Colombia: Court Orders Release of FARC Terrorist Accused of Drug Trafficking on Technicality

Colombia’s Supreme Court ordered the release of “Jesús Santrich,” a senior member of the Marxist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) terrorist group, on Thursday, after his arrest on charges of trafficking cocaine because of a jurisdictional issue.

The court ruled that because the 2016 “peace” deal between the FARC and the government of Colombia allowed the terrorist group to establish a political party and granted it unelected seats in Congress, and Santrich received one, Santrich enjoys special immunity status that prevents regular courts from charging him with crimes. Only the Supreme Court can try a sitting legislator, the court noted.

It did not weigh in on the charges brought against Santrich – the nom de guerre of Seuxis Paucias Hernández Solarte – for allegedly attempting to smuggle 10,000 kilograms of cocaine from Colombia to the United States for profit, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

The charges claimed that Santrich had conspired to smuggle the cocaine beginning in 2017, after the FARC agreed to dismantle their guerrilla apparatus and give up the drug trade.

Santrich was arrested in April, shortly before taking one of the ten congressional seats the FARC peace deal grants the terrorist organization without having to compete in an election for them. Authorities temporarily released Santrich, citing that the FARC peace deal does not allow the extradition of terrorists to face justice for their crimes abroad and the case against Santrich was filed by the American Department of Justice. Police since arrested him on May 17, however, and he has remained in custody since.

“The dignity of the office that the person carries would go disregarded by allowing authorities other than the Supreme Court of Justice to investigate them, judge them, or restrict their liberties” in the event that the defendant legally held a seat in Congress, the Supreme Court determined. A lawmaker takes office when the National Electoral Council ratifies their status, not on their first day of work, the court decided. The council had done so with Santrich, but he has not spent a single day working as a Congressman. The latter was not enough to invalidate the former, the court concluded.

The Supreme Court also ruled that police should release Santrich immediately on Thursday as the Supreme Court prepares a trial for him on the charges presented. At press time, Santrich remains behind bars and FARC defense attorneys are preparing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, citing the Supreme Court ruling.

Following the decision, Colombia’s Attorney General’s office sent their case file on Santrich to the Supreme Court for the latter to begin criminal proceedings, according to Colombian newspaper El Tiempo. Should the Supreme Court deem the file to contain enough evidence against Santrich, police will once again arrest him.

Colombian President Iván Duque lambasted the ruling for benefitting a “mafioso,” though he added that he respects the separation of powers and will not interfere in the execution of the Supreme Court’s will.

“I can say it with my head held high,” he told reporters. “The decision that the Constitutional Court took, I accept it as a Colombian and defender of the law, but I will never stop defending the principles that have motivated the Colombian people so that we could have peace with justice.”

Santrich, he said, “is a mafioso and the evidence that the nation knows about [shows] he is a mafioso that was negotiating a cocaine shipment, and for this reason, also with new evidence, he was once again captured for events that clearly occurred after the signing of the agreements [the FARC peace deal].”

Other members of Congress have expressed disgust at potentially serving alongside Santrich.

“It would set a very bad example for Colombian to have seated in Congress, like in the old days of Pablo Escobar, a person with such a crminal condition,” senator Juan Diego Gómez said to Colombia’s RCN network.

Another senator, Paloma Valencia, told the network, “I lament very much that the institutions that represent justice have decided to take on the role of defenders of criminals, because that doesn’t just hurt institutions, but the country itself.”

Duque won the Colombian presidency last year largely as a result of national outrage at the FARC peace deal, which the Colombian people voted down in a national referendum, but Duque’s predecessor Juan Manuel Santos jammed through Congress, anyway. Santos received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

The peace deal allows the FARC to establish a political party, which they rebranded as the Revolutionary Alternative Common Force (still FARC), and grants them ten uncontested seats in Congress until 2026. The deal requires the FARC to provide a financial inventory to ensure they are not profiting from drug trafficking – as they have for over half a century – but the group has so far provided sloppy, clearly incomplete budgets that officials have called “a joke.” They have suffered no repercussions for violating the deal.

Santrich’s fate now remains uncertain. The peace deal would not allow Colombia to extradite him on the U.S. charges unless he is convicted of a crime in Colombia that occurred after the signing of the deal.

The Department of Justice accused Santrich and two other FARC associates – Marlon Marín (“El Doctor”) and Fabio Simón Younes Arboleda – of working “together to produce and distribute approximately 10,000 kilograms of cocaine from Colombia to the United States and elsewhere.”

“As alleged, these defendants conspired to ship thousands of kilograms of cocaine from Colombia to the streets of the U.S.  Thanks to the investigative work of the DEA, they are now under arrest and face significant criminal charges,” Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said in April.

The DEA produced video evidence of Santrich negotiating the deal.

Colombia’s attorney general at the time, Nestor Martínez, estimated that the cocaine would have brought in a $320 million profit. Santos, who was still president at the time, said his officials had “resounding and conclusive proof” against Santrich.

FARC leaders claimed the charges were a nefarious capitalist plot against them.

“Santrich’s detention is part of a plan orchestrated by the government of the United States with the cooperation of the Colombian prosecutors,” Iván Márquez, a senior FARC leader, said at a press conference following the charges. “It is clear that we are facing another fabrication by the twisted American justice system.”

Follow Frances Martel on Facebook and Twitter.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Farage: If Brexit is Delayed Again Britain Should Have General Election to Replace ‘Failed’ Government

Brexit leader Nigel Farage has called for the British Parliament to be dissolved and fresh elections called by the end of the year if the people are “failed once again” by government refusing to deliver the withdrawal from the European Union that was voted for in 2016.

The United Kingdom was legally bound to leave the European Union with, or without a deal on March 29th 2019, but a weakened Prime Minister Theresa May determined to deliver the so-called withdrawal agreement given to her by Brussels has since delayed that date twice.

Brexit day is now set for October 31st, but concerns run high that Britain’s freedom could once again be denied by whoever replaces May as Conservative Party leader, and hence Prime Minister, in the summer.

Speaking on London’s LBC radio Thursday evening, Brexit leader Farage rejected a second referendum as an affront to democracy, but said a general election to replace Britain’s predominantly anti-Brexit Parliament should be called if the people were failed.

Farage said:

I have to say I am opposed to a second referendum being fought. It seems to me that you can’t hold a second referendum until you have first implemented the original one. It is very anti-democratic and wrong, I think, to force it again.

But I’m going to say this, and I haven’t before. If we have not left on the 31st of October which is the new date that we’re supposed to leave the European Union, if we are failed once again by government and parliament, then I think there should be a general election later this year.

We’ve had enough of being repeatedly made promises that are broken.

Of the potential Conservatives who would replace May as Prime Minister, several have said they want to re-negotiate the failed withdrawal agreement with Brussels, a clear pretext to once again delay Brexit beyond October. But as Mr Farage and the European Union have both pointed out, it is not up for discussion.

In comments made this week, top Eurocrat Michel Barnier said the only options available to Britain now are to leave with no deal, take the deal on the table — which means leaving in name only — or cancelling Brexit altogether.

Mr Farage has accused those pledging to get a renegotiation of talking “absolute rubbish”.

Oliver JJ Lane is the editor of Breitbart London — Follow him on Twitter and Facebook

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Mike Pence Reaches Out to Juan Guaido amid Venezuela Stalemate

Vice President Mike Pence reached out to Venezuelan President Juan Guaidó on Wednesday to reiterate the Trump administration’s commitment to supporting the cause of freedom from Nicolás Maduro’s socialist regime.

“Spoke with courageous Interim President Juan Guaidó of Venezuela by phone today,” Pence announced on Twitter on Wednesday evening. “Told him America will continue to stand with Venezuela until freedom is restored! The people of Venezuela are suffering under dictatorship and oppression. Nicolas Maduro must go. #VenezuelaLibre.”

Pence did not provide further details of their conversation, although it is presumed the pair discussed how the U.S. can continue to weaken the Maduro regime to the brink of collapse, thus allowing a democratic transition in the country led by Guaidó, who the U.S. and most other Western democracies recognize as Venezuela’s legitimate president.

“The United States strongly accompanies the roadmap that we have drawn up to achieve freedom,” Guaidó wrote in response. “We thank the U.S. government and Vice President Mike Pence for their firm commitment to Venezuelans. We have our allies to achieve the change that Venezuela needs.”

Since Trump came to office in 2017, his administration has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to removing the Maduro regime from power and taken various steps to weaken the regime, including economic sanctions and throwing its diplomatic support behind Guaidó.

Pence is one of the various figures within the Trump administration to take a personal interest in finding a solution to the Venezuela crisis, which has also become a rapidly worsening humanitarian catastrophe. In February, he traveled to Colombia to meet with Guaidó and other regional leaders, where he reaffirmed the White House’s position that “all options are on the table” for removing Maduro, including the use of military force.

“The struggle in Venezuela is between dictatorship and democracy, between oppression and freedom, between the suffering of millions of Venezuelans and the opportunity of a ‘new future’ of freedom and prosperity,” the U.S. vice president said during his visit.

In January, Pence also filmed a personal message to the people of Venezuela, describing Maduro as a “dictator with no legitimate claim to power.”

“[Maduro] has never won the presidency in a free and fair election, and has maintained his grip of power by imprisoning anyone who dares to oppose him,” he said in a video filmed ahead of Guaidó’s inauguration as interim president.

“As you make your voices heard tomorrow, on behalf of the American people, we say to all the good people of Venezuela: Estamos con ustedes,” he continued. “We are with you, we stand with you, and we will stay with you until democracy is restored and you reclaim your birthright of libertad.”

Follow Ben Kew on Facebook, Twitter at @ben_kew, or email him at bkew@breitbart.com.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Satanists Claim Immunity on Fetal Remains Ruling, Cite Own Sick Religious Beliefs

The Satanic Temple is jumping into the political fray once again.

On Wednesday, the group issued a devilish response to a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The ruling upholds an Indiana law that requires the honoring of fetal remains through a proper burial or cremation.

In a statement, The Satanic Temple stated its members should be completely immune from the ruling and will fight it in court if need be.

The international religious organization said in a statement that “one of The Satanic Temple’s fundamental tenets is the inviolability of one’s body.” It argued that it would be “profoundly hypocritical for any Church that advocates for religious rights not to support our claim.”

“State impositions of ceremonial requirements dictating its disposal, barring any plausible medical or sanitary concerns, is a violation of TST’s Free Exercise allowing Satanists to contextualize the termination of a pregnancy on their own terms, with deference to their own religious beliefs,” the group added.

TRENDING: Frmr Navy SEAL Dan Crenshaw’s Memorial Day Story Is Going Viral

The organization — which claims not to worship or believe in the Satan of the Christian Bible — has long been an advocate for the separation of church and state.

“To be clear, members of The Satanic Temple will not be made to pay for these punitive, superfluous, and insulting burials,” Lucien Greaves, spokesperson for The Satanic Temple, told the Arkansas news outlet. “We claim exemption on religious liberty grounds, and we will almost certainly prevail in the courts if we are forced to fight.”

Ultimately, this is another battle in the war against pro-life legislation.

This specific fight by The Satanic Temple is working to undo a law on the books that makes getting an abortion difficult, as the law protecting fetal remains hinders clinics — such as Planned Parenthood — from simply disposing of the aborted remains.

However, what’s truly stunning is the large number of individuals who are quite proud of the group’s challenge to the Supreme Court ruling.

“There is no reason that aborted zygotes/fetuses should be required to be disposed of any differently than any other medical waste. TST is correct on this,” one commenter wrote.

Another simply said, “Looks like only satan can save us from evil.”

RELATED: Sanctuary City Rolls Out ‘Satanic’ Christmas Tree Display — Then Vandals Strike

The divide between those who are pro-life and pro-choice is growing every day — and it’s getting more intense and divisive than ever before.

The secular progressives will work to do anything they possibly can, even if that means siding with Satanists, to ensure women can abort a pregnancy at any point in time.

It’s only going to get worse from here, folks.

The fight to protect life must never give even an inch or the floodgates will open — and we don’t want to find out what that will entail.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

NBC Fails to Acknowledge Irony of ‘World’s Tiniest Surviving Baby’ on Abortion Debate

As ABC’s World News Tonight aired a story sympathetic to the pro-abortion movement, NBC Nightly News actually devoted 20 seconds to an inspiring story out of San Diego. Fill-in anchor Savannah Guthrie reported on the progress of “what doctors are calling the world’s tiniest surviving baby,” so while NBC deserves credit for running this story, they failed to acknowledge its impact on the abortion debate.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Barack Obama Paid $600,000 For Single Speech in Bogotá, Colombia

Former president Barack Obama was paid approximately $600,000 for a single speech in Bogotá, Colombia this week.

Obama learned well from the Clintons — he made $100,000 more than Bill Clinton did for his speech in Moscow.

According to a report by El Tiempo, a Colombian news outlet, Obama earned “2 billion Colombian pesos,” or $594,000 to speak at the EXMA conference which was held on Monday and Tuesday.

EXMA, which stands for Expomarketing, is the largest marketing platforms in Latin America which includes conferences, workshops and other marketing tools, according to the Bogota Post.

Attendees could also take a picture with Barack Obama for 11 million Colombian pesos (approximately $3,200).

According to the Bogota Post, Obama’s talk, “A conversation with President Barack Obama,” will address influential growth strategies. The organisers specified that , “It will be a talk about business that is based on the positive influence Obama puts out. We have to take advantage of this to build de country, entrepreneurship and innovation.

The organizers also mentioned that Obama set the condition that he won’t talk about current politics. *Eyeroll*

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton slammed Obama on Thursday. “Just like the corrupt Clinton operation,” Fitton said of Obama’s $600,000 payday for a single speech.

The post Barack Obama Paid $600,000 For Single Speech in Bogotá, Colombia appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak Vetoes National Popular Vote Bill

Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) on Thursday vetoed a bill which would have pledged the state’s six electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote for President of the United States.

Assembly Bill 186, which recently passed the Senate on a 12-8 vote, would have seen Nevada join with 14 other states in an agreement to vote for the winner of the popular vote. The Assembly had voted in favor of the measure 23-17.

“Once effective, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose,” a statement via Sisolak reads. “I recognize that many of my fellow Nevadans may disagree on this point and I appreciate the legislature’s thoughtful consideration of this important issue. As Nevada’s governor, I am obligated to make such decisions according to my own conscience. In cases like this, where Nevada’s interests could diverge from the interests of large states, I will always stand up for Nevada.”

Earlier this year, Colorado, Delaware, and New Mexico signed laws joining the compact, while Oregon and Maine are mulling bills of their own. Had Sisolak signed the measure, the group would have a total of 195 votes.

Several White House hopefuls, including South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), have voiced support for eliminating Electoral College, however, supporters of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact believe their strategy is more pragmatic than passing a constitutional amendment.

Though the initiative has picked up steam, National Popular Vote President Barry Fadem concedes it is unlikely they will hit 270 votes by the 2020 election.

“I think people are just really tired of the system that means every vote does not count and that six to eight states decide who is elected president,” said Fadem.

State Sen. Keith Pickard (R), who voted against the bill, said the joining the compact would have diminished Nevada’s voice for future presidential elections.

“I think it’s totally irresponsible for us to consider giving away what little influence we have on the national stage to the more populous states which will ultimately control the election,” Pickard stated.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Dershowitz: Mueller’s Critics Were Right; He’s Biased Against Trump, And He Just Proved It

In an op-ed for The Hill, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who leans left but has frequently found himself arguing against President Trump’s critics, says he can no longer defend Robert Mueller as non-partisan after his controversial final statement as special counsel Wednesday.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

Remembering the Men of the Little Ships

Memorial Day is a solemn holiday in which Americans should pay homage to the individuals who sacrificed their lives to protect their fellow citizens. Clint Johnson’s book Tin Cans and Greyhounds: The Destroyers That Won Two World Wars is a reminder that those serving on ships put their life at risk daily. This interview with Johnson reflects on Americans serving who sacrificed their lives to save others.

Johnson emphasizes in his book how destroyers were nicknamed “tin cans” because they had thin metal hulls that were useful for quickly navigating the seas but not a great protection for the men serving on those ships. Their quick speeds gave them their second nickname, “greyhounds.”  

Survival on a destroyer was not guaranteed.  Johnson quoted Lieutenant Commander Robert Copeland as he calmly told his crew as their tiny, unarmored destroyer escort rushed toward giant, armored Japanese battleships at the Battle off Samar on October 25, 1944 that they were fighting “against overwhelming odds from which survival could not be expected.” (Unbelievably, the Navy’s scratch force of destroyers and escort carriers chased off the entire Japanese battle fleet, though at great cost.) 

Compelling evidence is presented by Johnson regarding the two destroyers named the USS Jacob Jones. The first ship survived an attempt of a possible crewman to sink her by opening up the sea cocks. After eventually making it to France to act as an escort convey during World War I, she was sunk on December 6, 1917, by a German U-boat off the southern coast of England.  Johnson describes how it was hit by “a single torpedo from the U-53, one of Germany’s most successful submarines, some of DD-61’s crew was killed by the initial explosion. More were killed when sinking depth charges exploded underneath the survivors floating in the water. Sixty-six out of the ninety-nine crewmen died.”

The second USS Jacob Jones (DD-130), was given the Jacob Jones ship name while still being constructed in February 1918 in honor of the destroyer that had been lost just three months earlier. On Feb. 28, 1942, while cruising off Cape May, New Jersey she was hit by two torpedoes, fired by the U-578. Only 12 crewmen survived out of the 113 seamen and officers. What both these sinkings should emphasize is that the men lost are not numbers but fathers, husbands, and sons.

Medal of Honor winner Elmer Bigelow of the USS Fletcher is someone Johnson wants Americans to know about. “On February 14, 1945, off the Philippines, he sacrificed his life while saving others. Refusing to waste precious time required to don rescue-breathing apparatus, he plunged through the blinding smoke billowing out of the magazine hatch and dropped into the blazing compartment. Despite the acrid, burning powder smoke which seared his lungs with each agonizing breath, he worked rapidly and with instinctive sureness and succeeded in quickly extinguishing the fires and in cooling the cases and bulkheads, thereby preventing further damage to the stricken ship. He did this act of courage knowing that he would likely die.”

Regarding World War II, Johnson points out in his book that “the first American servicemen killed in World War II were 110 destroyer men lost six weeks before our nation officially entered the war. In Oct. 1941, the USS Kearny (DD-432) was torpedoed off Iceland with a loss of 10 sailors. On Oct. 31, USS Reuben James was torpedoed with a loss of 100 men.”

He also has an interesting premise that the Japanese targeted the wrong ships at Pearl Harbor. “Instead of bombing pre-World War I vintage battleships, the Japanese should have gone after the 55 destroyers based at Pearl.”

“The six battleships refloated at Pearl Harbor won only 32 battle stars for the rest of the war. The Pearl-based destroyers won 432 battle stars, meaning they were engaged in 432 battles. Of the 30 destroyers at Pearl during the attack, just two were destroyed. They would go on to earn 257 battle stars. Looking at the big picture, it is clear that American destroyers and destroyer escorts were the true workhorses for the U.S. Navy surface fleet during World War II.”

Johnson wants Americans to understand, “with a 5/8-inch-thick hull the destroyers had basically no armor. Compare that to a battleship that has 13 inches of armor.  The sea is unforgiving.  Sailors are always in danger to be sunk by the ocean or by the enemy. When ships sink Americans should think of the individuals lost, and not just the cited number.  We need to remember everything people enjoy now came about because of those who sacrificed their lives that includes the men who died on the destroyers.”

The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews, author interviews, and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.

Memorial Day is a solemn holiday in which Americans should pay homage to the individuals who sacrificed their lives to protect their fellow citizens. Clint Johnson’s book Tin Cans and Greyhounds: The Destroyers That Won Two World Wars is a reminder that those serving on ships put their life at risk daily. This interview with Johnson reflects on Americans serving who sacrificed their lives to save others.

Johnson emphasizes in his book how destroyers were nicknamed “tin cans” because they had thin metal hulls that were useful for quickly navigating the seas but not a great protection for the men serving on those ships. Their quick speeds gave them their second nickname, “greyhounds.”  

Survival on a destroyer was not guaranteed.  Johnson quoted Lieutenant Commander Robert Copeland as he calmly told his crew as their tiny, unarmored destroyer escort rushed toward giant, armored Japanese battleships at the Battle off Samar on October 25, 1944 that they were fighting “against overwhelming odds from which survival could not be expected.” (Unbelievably, the Navy’s scratch force of destroyers and escort carriers chased off the entire Japanese battle fleet, though at great cost.) 

Compelling evidence is presented by Johnson regarding the two destroyers named the USS Jacob Jones. The first ship survived an attempt of a possible crewman to sink her by opening up the sea cocks. After eventually making it to France to act as an escort convey during World War I, she was sunk on December 6, 1917, by a German U-boat off the southern coast of England.  Johnson describes how it was hit by “a single torpedo from the U-53, one of Germany’s most successful submarines, some of DD-61’s crew was killed by the initial explosion. More were killed when sinking depth charges exploded underneath the survivors floating in the water. Sixty-six out of the ninety-nine crewmen died.”

The second USS Jacob Jones (DD-130), was given the Jacob Jones ship name while still being constructed in February 1918 in honor of the destroyer that had been lost just three months earlier. On Feb. 28, 1942, while cruising off Cape May, New Jersey she was hit by two torpedoes, fired by the U-578. Only 12 crewmen survived out of the 113 seamen and officers. What both these sinkings should emphasize is that the men lost are not numbers but fathers, husbands, and sons.

Medal of Honor winner Elmer Bigelow of the USS Fletcher is someone Johnson wants Americans to know about. “On February 14, 1945, off the Philippines, he sacrificed his life while saving others. Refusing to waste precious time required to don rescue-breathing apparatus, he plunged through the blinding smoke billowing out of the magazine hatch and dropped into the blazing compartment. Despite the acrid, burning powder smoke which seared his lungs with each agonizing breath, he worked rapidly and with instinctive sureness and succeeded in quickly extinguishing the fires and in cooling the cases and bulkheads, thereby preventing further damage to the stricken ship. He did this act of courage knowing that he would likely die.”

Regarding World War II, Johnson points out in his book that “the first American servicemen killed in World War II were 110 destroyer men lost six weeks before our nation officially entered the war. In Oct. 1941, the USS Kearny (DD-432) was torpedoed off Iceland with a loss of 10 sailors. On Oct. 31, USS Reuben James was torpedoed with a loss of 100 men.”

He also has an interesting premise that the Japanese targeted the wrong ships at Pearl Harbor. “Instead of bombing pre-World War I vintage battleships, the Japanese should have gone after the 55 destroyers based at Pearl.”

“The six battleships refloated at Pearl Harbor won only 32 battle stars for the rest of the war. The Pearl-based destroyers won 432 battle stars, meaning they were engaged in 432 battles. Of the 30 destroyers at Pearl during the attack, just two were destroyed. They would go on to earn 257 battle stars. Looking at the big picture, it is clear that American destroyers and destroyer escorts were the true workhorses for the U.S. Navy surface fleet during World War II.”

Johnson wants Americans to understand, “with a 5/8-inch-thick hull the destroyers had basically no armor. Compare that to a battleship that has 13 inches of armor.  The sea is unforgiving.  Sailors are always in danger to be sunk by the ocean or by the enemy. When ships sink Americans should think of the individuals lost, and not just the cited number.  We need to remember everything people enjoy now came about because of those who sacrificed their lives that includes the men who died on the destroyers.”

The author writes for American Thinker.  She has done book reviews, author interviews, and has written a number of national security, political, and foreign policy articles.

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Explaining Memorial Day to friends in Mexico

A few too many years ago, I worked in Mexico for a U.S. bank.  I was invited by some friends to tell the story of Memorial Day at a local church.   

It was before the Internet, so I called my father and told him to put of my old U.S. history schoolbooks in the next plane.  It turned out that one of his colleagues was flying to Mexico and I got my books in a day.

I started by talking about The Civil War and “Decoration Day“:    

On May 5, 1868, General John A. Logan, leader of an organization for Northern Civil War veterans, called for a nationwide day of remembrance later that month. “The 30th of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village and hamlet churchyard in the land,” he proclaimed.

The date of Decoration Day, as he called it, was chosen because it wasn’t the anniversary of any particular battle.

On the first Decoration Day, General James Garfield made a speech at Arlington National Cemetery, and 5,000 participants decorated the graves of the 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers buried there.

Later, it became Memorial Day after World War I and World War II:    

For decades, Memorial Day continued to be observed on May 30, the date Logan had selected for the first Decoration Day. But in 1968 Congress passed the Uniform Monday Holiday Act, which established Memorial Day as the last Monday in May in order to create a three-day weekend for federal employees; the change went into effect in 1971. The same law also declared Memorial Day a federal holiday.

The parishioners enjoyed it and I felt good about that.  One of the gentlemen related his ancestor’s story.  Apparently, his grandfather was from Texas and served in the Spanish American War.  Everyone was thrilled with the photos that I shared on the blackboard.  

Looking back today and reading about Decoration Day, I am amazed how our ancestors were willing to decorate the graves of northern and southern soldiers.  It’s a good lesson for those who want to remove statues.  Sometimes the best way to heal is to honor the dead rather than selectively remove them from history.

Happy Memorial Day 2019.   

P.S.  You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

A few too many years ago, I worked in Mexico for a U.S. bank.  I was invited by some friends to tell the story of Memorial Day at a local church.   

It was before the Internet, so I called my father and told him to put of my old U.S. history schoolbooks in the next plane.  It turned out that one of his colleagues was flying to Mexico and I got my books in a day.

I started by talking about The Civil War and “Decoration Day“:    

On May 5, 1868, General John A. Logan, leader of an organization for Northern Civil War veterans, called for a nationwide day of remembrance later that month. “The 30th of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village and hamlet churchyard in the land,” he proclaimed.

The date of Decoration Day, as he called it, was chosen because it wasn’t the anniversary of any particular battle.

On the first Decoration Day, General James Garfield made a speech at Arlington National Cemetery, and 5,000 participants decorated the graves of the 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers buried there.

Later, it became Memorial Day after World War I and World War II:    

For decades, Memorial Day continued to be observed on May 30, the date Logan had selected for the first Decoration Day. But in 1968 Congress passed the Uniform Monday Holiday Act, which established Memorial Day as the last Monday in May in order to create a three-day weekend for federal employees; the change went into effect in 1971. The same law also declared Memorial Day a federal holiday.

The parishioners enjoyed it and I felt good about that.  One of the gentlemen related his ancestor’s story.  Apparently, his grandfather was from Texas and served in the Spanish American War.  Everyone was thrilled with the photos that I shared on the blackboard.  

Looking back today and reading about Decoration Day, I am amazed how our ancestors were willing to decorate the graves of northern and southern soldiers.  It’s a good lesson for those who want to remove statues.  Sometimes the best way to heal is to honor the dead rather than selectively remove them from history.

Happy Memorial Day 2019.   

P.S.  You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/