Month: October 2014


NAVY PRIDE RUNS DEEPOct. 13 marks the U.S. Navy’s 239th birthday. For many Sailors & Veterans the Navy’s birthday is a time to remember tradition and legacy. The U.S. Navy traces its origins to the Continental Navy, established by the Continental Congress, Oct. 13, 1775, by authorizing the procurement, fitting out, manning and dispatch of two armed vessels to cruise in search of munitions ships supplying the British Army in America.

In 1972, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt authorized recognition of Oct. 13 as the Navy Birthday, encouraging a Navy-wide celebration of this occasion, “to enhance a greater appreciation of our Navy heritage, and to provide a positive influence toward pride and professionalism in the naval service.”

The Birth of the Navy of the United States

On Friday, October 13, 1775, meeting in Philadelphia, the Continental Congress voted to fit out two sailing vessels, armed with ten carriage guns, as well as swivel guns, and manned by crews of eighty, and to send them out on a cruise of three months to intercept transports carrying munitions and stores to the British army in America. This was the original legislation out of which the Continental Navy grew and as such constitutes the birth certificate of the navy.

To understand the momentous significance of the decision to send two armed vessels to sea under the authority of the Continental Congress, we need to review the strategic situation in which it was made and to consider the political struggle that lay behind it.

Americans first took up arms in the spring of 1775, not to sever their relationship with the king, but to defend their rights within the British Empire. By the autumn of 1775, the British North American colonies from Maine to Georgia were in open rebellion. Royal governments had been thrust out of many colonial capitals and revolutionary governments put in their places. The Continental Congress had assumed some of the responsibilities of a central government for the colonies, created a Continental Army, issued paper money for the support of the troops, and formed a committee to negotiate with foreign countries. Continental forces captured Fort Ticonderoga on Lake Champlain and launched an invasion of Canada.

In October 1775 the British held superiority at sea, from which they threatened to stop up the colonies’ trade and to wreak destruction on seaside settlements. In response, a few of the states had commissioned small fleets of their own for defense of local waters. Congress had not yet authorized privateering. Some in Congress worried about pushing the armed struggle too far, hoping that reconciliation with the mother country was still possible.

Yet, a small coterie of men in Congress had been advocating a Continental Navy from the outset of armed hostilities. Foremost among these men was John Adams, of Massachusetts. For months, he and a few others had been agitating in Congress for the establishment of an American fleet. They argued that a fleet would defend the seacoast towns, protect vital trade, retaliate against British raiders, and make it possible to seek out among neutral nations of the world the arms and stores that would make resistance possible.

Still, the establishment of a navy seemed too bold a move for some of the timid men in Congress. Some southerners agreed that a fleet would protect and secure the trade of New England but denied that it would that of the southern colonies. Most of the delegates did not consider the break with England as final and feared that a navy implied sovereignty and independence. Others thought a navy a hasty and foolish challenge to the mightiest fleet the world had seen. The most the pro-navy men could do was to get Congress to urge each colony to fit out armed vessels for the protection of their coasts and harbors.

Then, on 3 October, Rhode Island’s delegates laid before Congress a bold resolution for the building and equipping of an American fleet, as soon as possible. When the motion came to the floor for debate, Samuel Chase, of Maryland, attacked it, saying it was “the maddest Idea in the World to think of building an American Fleet.” Even pro-navy members found the proposal too vague. It lacked specifics and no one could tell how much it would cost.

If Congress was yet unwilling to embrace the idea of establishing a navy as a permanent measure, it could be tempted by short-term opportunities. Fortuitously, on 5 October, Congress received intelligence of two English brigs, unarmed and without convoy, laden with munitions, leaving England bound for Quebec. Congress immediately appointed a committee to consider how to take advantage of this opportunity. Its members were all New Englanders and all ardent supporters of a navy. They recommended first that the governments of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut be asked to dispatch armed vessels to lay in wait to intercept the munitions ships; next they outlined a plan for the equipping by Congress of two armed vessels to cruise to the eastward to intercept any ships bearing supplies to the British army. Congress let this plan lie on the table until 13 October, when another fortuitous event occurred in favor of the naval movement. A letter from General Washington was read in Congress in which he reported that he had taken under his command, at Continental expense, three schooners to cruise off Massachusetts to intercept enemy supply ships. The commander in chief had preempted members of Congress reluctant to take the first step of fitting out warships under Continental authority. Since they already had armed vessels cruising in their name, it was not such a big step to approve two more. The committee’s proposal, now appearing eminently reasonable to the reluctant members, was adopted.

The Continental Navy grew into an important force. Within a few days, Congress established a Naval Committee charged with equipping a fleet. This committee directed the purchasing, outfitting, manning, and operations of the first ships of the new navy, drafted subsequent naval legislation, and prepared rules and regulations to govern the Continental Navy’s conduct and internal administration.

Over the course of the War of Independence, the Continental Navy sent to sea more than fifty armed vessels of various types. The navy’s squadrons and cruisers seized enemy supplies and carried correspondence and diplomats to Europe, returning with needed munitions. They took nearly 200 British vessels as prizes, some off the British Isles themselves, contributing to the demoralization of the enemy and forcing the British to divert warships to protect convoys and trade routes. In addition, the navy provoked diplomatic crises that helped bring France into the war against Great Britain. The Continental Navy began the proud tradition carried on today by our United States Navy, and whose birthday we celebrate each year in October.

Establishment of the Navy, 13 October 1775

This resolution of the Continental Congress marked the establishment of what is now the United States Navy.

Resolved, That a swift sailing vessel, to carry ten carriage guns, and a proportionable number of swivels, with eighty men, be fitted, with all possible despatch, for a cruise of three months, and that the commander be instructed to cruise eastward, for intercepting such transports as may be laden with warlike stores and other supplies for our enemies, and for such other purposes as the Congress shall direct.

That a Committee of three be appointed to prepare an estimate of the expence, and lay the same before the Congress, and to contract with proper persons to fit out the vessel.

Resolved, that another vessel be fitted out for the same purposes, and that the said committee report their opinion of a proper vessel, and also an estimate of the expence.”

Source: Journal of the Continental Congress, 13 October 1775, in William Bell Clark, editor, Naval Documents of the American Revolution, Vol. 2, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966): 442.


Atheists Fear the Cross As Much As Vampires!

A Twitter follower posed the question & here’s my response. Thanks @ChuckNellis

Jersey Girl Today

I really do believe that Atheists fear the cross as much as Vampires.  Indeed, in my opinion the real “vampires” are the socialist-leaning liberals currently leading this once great country of ours right down the path of destruction. Additionally, I think atheists fear God so much that the mere seeing or hearing His name, upsets them! Why? What is it that drives these “non-believers” of any deity whatsoever?

Last Saturday in Florida, a group of atheists unveiled a monument to their non-belief in God to  sit alongside a granite slab that lists the Ten Commandments in front of the  Bradford County courthouse.

FOX News reported that, “as a small group of protesters blasted Christian country music and waved  Honk for Jesus signs, the atheists celebrated what they believe is the first  atheist monument allowed on government property in the United States.”

‘‘When you look at this monument, the first thing you will notice…

View original post 938 more words

Obama Administration Puts Public at Risk – Releases 36,000 Criminal Aliens

Article re-blogged from Judicial Watch (Obama Administration Puts Public at Risk – Releases 36,000 Criminal Aliens by Tom Fitton, President~ weekly Corruption Chronicles Blog Headlines October 3, 2014) ~JGT

When you’re living outside of Washington, D.C., and the word “criminal” is put in front of the phrase “illegal alien,” you may find that a bit redundant. But, to political insiders, it is simply typical Washington double-speak. And that may help explain why last year the Obama administration released 36,000 convicted illegal aliens on an unknowing American public. Each had been convicted of violent and other serious crime. To be clear, I’m talking about crimes such as murder, sexual assault, kidnapping and aggravated assault.  And, if you aren’t upset enough already, the criminal aliens who are now in circulation throughout the country have almost 88,000 convictions.

That’s why on July 21, 2014, your Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to obtain vital information about a report from our friends at the Center for Immigration Studies that found Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released 36,007 criminal aliens who were the subjects of deportation hearings. We filed our FOIA lawsuit after the DHS, which includes ICE, ignored our May 15, 2014, FOIA request for the following basic information:

Any and all records of communications including, but not limited to, emails to or from personnel in the office of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (including its component offices, such as the Office of Public Affairs), from May 1 to May 15, 2014, concerning, regarding, or related to the report published by the Center for Immigrations Studies concerning the release of 36,000 criminal aliens.

A simple request designed to get to the heart of the decision that put untold innocents at risk – completely ignored by the misnamed Department of Homeland Security.  What agency dedicated to providing Americans “security” would release criminal aliens who should have been deported who had, collectively:

  • 193 homicide convictions (including one willful killing of a public official with gun)
  • 426 sexual assault convictions
  • 303 kidnapping convictions
  • 1,075 aggravated assault convictions
  • 1,160 stolen vehicle convictions
  • 9,187 dangerous drug convictions
  • 16,070 drunk or drugged driving convictions
  • 303 flight escape convictions

Immediately following the release of the CIS report, former House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) issued a statement terming the action, “the worst prison break in American history.” The representative laid the responsibility at the feet of President Obama, adding, “[I]t was sanctioned by the President and perpetrated by our own immigration officials … The Administration’s actions are outrageous. They willfully and knowingly put the interests of criminal immigrants before the safety and security of the American people.”

Obama administration officials, of course, took a far more casual attitude towards the “worst prison break in American history.” Three weeks after the release of the report, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was he was still trying to understand what happened, and declined to provide further details as to how the criminal aliens were freed or who was responsible. Johnson told the committee, “I am aware of the reports that in Fiscal Year 2013 thousands of individuals with criminal convictions who may be removable were released from custody. I have asked for a deeper understanding of this issue.”

By the way, do you know why the Secret Service, also “run” by Mr. Johnson, would leave the front door of the White House open and allow the president to be put in an elevator with “security contractor with a gun and three convictions for assault and battery“?

According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch in May 2013, this is not be the first time Obama immigration policies have resulted in lax treatment of dangerous or potentially dangerous illegal aliens. The documents, obtained in accordance with an October 2012 FOIA request, revealed that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) abandoned required background checks in 2012, adopting instead costly “lean and lite” procedures. The documents also revealed that, contrary to administration claims, that Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policies applied only to minors who came to this country illegally “through no fault of their own,” the directive actually created a new wave of chain migration, whereby immediate relatives of DACA requesters could be approved for amnesty. As a result, according to an agency memo from District 15 Director David Douglas, “some of the districts closer to the U.S./Mexico border have been inundated.”

The fact is, time and again, the Obama administration has rolled out the red carpet for illegal immigrants. And we now know that once they arrive, they are encouraged to stay, even if they have wreaked violent mayhem on the unsuspecting public. The American people deserve to have their own ‘deeper understanding’ of who authorized the release of these dangerous, convicted felons. And JW is going to court to find out.

In Washington, you get fired, and rightly so, for not doing your job and leaving the president unprotected.  But if you ignore the law and release criminals and guns onto the streets and get Americans killed, you get to be Attorney General, head of Homeland Security, and a seat behind the desk in the Oval Office.

For more info & other stories & opinions log to

WOO HOO! America’s first ‘MUSLIM FREE’ shooting range

After the Oklahoma beheading by a Muslim and ongoing threats from the Islamic State (ISIS), Arkansas Firing Range becomes the first to ban Muslims.

Bearing Arms  In an act that will no doubt result in lawsuits, The Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range in Hot Springs, Arkansas, has declared itself a “Muslim free zone” due to concerns over domestic Islamic terrorism. The ban was announced yesterday by range owner Jan Morgan in an article posted to her web site where she cites ten points justifying her position.

Among the points cited are prior attacks in the United States that the federal government refuses to classify as terrorism, including the Fort Hood attack, the Boston Marathon bombing, and the last week’s Oklahoma City beheading. Morgan has also received death threats in the past for her writing about Islam.

Another incident that weighed heavily in Morgan’s decision was an incident at her firing range several weeks ago, which she relayed to Bearing Arms this morning.

Morgan claims that two Muslim men who spoke only broken English came to her range and requested to rent semi-automatic firearms and ammunition. One of them could not produce any identification showing that he was in the country legally, and the other had a California driver’s license. Neither had any apparent firearms training. She allowed them to rent one firearm, and stood behind them the entire time they were on the range, her hand on or near her holstered Glock 19. All other patrons voluntarily vacated the firing line while they were shooting.

She brings up a very valid point that gun stores and ranges have both a legal and moral obligation to ensure the safety of their patrons. Because of this, they may refuse service to anyone they deem to be under the influence, mentally unstable, or otherwise a potential threat to themselves, or others. FFLs are afforded a great deal of latitude in this regard, as the federal government would rather err on the side of caution.

While FFls and range operators have a great deal of latitude in their business dealings, it is doubtful that a blanket ban based upon religion is remotely viable on First Amendment grounds. This is no more legally viable than a ban on Baptists or Catholics.

Morgan expects that she will be sued over the decision for civil rights violations, and is gearing up for a court battle.


WOO HOO! America’s first ‘MUSLIM FREE’ shooting range.