and so the administrative denizens of the gun-free zones run campaigns of intolerance toward the physical existence of guns, the owners of guns, the manufacturers of guns, the civil rights groups that defend gun ownership and eventually toward John Puckle, Samuel Colt, John Moses Browning and the 82nd element in the periodic table.

None of this accomplishes a single practical thing, but it is an assertion of values. The paranoid mindset that cracks down on little boys who chew pop tarts into deadly shapes, little boys who point pencils and fingers at each other, is not out to stop school shootings, but is struggling to assert the intolerance of its tolerant value system over the reality of violence.
It’s not about preventing school shootings, but about asserting a value system in which there is no place for the aspiring marine, unless he’s handing out food to starving children in Africa in a relief operation or serving as a model of gay marriage to rural America.

To understand the NRA’s argument about the moral value of a gun deriving from the moral value of the wielder would require a worldview that is more willing to accept a continuum of shades, rather than criminalizing pencils and pop tarts for guilt by geometric association. A free society could do that, but a tolerant society, in which everything must be assigned an unchanging value to determine whether it will be tolerated and enforced or not tolerated and outlawed, cannot.

That is as true of Newtown as it is of Boston. The same tolerant liberalism that can see deadly menace in a pencil or a pop tart is blind to the lethal threat of a Chechen Islamist. If a gun is innately evil, then a member of a minority group, especially a persecuted one, is innately good. In the real world, it may take bad guns to stop good Muslims, but the system just doubles down on encouraging students to recite the Islamic declaration of faith while suspending them for chewing their pop tarts the wrong way.
Liberal values are at odds with reality and they are not about to let reality win. In their more tolerant nation, there is more room than ever for little boys who dream of one day setting off pressure cooker bombs at public events in the name of their religion, but very little room for little boys dreaming of being the ones to stop them.

The little boy in a dress has put on the uniform of tolerance while the little boy making rat tat noises with a pencil is showing strong signs of playing for the wrong team. The wrong team is the one that solves problems by shooting people, rather than writing denunciations of them to the tolerance department of diversity.

The complainer is the hero and the doer is the villain. Reporters and lawyers are the heroes because they are the arbiters of tolerance. Soldiers and police officers are the gun-happy villains because they respond to realities, rather than identities. They unthinkingly shoot without understanding the subtext.

A free society is practical. It acts in its own defense. A tolerant society acts to assert its values. The former fights terrorists and murderers, while the latter lets them go to show off its tolerant values.

This is the clash of values that holds true on the playground and on the battlefield of war. On the playground, little boys are suspended for waving around pencils and on the battlefield, soldiers are ordered not to defend themselves so that their country can win the hearts and minds of the locals in the endless Afghan Valentine’s Day that has stacked up a horrifying toll of bodies.
In their cities, men and women are told to be tolerant, to extend every courtesy and to suspect nothing of the friendly Islamists in their neighborhoods. It is better to be blown up as a tolerant society, they are told, than to point the pop tart of intolerance on the great playground of the nanny state.

Jim Inhofe

Speaking of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s Sunday talk show rounds insisting that the Benghazi attacks were the product of an anti-Islam video shown on YouTube, Inhofe said:

“They knew that it was a cover-up at that time, the time that it happened,” Inhofe said. “To send Susan Rice out to lie to the American people is one thing that’s going to go down in history, that’s never going to be forgotten.” Source: Politico

Hillary Clinton Testifying on Benghazi

Remember when Hillary Clinton testified about Benghazi…finally, and pounded her fists a few times and infamously asked “what difference, at this point, does it make? [whether it was a spontaneous uprising or just some guys out for a walk - it was none of the above] when Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) questioned her?

“I think that she has gotten by with that sort of forceful attitude,” he said. “It’s something you’re not really accustomed to or hear from women as much as you do men. And she came out so forcefully, and you could tell that it was orchestrated at the time that she said it.” ~ Jim Inhofe

Her “vast right wing conspiracy” claim, as she denied that Monica Lewinsky and her husband, the president of the United States, had trysts inside the White House was also made forcefully on national television. She knew the truth then and lied about it, just as she knew that Benghazi was not due to an anti-Islam video. She stacked the Benghazi Accountability Review Board heavily in her favor and then refused to be interviewed or a request was not forthcoming, in which case she should have insisted that her input be included in a report with wide-ranging historical consequences, as a U.S. Ambassador was murdered while on her watch.

Admiral Mike Mullen and Thomas Pickering

But the government spin never stops:

As today’s big Benghazi hearing gets underway, Republicans are saying Ambassador Thomas Pickering – the co-chairman of the State Department’s committee investigating of the Benghazi attack – has refused to testify today.

The State Department says the opposite is true – that Pickering wanted to testify but Republicans would not let him.

“Ambassador Pickering volunteered to appear,” a State Department official tells ABC News. “But [Government Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Darrell] Issa said no.”

“That is 100 percent untrue,” says Issa spokesman Frederick Hill.

In fact, Hill has released letters dated February 22 inviting Pickering (read them here), and the other co-chairman of the investigation, former Joint Chiefs Chair retired Adm. Michael Mullen, to testify at today’s hearing.

“Ambassador Pickering initially told the Committee he was not available on that date,” Hill tells ABC News. “When asked about a different date, he said he was not inclined to testify.”

But the State Department says Pickering is ready to go right now – and happy to testify today.

“If Darrell Issa offers Pickering a chair, he will be there today,” the State Department official tells ABC News. “The only reason Pickering isn’t there is because Issa said no.” Source: ABC

If you have doubts about the invitation from Issa to Pickering and Mullen, click the link above to read the actual letter.

Nevermind. Pickering says the call to do nothing to help our diplomats and support staff in Benghazi had nothing to do with Hillary. The fault lies with underlings even though her name is on every document denying additional security – remember, he didn’t interview her or her close staff. With noted arrogance, Pickering has said, “we knew where the responsibility rested.” Four lower-level State Department employees were fired.

A disclaimer here: I’m on vacation. This report of Pickering and Mullen refusing to testify is a few days old and I’m out of the country without a good Internet connection, but the latest seems to be that Pickering and Issa had it out face-to-face, and Pickering has said he will show up before Issa’s House Committee on Monday (May 13, 2013).

Hillary said the responsibility for Benghazi is her’s even though she knew nothing that was going on and had no knowledge that security was denied to Ambassador Stevens. As ridiculous as that is, it’s more ridiculous that Congressman Issa says Hillary is not a target of the House investigation. He apparently thinks his hearings and whatever we learn or do not learn will suffice for the deaths of four Americans who were doing their jobs while the State Department and White House were not doing their’s. Perhaps this denial from Issa of interest in Hillary’s involvement is the saddest news we’ve heard other than learning of four dead Americans and many other wounded. It simply means there is no responsibility shouldered by the Secretary of State, whomever holds that position in a Democrat administration.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens

• Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy National SECURITY Advisor is the brother of CBS News President David Rhodes. Ben Rhodes was reportedly “instrumental in changing the Benghazi talking points.” Ben Rhodes has a Master in Fiction from NYU (not a joke).

• Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, Obama’s “Special Assistant,” is the sister of ABC News President Ben Sherwood.

• Both Ben Rhodes and Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall also work at the National Security Council (NSC) on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi.

• CNN’s deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary for State Management and Resources, Tom Nides.

Throw another log on the fire:

• Thomas Pickering, head of Hillary’s Accountability Review Board (ARB), is closely tied to both Hillary and Bill Clinton. Hillary referred to Pickering as her “close friend,” and between Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright, he was appointed to several posts, including Ambassador to Russia, UnderSecretary of State for Political Affairs, US Ambassador to India

Mark Steyn sums up Hillary’s lack of despair for the death of Ambassador Stevens while Obama was in Las Vegas fund-raising.

Once Ambassador Stevens was in his flag-draped coffin listening to her eulogy for him at Andrews Air Force Base, he was her bestest friend in the world — it was all ‘Chris this’ and ‘Chris that,’ as if they’d known each other since third grade. But up till that point he was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends of Hillary trying in vain to get her ear.

Now we know that at 8 p.m. Eastern time on the last night of Stevens’s life, his deputy in Libya spoke to Secretary Clinton and informed her of the attack in Benghazi and the fact that the ambassador was now missing. An hour later, Gregory Hicks received a call from the then–Libyan prime minister, Abdurrahim el-Keib, informing him that Stevens was dead. Hicks immediately called Washington. It was 9 p.m. Eastern time, or 3 a.m. in Libya. Remember the Clinton presidential team’s most famous campaign ad? About how Hillary would be ready to take that 3 a.m.call? Four years later, the phone rings, and Secretary Clinton’s not there. She doesn’t call Hicks back that evening. Or the following day.

Are murdered ambassadors like those 1.43 million cables she doesn’t read? Just too many of them to keep track of? No. Only six had been killed in the history of the republic — seven, if you include Arnold Raphel, who perished in General Zia’s somewhat mysterious plane crash in Pakistan in 1988. Before that you have to go back to Adolph Dubs, who died during a kidnapping attempt in Kabul in 1979. So we have here a once-in-a-third-of-a-century event. And at 3 a.m. Libyan time on September 12 it’s still unfolding, with its outcome unclear. Hicks is now America’s head man in the country, and the cabinet secretary to whom he reports says, ‘Leave a message after the tone and I’ll get back to you before the end of the week.’ Just to underline the difference here: Libya’s head of government calls Hicks, but nobody who matters in his own government can be bothered to.

Today is Mother’s Day. I mourn along with Pat Smith who lost her son Sean who was with Ambassador Chris Smith that night. I mourn with the Mother of Chris Stevens, and wish his family would begin speaking out. I mourn with the Mother’s of former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty who died trying to keep others alive, and David Uben, gravely injured and still hospitalized. His life will be the same.

To all the Mothers may your day be bright and happy.

My Yiddishe Mama

Click here to view the video on YouTube.

Click here if the video doesn’t load.