Where are They Now?

Has anyone heard the caterwauling from the democrats about high gas prices lately. Wonder why that is?

Nancy Pelosi, May, 2007:

Hillary Clinton, May, 2008:

From Frank “The Laut” Lautenberg (D-NJ), April, 2008: “This week, the price of oil and gasoline both hit new record highs – almost $120 for a barrel of oil and more than $3.50 a gallon for gas. These out-of-control prices mean that hundreds of thousands of Americans are driving to work and spending too much of their day just earning back the cost of their commute. The American people deserve to know why this happened,” Lautenberg said.

He added, “It’s long past time to change our national priorities. We know there’s little hope that President Bush will suddenly wake up and see the light. But unfortunately, his Republican allies in Congress continue to stand by his side, with the oil and energy companies – for the status quo and against the American people… The best way to ensure that gas prices remain high is to vote Republican this fall.”

Democrats and the Media on high gas prices, 2012:

Evidently the “American People” don’t deserve to know what is now happening.

With gas prices higher than they’ve ever been at this time of the year (doesn’t bode well for the summer) and the dems controlling two thirds of the government, how would Frank have us vote this November?

I’m Sorry, I Forgot the Anniversary

Happy Anniversary! (A day or so belated)

On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 granting the War Department broad powers to create military exclusion areas (internment camps, or prison camps; whichever you prefer). Although the order did not identify any particular group, in practice it was used mostly to imprison Americans of Japanese descent. However, to a lesser extent, both Germans & Italians were detained. By 1943, more than 110,000 Japanese Americans had been forced at gun point from their homes and moved to camps in inland areas of the United States.

The FDR sicofant historians say that due to the shock of Pearl Harbor and of Japanese atrocities in the Philippines fueling already tense race relations on America’s West Coast and in the face of political, military, and public pressure, Roosevelt accepted the relocation proposal.

Was there pressure? You bet there was.

This letter from Sen. Harley Kilgore, a Democrat (you know, the party of the people & of immigrants) member of the powerful Senate Committee on Military Affairs, is an example of the political pressure to deal with the issue of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast that Roosevelt was receiving. It was sent to the President the same day he signed the order of internment.

The following is the text of the order signed by Roosevelt:

Executive Order No. 9066

The President

Executive Order

Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas

Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order. The designation of military areas in any region or locality shall supersede designations of prohibited and restricted areas by the Attorney General under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, and shall supersede the responsibility and authority of the Attorney General under the said Proclamations in respect of such prohibited and restricted areas.

I hereby further authorize and direct the Secretary of War and the said Military Commanders to take such other steps as he or the appropriate Military Commander may deem advisable to enforce compliance with the restrictions applicable to each Military area hereinabove authorized to be designated, including the use of Federal troops and other Federal Agencies, with authority to accept assistance of state and local agencies.

I hereby further authorize and direct all Executive Departments, independent establishments and other Federal Agencies, to assist the Secretary of War or the said Military Commanders in carrying out this Executive Order, including the furnishing of medical aid, hospitalization, food, clothing, transportation, use of land, shelter, and other supplies, equipment, utilities, facilities, and services.

This order shall not be construed as modifying or limiting in any way the authority heretofore granted under Executive Order No. 8972, dated December 12, 1941, nor shall it be construed as limiting or modifying the duty and responsibility of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with respect to the investigation of alleged acts of sabotage or the duty and responsibility of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, prescribing regulations for the conduct and control of alien enemies, except as such duty and responsibility is superseded by the designation of military areas hereunder.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

The White House,

February 19, 1942.

So the President, by virtue of no authority I can find in the Constitution, duly authorized the Secretary of War & military commanders to pretty much do whatever they want, whenever they want & however they want.

Rather than stand up for what was right and Constitutional, FDR bowed to political pressure,  just As all great Presidents have done.

I always leaders were supposed to lead.

So, Happy Anniversary everyone. By the way; don’t think this could never happen again.

 With the recently minted National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the President has now the authority to arrest & detain any person, citizen or not, for virtually any reason.

The Act allows for the indefinite military detention of any person alleged to be a member of Al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces.”

The provisions also apply to any person who supports or aids “belligerent” acts against the United States, whether the person is apprehended beyond our borders or on domestic soil.

Of course it doesn’t define a “belligerant” act.

Soon we may have to change that whole “Land of the Free” thing.

Attribution: Roosevelt Archives

Catholics Deal With the Devil

Excerpts from Paul A. Rahe’s article titled: American Catholicism’s Pact With the Devil

One might say that the Catholic Church itself laid the groundwork for the recent firestorm they find themselves embroiled in. I speak, of course, of the battle royal between the Church and the Obama administration over what they claimed to be “Women’s Healthcare”.

Now, just as the whites of today cannot be held to account for slavery, Catholics leaders of today cannot be accountable for their past leaders. Or can they?

It might be instructive to add some historical perspective to this dilemma.

In the burgeoning American republic, the principle of limited government was codified in its purest form in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But it had additional ramifications as well – for the government’s scope was limited also in other ways.

 There were other amendments that made up what we call the Bill of Rights, and many of the states prefaced their constitutions with bills of rights or added them as appendices. These were all intended to limit the scope of the government. They were all designed to protect the right of individuals to life, liberty, the acquisition and possession of property, and the pursuit of happiness as these individuals understood happiness. Put simply, liberty of conscience was part of a larger package.

This is what the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church forgot.

In the 1930s, the majority of the bishops, priests, and nuns sold their souls to the devil, and they did so, as is usual, with the best of intentions.

Due to their concern during the Depression, for the suffering of those out of work and destitute, they wholeheartedly embraced the New Deal. They gloried in the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt made Frances Perkins, a devout Anglo-Catholic laywoman who belonged to the Episcopalian Church but retreated on occasion to a Catholic convent, Secretary of Labor and the first member of her sex to be awarded a cabinet post.

They welcomed Social Security, which was her handiwork. They did not stop to ponder whether public provision in this regard would subvert the moral principle that children are responsible for the well being of their parents. They did not stop to consider whether this measure would reduce the incentives for procreation and nourish the temptation to think of sexual intercourse as an indoor sport. They just did not stop to think of any potential consequences.

In the process, the leaders of the American Catholic Church fell prey to that which had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States. That of the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor.

In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism, the belief that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it.

At every turn in American politics since that time, you will find the Catholic hierarchy assisting the Democratic Party and promoting the growth of the administrative entitlement state. It did not cross the minds of the hierarchy, that the paternalistic state they had embraced, would someday turn on the Church and seek to dictate how it would conduct its affairs.

The weapon that Barack Obama has directed at the Church was fashioned to a considerable degree by Catholic churchmen. They welcomed Obamacare. They encouraged Senators and Congressmen who professed to be Catholics to vote for it.

The Roman Catholic Church in the United States has lost much of its moral authority.

In 1973, when the Supreme Court made its decision in Roe v. Wade, had the bishops, priests, and nuns screamed bloody murder and declared war, as they have recently done, the decision would have been reversed. Instead, under the leadership of Joseph Bernadin, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, they asserted that the social teaching of the Church was a “seamless garment,” and they treated abortion as one concern among many.

Here is what Cardinal Bernadin said in the Gannon Lecture at Fordham University that he delivered in 1983:

“Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.

Consistency means that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.” 

The truth is that the priests in the United States are far more likely to push the “social justice” agenda of the Church from the pulpit than to instruct the faithful in the evils of abortion.

And there is more. Paul has not once, in the thirteen years of attending mass, heard the argument against contraception articulated from the pulpit, nor has he once heard the argument for chastity articulated. In the face of the sexual revolution, the bishops, priests, and nuns of the American Church have by and large fallen silent. In effect, they have abandoned the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in order to articulate a defense of the administrative entitlements state and its progressive expansion.

Those who seek to create heaven on earth and who, to this end, subvert the liberty of others and embrace the administrative entitlement state will sooner or later become its victims.

The New Navy

I recently read that former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords who, last year, survived an assassination attempt is receiving a real honor. She is having a Navy ship named after her.

 My first thought was, good for her. Then I began to ponder it further. Why her? I feel for her & her family but I’m not sure this is appropriate. Yes, she was in congress. So what?

 As is usually my want, I started to look a little further.

 It seems this is the “New, socially conscious, Navy”. In 2010 the USS John P. Murtha was unveiled, of course, named after said liberal shady dealer.  Earlier this year, the Navy announced plans for the USNS Cesar Chavez, after the labor leader.

 Are you kidding me? What’s next, the USS George Soros or maybe the Saul Alinsky? Are there no American traditions left?

 Rather than ranting over it, I’ve compiled a history of how naval ships were named. You may be the judge of whether this new nepotistic method is appropriate.

 The Navy traces its ancestry to 13 October 1775, when an act of the Continental Congress authorized the first ship of a new navy for the United Colonies, as they were then known. The ships of the Continental Navy, and of the Navy later established under the Federal Constitution, were not named in any strictly categorical manner.

Ship names in the Continental Navy and the early Federal navy came from a variety of sources. As if to emphasize the ties that many Americans still felt to Britain, the first ship of the new Continental Navy was named Alfred in honor of Alfred the Great, the king of Wessex who is credited with building the first English naval force.

On 3 March 1819 an act of Congress formally placed the responsibility for assigning names to the Navy’s ships in the hands of the Secretary of the Navy, a prerogative that he still exercises. This act stated that “all of the ships, of the Navy of the United States, now building, or hereafter to be built, shall be named by the Secretary of the Navy, under the direction of the President of the United States, according to the following rule: Those of the first class shall be called after the States of this Union; those of the second class after the rivers; and those of the third class after the principal cities and towns; taking care that no two vessels of the navy shall bear the same name.” The last-cited provision remains in the United States Code today.

Ships armed with 40 guns or more were of the “first class”; those carrying fewer than 40, but more than 20, guns were of the “second class.” The name source for the second class was expanded to include principal towns as well as rivers.

An act of May 4, 1898, specified that “all first-class battleships and monitors [shallow-draft coast-defense ships completed between 1891 and 1903, armed with heavy guns] shall be named for the States, and shall not be named for any city, place, or person, until the names of the States have been exhausted, provided that nothing herein contained shall be construed as to interfere with the names of states already assigned to any such battleship or monitor.”

However, in 1894 the famed Civil War sloop-of-war Kearsarge ran aground in the Caribbean and had to be written off as unsalvageable. There was so much affection for that ship in the Fleet that the Secretary of the Navy asked Congress to permit her name to be perpetuated by a new battleship. This was done, and Kearsarge (Battleship Number 5) became the only American battleship not to be named for a state.

Ship name recommendations are conditioned by such factors as the name categories for ship types now being built, as approved by the Secretary of the Navy; the distribution of geographic names of ships of the Fleet; names borne by previous ships which distinguished themselves in service; names recommended by individuals and groups; and names of naval leaders, national figures, and deceased members of the Navy and Marine Corps who have been honored for heroism in war or for extraordinary achievement in peace.
As battleship construction went on through the early 1900s, state names began to run short. The law stated that battleships (first class) had to bear state names; to comply with this, monitors and armored cruisers were renamed for cities within their respective name states to free the names of their states for assignment to new battleships. The monitors Florida and Nevada, for instance, became Tallahassee and Tonopah, while the armored cruisers Maryland and West Virginia became Frederick and Huntington. By 1920, state names were the sole preserve of battleships.

World War I brought the development of mine warfare necessitating the introduction of a new type of ship, the minesweeper. A new type of ship required a new name source. The then-Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had a keen interest in amateur ornithology. This led him to select bird names as the name source for these new ships, and “F.D.R.” signed the General Order assigning names to the first 36 ships of the Lapwing class.

Between World War I & II, the Navy’s first aircraft carriers came into service. Our first carrier, converted from the collier Jupiter, was named Langley (CV 1), in honor of aviation pioneer Samuel Pierpont Langley. Our next two carriers were built on the unfinished hulls of battle cruisers, two of a canceled class of six fast capital ships, which had already been assigned the names of American battles, and famous former Navy ships. These new carriers kept their original names, Lexington and Saratoga. The original battle-cruiser name source continued as carriers Ranger, Yorktown, Enterprise, Wasp, and Hornet entered service between 1934 and 1941, carrying on through World War II and into the postwar years.

Having their names reassigned to new construction normally honored ships lost in wartime. Names like Lexington, Yorktown, Atlanta, Houston, Triton and Shark were perpetuated in memory of lost ships and gallant crews. Unique among these names awarded in honor of lost ships was Canberra, assigned to a heavy cruiser in honor of the Australian cruiser Canberra. It was sunk while operating with American warships during the Battle of Savo Island in August 1942. This was seen to be an appropriate exception to the custom of naming cruisers for American cities.

During World War II the names of individuals were once again assigned to aircraft carriers. The Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first aircraft carrier (CVB 42) to be named for an American statesman. Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal suggested that name to President Harry S. Truman, shortly after FDR’s death in 1945. The first “Supercarrier,” the Forrestal (CVA 59), was named after the aforementioned Sec. Nav.

With the onset of the new age, Nuclear-powered fleet ballistic missile submarines, built to carry the Polaris strategic deterrent missile, began to go into commission in the early 1960s. These were rightly regarded as ships without precedent. Thus, a name source of their own was deemed appropriate. Our first ballistic missile submarine was named George Washington. They were classified as the  “41 for freedom” and bore the names of famous Americans and others who contributed to the growth of democracy, such as Patrick Henry and Ethan Allen.

All the ships of the current Nimitz class bear the names of such national figures as Theodore Roosevelt, George Washington, and Ronald Reagan

Many naval ships are non-combatant in nature. Examples include, Submarine tenders that bear the names of sub pioneers, such as Simon Lake, Hunley & Holland. Ammunition ship names are of volcanoes or words denoting fire and explosives, such as Suribachi or Pyro. Fleet tugs, rescue & firefighting craft bear American Indian names like Powhatan and Navajo.

I’m sorry but I don’t see our naval history replete with any junior congressman or labor leaders.

Attribution: Naval Archives

3 Cheers for Racist Eugenics!

In case anyone needs a refresher on what Eugenics is, here you go:

Technically there are 2 types of eugenics. Positive & Negative. ‘Positive’ is like selectively breeding horses for racing. ‘Negative’ is what has been practiced by progressive monsters for over a century. The purposeful elimination of the “Unfit or Unwanted”. “Unfit”, as defined by said progressives.

‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
by Michelle Malkin

If you aren’t creeped out by the No Birth Control Left Behind rhetoric of the White House and Planned Parenthood, you aren’t listening closely enough. The anesthetic of progressive benevolence always dulls the senses. Wake up.

When a bunch of wealthy white women and elite Washington bureaucrats defend the trampling of religious liberties in the name of “increased access” to “reproductive services” for “poor” women, the ghost of Margaret Sanger is cackling.

As she wrote in her autobiography, Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1916 “to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” This, she boasted, would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” While she oversaw the mass murder of black babies, Sanger cynically recruited minority activists to front her death racket. She conspired with eugenics financier and businessman Clarence Gamble to “hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities” to sell their genocidal policies as community health and welfare services.

Outright murder wouldn’t sell. But wrapping it under the egalitarian cloak of “women’s health” — and adorning it with the moral authority of black churches — would. Sanger and Gamble called their deadly campaign “The Negro Project.”

In other writings, historian Mike Perry found, Sanger attacked programs that provided “medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers” because they “facilitate the function of maternity” when “the absolute necessity is to discourage it.” In an essay included in her writing collection held by the Library of Congress, Sanger urged her abortion clinic colleagues to “breed a race of thoroughbreds.” Nationwide “birth control bureaus” would propagate the proper “science of breeding” to stop impoverished, non-white women from “breeding like weeds.”

Speaking with CBS veteran journalist Mike Wallace in 1957, long after her racist views had supposedly mellowed, Sanger again revealed her true colors: “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world — that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit.”

Sanger also elaborated on her anti-Catholic animus, telling one of Wallace’s reporters that New York Catholics had no right to protest the use of their tax dollars for birth city birth-control programs: “(I)t’s not only wrong, it should be made illegal for any religious group to prohibit dissemination of birth control — even among its own members.” When Wallace pressed her (“In other words, you would like to see the government legislate religious beliefs in a certain sense?”), Sanger laughed nervously and disavowed the remarks.

Fast forward: Five decades and 16 million aborted black babies later, Planned Parenthood’s insidious agenda has migrated from inner-city “birth control bureaus” to public school-based health clinics to the White House — forcibly funded with taxpayer dollars just as Sanger championed.

Several undercover stings by Live Action, pro-life documentarians, have exposed Planned Parenthood staff accepting donations over the years from callers posing as eugenics cheerleaders who wanted to earmark their contributions for the cause of aborting minority babies. “We can definitely designate it for an African-American,” a Tulsa, Okla., Planned Parenthood employee eagerly promised.

What has cheap, easy and unmonitored “choice” for poor women in inner cities wrought? Nightmares like the Philadelphia Horror, where serial baby-killer Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his abortion clinic death squad oversaw the systematic execution of hundreds of healthy, living, breathing, squirming, viable black and Hispanic babies over 4 decades — along with several minority mothers who may have lost their lives in his grimy birth control bureau.

City and state authorities looked the other way while jars of baby parts and reports of botched abortions and infanticides piled up. Beltway Democrats who now bray about their concern for “women’s health” were silent about the Gosnell massacre and countless others like it in America’s ghettos. Why?

The Obama administration is crawling with the modern-day heirs of the eugenics movement, from Planned Parenthood golden girl Kathleen Sebelius at the Department of Health and Human Services to the president’s prestigious science czar John Holdren — an outspoken proponent of forced abortions and mass sterilizations and a self-proclaimed protege of eugenics guru Harrison Brown, whom he credits with inspiring him to become a scientist.

Brown envisioned a government regime in which the “number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous.” He urged readers to “reconcile ourselves to the fact that artificial means must be applied to limit birth rates.” He likened the global population to a “pulsating mass of maggots.”

Listen carefully as this White House dresses its Obamacare abortion mandate in the white lab coat of “reproductive services” for all. The language of “access to birth control” is the duplicitous code of Sanger’s ideological grim reapers.

Sieg Barry!

Is the Obama Administration Using Gestapo Tactics?

By: Gary DeMar at Godfather Politics:

Here’s the way politics works: Liberals overreach and conservatives compromise. In the end Liberals win. Liberals will propose a ten percent tax increase, and Republicans will settle for five, the very number Democrats hoped to get. It might take Liberals longer to get to their goal, but they know that eventually they’ll reach it. They can always count on Republicans to compromise.

What’s true on taxes is also applies to religion. There’s a provision in the health care law which requires religious employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives. John Boehner called the rule “an unambiguous attack on religious freedom in our country. If the president does not reverse the department’s attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must,” Boehner said.

Then there’s the accusation that military chaplains were forbidden to read a letter to military personnel about the mandate. Now we’re hearing that the controversy may have been “overblown.”

Did the Obama Administration purposely overreach figuring that the Republicans will broker a compromise? The Administration will get some of what it wants, set a precedent, and the Republicans will leave the negotiating table declaring victory that they were able to get some concessions. In the end, new regulations will force the church to comply with some of the regulations or face sanctions. Republicans will say that the church needs to compromise. Liberals will come back for more at a later time. They won’t stop until they silence the church. We’ve seen this before.

When German anti-Nazi theologian and Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) used his pulpit to expose Adolf Hitler’s radical politics, “He knew every word spoken was reported by Nazi spies and secret agents.”[1] Leo Stein describes in his book I Was in Hell with Niemoeller how the Gestapo gathered evidence against Niemoeller:

Now, the charge against Niemoeller was based entirely on his sermons, which the Gestapo agents had taken down stenographically. But in none of his sermons did Pastor Niemoeller exhort his congregation to overthrow the Nazi regime. He merely raised his voice against some of the Nazi policies, particularly the policy directed against the Church. He had even refrained from criticizing the Nazi government itself or any of its personnel. Under the former government his sermons would have been construed only as an exercise of the right of free speech. Now, however, written laws, no matter how explicitly they were worded, were subjected to the interpretation of the judges.[2]

In a June 27, 1937 sermon, Niemoeller made it clear to those in attendance had a sacred duty to speak out on the evils of the Nazi regime no matter what the consequences: “We have no more thought of using our own powers to escape the arm of the authorities than had the Apostles of old. No more are we ready to keep silent at man’s behest when God commands us to speak. For it is, and must remain, the case that we must obey God rather than man.”[3] A few days later, he was arrested. His crime? “Abuse of the pulpit.”

The “Special Courts” set up by the Nazis made claims against pastors who spoke out against Hitler’s policies. Niemoeller was not the only one singled out by the Gestapo. “Some 807 other pastors and leading laymen of the ‘Confessional Church’ were arrested in 1937, and hundreds more in the next couple of years.”[4]

A group of Confessional Churches in Germany, founded by Pastor Niemoeller and other Protestant ministers, drew up a proclamation to confront the political changes taking place in Germany that threatened the people “with a deadly danger. The danger lies in a new religion,” the proclamation declared. “The church has by order of its Master to see to it that in our people Christ is given the honor that is proper to the Judge of the world . . . The First Commandment says ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’ The new religion is a rejection of the First Commandment.”[5] Five hundred pastors who read the proclamation from their pulpits were arrested.

Notes:
1.Basil Miller, Martin Niemoeller: Hero of the Concentration Camp, 5th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1942), 112. [↩]

2.Leo Stein, I Was in Hell with Niemoeller (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1942), 175. [↩]

3.Quoted in William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), 239. [↩]

4.Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 239. [↩]

5.Quoted in Eugene Davidson, The Trials of the Germans: An Account of the Twenty-Two Defendants before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, [1966] 1997), 275.

The Lost Island of New York

There is a small island not 350 yards from the shore of The Bronx, New York, called North Brother Island. It is situated in the East River between The Bronx and Riker’s Island.

From a distance it’s looks quite peaceful with it’s lush vegetation. It is now, but looks can be deceiving.

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, New York welcomed a great many immigrants. The welcome wasn’t always pleasant.

Many of these poor immigrannts were forced to live in very cramped & unsanitary condidtions. Conditions that allowed for sickness and disease.

Diseases would inevitably spread and once the health authorities identified a person as having a communicable disease they were seized and forced to live on North Brother Island, where it was first employed as a quarantine centre in 1885.

Conditions were bad. The mortality rate among patients was high and the recovery rate low.

There was no telephone in the early days, so once people were grabbed and taken there, there familes often never heard from them again.

Its first unfortunate guests were patients with communicable diseases such as smallpox, tuberculosis, scarlet fever and diphtheria. There were six people suffering from leprosy confined there in wooden huts.

Living conditions were poor at best and when bad weather stopped ferries from running there were food shortages and in winter, frequently little heat. Incarceration on North Brother was often a death sentence. Those who did return from its shores spoke of a hellish environment like “the black hole of Calcutta”.

It’s most famous, or infamous resident was Mary Mallon, better known as “Typhoid Mary”. She was forcibly incarcerated on North Brother in 1907 until her release in 1910. She had to promise not to work at her former profession as a cook. She broke her promise and was returned to the island in 1915, where she resided in her own cottage on the island until her death in 1938.

In 1942, the island closed for the first time before being used to house World War II veterans who were studying in the city. That idea was quickly abandoned.

In 1952 it underwent its final transformation, hosting an experimental program to treat juvenile drug addicts. It was finally closed for good in 1963 where it remains abandoned and decaying to this day.

A local historian and photographer Ian Ference was granted access to the island. He states, “In 2008, I managed to get NYC park’s department permission to shoot the island. I’ve visited around 15 times since then, documenting what remains and the process of decay. I’m truly fortunate to have been given this exclusive access to one of America’s most significant forbidden places.”

Attribution: UK Daily Mail

A Man Without a (Tea) Party

Wake up Tea Party. You’re backing the wrong man and I can’t figure out why?

Newt’s latest attack of Romney is over Bain Capital and how Mitt has “destroyed jobs”, etc.

There is plenty of things to tag Romney with. Why pick the one capitalist thing he has done? That doesn’t sound like a conservative.

Yet plenty of Tea Party leaders are backing Newt.

“My sense is there is a growing coalition behind Newt Gingrich,” said Joe Dugan, leader of the South Carolina Tea Party. He added that Tea Party members do not want a “moderate” like Romney as their standard-bearer.

He would much rather throw in with an FDR “Progressive” than a moderate or a real conservative like Santorum.

Yes, I said FDR. As I have stated in past articles, Newt has proclaimed reverence for the 4 most despicable presidents in history; Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson & Franklin Roosevelt. If given enough time, he’ll probably eulogize LBJ.

If I knew nothing more about Newt, that would be enough. No real conservative would ever back such a man.

I recall going to Tea Party events, where many were condemning Obama for his socialist, Marxist, communist, terrorist friends and ties. You do pick your friends, allies and idols, you know.

Now, I suppose, it’s ok to discount the candidate’s own words & alliances.

I guess we’ll just overlook when Newt stated how, “The Four Freedoms still work.”

In his own words:

No Reagan, no Coolidge or Harding. Just FDR & Wilson.

If you are not familiar with the Four Freedoms, it was part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union speech where he said everyone in the world should have the freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

The first 2 are fine, but the third & fourth? Really? Are they in the Constitution, Mr. “History Professor” Gingrich?

Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips said, “Newt Gingrich is not perfect, but he is head and shoulders above the best candidate in the field right now.”

Holy crap!! I think I just figured it out. I began writing this article without knowing why my supposed brethren would do this. I was just hoping to solve it before I completed this.

Let’s read what Phillips said again. He is the best “Candidate” in the field. That’s it; Candidate!

Well folks, a candidate can’t govern. These Tea Partiers backing Newt are evidently giving little to no thought of how he will govern once he becomes president. They are so blinded by the possibility of Barack Obama winning a second term; they are willing to sell out what I thought they/we stood for.

Do they think Newt’s fire & brimstone style will carry the day? He only surges after debates. Without them, he is surely toast anyway.

Remember people; both sides have to agree to debates. How many, where, when, etc.
They will also be moderated by the enemy and the audiences that Newt relies on so heavily, will be stacked against him. I guarantee it.

If Newt wins the nomination, Obama may debate him once, even twice early on and then, nothing. There will more than ample time for any debate bounce to vanish.

I don’t care if Newt says he’ll follow Obama to the ends of the earth, The One, will not continue to debate him and the media will certainly carry his water in that regard.

Now, with my rant finished, I will still more than likely, hold my nose once again and vote for Newt, if he wins the nomination. I would vote for a dirty diaper before casting my ballot for King Barack.

So the Native Americans aren’t Native?

Altai in southern Siberia sits right at the centre of Russia. But the tiny, mountainous republic has a claim to fame unknown until now – Native Americans can trace their origins to the remote region.

DNA research revealed that genetic markers linking people living in the Russian republic of Altai, southern Siberia, with indigenous populations in North America.

A study of the mutations indicated a lineage shift between 13,000 and 14,000 years ago – when people are thought to have walked across the ice from Russia to America

This roughly coincides with the period when humans from Siberia are thought to have crossed what is now the Bering strait and entered America.

“Altai is a key area because it’s a place where people have been coming and going for thousands and thousands of years”, said Dr Theodore Schurr, from the University of Pennsylvania.

Among the people who may have emerged from the Altai region are the predecessors of the first Native Americans.

Roughly 20-25,000 years ago, these prehistoric humans carried their Asian genetic lineages up into the far reaches of Siberia and eventually across the then-exposed Bering land mass into the Americas.

“Our goal in working in this area was to better define what those founding lineages or sister lineages are to Native American populations,” Schurr said.
The region lies at the intersection of what is now Russia, Mongolia, China and Kazakhstan.

Dr Schurr’s team checked Altai DNA samples for markers in mitochondrial DNA which is always passed on by mothers, and Y chromosome DNA which sons inherit from their fathers.

Because of the large number of gene markers examined, the findings have a high degree of precision.

“At this level of resolution we can see the connections more clearly,” Schurr said.

Looking at the Y chromosome DNA, the researchers found a unique mutation shared by Native Americans and southern Altaians in the lineage known as Q.

Mitochondrial DNA is found in tiny rod-like ‘powerplants’ in cells that generate energy. Both kinds of DNA showed links between Altaians and Native Americans.

In the Y chromosome DNA, the researchers found a unique mutation shared by Native Americans and people from southern Altai.

The findings are published today in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Calculating how long the mutations they noted took to arise, Schurr’s team estimated that the southern Altaian lineage diverged genetically from the Native American lineage 13,000 to 14,000 years ago, a timing scenario that aligns with the idea of people moving into the Americas from Siberia between 15,000 and 20,000 years ago.

Though it’s possible, even likely, that more than one wave of people
crossed the land bridge, Schurr said that other researchers have not yet been able to identify another similar geographic focal point from which Native Americans can trace their heritage.

“It may change with more data from other groups, but, so far, even with intensive work in Mongolia, they’re not seeing the same things that we are”, he said.

In addition to elucidating the Asia-America connection, the study confirms that the modern cultural divide between southern and northern Altaians has ancient genetic roots

Attribution: Daily Mail

Newt hearts FDR

I don’t often do this, as in, send you to another site, but this is just too critical. It is especially important if you are currently supporting or are considering supporting Newt Gingrich. He is NOT the conservative he claims to be! He is not a Constitutionalist. Please click on the link below and listen to both clips in their entirety. Pass it on to anyone who supports Newt.

Newt vs Glenn Beck