042

While perusing the best that the internet has to offer about 2 weeks ago, I came across the following article which brings up the following concerning our Commander in Chief's Social Security number...

"Investigators: Obama uses Connecticut Social Security Number

Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama's earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.

The Social Security website confirms the first three numbers in his ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.

"Since 1973, Social Security numbers have been issued by our central office," the Social Security website explains. "The first three (3) digits of a person's social security number are determined by the ZIP code of the mailing address shown on the application for a social security number."

The question is being raised amid speculation about the president's history fueled by an extraordinary lack of public documentation. Along with his original birth certificate, Obama also has not released educational records, scholarly articles, passport documents, medical records, papers from his service in the Illinois state Senate, Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and adoption papers.

..Obama is using a Social Security number beginning with 042.

To verify the number was issued by the Social Security Administration for applicants in Connecticut, Daniels used a Social Security number verification database. She found that the numbers immediately before and immediately after Obama's were issued to Connecticut applicants between the years 1977 and 1979.

"There is obviously a case of fraud going on here," Daniels maintained. "In 15 years of having a private investigator's license in Ohio, I've never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly."

Yes indeed-ee-doodeley, I do believe that there is a logical explanation for all of this... So where is it? Where is the Obama apologetics website that explains all of this away? Please direct me there and I'll look into it.

I tried to look for it myself today, using a common search engine and using previously mentioned key-words, I came across the following website re: our Kenyan-American president...

", it was discovered that Obama’s Selective Service card may have been doctored. Federal law requires all American males to register for the Selective Service (the draft) in case a major war broke out. Blogger Debbie Schlussel has discovered solid evidence that Obama’s Selective Service registration form was submitted not when he was younger as required, but rather in 2008 and then altered to look older. Indeed, the forgers forgot to alter the “Document Location Number” which shows that it is clearly a 2008 form. This is fraud and it’s a felony and Schlussel allegations are backed up by Stephen Coffman, a former high-ranking Federal agent. Moreover, the document shows a September 4th, 1980 date and the location of the transaction as Hawaii, but at that time Obama was thousands of miles away attending Occidental College in Los Angeles.

The real reason why Obama probably did not submit this form as a teenager is that he assumed his Kenyan or Indonesian citizenship exempted him from this requirement. But clearly, as he grew older and entered politics, he saw that any documents revealing a foreign birth – Selective Service registration, birth certificate, school applications, etc – would be problematic if he ran for the presidency. Thus, it is not a coincidence that every document which contains information about his birth or citizenship is either missing, sealed, or has been altered.

Indeed, everywhere one looks into Obama’s background, we find sealed records, scrubbed websites, altered documents, deception and unanswered questions. Can anyone imagine for a second if John McCain or George Bush had blocked access to his school, medical, and birth records? It would have been headlines but as with everything else concerning Obama, the media has given him a pass on this. "

Yes, the MSM has given Obama a pass on these items. Should anyone wish to provide some clarity on this matter, feel free to post the relevant links here, I'll check them out.

However, I do get the feeling that these particular topics are about one step ahead of the Obama Apologetics Machine and the sources that refute such information are scant at best.

The Enemy Within

"“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague." Marcus Tullius Cicero

What Cicero wrote 2000 years ago is as true today as it was back then. While in Mexico last week, I heard that the head of US Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE), John Morton (pictured above) had indicated that "his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them [sic] by Arizona officials." Link. That is to say, after the federal government has shown itself to be woefully inadequate at enforcing immigration laws, that police in the state of Arizona would begin to question people about their immigration status if they were approached as having engaged in suspicious behavior. Morton is now derelict in his duty as the head of ICE (IMO).

Just when I think that things can't get any worse, an article by Ralph Peters in today's NY Post exposes an act so treacherous that it even made me forget about Morton, if only for a minute...

"Yesterday, The New York Times published another front-page article based on a leaked classified document. This time, it was an order signed by Gen. David Petraeus authorizing black operations against adversaries and such dubious friends as Iran, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

Gee, thanks. We really needed to know that. The world's a better place now.

Yet the Times' sin was the lesser one. The paper has long since given up any pretense of patriotism. (Ugh! Yuck!) Its editors are just publishing and perishing as citizens of the world.

It's whoever leaked the document that bears the burn-in-hell blame.

The document was handed over in a cynical attempt to score political points. There's no other plausible explanation. Some party hack with a security clearance believed this order would show that the Obama administration's doing something about Iran.

The only question is whether this betrayal was the act of an individual, or if it was orchestrated.

I'd hang the leaker by the neck, then cut down the body and give it a fair trial. But nobody's going to be punished. High-ranking officials can get away with manslaughter, if not murder. An Army captain would go to prison. A political appointee can expect a promotion.

This disgraceful culture of leaks isn't just a problem with Obama's disciples, of course. The previous administration frequently leaked classified material for political gain. Leaking of classified information has become just one more tool of national politics. Neither party cares a damn about protecting our secrets -- unless it can score against the other team.

The problem with the security breach is that it alerts our enemies. The best black operations employ diversions to draw the enemy's attention to another sphere. You want him looking east, when you're working the west. Publicizing this document shines a spotlight on our efforts."

I wholeheartedly agree with Peters. The level of sedition in this country is reaching EPIC proportions. If this continues, we will cease to be a country someday soon unless action is taken to guard our secrets.

Why Liberal, Western Churches Despise Their African Counterparts

While the Christian Church is becoming increasing old, grey and marginalized in Europe and North America, it is growing in size in Africa, Asia and Latin America. In a recent article by Mark Tooley, this growth is explained thusly.....

"Amid growing United Methodist churches in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria, among others, and a U.S. church losing about a 1,000 members weekly, the 11.4 million denomination likely will soon be majority African.... According to the World Christian Encyclopedia of 2001, Africa was less than 10 percent Christian in 1900 but was over 45 percent Christian by 2000. (This compares to Islam's growth in African from 32 percent to 40 percent.) About 20 percent of the world's Christians now live in Africa, and rates of active church attendance are higher in Africa than in much of old Christendom. One Congolese bishop estimated that more Congolese are in a United Methodist Church on a typical Sunday than in all the United States."

Of course, along with such steady growth, there is a bit of jealousy against the young upstarts in this example, the African church....

"liberal U.S. church activists usually sorely underestimate the depth and richness of African Christianity, including its intellectual traditions, some of which date to the early Church Fathers. Infamously, revisionist retired U.S. Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong once derided African Anglicans for having "moved out of animism into a very superstitious kind of Christianity," while condemning Third World "religious extremism" and "Pentecostal hysteria." In the patronizing spirit of Bishop Spong, some liberal activists claim African church leaders, in their opposition to liberal U.S. church trends, especially about sex, are merely U.S. pawns."

Preposterous. While the conservative elements of Western churches are a kindred spirit of the African churches, I doubt that conservatives could no more affect church policy in Africa than the liberal wing which would desperately want to do so. One thing that the African churches and conservative Western churches share is a common interpretation of Scripture unaffected by the commonly held (in the West), Modernistic worldview. Tooley concludes his article thusly...

"Undoubtedly United Methodist liberals will craft new attempts to marginalize the growing African churches. And U.S. Episcopalians will largely ignore the protests of the nearly 80 million member Communion, now dominated by large African churches that increasingly dwarf the dwindling U.S. denomination's 2 million in both numbers and vitality. How persuasive will the emptying old-line churches of New England and California be against the arguments of hundreds of millions of African Christians?"

Indeed, what sway does a nearly empty church have when standing in opposition to a vibrant growing church? Perhaps someday, in our lifetimes, the words of author Dinesh D'Souza will seem almost prophetic when he wrote.....

"We may be seeing the beginning of a startling reversal. At one time Christian missionaries went to the far continents of Africa and Asia, where white priests in robes proclaimed the Bible to wide-eyed and uncomprehending brown and black people. In the future, we may well see black and brown missionaries proclaim the Bible to wide-eyed and uncomprehending white people in the West."

Salutations From Mexico

Greetings from the Land Of Cuauhtemoc Blanco, otherwise known as Mexico, the southernmost of the United States. I'll be back in the US next week, blogging with a fury. Check back then. God bless.

Spinning John Adams

The following is an example of what happens when the Left goes WAY overboard in pursuit of what they determine to be patriotic and right in their own eyes....

"For nearly a year, the Justice Department has been quietly investigating a group of lawyers sponsored, in part, by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) known as the John Adams Project. These lawyers have provided photographs of covert CIA operatives to members of al-Qaeda detained at Guantanamo Bay.

The investigation began after photographs of CIA officers were found in the cell of Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, currently held at Guantanamo Bay, who is accused of helping to finance the September 11th attacks. The photos appear to have been taken by private investigators hired to tail the officers by the John Adams Project...


If these charges prove true, the lawyers involved have threatened national security under the guise of providing their clients a vigorous defense. Unfortunately, many in the media and on Capitol Hill, who expressed outrage during the Valerie Plame scandal, can’t seem to be bothered to give this issue the scrutiny it deserves."

I wish the writer of the article, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) luck in his endeavor to raise awareness of the level of sedition in our midst. Somehow I think that his alarms will fall on deaf ears when we have an Attorney General who refuses to use the words "Radical Islam" in describing the root of the problem of infiltration by jihadists in our society. Link

Whatever Happened to John Doe #2, part II

I came across another article in which the writer agrees with much which I posted last month concerning the bombing in Oklahoma City of the Murrah Federal Building (pictured above) back in April of 1995. One of the larger points that I didnt get around to in the earlier thread was that it was in response to a dicey little piece of politically motivated agitprop report aired on MSNBC by Rachel Maddow on the anniversery of the bombing. Ms Maddow agreed with the conclusion of then president Bill Clinton in that the convicted bomber was a domestic terrorist with no foreign affiliations and that radical Islam played no role in the bombing whatsoever.



Roger Aranoff of the Australian Conservative had this to say about a recent interview with American reporter Jayna Davis that wasnt mentioned in my earlier thread ...

"She (Davis) says the evidence was ignored and dismissed because the Clinton Administration didn’t want to go to war with Iraq, the likely culprit, and wanted to blame the attack on domestic right-wingers for political reasons...

Liberal media like MSNBC have peddled the false notion that McVeigh was motivated by domestic hatred of the government, and that the Tea Party movement is motivated by the same. Hence, by extension, the Tea Party movement will probably spawn anti-government fanatics who will kill people. This claim justifies government repression of anti-Obama political dissidents who may in fact be entirely peaceful and simply exercising their constitutional rights.

One of the problems with the MSNBC narrative is that Davis makes a convincing case that in fact McVeigh “was a handpicked dupe, set up to take the fall in order to save his Islamic collaborators from prosecution.” She documents that he had expressed a desire to be a mercenary for Middle Eastern terrorists, and that the trail of evidence that both he and his accomplice Terry Nichols left behind points in the direction of an Arab/Muslim connection to the attack...

This is not what the liberals in the media want to hear. They want to believe, as then-President Clinton claimed at the time, that McVeigh had no foreign connection and was motivated to kill innocent Americans because he hated federal authorities for staging a bloody raid on a religious compound in Waco, Texas. Clinton actually went further, blaming conservative talk radio for motivating McVeigh to kill."

I see that I'm not the only person to immediatly notice the left-wing slant of the MSNBC piece. Ellen Gray commenting in the Philadelphia Daily News had this to say about the hit piece report...

"graphics aren't the only aspect of MSNBC's presentation of "The McVeigh Tapes" that left me a little queasy.

In introducing the special, host Rachel Maddow can't resist an attempt to peg the Oklahoma City bombing to current events.

"Nine years after his execution, we are left worrying that Timothy McVeigh's voice from the grave echoes in a new rising tide of American anti-government extremism," she says.

You want to go there, Rachel? Really?

What happened in Oklahoma City wasn't some tea party - it was mass murder. Invoking the name McVeigh in the face of some angry rhetoric is (and we can only pray will remain) overkill."

Another possibility raised earlier is that of of Philipine terrorist organization Abu Sayyaf and co-conspirator Terry Nichols along with his mail-order bride being a link to Muslim terrorists. The Manila Times even reported that back "in 1993, when the Abu Sayyaf was in its infancy, the same group met with Nichols and another American believed to have been executed Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh at a Dole labeling plant near General Santos City."

Somehow I don't think that the Mainstream Media will report this information. Move along folks. Nothing to see here. No free thought allowed in this instance. Doesnt fit the template.

Wedded Bliss

Although legally married, the Mrs and I will now be tying the knot in church this weekend. I'll check back on Mon. or Tue.

---------------------------------------

FOR THE TRULY BORED: I thought this was one of the best articles I came across today. "Kevin Myers: Irish academia is dominated by cowards and philistines". Leave any thought on the matter if you are so inclined.

Science and the Jihadist Worldview

Awhile back, I posted a thread entitled What if Jesus Had Never Been Born? The Impact of Christianity upon Scientific Development. I cited a brief exerpt for the book What if Jesus Had Never Been Born? by Dr D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe concerning the development of science over the course of history that read ...

"Nor could modern science ever have come into existance among the Arabs, because of the Muslim religion. The writings of Aristotle, when lost to the Western world from about A.D. 500 to A.D. 1100, were kept by the Arabs of North Africa and finally reintroduced into Europe in the 1100's and 1200's. Aristotle-unlike Plato-had a philosophy that would lend itself to the scientific type of study because it was more inductive than Plato's deductive kind of reasoning. Plato would get an ideal and deduce all manner of things from it. Aristotle would tend to look at the particulars and induce principles from them. Because of the Aristotelian thought they had access to, the Arabs-including Nestorian Christians-generally made greater scientific and mathematical advances than the Europeans during the Middle Ages.

But during all of that time the Arabs never introduced nor created any real science. Why? Because of their religion. Because of the fatalism that dominates the Muslim religion. Since everything is fatalistically determined, obviously there is no point in trying to manipulate the natural world to change anything, because all things are unchangeable."

George Neumayr has written an excellent article on the recent arrest of a Pakistani-American who attemted to explode a car bomb in New York's Times Square. The only reason Faisel Shahzad (pictured above) wasnt successful was the faulty construction of his bomb which failed to detonate. That and a quick acting, hot dog vendor alerted the authorities about the suspicious vehicle. If not for that, many New Yorkers and tourists would have been toast.

Toward the end of his article, Neumayer reaffirms that written by Kennedy/Newcombe by stating the following...

"It would appear that Islam's centuries-long indifference to science and technology makes even its terrorism unscientific and shoddy. This has to explain at least in part the rather high percentage of clumsy terrorists like Shahzad. While very motivated, they find themselves having to rely on Western weaponry and products to defeat the West without quite knowing how to use them.

As Robert R. Reilly points out in The Closing of the Muslim Mind, "Those involved in training Middle Eastern military forces have encountered a lackadaisical attitude to weapons maintenance and sharp-shooting. If God wants the bullet to hit the target, it will, and if He does not, it will not. It has little to do with human agency or skills obtained by discipline and practice."

The Islamic conception of God as pure will, unbound by reason and unknowable through the visible world, rendered any search for cause and effect in nature irrelevant to Muslim societies over centuries, resulting in slipshod, dependent cultures. Reilly notes, for example, that Pakistan, a nation which views science as automatically impious given its view that an arbitrary God did not imprint upon nature a rational order worth investigating, produces almost no patents.

Writes Reilly: "Less than a decade ago, an imam in Pakistan instructed physicists there that they could not consider the principle of cause and effect in their work. Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani physicist and professor at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, said that it was not Islamic to say that combining hydrogen and oxygen makes water. 'You were supposed to say that when you bring hydrogen and oxygen together then by the will of Allah water was created.'"

The "clash of civilizations" is a clash of irrationalities, which now revolves around a kind of inertia: "reason" without faith makes the West too soulless to stop Islamic encroachment while the jihadists' faith without reason makes them too stupid to pull it off."

May we in the West finally wake up and take seriously the threats posed to our safety and not succumb to the mindset that "everything's going to be allright" and rely on the fatalistic mindset of the enemy to undo their harmful intentions.

What Does Sarah Palin Read Her Daughter From the Bible?

Let me start off by saying that I'm not exactly a huge Sarah Palin fan. She's "OK" in my book. A more accurate idea of who I believe, among the leading candidates out there, is best able to lead this nation (US) can be determined by clicking on Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America emblem on the left margin.

That being said, I generally like Palin. I do not doubt at all that she would stand up for the sovereignty of the United States if she were ever in a position of leadership on the national level. I cannot say the same about our current president.

The above title is from an article by Benyamin Korn who has this to say about Governor Palin...

"When Governor Sarah Palin spoke to 16,000 Christian evangelical women in Louisville, Kentucky on April 16, guess which book she mentioned as the one she reads to her daughter at bedtime?

Try the biblical Book of Esther.

That’s right — Sarah Palin, mocked and pilloried by Jewish liberals as a danger to world Jewry because of her Christian beliefs, reads to her 8 year-old from a book that most Jews should probably spend a little more time with....

..to Sarah Palin, the well being of Israel and the Jewish people is an integral part of her worldview. Israel is not just another cold run-of-the-mill foreign policy matter, like trade with Mexico or aid to Sri Lanka. What happens to Israel matters to her as a Christian. Threats to America’s moral fiber and threats to Israel’s national security are all part of the same challenge that she wants Americans to address.

Governor Palin takes her Bible seriously. Not in the sense of someone who wants to impose her beliefs on anyone else, but simply as someone who believes that both the Hebrew Bible an the New Testament provide moral guideposts for our lives. She reads the Book of Esther to Piper because she wants her daughters to emulate Jewish history’s most famous heroine.

In her speech to the Women of Joy, Palin included a few quotes from the New Testament. But Jewish scripture figured much more prominently. She quoted twice from Psalms, as well from Proverbs and Malachi. She spoke to Piper about how Esther, an orphan, overcame steep odds and difficulties in order to save the Jewish people. And she took issue with President Obama’s policy of “poking our ally Israel in the eye.”

Fear-mongers with political agendas want to drive a wedge between Governor Palin and American Jewry. Sometimes they do it with quotations that leave out key sentences. Sometimes they do it with distorted depictions of her religious beliefs.

Jews have nothing to fear from Sarah’s Palin religion. But we have plenty to fear from those political leaders who not only have no interest in Esther or Proverbs, or Sarah, but who think that poking Israel in the eye makes for good foreign policy."

I find it odd that America, for all of it's talk about freedom, does not do more to support the best example of democracy and women's rights in the Middle East by more vocally supporting Isreal. It's Arab neighbors could learn a thing or two from Isreal's success, however it seems the Obama administration couldnt possibly care less.

Regarding Isreal, the Bible tells us, "cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee" (Genesis 27:29), and this has been the hallmark of America's relationship with Isreal since it's founding in the modern era. Certain past president's have seen the existance of Isreal and the the well being of United States as being linked to one another. If one wishes to discuss weening Isreal off of subsidies that it receives from the United States, then fine, let's talk about it. However the nation that is by far our closest ally in that part of the world should be supported, no matter what the chorus of hate of those nations that surround it are braying in only the latest edition of their unhinged and hate filled anti-Jewish rantings.

On Obama and the Little Green Nazis

Winston Churchill once famously said, "Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it". It would appear that history is repeating itself in the United States where the left is embracing the foolhardy religion of the Global Warming Panic Cult. In order to spread the Social Gospel of Gaia, the Obama administration has aquired the services of the Rev. Jim Wallis to, in the words of Meghan Clyne, writing in The Weekly Standard to use "churches and congregations to advance the administration’s climate-change agenda".

Today's article by David Noebel draws some interesting parallels between the policies of Obama administration and that of a certain Reichskanzler elected in 1933.

"I've been thinking … well, I've been reading and thinking. I've been reading Erwin Lutzer's latest work, "When A Nation Forgets God: Seven Lessons We Must Learn From Nazi Germany." Published by Moody Publishers, the Moody Church pastor analyses how the church in Germany fell under the sway of Adolf Hitler. Here's the bad news: "By far the majority of the Lutheran churches sided with Hitler and his spectacular reforms." The good news: "But a minority, under the leadership of (Dietrich) Bonhoeffer (pictured above) and (Martin) Niemoller, chose to pull away from the established church to form the 'Confessing Church.'"

I find it disturbing that the Obama administration is trying to use churches, including evangelical churches, for its own political purposes...

Clyne's article's subtitle summarizes the administration's underlying political goal: "The White House wants churches to advance its climate change agenda." She points out that while Wallis wrote in December 2006 that "Republicans shamelessly politicized the faith-based initiative," Wallis himself is now "a member of Obama's faith-based council and has also met with congressional Democrats to help them frame their policies in more morally appealing terms." These Wallis-trained Democrats will in turn make "inroads with religious voters." Sound similar to Hitler's making inroads with the Lutherans of his day?"

In yet another example of selective amnesia by the Left, George W. Bush was roundly thrown under the bus when he first proposed faith based initiatives (and perhaps some of that criticism was justified). However, I'm not hearing the same level of criticism hurled at Obama for doing much the same thing. In fact, I rarely hear ANY criticism of Obama by the Mainstream Media in this country on anything so I'm not at all surprised.

A Display of Historical Revisionism

Hindsight is always 20/20 except when it comes to the Left, in which case myopia is much more common than clarity. Take for example the recent comments of a certain lemming blogger who had the cahones to actually state, re: (thankfully) former president Jimmy Carter, quote, "Carter's admin was responsible for the accords. They gave the terrorists NONE of their demands" when referring the the Algiers Accords concerning the Iranian held, US hostages. Conveniently left out of course, was the fact that, according to ABC News, "The Iranian hostage-takers in particular reported being unsure of what Reagan would do" and also the administration had negotiated away the right to sue the Iranian government afterward. Link



All of which caused former hostage Barry Rosen to state, "I would rather have stayed longer. Don't do me a favor by getting me out and telling me that I don't have a right to sue". And another former hostage, Charles Scott would muse afterward "While we were hostages, my cellmate and I prayed that Uncle Sam wouldn't sell us out to get us released. Of course he did sell us out." Link.



Moving on to today's example of revisionist history, George J. Marlin, who was the 1993 Conservative Party candidate for mayor of New York City, and the author of Fighting the Good Fight: A History of the New York Conservative Party, informs us of the lastest exhibit at the Museum of the City of New York called America's Mayor: John V. Lindsay and the Reinvention of New York. Of course we really don't know absolutely if it will involve historical revisionism since the display isnt quite open to the public as of yet. My guess is that there will be a cursory mention of a few of Lindsay's shortcomings and the uniformed oberver will leave the museum with a skewed and highly incomplte picture of Lindsay. Marlin goes on to comment...

"During his mayoral tenure (1966-1973), Lindsay (pictured above) presided over changes, all right -- changes that ran the city into the ground: fiscally, economically and culturally. Any lessons to be learned, from the exhibit and from his mayoralty, should focus on what not to do.



John Vliet Lindsay (1921-2000) was born on West End Avenue, prepped at New Hampshire's St. Paul's School, graduated from Yale in 1943, served in the Navy and upon return to civilian life, graduated from Yale Law School. The 6'3" blond, blue-eyed Lindsay was elected in 1958 to represent Manhattan's Upper East Side "Silk Stocking" congressional district.

As the Republican-Liberal "fusion" candidate for mayor in 1965, Lindsay stated that he would "get as far away from the Republican Party as possible," even agreeing to give the Liberal Party one third of all city jobs and judgeships.

The fledging New York Conservative Party nominated another Yale graduate, William F. Buckley Jr., as its candidate for mayor. Buckley charmed New Yorkers with his roguish wit and intellectual depth and drove the humorless Lindsay crazy.

Lindsay retaliated by employing typical liberal smear tactics, falsely calling Buckley a "Goldwater racist" who adhered to "a radical philosophy full of hatred and division and violence."

While Lindsay deserves credit for calming the city during the '67 and '68 riots, he nevertheless had the knee-jerk reaction that the cause of the disorder was white racism. As vice chairman of President Johnson's Kerner Commission on Civil Disorders, Lindsay was responsible for the introductory statement in the commission's final report: "Our Nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white -- separate and unequal."

When Lindsay left office in December 1973, New Yorkers lived in a seriously declining city. As liberal journalist Murray Kempton observed: "[U]nder Lindsay, the air is fouler, the streets dirtier, the bicycle thieves more vigilant, the labor contracts more abandoned in their disregard for the public good, the Board of Education more dedicated to the manufacture of illiteracy than any of these elements ever were under Wagner." And another liberal, Jack Newfield, quipped that Lindsay "gave good intentions a bad name."

Lindsay's greatest mayoral "legacy" was his social-welfare spending spree. In 1960, 4 percent of the population received welfare benefits. That number had doubled by 1965 and by 1969 had grown to 13 percent. Expenditures for welfare programs rose from $400 million in 1965 to more than $1 billion by the end of Lindsay's first term. It became so easy to apply for welfare benefits that the Daily News called Lindsay's welfare commissioner "Come and Get It Ginsburg."

To pay for his spending spree, Lindsay used every imaginable financial gimmick. He increased nuisance taxes, water rates and sewer taxes and instituted the city income tax. In 1969, Budget Director Fred Hayes admitted: "We're going broke on $6.6 billion a year."

All the budgetary tricks, phantom revenues and capitalizing of expenses led to a situation in which 56 percent of locally raised taxes went either to debt service or to pension and welfare payments. Short-term debt, which in 1965 was $536 million, ballooned to $4.5 billion -- 36 percent of total debt. By 1976, these abuses caused the financial markets to close their doors to the city and the state to take over the city's finances, complete with a default-on-debt decree from the state Legislature.

"The rollovers, false revenue estimates and plain lies," journalist Ken Auletta wrote, "have robbed taxpayers of literally billions through excessive borrowings to cover up excessive fraud."

Somehow, I think that the above statistics are not going to make it to the display honoring Mayor Lindsay. The Liberals are quite adept at cornering the market of free handouts to shiftless bums compassion, however they are at a loss to explain how this in fact creates a culture of dependency rather than independence, all in the name of getting votes and staying in power. (See ACORN)



To be fair, there are cases when the Right looks back upon their past leaders with rose-tinted lenses and if anyone should wish to cite such an example, please feel free to do so here. But when the final tally is taken, I think it would be the Left who is demonstably more intellectually shameful about their past. After all, who controls 90% of the mainstream media complex? Libertarians? HA!

Morally Paralyzed

John Bolton is reporting that the Hitler of our time, Mahmoud Ahmadineijad, is coming ever closer to developing nuclear weapons. It calls to mind one of the great articles by the great Thomas Sowell concerning another time in history when people had a chance to avert a catastophe but instead stood by and did nothing, acting "morally paralyzed" rather than actually doing something to avert it...

"No leader of a democratic nation was ever more popular than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain -- wildly cheered in the House of Commons by opposition parties as well as his own -- when he returned from negotiations in Munich in 1938, waving an agreement and declaring that it meant "peace in our time."

We know now how short that time was. Less than a year later, World War II began in Europe and spread across the planet, killing tens of millions of people and reducing many cities to rubble in Europe and Asia.

Looking back after that war, Winston Churchill said, "There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action." The earlier it was done, the less it would have cost.

At one point, Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks "without the firing of a single shot," Churchill said.

That point came in 1936 -- three years before World War II began -- when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, in violation of two international treaties.

At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention.

As Hitler himself confided, the Germans would have had to retreat "with our tail between our legs," because they did not yet have enough military force to put up even a token resistance.

Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler's aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.

"Moral paralysis" came from many things. The death of a million French soldiers in the First World War and disillusionment with the peace that followed cast a pall over a whole generation."

It would seem that we in the West have become so paralyzed that we could fail to act in order to protect our own people in the face of madmen. Who is Iran likely to use the bomb against? Isreal and the United States. Who is going to stand up to the Hitler of our time? Germany? Britian? France? I'm sorry but I don't see Chairman Zero ever standing up to this threat and instead I expect a Chamberlain-esque policy of negotiations with people who have sworn to wipe the best example of democracy and strongest supporter of women's rights in that part of the world.

Louisiana Oil Rig Explosion "Sabotage"?

While listening to America's leading radio talk-show host, Michael Savage yesterday, (who's site I link to on the right) he advanced the possibility of the recent explosion and subsequent oil slick at a Gulf of Mexico oil drilling platform actually being an act of sabotage. Before getting into the details of said theory (and of course it's ONLY a theory), this comes on the heels that it has now been reported that the recent sinking of a South Korean Navy ship last week near disputed waters appears to have been caused by an "external explosion" and all signs point toward Pyongyang as being the culprit. Savage then put up a link on his site to this report which conveys the following...

"A grim report circulating in the Kremlin today written by Russia’s Northern Fleet is reporting that the United States has ordered a complete media blackout over North Korea’s torpedoing of the giant Deepwater Horizon oil platform owned by the World’s largest offshore drilling contractor Transocean that was built and financed by South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., that has caused great loss of life, untold billions in economic damage to the South Korean economy, and an environmental catastrophe to the United States.

Most important to understand about this latest attack by North Korea against its South Korean enemy is that under the existing “laws of war” it was a permissible action as they remain in a state of war against each other due to South Korea’s refusal to sign the 1953 Armistice ending the Korean War.

To the attack itself, these reports continue, the North Korean “cargo vessel” Dai Hong Dan believed to be staffed by 17th Sniper Corps “suicide” troops left Cuba’s Empresa Terminales Mambisas de La Habana (Port of Havana) on April 18th whereupon it “severely deviated” from its intended course for Venezuela’s Puerto Cabello bringing it to within 209 kilometers (130 miles) of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform which was located 80 kilometers (50 miles) off the coast of the US State of Louisiana where it launched an SSC Sang-o Class Mini Submarine (Yugo class) estimated to have an operational range of 321 kilometers (200 miles).

On the night of April 20th the North Korean Mini Submarine manned by these “suicidal” 17th Sniper Corps soldiers attacked the Deepwater Horizon with what are believed to be 2 incendiary torpedoes causing a massive explosion and resulting in 11 workers on this giant oil rig being killed outright. Barely 48 hours later, on April 22nd , this North Korean Mini Submarine committed its final atrocity by exploding itself directly beneath the Deepwater Horizon causing this $1 Billion oil rig to sink beneath the seas and marking 2010’s celebration of Earth Day with one of the largest environmental catastrophes our World has ever seen."

Sure, it's a bit of a strech to say that this is exactly the cause of this catastrophe. But in light of these other facts, is it really? Chat rooms are already abuzz concerning the administration's decision to send SWAT teams to oil rigs in the Gulf as this only adds fuel to the conspiracy theory fire.


I think that's it's quite apparent that Obama lacks the cahones to do anything meaningful about it even if it were the case. Oh, that a man like Ronald Reagan were in charge in times like these. Any country thinking of messin' with the US would shurely think twice before setting course on such a foolhardy endeavor.