Press Freedom — unchain their souls

Maybe a post script is needed to my last post on a media cabal in their defense of press hay day. (or their D-day as I’m calling it) Was it too Fake News challenged?

There were some who declined the opportunity to elaborate on the “war,” as some call it, claiming that they do it everyday. Like Seattle Times, who passed on the offer.

So maybe press is not as united as you thought? Don’t bet on it. They just don’t want to make a special national day of it, which they fear may only provide Trump with more evidence of a press conspiracy against his presidency. Surely, some of it will.

However, this sounds more like not wanting to poke Trump — or the people by extension — in the eye while he is already on a tear against the press. A successful one. Not that they are not actively engaged in an effort to undermine and question his legitimacy in every way they can. They are. Just that they do that anyway without a designated day for it.

On the other hand, some are fully engaged in this “war” but they also want to throw ‘shout outs’ to local media for tireless efforts in the press. Lean on the locals for a defense. Yes, noble as local press are, they are not the real issue or problem. That the local media still covers local news and provides a good service never was the problem at the heart of the matter. But should that case even have to be made? Then we have come a long way. So they can wax on their local accomplishments all they want.

Maybe it is a time, though, for press to do a little navel gazing of its own on what their real priorities and goals are. Maybe? But don’t bet there will be lessons learned. They seem far too arrogant for that.

Just as the Seventh Floor was corrupting the greater FBI’s institutional reputation, so is the national press and media diminishing its own credibility. Like the FBI, it was not field agents who did all that, who were the problem. It was leadership. Though the attitudes of leadership do trickle down to rank and file. So too is the case in the national press — all chasing a few stories they consider important. (damn whatever we care about)

We know the stories they want to report, and eventually we know the ones they do not. So do reporters and journalists at large. There are a few good journalists functioning in an against-the-tide way, almost battling against the national media at large. Are they wining? No. They are frowned on or mocked. (as out of line) Their efforts are diminished en masse by their fellow press piers. It’s a shame. The loudest barking dogs get the attention.

Yet with all that said, media wanted a special day to pat themselves on the back for their biases and efforts. Of course they want to broaden the problem and criticism of the press. And they want all members of it to be forced to defend press’s greater national agenda.

Why is it that Republicans always seem to have an active campaign against press, media? Is it good politics? You could turn that around as well, to “why does press always seem to be actively campaigning against Republicans?” And both would be correct. There are decades of mistrust built up on the Republican side. Best to know who your biggest opponents or critics are if you are a politician. Enemies? You’d be a fool to believe press is actively, overtly on your side or even that you will get “fair” coverage. John McCain would be Exhibit A. He wanted to believe it, which only says something about him.

For today’s defense of press day, cue the choruses of anecdotal stories about humanity, drinking water, local crime investigations, or school board decisions. All important, but they were not really the issue. And great as those stories may be — cite them all day — they still do not deal with a collective issue of bias in the news media.

When the local news reports a crime, it can intentionally not mention the race, religion of immigration status of the alleged criminal. Sometimes it matters, yet is suspiciously omitted. Sure press did report the story, but did they reveal all pertinent facts? So we are talking about the editorial positions and control of media, which more often is the problem. In other words, what we don’t see is withheld, or accounts of the story that don’t mesh with events. Citing good local stories can cover some of that but not the volumes of accounts where bias is a problem. How about when there is an error? They stick it in the reserved corrections section later But don’t mention it. Where is the honesty or integrity, or for that matter responsibility, in that?

No, what really got their collective goats in the press were the unfavorable public opinion polls showing lack of credibility in the press. Thus, reporting the great local stories is not the real issue here. Their need to be instinctively believed is the whole issue. Their mission and goal depends on that. So press is even dishonest in framing what this is all about. But the people have known for some time what it is about, being fed a steady diet of deceptive or biased coverage that lacked the integrity or scrutiny of a real free press. Would the founders be happy with what the national, collective media has turned into?

And if those local stories are really the issue here, then let’s have them. I mean tell them instead of drowning them out and spoon-feeding us national interests — and those controlling political interests — by the mainstream collective media. We don’t call it Mainstream Media for nothing. Another term they despise. Tell them all, unedited.

Columbia Journalism Review makes the press defense with a potpourri of snippets.

Washington Post book critic Carlos Lozada read half a dozen “hagiographies” of the president, finding that “some are born Trump sycophants. Some achieve Trump sycophancy. And some have Trump sycophancy thrust upon them—since he’s a star, they let him do that.”

Is that what you got? Better, is that what you really believe? And what are the stages of press degradation? Do we have to diagram that for you?

IPSOS Polls

Returning to President Trump’s views on the press, almost a third of the American people (29%) agree with the idea that “the news media is the enemy of the American people,” including a plurality of Republicans (48%).

I don’t want to tell them what the trend is.

 
Right Ring | Bullright

Open Borders and Closing Freedom

The new paradigm of the Left is much like the old one. The only thing that changes are the means. They call themselves progressives using many cute slogans like “lean forward”. Their speeches are laden with phrases like “we want to keep moving forward” or “we aren’t going backwards.” But the direction they go is to their same old ideas of the past.

The left is now into its regressive movement. That is to close the door on freedom while opening the borders to anarchy. Or open our borders to hate while cracking down on opposing speech by calling it hate speech. Dems don’t have problems with hate.

Just recently South Carolina Senator Tim Scott read a list of the comments he regularly receives from the left. They are filled with names like Uncle Tom, sellout to your race, traitor. All names and labels are fair to them. By design they are meant to hurt and inflict pain. Force and intimidation are two of their favorite weapons.

But what we don’t hear is anyone asking the Democrats to condemn the remarks. They obviously haven’t done so on their own. But these people are the Democrats’ base, and the very people who put them into office. Yet they cannot denounce their words. and no one actually expects them to.

If a Republican supporter said these they would demand condemnation immediately. Look what they did with any racist or KKK statements. Not so with the left, they are free to offend anyone, even rewarded for it. Elizabeth Warren rakes in big dollars for name calling and attacking. She organizes their hate-fest. And the hateathon’s dollars roll in. But our condemnation of that speech is out of line and must be stopped, however possible.

The modern regressive movement is about stomping down the threat of freedom everywhere, even in the womb when they can. Doing the latter under the guise of freedom of choice, or reproductive rights. Nipping freedom in its nurturing womb is an ultimate goal, ripping out its roots before it grows. Nip that seed of freedom in the bud.

But open borders? Now that is something that needs to be unrestricted. Judges decide if we have the grounds, or authority, to restrict non-citizens’ freedom to invade. Though our freedom is wilting on the vine, if left to liberals. The left has set the default position to ‘unrestricted’ and say we basically cannot do anything about it; even if it is a matter of national security against those who declared war on us. Speak nothing about that.

So, open the borders wide and slam the door shut on freedom.

RightRing | Bullright

Tea Party alive or dead?

Leave it to the old guard and Liberal media to get it wrong. They ask if the Tea Party is alive or dead? It is the wrong question. The right question is how influential is the Tea Party? We don’t debate the existence.

See, there will always be a Tea Party, in spirit. If not, America is dead. So the question is how much influence does it have? The more influence, the healthier America will be. It is beyond a political party, and goes to the heart of individual American spirit. And that “spirit” naturally crosses all political lines. This is what Libs are probably scared of.

Thus, the more influence it(they) has, across the board, the healthier our politics and country will be.

“When cities or provinces have been accustomed to live under a prince… they do not know how to live in freedom… and a prince can win them over with greater faculty and establish himself securely. But in republics, there is greater life…they do not and cannot cast aside the memory of their ancient liberty, so that the surest way to conquer them is to lay them waste.“ — Machiavelli’s The Prince.

RightRing | Bullright

The Great Demise of US

Well, let’s start the week off right. This ties to my recent post “Justifiable Insurrection“. If you thought that was a little vague, here are some details to fill it in – complete with insider spook confirmations.

Sources confirm enemies within are close to their goal

March 19, 2014 | Examiner

Anthony Martin

Throughout the history of the United States, the enemies of freedom have always been at work to destroy the foundation and fabric of the nation. But now sources have confirmed that not only have these enemies been hard at work to negate the liberties Americans have come to expect, but they are close to reaching their ultimate goal of the total destruction of this Republic as a free nation.

The tactical framework by which the enemies within seek to reach their ultimate goal is multi-pronged. The first plank was the implementation of a significant part of the goals of the progressive movement in the early 1900s, again in the 1930s and 40s, again in the 1960s and 1990s, and yet again from 2008 until the present.

The progressive movement viewed the U.S. Constitution as its main roadblock to “progress,” which was the newspeak term they used for regression. Thus, they sought to dismantle as much of the Constitution as the citizens would allow under various leaders such as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.

Wilson believed in eugenics, or the genetic perfecting of the human race as a means of getting rid of the “undesirables.” He also threw persons of German/Austrian/Hungarian descent into concentration camps during World War I. FDR utilized the same tactics during World War II, except it was persons of Japanese descent who were rounded up and incarcerated without charges of wrongdoing, without warrants, and without a trial.

FDR also tried to ignore the Constitution by packing the Supreme Court with his favorites, adding new members without the approval of Congress or a change in Constitutional law to allow it. This he attempted to do because the Court had declared many of his social programs to be unconstitutional.

But perhaps the worst the thing FDR did was to rob Americans of their gold. The government had been keeping records of who bought gold for quite some time. And when the government ran out of money during the Great Depression, which had been prolonged and intensified by FDR’s reckless spending, he confiscated all the gold, just like that. He notified Americans who had bought gold that they were to turn it in to the government. And like sheep, most Americans at the time “obeyed.” But then Roosevelt decided like a good little crook that if these citizens wanted their gold back, they would have to pay at least twice what it was worth when the government confiscated it. This was nothing but a scheme, a criminal scheme, to force Americans to turn over their property to the federal government so that FDR’s regime could charge them double for it and help the feds get some much needed money to fund the reckless spending FDR had implemented.

Criminal theft is still theft even when the government does it. But no one was ever forced to pay for their crimes against the citizens of the United States. /…

More http://www.examiner.com/article/sources-confirm-enemies-within-are-close-to-their-goal

The next report, which he adds daily, is this one:

‘You have no idea how bad it is,’ says ex-spook on destruction of US

On Wednesday it was reported that America’s enemies within, mainly those who are part of the “progressive movement,” are very close to their ultimate goal of the complete demise of the Republic has envisioned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Today there is even more disturbing news.

An “ex-spook” as they are known, in other words a retired member of the CIA, stated concerning the effort to destroy the U.S., “You have no idea how bad it is.” The enemies of freedom and the Constitution within the country, he said, have now succeeded in putting most of their goals in place. “Think of how far they have come since 2008,” he continued, “Most Americans don’t even recognize their own country anymore. They feel like foreigners in their own land.” /…

The progressives/Marxists/collectivists are willing to do anything to advance their agenda, even if it means lying incessantly to the public, or even toying with the lives of citizens, using them as guinea pigs for mass social experimentaion.

An example of one of the most despicable of these experiments is to be found during the mid-1960s under President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ). Very few except those with high security clearances within the government and LBJ’s inner circle knew about this program. Even fewer know about it today. It was never reported or acknowledged. And most who knew the details are now deceased. A few, however, are still alive and well, and they know the full story. /…

More http://www.examiner.com/article/you-have-no-idea-how-bad-it-is-says-ex-spook-on-destruction-of-us

Author’s note:

My latest entry is now available at my blog at The Liberty Sphere under the section, “Musings After Midnight.” It is titled, “The latest news from the underground patriot movement, including warnings of more gov’t harassment of conservatives, libertarians, and gun owners.

 
This is good daily accounting of the agenda chock full of details.
Follow the yellow brick road…. and daily installments.

Previous post: Justifiable Insurrection. Is an American Spring in our future?

GOP must personalize its message

What the GOP needs to do is personalize its message. That sums it up in a nutshell. If it wants to survive it needs the proper perspective. It may be a bit of a straw man but see what you think.

Churches and ministers have to personalize their message, or risk being irrelevant. Its no different in politics. People look at things from their individual perspective, why should it be any different in politics?

I know, the Democrats have this group thing going on. And it is part of the problem that conservatives see with the progressive left, i.e. collectivism. That is their basic message. Sure they try to take it to the individual level in phone calls and messaging, but its group think and a collective message, top down. They just try to approach it on the individual level. You see it everywhere in their politics. I remember Obama’s great campaign organizing with their drop down lists. Which list do you fit into? They told people what they would do for Latinos, Hispanics, blacks, immigrants, women, or whatever.

Dems’ spiel is always that we are a nation of immigrants, blah blah, and that’s what made this country. Yes, and the beauty of immigrants (real immigrants) are that they don’t all think alike, much less look alike. They aren’t cookie-cutter. But Liberals have for years forced everyone into their collective categories: if by race, then by social status, by income level, by family status, and by sex, gender, or ancestry. But we all don’t live our lives that way and yet are supposed to vote that way – by blocs! (and they make the categories)

So the GOP, or more importantly the entire right, has the general platform but they don’t communicate it the right way. They are afraid if they don’t pander to this particular group and that group they can’t win elections. Democrats constantly tell conservatives the same thing. And that just knocks the stool out from under the Right. Sure it takes swaths of voters to win elections. But that cannot be the sole objective, nor is winning the only objective.

We have a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution based on individual freedoms, not on race or skin color. So why should what group you fit into, or not, be all that matters? I mean that they need to personalize their message to people and individuals. I know it sounds elementary, but how often do they do it? They buy into the notions of Leftists — who have no interest in our success — to tailor their message to groups.

Some say they Democrats have been successful because of it. Yea, to a point, but it is also their downfall. Progressives don’t really know how to relate to the individuals anymore. They may talk to them but only for the purpose of putting them into a demographic or group.(they are good at that) There is virtually no one left talking directly to and for the individuals except for those who pols say are on the fringes. We are a nation of people on the fringes. We don’t all fit into their lists and groups. We are as individual as your grandmother’s apple pie.

This was part of what we saw with Clinton. He might have been a successful politician, but he was into the same mentality. You had targeted policies, and targeted tax cuts. All sounded good till you looked down to the individual level to see if you fit into this classification or that one. Sure they were good at promoting it. So you get that tax cut if, if, if…. You qualify for that based on this, this, and this. Get my point? If you jump through all the hurtles, the right way, then the system worked for you, sort of. The answer to the violence was cater to the police lobbies. The answer to another problem is another program for this, this, and this.

For some of us in the Clinton years, that group think and mentality used to drive us nuts. And it is only certain groups. Then Obama put that mentality on steroids. He plays this group against that group, like a game. So you see how it really works for the left, it’s plantation politics. They call that grass roots politics?

The right does not have to do the same thing. But if you listen to those like McCain, that is what the GOP needs more of. No, no, no it doesn’t! Their reply is always, “then you’re going to keep losing elections” unless you herd them into their groups. And the GOP continually falls for that ruse. Same with elections. They like the talk about diversity up until the general elections when they cram the “approved” choice down our throats.

Like offering a dog a choice between a steak and their dog food, then you remove the steak. Then they swear by their method, well, until they have to make excuses for a major loss. Then they admit having problems, and proceed to do exactly the same thing. At least on the Left when a sizeable group steps up to complain they attempt to listen. On the right they write it off as disgruntled marginal groups. Heck, they can even call them names, like McCain labeled them “agents of intolerance.” That works real well, doesn’t it? It does to their political brains. Just like if you go around ignoring your conscience, sooner or later you are going to have problems.

The answer is always, “fine if that is your view, but you cannot win elections that way.” It’s a sad day for America when the individual, personalized message cannot win elections.
There is more on this my foggy brain has not yet verbalized. Basically, ideas must be personalized, complete with examples, and sold to individuals – not the group of the day. They don’t call it retail politics for nothing.

In my opinion, this is why national pols are losing favor with the people. They come home and speak to them virtually the same way, by group. And that message does not sell well locally. They want to know how things effect them personally, not just illegal immigrants, Hispanics, students, single women, etc. Or are we just a nation of groups? Pols think so.

Dick Durbin: Congress Should Decide Who Qualifies For First Amendment Freedoms

This is why you should never believe “liberals'” mantra, and why they are so dangerous.

PA Pundits - International

Matthew Sheffield01By Matthew Sheffield ~Sotomayor Hearing Day 4

In addition to trying to redefine the Second Amendment as not protecting anyone’s right to bear arms, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin (pictured) is now excited about how to redefine the First Amendment.

As with guns, Durbin is trying to limit constitutional freedoms so that they cannot be used by people of whom he disapproves. In an opinion essay published in the Chicago Sun Times last week, Durbin argued it was “time to say who’s a real reporter,” so that no one else can be given First Amendment protections.

“Is each of Twitter’s 141 million users in the United States a journalist? How about the 164 million Facebook users? What about bloggers, people posting on Instagram, or users of online message boards like Reddit?” Durbin asked.

Ostensibly, Durbin’s motive seems to be about extending additional freedoms sometimes called “shield laws” which place some limitations on courts…

View original post 754 more words

Obama’s Declaration of Socialism

Obama mentioned the Declaration of Independence, but his inaugural speech was all about collectivism. The philosophy behind the Declaration is rooted in individual freedom. Obama has it exactly backwards.

The “rights” movement of the left has been transformed into redistribution and class warfare, combined with the welfare state. The real “social justice” they talk about is economic redistribution. His campaign didn’t even address individual “freedom” as he calls it — unless that is about killing babies — it was all about the collective. Collective being the sum total of the special interests he panders to.

Obama said:

1)What makes us exceptional – what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth.

2)My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction – and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service.

Not self-executing? Remember, “you didn’t build that… somebody else made it happen.”

Individualism is out the window, long gone in his politics of division and class warfare. It is the politics of materialism. Their “social justice” is really redistributive justice. I suppose he will finally admit that is what his “fairness” doctrine is all about in his second term, unchained from the voters.

As Goldwater said decades ago, the left is driven by materialism. Even the morality they speak of has an element of materialism. Don’t you find it ironic that Obama only mentioned the Constitution he swore to uphold in passing.(…that thing) He seems to think backwards. But just as MLK Jr. used the Declaration, Obama wraps his speech with it. Then again, imagine a Liberal like Obama giving a speech based on the Constitution?

He adds:

“The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

But exactly what is Obama giving us? A mob and a king. A king backed by a mob, with an absent and complacent free press. It works for him… quite literally. And a king that sanctions and endorses mob rule – if it’s within the orthodoxy of central authority.

So we see, with Obama our fight is not just against his bucket list of policies, but against a philosophy, an ideology and a political movement behind it, driven from top. (campaign org turns lobby)

He frames it trying to disguise it, and then throws a straw man in to add credibility

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

“Demands of today’s world” — whatever all that is — compared with fascism or communism, good comparison. (sarcasm) Or better comparing technology, markets, goals, ideas and personal struggles compared with fascism. From the Socialist-in-chief himself. That should make anyone chuckle. (one of those struggles is against institutionalized ideology of the Left.) But it is different when its a foreign country or an outsider that is pursuing the philosophy. When its inside your own country from the top down it’s quite different. Did the Nazis extinguish Hitler or his policies? You know the answer.

In fact, it was just the opposite; they gleefully went along and approved. Sound familiar? Just because a charismatic type A person can make a good sounding case doesn’t mean it is the best idea. ObamaCare is a glaring example, and the stimulus would be another. When the smoke cleared it wasn’t as good, or popular as it sounded. We even had Pelosi telling us they had to pass it before we know what’s in it. They tried to do it on amnesty but were stopped.

Goldwater said:
“[One] cannot be economically free, or even efficient, if he is enslaved politically; conversely, man’s political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State.”

And that is precisely what Obama has in mind and endorses, political slavery — individually and collectively.

Much of the equality or fairness Obama speaks about is really egalitarianism of the economic kind, just dressed in a fancy “fairness” package. And the left suffers under its own false pretenses about  conservatism. It is not simply an economic theory. But that is basically what the lefts ideology ends up being, a doctrine of economic egalitarianism. Or collective materialism. With a few words about civil rights thrown in, which they think they can keep on creating to suit their politics.

The Left feels it is their exclusive job to equalize, or that is what their rhetoric suggests. Enforcing that fairness just happens to lead to more power and control for ruling class elites. It also tends to get expensive to purchase all the votes to keep all that “fairness” flowing.  Sounds like another one of his “investments”.

Note: please don’t give me the ‘definition of socialism’ lecture. Do the math with the modern left(post 60’s), the green movement, EPA dictates, green industry, and Kelo’s decision. Then connect all the dots. And remember even Hitler did not want to abolish “private property”, rather everyone should understand that they are an “agent of the state.” So spare the academic arguments.

THOUGHTS-Memorial Day

THOUGHTS

by 

 Just Gene    
[a good friend]

about

Memorial Day

 

FIND A VET, SAY THANKS

 It is the VETERAN, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the VETERAN, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the VETERAN, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the VETERAN, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble.

It is the VETERAN, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the VETERAN, not the politician, who has given us the right to vote.

 

JFK’S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60’s when DeGaulle decided to pull out of NATO. DeGaulle said he wanted all US military out of France as soon as possible. Rusk responded, “Does that include those who are buried here?” DeGaulle did not respond.

          You could have heard a pin drop

 

When in England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by The Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of  ’empire building’ by George Bush. He answered by saying,” Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders.  The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.”

          You could have heard a pin drop.

 

There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying, “Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims.  What does he intend to do, bomb them?” A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly:  “Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.  We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?”

          You could have heard a pin drop.

 

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S., England, Canada, Australia and France. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, “Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?” Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, “Maybe it’s because the Brit’s, Canadians, Aussie’s and Americans arranged it so you wouldn’t have to speak German.”

          You could have heard a pin drop.

 

Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on. “You have been to France before, monsieur?” the customs officer asked sarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously. “Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.” The American said, “The last time I was here, I didn’t have to show it.” “Impossible. Americans always have to show their passports on arrival in France! “The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained, ”Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn’t find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to.”

          You could have heard a pin drop

 

Think happy thoughts – never forget what we promised to remember!