Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Duane TeWinkel

Obama Biden Watch – Volume 1 Issue 1 – January 2009

In This Issue:

  • Obama’s Inaugural Address Falls Flat?
  • Change We Can Believe In? Looks Like the Usual Suspects!
  • Obama’s First Actions Not Making America Safer
  • Geithner’s Tax Problems
  • Obama-Blagojevich Report Contradicts Public Record
  • Political Panetta at CIA?
  • Pelosi’s Power Grab
  • Bill Richardson Out As Commerce Secretary
  • Citizens United Productions Presents: Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny Documentary
  • Final Thoughts from Citizens United President David N. Bossie

Stay tuned for more updates as we will be updating this site frequently.

Copyright 2009 by Citizens United

ANOTHER IGNORANT DAMNACRAT

And those dammed Democrats think they know more than the rest of us.  That they are smarter than we are.  That they know and understand the Constitution better than we do.

BULL CRAP

The Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers for a new country and its CITIZENS.

CITIZENS, not for foreign terrorists or illegal aliens.  Those terrorists currently set to be brought to New York for trial in civil courts. These are enemy combatants, they have no civil rights as applied to citizens and legal, foreign, residents.

CNSNews.com

Rep. Kucinich Says Everyone, Including Osama Bin Laden, Should Get the Same ‘Basic Rights’
Monday, November 23, 2009
By Nick Ballasy


Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)

(CNSNews.com) – When asked whether al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden should have the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told CNSNews.com that everyone who is accused of a crime should have the same “basic rights” afforded by the U.S. Constitution..

On Capitol Hill on Nov. 19, CNSNews.com asked Kucinich, “If and when the U.S. captures Osama Bin Laden, should he have the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer–told he can get a lawyer?”

Kucinich said: “I think that America does best when the values that we want other nations to share that we profess and stand by, and I think that every one who is accused of a crime should have the basic rights that are afforded. I mean, that’s what America’s about.”

“We can’t have one set of rules there and another set of rules there,” said Kucinich. “America is one set of rules. We abide by the Constitution, and I think that Constitution is our protection now and in the future.”

When asked the same question by CNSNews.com on Nov. 19, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, “Well, let’s see, how many years has it been? Nine, eight years. Let’s worry about capturing Bin Laden and not worry about your, your question.”

During a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 18, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Attorney General Eric Holder several questions about how the capture and legal handling of Osama Bin Laden might be handled and warned that, in his opinion, the United States is “making bad history” by trying 9/11 suspect Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court.

When Graham asked whether the U.S. would try Bin Laden in a civilian court or military commission, Holder said he “didn’t know” and that the U.S. would have to “go through our protocol” before deciding what to do with the Islamic terrorist.

“If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?” Graham asked Holder. Holder’s response was “that all depends,” and Graham warned that the Obama administration’s new legal policy would confuse the military and the justice system.

“Well, it does not ‘depend,’” the senator said. “The big problem I have is that you’re criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we’d have mixed theories and we couldn’t turn him over—to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence—for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we’re saying that he is the subject to criminal court in the United States.

“And you’re confusing the people fighting this war,” Graham charged. Later, the senator added, “The only point I’m making (is) that if we’re going to use federal court as a disposition for terrorists, you take everything that comes with being in federal court.”

Holder announced last Friday that he had chosen to try Mohammed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, which includes Manhattan, where the attacks on the World Trade Center occurred in 2001.

CNSNews.com

Rep. Kucinich Says Everyone, Including Osama Bin Laden, Should Get the Same ‘Basic Rights’
Monday, November 23, 2009
By Nick Ballasy


Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)

(CNSNews.com) – When asked whether al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden should have the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told CNSNews.com that everyone who is accused of a crime should have the same “basic rights” afforded by the U.S. Constitution..

On Capitol Hill on Nov. 19, CNSNews.com asked Kucinich, “If and when the U.S. captures Osama Bin Laden, should he have the right to remain silent and be given a lawyer–told he can get a lawyer?”

Kucinich said: “I think that America does best when the values that we want other nations to share that we profess and stand by, and I think that every one who is accused of a crime should have the basic rights that are afforded. I mean, that’s what America’s about.”

“We can’t have one set of rules there and another set of rules there,” said Kucinich. “America is one set of rules. We abide by the Constitution, and I think that Constitution is our protection now and in the future.”

When asked the same question by CNSNews.com on Nov. 19, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, “Well, let’s see, how many years has it been? Nine, eight years. Let’s worry about capturing Bin Laden and not worry about your, your question.”

During a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 18, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Attorney General Eric Holder several questions about how the capture and legal handling

  • GREAT RELIGION–NOT

Saudi female journalist gets 60 lashes RIYADH, Saudi Arabia

– A Saudi court on Saturday sentenced a female journalist to 60 lashes who had been charged with involvement in a TV show in which a Saudi man publicly talked about sex. Rozanna al-Yami is believed to be the first Saudi woman journalist to be given such a punishment, but there were conflicting accounts about how the court issued its verdict. Al-Yami told The Associated Press it was her understanding that the judge at the court in the western city of Jiddah dropped the charges against her, which included involvement in the preparation of the program and advertising the segment on the Internet. But she said he still handed down the lashing sentence “as a deterrence.” “I am too frustrated and upset to appeal the sentence,” said al-Yami, 22. Al-Yami worked as a coordinator for the program, but she has said she did not work on the sex-show episode. Al-Yami refused to provide contact details for her lawyer to ask about the legal proceedings, including the basis in Islamic law for the punishment and whether the charges were really dropped. Sulaiman al-Jumeii, the lawyer for the man who appeared in the TV show, said such “physical punishment is not an indication of innocence or a drop of charges.” “If the judge had dropped the charges, then why did he give her the 60 lashes?” he added. Abdul-Rahman al-Hazza, the spokesman of the Ministry of Culture and Information, told the AP he had no details of the sentencing and could not comment on it. In the program, which aired in July on the Lebanese LBC satellite channel, the man, Mazen Abdul-Jawad appears to describe an active sex life and shows sex toys that were blurred by the station. The same court sentenced Abdul-Jawad earlier this month to five years in jail and 1,000 lashes. Al-Jumeii maintains his client was duped by the TV station and was unaware in many cases he was being recorded. On Saturday, he told the AP that not trying al-Yami before a court specialized in media matters at the Ministry of Culture and Information was a violation of Saudi law. “It is a precedent to try a journalist before a summary court for an issue that concerns the nature of his job,” he said. The case has scandalized this ultraconservative country where such public talk about sex is taboo and the sexes are strictly segregated. The government moved swiftly in the wake of the case, shutting down LBC’s two offices in the kingdom and arresting Abdul-Jawad, who works for the national airline. Three other men who appeared on the show, “Bold Red Line,” were also convicted of discussing sex publicly and sentenced to two years imprisonment and 300 lashes each. Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.


Dick Morris: Secret Poll Data Shows Obama Care Can Be Stopped


The Patriot Update <alerts@patriotupdate.com>

Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 18:54

Reply-To: alerts@patriotupdate.com

To: “supergramps.duane@gmail.com” <supergramps.duane@gmail.com>

Dear Reader:

Congressional Democrats and Barack Obama are on the verge of passing the most radical takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy ever undertaken.

The Obamacare “reform” plan not only imperils our economy, it will wreak havoc on your health and well-being. Imagine a government bureaucrat deciding whether you or a loved one getting a life-saving medical procedure!

Dick Morris, the chief strategist of the League of American Voters, has discovered that a key reason polls show some support for the Obama program is that young voters are ignorant of its dangers and costs.

Dick has a plan for us to reach young voters. We need to implement this plan soon and we need your financial support and membership.

Remember, Dick and the League was outfront on the importance of exposing Obamacare to elderly voters. We have won that battle — as most Seniors strongly oppose Obamacare.

Now we must fight to educate our young people.

Please help us do this and donate — Go Here Now.

And please read Dick’s important column about this effort below.

Bob Adams
Executive Director


NEW FRONT ON OBAMACARE: THE YOUNG

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

As the healthcare fight reaches the Senate floor, we took a new national survey to figure out how best to battle against this proposal that would so deform our nation’s vital healthcare system. We found out how to do it: Reach young people.

Our work, and that of the League of American Voters – with whom we are affiliated but have no financial relationship – have been aimed at the elderly in the past few months. As a result of these and other efforts, the elderly now oppose Obamacare by more than twenty points (31-54 in our poll). The survey shows that we have about gotten all the support from them we are going to get. Some of those over 65 are just masochists who will sit by and watch their Medicare and Medicare Advantage get shredding to bits.

But voters under 30 are a different story. The polling showed that they start off supporting Obamacare more than any other age group:

But, it turns out their strong 2:1 support for the program is based on an almost total ignorance of what it calls for.

After we read them (in the poll) a fair and unbiased description of the program, their support faded.

Here’s what we read to them:

The healthcare bill, pushed by President Obama and the Democrats, would require everyone to buy health insurance or pay a fine for failing to do so.

People could keep their current insurance if their employer provided it and agreed to continue it. Insurance companies would be required to insure all applicants regardless of pre-existing conditions. People would be offered subsidies to buy insurance if their household incomes were below $70,000 a year and if their insurance cost more than 8% of their incomes ($5600 for a $70,000 a year family). The program will cost one trillion over ten years.

This plain vanilla rendition of what Obama proposes had a startling impact! Voters under 30, who had approved of the plan by 58-30 before they heard the description, now backed it by only 55-40, a loss of 13 points!

Then we read voters a list of all the arguments pro and con on the bill. We alternated the arguments to be sure that nobody could see any bias in the poll. After the arguments, the views of all other age groups were largely unchanged. But people under 30 now said they opposed the bill by 43-45 – a mega-shift of 30 points!

So…our strategy will be to replicate this process, only in reality.

We will run television and radio ads and Internet messages aimed at young voters to educate them about this bill.

Will the Congressional Democrats listen? Without the support of the young, polls will reflect the massive unpopularity of this bill. With each drop in its approval, you can hear the liberals groan. If the polling shows approval dropping into the 30s – and as young people switch it will – we can defeat this bill on the floor!

Based on the same polling techniques I use to win elections, we have discovered Obama’s vulnerable underbelly – his base of uninformed young voters. And we will hammer away — with your help.

This process won’t be inexpensive. It costs a lot to reach young people, but with your financial help, we can do it.

Please GO HERE NOW and give as generously as you can. The healthcare you save might very well be your own!

Note from the League: We need to prepare a new TV ad and internet campaign exposing the dangers of Obamacare to young Americans. Help Dick Morris complete this plan. Donate today — Go Here Now.

Paid for by the League of American Voters. Contributions to the League of American Voters are not tax deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from individuals and corporations are permitted by law and welcome.

League of American Voters    |    722 12th Street N.W.    |    Fourth Floor    |    Washington, D.C. 20005

For Information about Advertising, Click Here www.patriotupdate.com

Forward to a Friend
SmartUnsubscribesm
This email was sent to supergramps.duane@gmail.com by alerts@patriotupdate.com

Update Profile/Email Address | SmartUnsubscribesm from this list | Privacy Policy

WHAT A CROCK OF HOOIE!

SECURITY FIRST LAST AND ALWAYS!!!

Pick a sex and stay with it.  Get your travel documents to match your chosen sex and stick with it or stay home.  Real simple….

CNSNews.com

U.N. Report Says Counterterrorism Measures ‘Risk Unduly Penalizing Transgender Persons’
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
By Adam Brickley

(CNSNews.com) – A report by U.N. Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin that is awaiting approval by the United Nations General Assembly says that security measures taken to detect terrorists “risk unduly penalizing transgender persons whose personal appearance and data are subject to change.”

The report, which was issued August 3, places emphasis on “persons of diverse sexual orientation and gender identities” and recommends that counterterrorism operations be more sensitive to gender issues.

On page 19 the report says: “Enhanced immigration controls that focus attention on male bombers who may be dressing as females to avoid scrutiny make transgender persons susceptible to increased harassment and suspicion.”

Just a few sentences later, Scheinin writes that “counter-terrorism measures that involve increased travel document security, such as stricter procedures for issuing, changing and verifying identity documents, risk unduly penalizing transgender persons whose personal appearance and data are subject to change.”

“This,” he claims, “jeopardizes the right of persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities to recognition before the law”

Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, blasted the report in an interview with CNSNews.com

“It strikes me as a parody of U.N. political correctness and sexual universality,” Gaffney said, “and it’s just hard for me to believe that anybody thinks that these notions actually should trump security concerns – as I think it’s only too clear that … the people who are trying to blow us up have absolutely no use for any of these sexual proclivities.”

Gaffney also pointed out that terrorists “would be only too delighted to take advantage – indeed we’ve seen them taking advantage – of burqas and other subterfuges to disguise their malign intents.”

The report also takes aim at perceived gender roles, suggesting that counter-terror practices involving both sexes be reevaluated due to their basis in traditional perceptions of gender.

One passage, beginning on page 13, says that “the United Kingdom anti-radicalization initiatives seeking to include Muslim women as counter-terrorism agents on the basis of their position ‘at the heart not only of their communities but also of their families,’ may reinforce stereotypical gender norms about roles of women within the family.”

“Instead,” Scheinin writes, “participation should be grounded on principles of gender equality, recognizing the unique gendered impacts of both terrorism and counter-terrorism measures.”

Scheinin also slams the use of women’s rights as a justification for counter-terror operations, writing on page 14 that “counter-terrorism measures that are characterized as being a fight for women’s rights (such as the United States portrayal of its “war on terror” in Afghanistan in 2001) should be closely scrutinized, to ensure that they are not misinformed by gender-cultural stereotypes and are actually responsive to the concerns of women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex individuals in local contexts.”

The use of masculine gender roles in counterterrorism draws Scheinin’s ire on page 18, where he writes that “techniques that seek to evoke feelings of emasculation in detainees or suspected terrorists may hinder the fight against terrorism by provoking hyper-masculine responses that include acceptance or advocacy of violence.”

Steven Groves, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, expressed a lack of surprise at the report, saying that it was comparable with Scheinin’s past work for the UN and typical of the UN Human Rights Council.

“Instead of the Human Rights Council focusing how the human rights of people who are blown apart by terrorists impact people’s human rights,” Groves said, “they created a new office for someone to go and make sure that the terrorists’ human rights, and the human rights of almost everyone else – except for the victims of terrorism – are being protected, and so that is (Scheinin’s) mission.”

“That he would stray into some wrong-headed report about gender stereotypes as part of his mandate on counterterrorism isn’t a surprise to me,” Groves continued, “this is the way that the United Nations and the Human Rights Council work.”

Still, Frank Gaffney was flabbergasted by Scheinin’s report, saying, “I find this truly absurd and appalling.”

The report is currently pending approval by the U.N. General Assembly, and CNSNews.com has reported that social conservatives are mounting a campaign against it due to its redefinition of gender.

Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter

The Bogus Death Statistic That Won’t Die
By Michelle Malkin
October 23, 2009

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida has found his calling: death demagogue. First, he accused Republicans of wanting sick patients to “die quickly.” Next, he likened health insurance problems to a “holocaust in America.” Now, he’s unveiled a new website entitled “namesofthedead.com” in memory of the “more than 44,000 Americans [who] die simply because they have no health insurance.”

Just one problem: The statistic is a phantom number. Grayson’s memorial, like the Democrats’ government health care takeover plan itself, is full of vapor. It comes from a study published this year in the American Journal of Public Health. But the science is infused with left-wing politics.

Two of the co-authors, Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, are avowed government-run health care activists. Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program, which bills itself as “the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.” Woolhandler is a co-founder and served as secretary of the group.

Sounding more like a MoveOn.org organizer than a disinterested scientist, Woolhandler assailed the current health reform legislation in Congress for not going far enough: “Politicians are protecting insurance industry profits by sacrificing American lives.”

How did these political doctors come up with the 44,000 figure? They used data from a health survey conducted between 1988 and 1994. The questionnaires asked a sample of 9,000 participants whether they were insured and how they rated their own health. The federal Centers for Disease Control tracked the deaths of people in the sample group through the year 2000. Himmelstein, Woolhandler and company then crunched the numbers and attributed deaths to lack of health insurance for all the participants who initially self-reported that they had no insurance and then died for any reason over the 12-year tracking period.

At no time did the original researchers or the single-payer activists who piggy-backed off their data ever verify whether the supposed casualties of America’s callous health care system had insurance or not. In fact, here is what the report actually says:

“Our study has several limitations,” the authors concede. The survey data they used “assessed health insurance at a single point in time and did not validate self-reported insurance status. We were unable to measure the effect of gaining or losing coverage after the interview.” Himmelstein et al. simply assumed that point-in-time uninsurance translates into perpetual uninsurance — and that any health calamities that result can and must be blamed on being uninsured.

Another caveat you won’t see on Grayson’s memorial to the dubious dead: The single-payer advocate-authors also conceded in their study limitations section that “earlier population-based surveys that did validate insurance status found that between 7 percent and 11 percent of those initially recorded as being uninsured were misclassified. If present, such misclassification might dilute the true effect of uninsurance in our sample.”

To boil it all down in plain English: The single-payer scientists had no way of assessing whether the survey participants received insurance coverage between the time they answered the questionnaires and the time they died. They had no way of assessing whether the deaths could have been averted with health insurance coverage. A significant portion of those classified as “uninsured” may not have been uninsured, based on past studies that actually did verify insurance status. But the Himmelstein team just took the rate of uninsurance from the original study (3.3 percent), applied it to census data and voila: More than 44,000 Americans are dying from lack of insurance.

Next, the political doctors cooked up scary-specific death tolls for all 50 states (California — 5,302, Texas — 4,675). Newspapers dutifully cited the fear-mongering factoids. The single-payer lobbying group co-founded by Himmelstein and Woolhandler took it from there. Last month, the group set up its own memorial on the National Mall for the phantom 44,000 casualties of uninsurance.

Himmelstein (who was also the driving force behind another flawed study tying medical debt to personal bankruptcies) eschewed scientific nuance and caveats to take to the airwaves and declare starkly that an American “dies every 12 minutes” because of lack of insurance. And now Grayson has taken the monumentally dishonest concept online to solicit sob stories and put flesh on the weak bones of these dubious death numbers.

Where’s the White House health care “reality check” squad when you need it?

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies” (Regnery 2009).

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM

——————–

Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

Read More »

DAKOTA VOICE

RAPID CITY SD

YouTube Cooking the Books on Obama Worship Video?

By Bob Ellis on September 24th, 2009

If you’ve been around the internet for long, you know that Google is like most major media organizations today: liberal to the core.  They ignore patriotic holidays with their rotating search engine logos, conservative websites seem to have an unusually hard time getting good coverage in search rankings, and so on.

Maybe you also heard about the video of schoolchildren being led in a worshipful song about Barack Obama that was reminiscent of “Jesus Loves the Little Children.”  That video disappeared from YouTube earlier this morning…only to be replaced by someone who had the foresight to download a copy of it before it disappeared.

Now comes word from Selwyn Duke at RenewAmerica of some funny business with the viewership stats on this video at YouTube.

Duke said he checked the video himself and saw only 363 hits at 1:04 pm…while it had 2,279 comments.  What’s wrong with this picture?  Even touchy-feely liberal self-esteem-friendly math can’t seem to account for this.

So he tracked it further…

I tracked the video a bit myself. Now, remember that it had 363 hits at 1:04 p.m. Here’s what I found.

  • Approximately 1:25 p.m.: the video still supposedly had only 363 hits but had 2,500 comments.
  • 1:39 p.m.: still only 363 hits but 2,668 comments.
  • 2:16 p.m.: 363 hits but 3,018 comments.

You get the idea.

Yes, we do get the idea.

Is it just a glitch at YouTube? Or is it a clumsy but deliberate attempt by Leftist Google to keep the hit ranking of this video low so that it doesn’t make “Top Video” listings which would give it even more exposure?

Liberals feel a virtually irresistible compulsion to protect their Obamessiah from blasphemy or other negative comments, so it seems quite credible that Google doesn’t want the Obamessiah receiving any more negative exposure than he already is through this video.

It ain’t easy being a truth-teller in an age of liberal dominance…but it’s worth it all the same!

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

Subscribe to this feedDiscuss on NewsvineAdd to Mixx!Email thisTwit This!CrossFeed ThisSphere: Related ContentTechnorati LinksSave to del.icio.usDigg This! (3 Diggs)Share on FacebookStumble It!1 comment on this itemAdd to Windows Live FavoritesSubmit to RedditGoogle Bookmark ThisFark ItAdd to Yahoo MyWeb2Buzz Up!

Related Posts

WXRGina Today 05:58 PM

HA! Last night when I saw this video linked off of Drudge, I noticed the number of hits on it was very low, though I can’t remember the actual number, it was only a few hundred. I was thinking this video is on DRUDGE, and this hit-count can’t be right! I thought the same thing then that you and Selwyn are saying. I knew this would “hit the fan” today, and I’m not surprised You Tube tried to bury it. These evil maniacs on the left are unbridled in their fervor to protect Obamination’s image. But, it ain’t workin’! The horse is out of the barn!

Gmail

DUANE TEWINKEL

Mr. Gorbachev… “Tear Down This Wall!” 1 message The Republican Presidents Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:30

To: supergramps.duane@gmail.com

I think one of the most compelling moments of President Ronald Reagan’s White House was his desire to beat communism. Looks like he succeeded. The old Soviet Union is no longer in existence, China has free markets, so does Vietnam. The Eastern bloc is now capitalistic and well ole Lenin is no longer relevant. Why? It’s simple, President Reagan made the destruction of communism one of his administrations goals. Reagan knew that a communist government couldn’t keep up with the economic power of a capitalistic society. Basically, by outspending the communists on military, they couldn’t compete and they bankrupted themselves. The words Reagan spoke of ‘Tear down this wall.’ Are symbolic of the times. American bravado backed by it’s military might, supported by an economic system that continued to grow. The walls in our lives all need tearing down. In Reagans day it was the Berlin wall, the belief that America was no longer a world power. Or that America had seen it’s better days, Reagan tore down all these walls. The walls are numerous in our country today. We might think to ourselves that our better days of America are behind us. I think not and I’m sure you feel the same way. If you want to be reminded of more when it comes to our best days in our countries history and where we’ll gain our inspiration, just watch this video. To watch the video click here. Have a great day and remember, it won’t take much to take back America. Best, Matt Gillogly To unsubscribe, please go to Unsubscribe Grinder Publishing 7156 W. 127th Street Box 396 Palos Heights, IL 60463 United States

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Soon, I’ll be covering “Into the Mouth of the Cat” in my Colorado Springs Gazette column. Malcolm McConnell’s book is the incredible true story of Lance Sijan, a Medal of Honor recipient. Husband had to read this book as a cadet at the United States Air Force Academy. I’ve read it a few times. Below is Sijan’s MOH citation.

*SIJAN, LANCE P.

Rank and organization: Captain, U.S. Air Force, 4th Allied POW Wing, Pilot of an F-4C aircraft. Place and Date: North Vietnam, 9 November 1967. Entered service at: Milwaukee, Wis. Born: 13 April 1942, Milwaukee, Wis.

Citation:
While on a flight over North Vietnam, Capt. Sijan ejected from his disabled aircraft and successfully evaded capture for more than 6 weeks. During this time, he was seriously injured and suffered from shock and extreme weight loss due to lack of food. After being captured by North Vietnamese soldiers, Capt. Sijan was taken to a holding point for subsequent transfer to a prisoner of war camp. In his emaciated and crippled condition, he overpowered 1 of his guards and crawled into the jungle, only to be recaptured after several hours. He was then transferred to another prison camp where he was kept in solitary confinement and interrogated at length. During interrogation, he was severely tortured; however, he did not divulge any information to his captors. Capt. Sijan lapsed into delirium and was placed in the care of another prisoner. During his intermittent periods of consciousness until his death, he never complained of his physical condition and, on several occasions, spoke of future escape attempts. Capt. Sijan’s extraordinary heroism and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty at the cost of his life are in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Air Force and reflect great credit upon himself and the U.S. Armed Forces.

Posted by Anita at 7:30 AM

http://anitalaydonmiller.blogspot.com/2009/09/sneak-peek-lance-sijans-story.html