Saturday, November 26, 2011

Central America: Poverty and corruption are rampant, say Catholic Bishops.

                            Saturday, November 26, 2011

                          

Strengthening the culture of life and peace in Central America: is what the Secretariat of the Catholic Bishops of Central America (SEDAC) asked at the end of their meeting in Honduras' capital city, Tegucigalpa. The weeklong bishops' assembly gathered more than 50 bishops from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama.

Topics for discussion included: poverty, insecurity, organized crime, institutionalized corruption and drug trafficking.

Victor Hugo Alvarez, who directs a Catholic newspaper in Honduras, reported that central theme was "peace in the region". While in Central America today, there are no more bloody conflicts between government and insurgent forces that convulsed the region for decades, new forms of violence have emerged.

The rate of murder and other violent crime, the rise of armed gangs and the growing corruption of law enforcement, are areas of particular concern to the bishops.

In addition, unemployment and the lack of opportunities for young people, who then migrate to the United States, are also issues that were considered by the bishops. Many migrants from Central America are killed or disappear on their way to 'El Norte.'

The final message of the Assembly points out that "in the midst of people who love truth and honesty, and who has always fought for equality and freedom, there are still adverse situations such as social exclusion of the majority of the poor, corruption in the society and the state, the violation of human rights".

Faced with these challenges - said the president of the SEDAC, Archbishop Leopoldo Brenes of Managua, "we must become pastors who walk in front of our people, pointing out the right direction, witnessing love and the Kingdom to build with peace and freedom".

The Bishops' text concludes by inviting everyone to commit themselves "to building the Kingdom of God in Central America, a Kingdom of justice and peace".

Source: FIDES

Speroforum editor Martin Barillas is a former US diplomat, who also worked as a democracy advocate and election observer in Latin America. He is also a freelance translator.

Filed under guatemala, nicaragua, illegal immigration, us, security, catholic, religion, human righ

Friday, November 25, 2011

Phyllis Schlafly: GOODBYE UNESCO. AND GOOD RIDDANCE!

USA :: New World Order - UN   :: GOODBYE UNESCO
11-22-2011 8:53 am - Phyllis Schlafly - TownHall.com



A trigger provision, buried in U.S. laws since 1990, quietly took effect at the end of October. The U.S. taxpayers' annual donation of 22 percent to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization's budget was summarily terminated when UNESCO voted 107 to 14 (with 52 abstentions) to approve full membership for Palestine.
 
The cutoff of U.S. handouts includes not only our major annual gift to UNESCO of $80 million, but also some extra-budgetary donations of $2 million and $3 million a year for special projects, mostly in Iraq. The Palestinians can now request admission to three other U.N. agencies and, if accepted, U.S. law will require us to terminate our handouts to those agencies, too.

The idea of an automatic cutoff of U.S. spending when a recipient takes anti-American actions is a splendid idea. I can think of lots of appropriations where a rule like this would save us money, so let's start with the United Nations itself.

For example, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, speaking in Bangladesh on Nov. 14, urged world leaders to finalize financing for a multibillion-dollar fund to fight the effects of climate change. He is urging the U.N. climate-change conference that opens Nov. 28 in Durban, South Africa, to raise $100 billion a year for a Green Climate Fund to help poor countries cope with global warming.


Americans should recognize this language as U.N. gobbledygook to transfer U.S. wealth to foreign countries run by corrupt dictators. The 190 countries expected to attend the Durban conference would probably think that is a nifty idea.

Ban Ki-moon started his drive for a huge U.N. climate-change fund by making a tear-jerking plea, about a melting North Pole glacier, at the Copenhagen U.N. conference in December 2009. But despite President Obama's attendance, designed to encourage U.N. wishful thinking, Copenhagen results were zero.

Following the failed Copenhagen conference, Ban Ki-moon assembled a 20-member high-level advisory group on Climate Change Financing to make recommendations to the Green Climate Fund. Members included (surprise, surprise) George Soros.

The U.S. never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which was signed by Bill Clinton, but our Senate did ratify the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. This UNFCCC created a committee charged with designing a Green Climate Fund, which was supposed to develop a plan to raise $100 billion a year, and get it approved at the UNFCCC meeting to be held in Durban, South Africa next month.

The Cancun Agreements, adopted at the U.N. Climate Talks in December 2010, established the Green Climate Fund. Cancun also set up a committee charged with making recommendations to the Durban conference.

Of course, nobody knows what these international bureaucrats (spending other nations' money) will finally decide is the cost to "go green." Some estimates use the figure $600 billion annually, and others estimate $1.9 trillion annually for the next 40 years.

The committee hasn't yet made progress with the plan to get guarantees from developed countries, i.e., the U.S., to take action domestically and, collectively, to pledge the money. The current strategy is for the poor countries to use the Durban, South Africa conference to demand that the developed countries ante up $100 billion annually by 2020.

The scariest part is how the committee, consisting of representatives of 40 nations, plans to get the $100 billion a year. No plans have been finalized, but the committee is hoping for U.N. taxes on carbon, international travel and shipping, international financial trades of stocks, bonds, derivatives and currency, and a wire tax for producing electricity, plus eliminating individual country subsidies to fossil fuels and diverting that money to the Green Climate Fund.

The strategy behind this potpourri of special taxes is, first, to bypass Congress, realizing that even our big-spending politicians are not stupid enough to vote for a U.N. appropriation of such magnitude. Second, the amount of money that could be raised by these special taxes paid by individuals and corporations could reach or even exceed the extravagant goals of the Green Climate Fund.

We should prepare ourselves for this by using the UNESCO model. Congress should pass a law specifying that if the U.N. imposes any taxes to be paid by individuals or corporations, that's the day we terminate all U.S. appropriations to the U.N.

Maybe these U.N. tax-hungry globalists will get some help from the Occupy Wall Street bunch for the plan to tax individuals instead of relying on congressional appropriations. One OWS leader just demanded "a 1 percent Robin Hood tax on all financial transactions and currency trades."

Don't laugh. A financial transaction tax was endorsed by Bill Gates and by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who lobbied President Obama at the G-20 Summit in Cannes to join him.

-----------------------------------------------

Phyllis Schlafly is a national leader of the pro-family movement, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Feminist Fantasies.

http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2011/11/22/
goodbye_unesco

Thursday, November 24, 2011

ABA panel rejects many Obama judge picks as being 'not qualified'.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / November 24, 2011

New York Times

Published Wednesday, Nov. 23, 2011

WASHINGTON – The American Bar Association has secretly declared a significant number of President Barack Obama's potential judicial nominees "not qualified," slowing White House efforts to fill vacant judgeships – and nearly all of the prospects given poor ratings were women or members of an ethnic minority group, according to interviews. 
The White House has chosen not to nominate any person the bar association deemed unqualified, so the negative ratings have not been made public. But the association's judicial vetting committee has opposed 14 of the roughly 185 potential nominees the administration asked it to evaluate, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The number of Obama prospects deemed "not qualified" already exceeds the total number opposed by the group during the eight-year administrations of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush; the rejection rate is more than 3 1/2 times as high as it was under either of the previous two presidencies, documents and interviews show.
That outcome has added a twist to a long-running friction in the politics of judicial nominations. During recent Republican administrations, conservatives have made political hay of accusing the ABA of bias against conservative potential judges.
In 2001, Bush stopped sending the group names of prospects before he selected them, so the panel instead rated them after their nomination. In 2009, Obama restored the panel's role in the pre-nomination selection process, which dates to the Eisenhower administration.

In discussions with bar panel leaders, administration officials have expressed growing frustrations with the ratings over the past year and a half, people familiar with those conversations said. In particular, they are said to have questioned whether the panelists – many of whom are litigators – place too much value on courtroom experience at the expense of lawyers who pursued career paths less likely to involve trials, like government lawyers and law professors.

In response to questions about the ratings, Obama's White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, said in a statement that the administration "continues to have a strong working relationship with the A.B.A."
But she also acknowledged disagreements with some of its ratings.

"Although we may not agree with all of their ratings," Ruemmler said, "we respect and value their historical role in evaluating judicial candidates. The president remains committed to addressing the judicial vacancy crisis with urgency and with qualified candidates who bring a diverse range of experience to the bench."

The chairman since August of the bar association's vetting committee, Allan J. Joseph, would not confirm any negative ratings but defended the panel's work as fair-minded and independent. Its members, he said, are all volunteers who, as a matter of public service, put in long hours reading candidates' writings and conducting confidential interviews about them with dozens of judges and lawyers.

"We are not a rubber stamp," he said. "Our role is to provide the only peer review in the whole process, and we think that is valuable – particularly with a lifetime appointment under consideration."

Obama has made it a policy goal to diversify the bench in terms of race, gender and life experiences, and the judges he has appointed have been more likely to be women or minorities than any previous president.

Of the 14 people opposed by the panel, a person familiar with the ratings said, nine are women – five of whom are white, two black and two Latino. Of the five men, one is white, two are black and two are Latino.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

WHAT DO THE RUSSIANS FIND SO OFFENSIVE ABOUT AMERICA'S DEFENSE?

What do our friends, the Russians, to whom we have entrusted our missions to the stars, find so offensive about defense? Maybe they think we don't trust them? Could be they're right. 
As for me, the only Russians I ever really trusted were Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn. Oh, you say that's only one? Well, I need a little more time. I'll get back to you on that.
VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV   11/23/11 12:12 PM ET   AP Associated Press
The tough statement reflected a growing strain in U.S.-Russian ties, despite President Barack Obama's campaign to "reset" American relations with the Kremlin, which were strained by years of tensions over U.S. foreign policy and the 2008 Russian-Georgian war.

Medvedev said he still hopes for a deal on the U.S. missile shield, but he strongly accused the U.S. and its NATO allies of ignoring Russia's worries.

The U.S. has repeatedly assured Russia that its proposed missile defense system wouldn't be directed against Russia's nuclear forces, but Moscow has demanded legally binding assurances, and Medvedev did that again on Wednesday.

He warned that Russia will station missiles in its westernmost Kaliningrad region and other areas, if the U.S. continues its plans without giving Russia firm legal guarantees that the shield isn't directed at its nuclear forces.

The U.S. missile defense dispute has long tarnished ties between Moscow and Washington. The Obama administration says the shield is needed to fend off a potential threat from Iran, but Russia fears that it could erode the deterrent potential of its nuclear forces.

"If our partners tackle the issue of taking our legitimate security interests into account in an honest and responsible way, I'm sure we will be able to come to an agreement," Medvedev said. "But if they offer us to `cooperate,' or, to say it honestly, work against our own interests, we won't be able to reach common ground."

Moscow has agreed to consider a proposal NATO made last fall to cooperate on the missile shield, but the talks have been deadlocked over how the system should be operated. Russia has insisted that it should be run jointly, which NATO has rejected.

Medvedev also warned that Moscow may opt out of the New START arms control deal with the United States and halt other arms control talks, if the U.S. proceeds with the missile shield without meeting to Russia's demand.

The Americans had hoped that the START treaty would stimulate progress in further ambitious arms control efforts, but such talks have stalled over tension on the missile plan.

While the New START doesn't prevent the U.S. from building new missile defense systems, Russia has said it could withdraw from the treaty, if it feels threatened by such a system in future.

Medvedev reaffirmed that warning Wednesday, saying that Russia may opt out of the treaty because of an "inalienable link strategic offensive and defensive weapons."

The New START has been a key achievement of Obama's policy of improving U.S. relations with Moscow, which had suffered badly under George W. Bush administration.

The U.S. plan calls for placing land- and sea-based radars and interceptors in European locations, including Romania and Poland, over the next decade and upgrading them over time.

Medvedev said that Russia will carefully watch the development of the U.S. shield and take countermeasures, if Washington ignores Russia's concerns. He warned that Moscow would deploy short-range Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, a Baltic Sea region bordering Poland, and place weapons in other areas in Russia's west and south to target U.S. missile defense sites.

Medvedev added that such Russian strategic nuclear missiles also would be fitted with systems that would allow them to penetrate prospective missile defenses.

He and other Russian leaders have made similar threats in the past, and the latest statement appears to be aimed at domestic audience ahead of Dec. 4 parliamentary elections.

Medvedev, who is set to step down to allow Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to reclaim the presidency in March's elections, leads the ruling United Russia party list in the parliamentary vote. A stern warning to the U.S. and NATO issued by Medvedev seems to be directed at rallying nationalist votes in the polls.

Regarding Russia's demands, Medvedev said: "When we propose to put in on paper in the form of precise and clear legal obligations, we hear a strong refusal. We won't agree to take part in a program, which in a comparatively short period – five, six or may be eight years – would be capable of weakening our deterrence potential."

Medvedev's envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said at a news conference that the Kremlin won't follow the example of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and take unwritten promises from the West.

"The current political leadership can't act like Gorbachev, and it wants written obligations secured by ratification documents," Rogozin said.

Medvedev's statement was intended to encourage the U.S. and NATO to take Russia seriously at the missile defense talks, Rogozin said.

"We won't allow them to treat us like fools," he said. "Nuclear deterrent forces aren't a joke."
_____

Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/medvedev-russia-may-target-missile-defense-sites-123047622.html









































 


VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV   11/23/11 12:12 PM ET   AP
MOSCOW — If Washington continues to ignore Russia's demands about a proposed U.S. missile shield in Europe, Russia will deploy new missiles aimed at it and put arms control on hold, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday.
The tough statement reflected a growing strain in U.S.-Russian ties, despite President Barack Obama's campaign to "reset" American relations with the Kremlin, which were strained by years of tensions over U.S. foreign policy and the 2008 Russian-Georgian war.
Medvedev said he still hopes for a deal on the U.S. missile shield, but he strongly accused the U.S. and its NATO allies of ignoring Russia's worries.
The U.S. has repeatedly assured Russia that its proposed missile defense system wouldn't be directed against Russia's nuclear forces, but Moscow has demanded legally binding assurances, and Medvedev did that again on Wednesday.
He warned that Russia will station missiles in its westernmost Kaliningrad region and other areas, if the U.S. continues its plans without giving Russia firm legal guarantees that the shield isn't directed at its nuclear forces.
The U.S. missile defense dispute has long tarnished ties between Moscow and Washington. The Obama administration says the shield is needed to fend off a potential threat from Iran, but Russia fears that it could erode the deterrent potential of its nuclear forces.
"If our partners tackle the issue of taking our legitimate security interests into account in an honest and responsible way, I'm sure we will be able to come to an agreement," Medvedev said. "But if they offer us to `cooperate,' or, to say it honestly, work against our own interests, we won't be able to reach common ground."
Moscow has agreed to consider a proposal NATO made last fall to cooperate on the missile shield, but the talks have been deadlocked over how the system should be operated. Russia has insisted that it should be run jointly, which NATO has rejected.
Medvedev also warned that Moscow may opt out of the New START arms control deal with the United States and halt other arms control talks, if the U.S. proceeds with the missile shield without meeting to Russia's demand. The Americans had hoped that the START treaty would stimulate progress in further ambitious arms control efforts, but such talks have stalled over tension on the missile plan.
While the New START doesn't prevent the U.S. from building new missile defense systems, Russia has said it could withdraw from the treaty, if it feels threatened by such a system in future.
Medvedev reaffirmed that warning Wednesday, saying that Russia may opt out of the treaty because of an "inalienable link strategic offensive and defensive weapons."
The New START has been a key achievement of Obama's policy of improving U.S. relations with Moscow, which had suffered badly under George W. Bush administration.
The U.S. plan calls for placing land- and sea-based radars and interceptors in European locations, including Romania and Poland, over the next decade and upgrading them over time.
Medvedev said that Russia will carefully watch the development of the U.S. shield and take countermeasures, if Washington ignores Russia's concerns. He warned that Moscow would deploy short-range Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, a Baltic Sea region bordering Poland, and place weapons in other areas in Russia's west and south to target U.S. missile defense sites.
Medvedev added that such Russian strategic nuclear missiles also would be fitted with systems that would allow them to penetrate prospective missile defenses.
He and other Russian leaders have made similar threats in the past, and the latest statement appears to be aimed at domestic audience ahead of Dec. 4 parliamentary elections.
Medvedev, who is set to step down to allow Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to reclaim the presidency in March's elections, leads the ruling United Russia party list in the parliamentary vote. A stern warning to the U.S. and NATO issued by Medvedev seems to be directed at rallying nationalist votes in the polls.
Regarding Russia's demands, Medvedev said: "When we propose to put in on paper in the form of precise and clear legal obligations, we hear a strong refusal. We won't agree to take part in a program, which in a comparatively short period – five, six or may be eight years – would be capable of weakening our deterrence potential."
Medvedev's envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said at a news conference that the Kremlin won't follow the example of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and take unwritten promises from the West.
"The current political leadership can't act like Gorbachev, and it wants written obligations secured by ratification documents," Rogozin said.
Medvedev's statement was intended to encourage the U.S. and NATO to take Russia seriously at the missile defense talks, Rogozin said.
"We won't allow them to treat us like fools," he said. "Nuclear deterrent forces aren't a joke."
_____
Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow contributed to this report.
(This version CORRECTS New approach. Corrects spelling of "Dmitry" in the first paragraph.)
Below, see photos of President Medvedev fishing with Vladimir Putin:

U.S. TO STOP OBSERVING ARMS TREATY WITH RUSSIA. FINALLY WE'RE GETTING IT RIGHT!

The United States said Tuesday it would no longer provide data to Russia on conventional weapons and troops in Europe, citing non-compliance by Moscow with a two-decade old treaty that governed the information exchange.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters the United States will cease to observe the provisions of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE).
Adopted in November 1990, it was seen as a groundbreaking accord credited with greatly advancing global security. But Russia suspended its observance of the treaty in 2007.

"This is an issue that we've been working on ever since the Russians withdrew," Nuland told reporters.
"After four years of Russian non-implementation and after repeated efforts... to save the treaty, we think it's important to take some counter-measures vis-a-vis Russia," she said.
The US will now no longer accept Russian inspection of its bases.

Despite Moscow's non-compliance, the United States and allies had also continued to meet the treaty's obligations by giving Moscow data on their forces over the past four years, but that will also stop.
The CFE treaty signed in Paris aimed to establish military parity and stability in the conventional military forces and equipment of Europe between the NATO countries and those of the Warsaw bloc.
The accord set ceilings on troops and weapons, and created unprecedented provisions for the exchange of information, bilateral inspections and onsite monitoring of the destruction of weapons.
"The US will not accept Russian inspections of our bases under the CFE, and we will also not provide Russia with the annual notifications of military data called for in the treaty," Nuland said.

"It's our understanding that a number, if not all US NATO allies will do the same," the chief US diplomatic spokeswoman said.
But she added: "Our door remains open to resolve these issues."

http://news.yahoo.com/us-cease-observing-arms-treaty-russia-state-dept-205507881.html

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Johnny Spann: 'If we had moved on Osama bin Laden in 1992, the War on Terror might never have taken place.'

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / November 22, 2011

THE TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE DEATH OF 
AMERICAN HERO MIKE SPANN IS NOVEMBER 25, 2011.

Johnny Spann has spilled a lot of information and emotion as he talked with me on his cell phone from his home in Alabama. Our conversations took place in October and early November of this year. 

I am deeply grateful to this soft-spoken and genteel grandfather for sharing his innermost thoughts on the death of his son Mike in 2001 in Afghanistan -- what happened and what might have happened. How decisive action in Washington as far back as 1992 could have changed the course of American history, heading off the costly, bitter and prolonged War on Terror.

We have covered a lot of ground, but there is more to say. Johnny picks up the conversation:

***********

I remember Mike everyday and we commemorate his death everyday, and more importantly, his life. His two daughters of course live here. I don’t want them to ever forget their father, and I know they won’t. 

Emily was only four years old when Mike died. Alison was old enough that she remembers her dad really well. We’re not going to have any kind of special memorial anywhere. The tenth year doesn’t mean anything more to me than the first year. 

Will you bottom line this for me? What I’m seeing is your feeling that if there had been any courage in Washington, and if we had gone after bin Laden in 1992 and stood up for America, your son might be alive today.

Yes, not only Mike but many others. But I don’t want to come off as radical. In ten years of thinking about this, I'm reminded of  the old saying – fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. History keeps repeating itself, and what are we letting ourselves in for now? 

We’re pulling out of Iraq and we may not have a choice, but from where I’m sitting it seems like there should be more choices. I’m afraid we’re going to be doing the same thing in Afghanistan. And we’re going to leave and it’s going to be just like it was when the Soviets pulled out of there.We’re so vulnerable to the actions of all these radicals and the Taliban. It will just be done again. 

I am really proud of the fact that we were finally able to find bin Laden, but in my own mind I can’t see Obama getting all the credit for that. In the first interview, I was impressed that when the time and opportunity were right to take out bin Laden, the president didn’t say no. 

But as far as leading up to that point, I think all the things the Bush administration had put into effect through the years were very important in finally cornering and killing bin Laden. In any case, I’m still proud we got him, but the thing is, if we had gotten him in 1992 we could probably have abolished Al-Queda very easily..

 I have another question – are you not a Christian?
 
Yes I am. 

I know you are. I can hear it in your comments and thoughts. Has that faith sustained you through this long, terrible ordeal?

Well I think so. I’m not going to try to say that it’s just my faith in God. But I want to tell you one more quick story, and I don’t want to bore you.

Believe me that won’t happen.

Right after Mike died, people come up to you and say I’m really sorry, you know, you’ve just got realize it’s God’s will, it’s part of God’s plan, and you’ve just got to accept it. And that was just like taking a knife and sticking it right in my heart.
 
There was one particular lady -- she came by she said just to say hi. She sat down in my office and was talking about her faith in God, and her family’s faith in God, and that she was in God’s favor and her family was in God’s favor, and that God protected her and her family.  

I let her go on, and she talked about how she prayed every day and she let God take care of them and He did, and all. But I said, are you telling me that because I wasn’t a good enough person or Mike wasn’t a good enough Christian, that I didn’t pray hard enough or Mike didn’t pray hard enough? Then you are saying Mike was such a bad person that God just let him die?
She said well, I’m just telling you that God can move mountains if he wants to. 
I said yeah, okay, I believe that. And then she went through this thing about being in God’s favor, and I said, well I’ll tell you what – I think sin came into the world back in the Garden of Eden. Up until that time there wasn’t going to be any crime and there wasn’t going to be any death, and there wasn’t going to be anything but happiness. But we were given a choice, and man sinned. And when he sinned, a whole different set of rules came into play. 

And I said I don’t believe that God made those people kill Mike. I don’t believe that no matter how much we could have prayed, that Mike would have come out of that situation alive. Because you had 600 prisoners there and they all attacked one man. And I don’t believe there was a way that he could have survived, no matter how much we prayed, and how good he was. 

I told the church congregation I think Mike was over there doing something that had to be done. But I don’t think it was in God’s plan that He said I am going to send Mike Spann there and he’s going to get killed. I said I just can’t believe that because if I do I’ll be mad at God. 

Mike left three little kids – a six-month-old boy who will never remember his father holding him in his arms, and a four-year-old daughter who it’s doubtful will remember him, and a nine-year-old who cried her eyes out when I told her that her daddy was dead. I just can’t believe that. 

I said let’s walk out in front of my office, and we’re going to stand there, and when the first eighteen-wheeler comes down the road I want you to step out in front of it, and I want you to pray, as a matter of fact we’ll pray together that that truck won’t kill you. 
Well I can’t do that.
I said then you need to back up on what you’re saying. Then I got invited to a nice little prayer breakfast in Cullman Alabama, and it was preachers and Christians and all denominations held at one of the big auditoriums there. I guess there were three or four hundred people there. And I thought about it as I was driving over and wondered well what am I going to say? I thought they were going me to talk about just what you asked me here – did I think my faith in God is what got me through this, but I’d been told that so many times, this was God’s plan and this was God’s will, and I just need to accept it.
So when I got there, and got to the podium, I told them I realize everyone has a right to their own opinion, and I have something I really want to talk to you about, and I want you to think about it. I said that if you’re guilty of saying this kind of thing, you might want to change your ways and the way you say it. 
The first thing I want to tell you is when you walk up to somebody like me that’s just lost their son, whether it be in war, or in a car accident, or whatever, the most fitting thing you can say to them is I’m so sorry for your loss. I wish I could change it, but I’m so sorry for your loss. 
God’s will in the Garden of Eden was nobody would die and nobody would be hurt and there would be no pain. But man made the decision himself to break God’s rule and sin and brought sin into the world. You can say He allowed this to happen, but no matter how much we had prayed, I don’t believe we could have brought Mike out of that situation alive. 
After the service, there were some who didn’t come by to shake my hand, but there were numbers of people that stood in line to shake my hand and tell me that they’d never thought about that, and that they realized what I was saying and where I was coming from.

All of them might have believed they were saying something good. But the truth is, what they were saying was just cutting me to the bone. They seemed to be suggesting that Mike just wasn’t a good enough person. He had just sinned too much or something. 
On this tenth anniversary I just want people to look back at all those who have given their lives – not only Mike, but so many more. These guys just keep going back and giving of themselves. At some point they’re going to give out, but we can learn from the experiences we’ve had. I believe that if we go back to 1992 to 2000, and how we handled our foreign affairs, and misused our money, and the things that we cut, was very poor judgement.
When Mike called me and told me he was going to go with the CIA, that night we had a long conversation, and one of the things he said to me was, Dad, the American people are going to be paying for the things that have gone on in this Clinton administration for many years to come. 

Mike was aware, and a thinking person, and that was his take on the follow-up to cutting back our military, (early 1999). Even with all he did putting himself in harm’s way, he seemed to feel that he wasn’t doing enough. But all of us – each one of us – needs to give and contribute to our country. I’m too old to go and fight, but any influence I can have by passing on these things that have happened, I think I need to say it.

***********
VS: Mike Spann was an extraordinary American. And I say that his father, Johnny Spann, belongs in the same elite company too. Both have sacrificed so much. May we be forever grateful. God bless these two heroes, and their families. Each and every one.

Email. Johnnyspann@hotmailcom.


Monday, November 21, 2011

American traitor John Walker Lindh chooses not to save CIA agent Mike Spann.

By Johnny Spann 
As told to Verne Strickland / November 21, 2011

***********
CIA operative Mike Spann has gone to an ancient fortress prison in Afghanistan to interview Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners. By telephone, Mike tells his father, Johnny Spann, who is at his home in the U.S., that he expects to gain hard evidence that might lead to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. Mike -- a former Marine -- is in the vanguard of elite U.S. intelligence officers committed to tracking down the arch-terrorist.





American Traitor John Walker Lindh

It is November 25, 2001, and Mike senses that he may be close to a breakthrough. In retrospect, it is chilling to realize that the 32-two-year-old Alabama native is actually closer to his own death than to the information he seeks.

A video taken of these crucial moments by an Afghan cameraman, and discovered later by Johnny Spann, pieces together what took place. The three-minute clip has surfaced on U.S. television. Johnny picks up the story:

The television networks were running this little clip showing Mike in front of a guy on a pallet on the ground. Mike was kneeling on the ground and this guy was sitting in front of him. Mike is trying to get the man to tell who he is, what he is doing there, and those things. That man is John Walker Lindh. On the video our people  were trying to determine who the prisoners were, and they were putting them in little rows by nationalities -- where is this guy from? Is he a Turk? They had to start somewhere so they were trying to segregate them out. 
 
They get this one guy and he doesn’t look like an Afghan, he’s all dirty and nasty and long hair and beard, so Mike’s wanting him to open up and tell him, but the man never says a word. Nobody else could have even heard what he was saying.  

He could have said to Mike – look, I’m an American and I’m in the wrong place at the wrong time. There’s going to be an uprising here and our lives are in jeopardy. I don’t know what’s going to happen. But he never said that. He never said anything. 


Nobody could have even heard what he was saying. The only reason we know what he was trying to say is that the video man was shooting video and recorded it.


If Lindh had just come clean at this time -- just told Mike that he was an American, then Mike would have gotten out of there. And Lindh would have gotten out of there with him -- if he had warned about what was about to take place. 

Then shortly after that – the uprising starts. It was too late then. After a lot of twists and turns, I did get a copy of the video. It answered a lot of questions for me. But not all.


Entry from Wikipedia:

 On February 5, 2002, Lindh was indicted by a federal grand jury on ten charges:[29]
If convicted of these charges, Lindh could have received up to three life sentences and 90 additional years in prison. On February 13, 2002, he pleaded not guilty to all 10 charges.[2


John Phillip Walker Lindh (born February 9, 1981) is a United States citizen who was captured as an enemy combatant during the United States' 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. He is now serving a 20-year prison sentence in connection with his participation in Afghanistan's Taliban army. He was captured during the Battle of Qala-i-Jangi, a violent Taliban prison uprising during which Central Intelligence Agency officer Johnny "Mike" Spann was killed.

At Lyndh's trial, Michael Chertoff, then head of the criminal division of the U.S. Department of Justice, directed the prosecutors to offer Lindh a plea bargain, to which, Lindh would plead guilty to two charges: — supplying services to the Taliban (50 U.S.C. § 1705(b), 18 U.S.C. § 2, 31 C.F.R. 545.204, and 31 C.F.R. 545.206a) and carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony (18 U.S.C. § 844(h)(2)).

He would also have to consent to a gag order that would prevent him from making any public statements on the matter for the duration of his 20-year sentence, and he would have to drop any claims that he had been mistreated or tortured by U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan and aboard two military ships during December 2001 and January 2002. In return, all other charges would be dropped. The gag order was supposedly at the request of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.[1]

Lindh accepted this offer. On July 15, 2002, he entered his plea of guilty to the two remaining charges. The judge asked Lindh to say, in his own words, what he was admitting to. Lindh's allocution went as follows: "I plead guilty", he said. "I provided my services as a soldier to the Taliban last year from about August to December. In the course of doing so, I carried a rifle and two grenades. I did so knowingly and willingly knowing that it was illegal."

Lindh further commented that he "went to Afghanistan with the intention of fighting against terrorism and oppression," fighting for the suffering of ordinary people at the hands of the Northern Alliance.[1]

On October 4, 2002, Judge T.S. Ellis, III formally imposed the sentence: 20 years without parole.[30


NEXT:  FINAL INSTALLMENT -- MIKE SPANN'S FATHER CONCLUDES  THIS TRAGIC SAGA WITH SOME STRAIGHT TALK FOR THE WHITE HOUSE: 'THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO DO WHAT THEY NEEDED TO IN 1992.'









Sunday, November 20, 2011

Pantano gets a 2-to-1 win over Rouzer in NCGOP Hall of Fame Straw Poll

                                       
By Wes King / Port City Conservatives /  November 20, 2011

Watch Pantano's riveting

The North Carolina Republican Party Saturday night, November 19, held the NCGOP Hall of Fame event. In addition to Hall of Fame inductions, the event also included a straw poll for primary candidates for the 2012 elections.
                                                                         
 Ilario Pantano, candidate for the 7th district Republican nod for the congressional primary, won the straw poll by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 over David Rouzer.


The North Carolina Hall of Fame dinner is one of the primary fundraisers for the party during the year, giving a boost in preparation for the upcoming elections.  The cost of the event was $125.

The event was held at the Embassy Suites in Cary, NC and hosted events throughout the day including Central Committee and Executive Committee meetings as well as seminars.  A dinner was held during the induction with a speech being given by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia who is leading the charge against Obamacare.

The ballot for the event held the primaries for all of the contested congressional districts as well other notable offices, including Lt. Governor and United States President.  Other notable winners of the night include Dan Forest for Lt. Governor and Newt Gingrich for President. 

Pantano was celebrating the 236th birthday of the United States Marine Corps at the Marine Corps Ball in SouthEastern NC at the University of North Carolina Wilmington Warwick Center, an event hosted by the Marine Corps League Detachment 1070 and was unable to attend the Hall of Fame event.

This victory is being considered a significant victory for the Pantano campaign, especially given the location and attendees of the event.  Notable lobbyists, party insiders, and Raleigh powerbrokers were present at the event and were expected to sway the vote.

Voters in the event knew both candidates well, given the relationships championed by Rouzer and the prominence that Pantano has developed after the previous run against incumbent Congressman Mike McIntyre.

As the primary campaigns begin to enter the holiday season, the importance of this segment of the campaign is obvious.  Maintaining and developing momentum for the campaign is going to be important as the campaign continues to push in fundraising efforts and to continue to motivate the grassroots efforts.

Pantano has scheduled a book signing for the re-release of his book Warlord: Broken by War, Saved by Grace at Barnes and Noble in the Mayfair Town Center in Wilmington NC on Thursday December 8th at 6:30 PM.

He is doing a second signing at the Fayetteville NC Barnes and Noble at the Glensford Commons on Saturday December 17th at 4:00 PM.

http://www.portcityconservatives.com/2011/11/20/pantano-rouzer-ncgop-hall-of-fame-straw-poll-wilmington-new-hanover-county-nc-north-carolina-7th-district/

ACCOUNTS OF MIKE SPANN'S BRAVERY UNDER SEIGE 'EMOTIONALLY WRENCHING' FOR HIS FAMILY.

[mike+spann+tomb.jpg]
Johnny Micheal "Mike" Spann was a paramilitary operations officer in the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division. He was the first American killed in combat during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The tenth anniversary of Mike's death is November 25, 2011.




This is a written account of a fact-finding trip which Mike's father took to Afghanistan one year after his son died in an intense fire fight with 300 Islamic radicals. Some would say the jihadists were outnumbered but got lucky.
 
Dec. 8, 2002

We left to travel to Afghanistan to visit the Qala I Jangi fortress outside Mazar E Shiref where Micheal Spann was killed November 25, 2001. and to attend a dedication of a memorial that was erected there by General Dostum (Afghan military leader) and the Afghan people honoring Mike for his heroism in the war on Terrorism. 

We arrived at the fortress 0n Wednesday night, December 11, and were greeted by approximately 100 people. There were workers there that worked through the night finishing the large copper dome that was erected to shelter the large marble memorial.


The following day, December 12, 2002, there was a memorial service attended by approximately four hundred people, including many dignitaries.

The service was held in front of the memorial, which was erected about 25 feet from the Pink house that housed the Al Qada and Taliban prisoners that killed Mike. This memorial is also about 10 feet from where Mike took his stand to fight.

We were able to talk to eyewitnesses that were with Mike that gave us first hand information as to what happen step by step as they saw it. I asked if they had been interviewed by anyone, including reporters, as to what they saw and they said ‘ NO’. I thought this was strange that no one had. Instead they were reporting second hand information.

Witness’s included, a Afghan fighter that was within 30 feet when the fight broke out. He said he heard an explosion, saw prisoners rush out and kill an officer and four of his guards at the entrance to the pink house, then immediately rush Mike, (Mike was within 25 feet from the front corner of the pink house. His position was between the raging prisoners and the eye Witnesses). 

The Afghan fighter said that he fell to the ground and watched as Mike fought them. Stating that he was afraid to run, thinking that if he did he would be shot. He said Mike took a stand firing with his A K rifle until it was out of ammo, then his pistol until it was out of ammo, then fought hand to hand until he was overcome by the rage of prisoners. 

The Afghan was captured and taken into the pink house.  He told them he was one of them so they would not kill him. They all looked alike and dressed the same. According to the Afghan fighter "the prisoners wanted to go back out to get Mike to bring him inside to shoot him to be sure he was dead. They wanted be able to take credit for Mike’s death so when they were killed they could go to heaven for killing an American." 

The Afghan recounted how he was taken into the basement and did not know if the enraged group went back outside for Mike or not.  The fighter himself was injured and lost his right leg. 

Another witness was a Afghan intelligence officer who also was within a few feet of Mike. He said his job was to talk to the prisoner’s, to record where they were from and to take a head count. He said there were 538 prisoners. 

He fell to the ground watching Mike fight and was able to retreat back and escape while Mike engaged them alone. He said as they fell the ones behind kept attacking and he did not know how many Mike killed before running out of ammo. He said Mike first used his AK rifle, then his pistol, then his fist until he was overcome by the crowd that was attacking him.

Also on the scene were two doctors that were treating the injured prisoners as they were brought out of the pink house. Their account was the same. They recounted that there was an explosion.  Then the prisoners rushed out the front door and immediately killed an Afghan officer and four guards who had been sent there to search the prisoners, tie their arms and take their weapons.  

After the prisoners massed upon the Afghan officer and guards they rushed Mike.  As the Afghan  Intelligence officer stated previously, there were 538 prisoners there with some 150 of them already searched and in the court yard. The remaining prisoners were in the pink house, the main floor and in the basement.  

Doctors said that they lay on the ground between the prisoners and witnessed the fight. They said they thought Mike might run and retreat, but he held his position and fought using his AK rifle until out of ammo, and then draw and begin firing his pistol. While watching Mike fight they were able to jump up and run to safety. 

They said the only reason that they, and several others, were able to live was because Mike stood his position and fought off the prisoners while enabling them the time to run to safety.. The doctors stated that as they fled toward a safe haven they saw Mike run out of ammo and then witnessed him fighting hand to hand until he was overcome by the numerous Al Qada and Taliban prisoners. 

The doctors escaped to the guard house at the north end and then to the outside. They said the fight worsened as the prisoners were able to take the arms and ammo depot to supply themselves with more weapons.

Hearing these accounts was emotionally wrenching for my family and I, but we are so very proud of our son, brother, husband... of Mike... that, when put in that position, he had the guts to try to hold his position and fight at all costs. His supreme bravery and selflessness allowed several others to save their lives, even at the expense of his own.
 
While there, we were met with a group of women, some 120 in number,  that wanted to show their gratefulness to Mike. This was a very emotional experience as well. We had been told that Afghans were carrying pictures of Mike with them. 

At this meeting they told us how thankful they were for what Mike and other Americans had done for them and their country. They told us how they were beat and whipped; how some were killed under the Taliban rule. Then they would take a picture of Mike from their purse and show it to us...Putting it to their heart and weeping they would tell us of the respect and love they had for Mike. They said they would never forget him.  They are not alone.
While in Afghanistan we had an opportunity to visit an orphanage for children that had lost their mother and father in this conflict. So many lives lost and so much sorrow.  We understand their loss as it is our loss as well.
This trip was very important to all of Mike's family members. Personally, I knew that there were so many conflicting reports of what had happened. When I talked to reporters that had written stories none of them had talked to eyewitnesses that had been on the scene.

I was told that I should merely accept what I had been told and move on.  I knew that anyone who loses a loved one wants to know all the circumstances around their death. I knew that if Mike had been killed in a car accident that I would want to know how or what time or if it was his fault or did anyone try to help him or why the accident happened, and many, many more things.



It's natural to want to know the circumstances surrounding a loved ones death.  It helps us feel like they were not alone when they died - that we were - in some way - there with them to understand and love them.  

There are still things I have not found out. There are still other things that are not clear, as more and more people contact me to tell me things that they know and that they were a part of.  But I am getting closer to the truth and will keep striving to discover all of the details of my son's last moments on this earth.

I realize that Mike is not the only one that has lost his life and my heart goes out to all the families who have lost, as we have.  I am so very grateful for their sacrifice for freedom. For the freedoms of all Americans and peace-loving people.
 
I am also very thankful for all of our military, CIA, and all other government personal involved in preserving our freedom and freedoms around the world. 

You are all heroes to me. May you stay safe. 
God bless you and God bless America. 

Johnny Spann
P.O. Box 308   |  Winfield Al. 35594
Email Mr. Spann



NEXT: THE AMERICAN TRAITOR WHO COULD HAVE SAVED MIKE SPANN -- BUT DID NOT.










©2001-2003 - Spann Family.  All rights reserved.
Website maintained by: Marshall Arts Web Design | Hamilton, AL