Respect

You're a 19 year old kid. You are critically wounded and dying in the jungle somewhere in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam . It's November 11, 1967. LZ (landin...g zone) X-ray. Your unit is outnumbered 8-1 and the enemy fire is so intense from 100 yards away, that your CO (commanding officer) has ordered the MedEvac helicopters to stop coming in. You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns and you know you're not getting out. Your family is half way around the world, 12,000 miles away, and you'll never see them again.

As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day. Then - over the machine gun noise - you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter. You look up to see a Huey coming in. But.. It doesn't seem real because no MedEvac markings are on it. Captain Ed Freeman is coming in for you. He's not MedEvac so it's not his job, but he heard the radio call and decided he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire anyway. Even after the MedEvacs were ordered not to come. He's coming anyway. And he drops it in and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 3 of you at a time on board. Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire to the doctors and nurses and safety. And, he kept coming back!! 13 more times!! Until all the wounded were out. No one knew until the mission was over that the Captain had been hit 4
times in the legs and left arm. He took 29 of you and your buddies out that day. Some would not have made it without the Captain and his Huey. Medal of Honor Recipient, Captain Ed Freeman, United States Air Force, died last Wednesday at the age of 70, in Boise, Idaho. May God Bless and Rest His Soul. I bet you didn't hear about this hero's passing, We’ve heard plenty about murders, Health Care, Border security etc. BUT NOTHING ABOUT THE PASSING OF Medal of Honor Winner Captain Ed Freeman. Shame on the media !!! Now... YOU pass this along. Honor this real Hero. Please
h/t: David Little

Yes!! Shame on the Media...RIP MOHR, Captain Ed Freeman.

"We Were Soldiers Once, and Young" -- that is what an officer is. Rest in peace, Major Freeman.

http://www.legacy.com/obitu...

Thanks J_F.... It's been awhile since i heard that wonderful rescue story...

My ex-sister-in-law's husband flew on the MedEvacs in Vietnam. It was one of the most dangerous jobs.

The reason I've been on C4P for so long is that it is (or was) a support site--not a useless debating society that are a dime a dozen--a support site--with a Mission. We here all support Sarah Palin, the most maligned and viciously attacked person in American history. Also one of the most important. This site was founded to support her and "have her back", and it's mission statement clearly states this. We might have our ups and downs with each other, but NO ONE has ever questioned posters loyalty to Sarah Palin.

This seems to have changed. Someone who despises her (and we have clear proof of this) is now an untouchable poster. Not only has he posted obsessively against her, her family and her positions on many other sites, he's begun to do so here. We're told to "stop harassing him", our comments are deleted, and he continues on, laughing like hell. We're told to "ignore him"--and let his comments stand unchallenged? Many people READ the posts here who don't post. Many get info about her here. Is ignoring him the answer? Isn't making clear what he is to those who read the posts "having Sarah's back"? Of course, the better solution is to do what's always been done to PDSers here--to ban him.

This person destroys the mission statement of C4P. Allowing a person who maligns her all over the Internet to post/spam with impunity is like an NFL team allowing someone who's betting against it to remain a member of the team. It makes no sense--and it WILL bring this site down or "fundamentally transform" it when she makes it clear what she has planned.

As far as I'm concerned, this is no longer a support site. It's a site that uses the name of Palin, but is open to all--open borders.

I love Sarah and her family. I love the people I've come to know here. I'll stay until I'm banned for that reason--and I WILL take those who hate her on. I've seen enough done to her and hers.

Sarah's for The People and The People are for Sarah! Don't let any PDSer ever tell you otherwise. Let's see if this post is allowed to stand.

MarkNY, I'll stand with you until there is only 2 of us!

Lol--the way things are lately, we'll be the first 2 to go!

Thanks Franklin.

I think somebody in the Trump camp needs to roll that tape back on the first question of the night. Trump raised his hand.

THEN as the crowd murmured and booed good old Bret Baier said

"You do realize you are standing on the stage, on the very stage, where next August THE RNC IS GOING TO GIVE THE NOD TO THE NOMINEE."

Got that? Not the people. Not the primary voters. The nominee is going to be the RNC nominee.

The only reason that the other candidates didn't raise their hands is that none of them can mount an indie run. They had nothing to lose.

Trump is the only one who can call their bluff. He has leverage. If they don't treat him fair. If they rig and vote fraud and Mississippi him out of the delegates and the nomination he just might go indie.

AND WHY NOT? IF THEY SCREWED YOU OVER LIKE THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW TRUMP OVER AND YOU HAD $10 BILLION (more or less) WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

Leverage. Donald Trump has tremendous leverage over the Establishment. He should surrender it to Bret Baier? He should give up his leverage on August 6, 2015? Only Obama thinks like that. See Iran Nuke Deal.

Trump was Trump.

Nice catch!

Yeah, just as bold as brass. Should be the Donald's first campaign ad. What does Bret Baier and Roger Ailes know that you poor suckers trooping to the primary polls don't know?

I want to thank everyone for the outpouring of love and support for VG, and say how uplifting it is to me at this time. Family duties make it impossible to reply to your posts just yet, but know I carry them with me as I go through this challenging time.

Following Ting's example, I plan to gather up your comments and read them to him.
Between this and the sister site, there are many, and I look forward to the task with grateful anticipation.

'Till then, y'all hold down the fort, be good, and love one another.

Miss VG and prayers are going up for him. Thanks for letting us know how he is doing.

Tell him Kat misses him and hopes he gets better quickly, to help wrangle in the stampeding cattle around here. It's getting wild and wooly lately. We need his wise, sage, tempering, inspiring voice.

Me too.

Oh geesh........this "debate" is a joke.

Sarah Palin.......paging Sarah Palin.......clean up needed on aisles G, O and P!!

...........like never before!

This is most likely IMHO why she didn't get in before now. She most likely had a hunch how it would work itself out.

SP asked who won the debate tonight on FB. If I had FB, I would make it very clear:

SARAH PALIN won the debate for not being there !!!

Well, as promised, I posted about RU questioning the veracity of Sarah's FB on the new thread, and they deleted it (lol)--no profanities! No name calling--just the facts.

I'm SO damned tempted to say something that will get me banned right now, but I've been here for over 7 years and I'm going to TRY to see it through till we know what Sarah's going to do. I'm actually risking getting banned over a notorious Sarah hating troll! Unbelievable.

Let's see how long this post stays up.

Mark... You got my Vote about RU, A Paid Troll.... 1000 LIKES

You know what my "former" NYer friend? This isn't an insult to me. Allowing him to stay on here is an insult to Sarah Palin. He's notoriously against her and everything she stands for. THAT's what gets me.

Ditto, Ditto!

I suspect some people have moved on and have chosen someone else to support... looks that wat to me based on how this site is run now. Ulterior motives?

DEM CHAIR: TEA PARTY CAME ‘OUT OF THE TRAILER PARKS’

Russ Feingold, who served 12 years as a hard-left Senator from Wisconsin and lost in the Republican wave of 2010, is hoping to make a comeback in 2016.

It has been more than 80 years since a defeated Senator reclaimed his seat in the next election, but Feingold and his supporters are counting on 2010 being a political aberration.

Jim Carmey, a Feingold campaign surrogate and Chair of the Pierce County Democrats,tried to explain away Feingold’s defeat at a recent fundraiser:

2010 was just so different, with Obama just having come in and a lot of the tea party people just kind of coming out of the woodwork — coming out of the trailer parks, essentially. There was a different mix of people at the polls.

Right. Emphasis, added, of course, in case the disdain from Mr. Carmey wasn’t immediately clear.

What is it about Democrats that they always assume any loss they suffer is because of some extraordinary event, almost unnatural? Are trailer parks hot-beds of potential Republican and conservative voters who would better serve political progress by not showing up to vote?

When Bill Clinton was facing serious allegations of rape from several women, Democrat strategist James Carville famously dismissed the claims as the inevitable result of “dragging a $100 through a trailer park.”

Bill Cosby probably wishes he could have used that line.

The statement by Carmey goes a long way to understand how the Democrat party has been obliterated in large swathes of the country. Opponents of the Democrat message are always branded as somehow living “beyond the pale.” They are racists, sexists, live in “trailer parks” or “cling” to God and guns.

Carmey’s own county, where he “leads” the local Democrats, went strongly for Scott Walker in the “trailer-park” election of 2010. It also went for him strongly in the 2012 recall election and in his 2014 reelection campaign.

There are dozens of things wrong with Carmey’s statement. Sadly, there are also dozens of reasons why local or national media will never call him out on it or ask him to opine further on his astute political observation.

Since losing reelection, Russ Feingold has spent years lecturing college students as an employee of Stanford University in California. Palo Alto no doubt has strict zoning laws against trailer parks.

http://www.breitbart.com/bi...

I know some fine people who have made the decision to sell their homes and live in an RV at an RV Park. And they're outstanding people in every way.

I also know some reprehensible scum of the earth who live in lefty coastal enclaves and look down on the rest of America as weeds that should be exterminated.

Guess which group tends to vote party line Demoncrat?

rv park and trailer park can be two different things.

rv parks can have million dollar buses parked. trailer parks often have low income folks living in them (or in our case, when we lived in a trailer park it was because that was the affordable off base housing available outside of fort riley)

Yes, it's all relative.

One has lived like a queen in a 16' travel trailer in remote mexican villages visited as part of a dive team.

Trailer Trash is just such a trashy thing to say, and rolls so easily off the tongue.. like a little spitball. Some people just can't resist.

Nothing like offending your base.

That would be the Feingold of the infamous "McCain-Feingold" campaign Financing Law iirc.

Dems are snobs and always have been.

Not just the Left....there are those on the Right who hold the same opinion.

Yes and the consultant class is right up there in the snob bunch.

Not just politicians have these views...."Trailer Trash" is a common "insult"

Karl Rove and gravitas. LOL

Gravitas is something Elmer Fudd aka Loser Rove doesn't have. He is a no class political hack for the establishment and jebby Bush.

And let us not forget the phenomenal amount of money he's spent on losing spectacularly in the past election cycles.

Tokyo Rove has proven to be colossally successful at squandering other peoples money.

Credit where credit's due, hey?

when they say 'trailer parks' they probably mean mobile home parks, not trailer/rv parks.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

LOL

Planned Parenthood’s CEO’s Daughter Helps Lead Hillary Clinton’s Campaign, Also Worked For DNC

Progressive evil is incestuous. So what are the chances that Democrats will prosecute the violations of the law? Slim and none?

Via Life News:

The daughter of Planned Parenthood president, Cecile Richards, has worked on a number of pro-abortion campaigns and is currently helping out her mother’s friend, Hillary Clinton.

Politico reports that Lily Adams joined the Clinton campaign last spring as Iowa’s press secretary. Adams is Richards’ oldest daughter and she previously worked as the Deputy Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee.

In past elections, Iowa has been a battleground for Democrats and abortion groups like NARAL, Emily’s List and Planned Parenthood have dumped tons of money into their political campaigns. For example, in 2012, Planned Parenthood spent $1.4 million on pro-abortion ads in Iowa. In 2008 and 2012, Obama carried the state by 54% and 51.99% respectively. However, in 2012 Republicans won the governorship, and in 2015, they won the Senate race.

Keep reading…

http://www.weaselzippers.us...

Has the Justice Department Seized Hillary’s Server? If Not, Why Not?
Andrew McCarthy — August 6, 2015
http://www.aim.org/guest-co...

We now know for certain what I argued was a virtual certainty back in March: Hillary Clinton and her top aides illegally maintained and communicated classified information on Mrs. Clinton’s private e-mail system. One pressing question now is: Has the government – preferably the Justice Department and the FBI – taken possession of the Clinton private server? If not, why not?

Recall that rather than providing the government with her server(s) or, at the very least, with a readily searchable electronic download of all government-related information on her private system, Mrs. Clinton and her lawyers provided the government with “hard” (paper) copies of e-mails she unilaterally selected and decided to provide to the government. What was inevitable has now been confirmed: Those e-mails contained classified information, almost certainly lots of it.

Mrs. Clinton also claims to have destroyed over 30,000 e-mails that have never been examined for their content by the government – because, according to her, they had nothing to do with government business. In a normal criminal investigation, agents and prosecutors are never satisfied with the subject’s say-so about whether evidence still exists; they insist on checking for themselves.

The Clinton camp is engaged in its usual obfuscations, claiming that Mrs. Clinton has done nothing wrong, much less committed any crimes, because the information in question was not classified at the time she communicated it – i.e., it was only later classified by the government. As I have already explained, this is a specious contention: If she knew the information she was communicating in an unsecure medium was secret national defense information, she was in violation of the law even if the government did not get around to stamping the actual e-mails “classified” until some later time. But let’s put that aside for the moment.

Mrs. Clinton finally provided the government with paper copies of what is (or, she claims, was) on her server(s). Given that there is classified information in those paper copies, there necessarily has to have been – or, more likely, still is – classified information on the server(s). Regardless of whether you buy Mrs. Clinton’s argument that the information was not classified at the time she sent the e-mails, there is no denying that (a) it is classified now, and (b) she still has the server(s).

The transfer of classified information to a private server system, the communication of classified information through a private server system, and the storage of classified information on a private server system can all be felony violations of the Espionage Act (section 792 of the federal penal code). For example, a person may be sentenced to up to ten years in prison if she:

Was lawfully entrusted with classified information and then “communicates, delivers, [or] transmits” it to any person not entitled to have it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

Has unauthorized possession of classified information then “communicates, delivers, [or] transmits” it to any person not entitled to have it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it [note that this “unauthorized possession” provision applies to Mrs. Clinton because, even though she was authorized to possess classified information as secretary of state, her possession of it on a private server was unauthorized];

Was lawfully entrusted with classified information and then “through gross negligence permits the [classified information] to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of [her] trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed [if Mrs. Clinton had classified information on her server and lost or destroyed it, that could be a crime]; or

Was lawfully entrusted with classified information and, knowing that the classified information was then illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of [her] trust, and that it was then lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed . . . fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to her superior officer.

Mrs. Clinton, through her counsel, has claimed that her server system was “wiped clean.” That is a highly suspect assertion. Unless and until there is a thorough, competent forensic examination of the server(s), we cannot know what is or is not still retrievable.

From the perspective of the criminal law, however, this is beside the point. In the very likely event that a crime was committed in the transfer of classified information to Mrs. Clinton’s server(s), and in the storage of that classified information thereon, the crime was complete long ago. Consequently, the server system is undeniably relevant to a criminal investigation regardless of whether the classified information that is/was on it is still retrievable:

(a) If classified information is still on it, it is obviously evidence of a potential crime;

(b) If the server has been erased (or an attempt has been made to erase it), that could also be evidence of a crime, namely: (i) physical evidence corroborating that classified information was on the server system at one time; (ii) consciousness-of-guilt evidence demonstrating that Mrs. Clinton knew it was a violation of law to have classified information on her server; and (iii) evidence supporting a potential obstruction-of-justice charge.

Federal criminal investigators are thus derelict if they have not already obtained possession of the Clinton server(s).

While Mrs. Clinton would obviously claim that the server(s) should not be seized because the system contains private information irrelevant to her government service and to any investigation, that is a problem of her own making and one that is common to many if not most criminal investigations. In those instances, the FBI generally seizes the entirety of the item in question, and then the subject of the investigation seeks (from the Justice Department or the court) the return of any information not relevant to the case. Usually, the property is not returned to the subject until after the investigation is concluded, but the subject will be provided with copies of information needed to conduct business, etc.

So, have the Justice Department and the FBI taken custody of Mrs. Clinton’s server(s)? After all, not only does it appear that serious offenses may have been committed; people have been prosecuted for less serious mishandling of classified information than appears to have happened here.

Has Congress asked this question?

A version of this piece previously appeared on National Review Online.

Hillary destroyed her server.

No, server's still alive, just wiped clean.

The request was made back in March: http://benghazi.house.gov/s...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015...

"Mr. Gowdy said in a written statement that it appeared that Mrs. Clinton deleted the emails after Oct. 28, when the State Department first asked her to turn over emails that were government records."

They need to seize that server yesterday.

The biggest loser of " The Debate " - Megan Kelly, When will the media learn, Trump doesn't play their game.

Was very disappointed in Kelly's disposition this evening. I generally like Megyn and watch her show regular .. but tonight .. imo .. she came across flippant, as if she believed that it was her in the spotlight. She didn't respect the process, nor her role in it. .... plus, it was more'n obvious she had Trump in her crosshairs and was looking to add his toupee to her trophy wall.

Once again the media underestimated Trump and he made them look foolish

His carefully coiffed comb-over, LOL VS. her hair-weave extensions. Advantage MK!

Steven K. Bannon and the crew (Matt Boyle) are BASHING Fox News and the Republican Party with barbed clubs. "Audible gasps whenever Kelly or Wallace went after Trump". New title for the debate "The Attack on Trump". Their crowd is hot about this debacle of a debate -- almost no comment on any other candidate. Reince Preibus and Debbie Washerwoman Schultz both thought Megyn did a good job -- so there you go!

I'll let you know when/if Gov. Palin comes on. I think I heard them say she'd be on.

Are you listening to them on Sirius XM radio

Sarah is supposed to be on.