This date in 1942

MORT's Meanderings: April 18, 2011

April 18, 1942

This date in our history like so many others, has silently slipped into the abyss of forgotten dates marking significant events that helped shape our nation.

This morning, I scanned our local newsrags and tuned into several AM radio stations but, failed to read or hear one reference made to the event that took place on this date in 1942 - The Doolittle Raid on Japan. It was on that date that LTC. Jimmy Doolittle led sixteen twin-engined B-25 Mitchell bombers off the tossing deck of the aircraft carrier, USS Hornet (CV-8) and headed toward the homeland of our enemy in the Pacific, to drop their 2000 lb.bomb loads on Japan.

This event occurred just four months after the Japanese attack, Sunday, December 7, 1941, upon our military base and Naval facility at Pearl Harbor on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. That sneak-attack cost the lives of more than 2,000 of our soldiers and sailors and literally destroyed our Pacific fleet anchored in the harbor. This was a crippling blow that caught us completely unaware and very nearly rendered us utterly defenseless in the Pacific. Fortunately, our Pacific-based aircraft carriers were at that time, on the high seas and thus, escaped the fate of many of our Navy's ships, sunk at their moorings. Thus began our direct involvement in World War II.

In the intervening months between 'Pearl Harbor' and this April 18, 1942 date, Japan had swept across the Far East and the Pacific Islands in a wave of conquest and terror that was virtually unopposed. British, French, American forces were overwhelmed by the military might of Imperial Japan. U.S. Armed Forces were defeated and captured or had to be re-located to safer locations such as Australia, ahead of the onrushing enemy. Morale in America was scraping the bottom of the barrel. While we were gearing up our military and war materiel industrial facilities, we were suffering the shock of reading daily newspaper headlines that screamed of defeat after defeat at the hands of the Imperial Forces of the island nation of Japan. We were frightened and we had every right to be apprehensive about the outcome. We desperately needed some hope.

President Roosevelt recognized the dire necessity of some sort of military victory to bolster our courage and stiffen our resolve. FDR prevailed upon his Chief Military advisors to come up with a plan - and, they did. After some high-level, top-secret discussions about the feasibility of an aerial attack on the homeland of our enemy, early aviation pioneer and renowned air-racing pilot Army LTC. Jimmy Doolittle, was picked to plan, organize and head-up the mission. And, did he ever? Within an incredibly short time frame, he selected the type of aircraft to do the job and he chose the most capable crews available to fly them. Then, he set about training them at an air base in Florida, in the unprecedented task of flying land-based medium bombers off the deck of an aircraft carrier, while at sea. When the critical date arrived, the planes were flown to the West Coast where all 16 planes and crews were lifted aboard the USS Hornet. The ship steamed toward the location in the Pacific just a couple hundred miles off the coast of Japan, where it had been planned to launch the mission to bomb several targets on the soil of the Japanese homeland.

That plan was foiled when a Japanese 'fishing boat' spotted the USS Hornet underway and radioed the report to Japan. The 'fishing boat' was quickly blown out of the water but, the secrecy of the mission had been breached and the planes had to be launched about 200 miles before it had been planned to do so. Thus, adding even more to the odds stacked against the mission's success.

The entire story of this mission, its success and its aftermath, are legend and are committed to history books such as, "First Over Japan", an autobiography of Lt. Jack A. Sims, co-pilot of plane No. 14 of the "Doolittle Raiders" (ISBN 0-9716398-2-5 © 2002 Southpointe Press, Author: Jack A. Sims, Colonel (USAF, Ret'd) with A. B. Cook). To quote from the review of this book I was invited to write and privileged to contribute:
"Of the signal events in the military history of the United States of America, there is Washington's crossing of the Delaware, the Doolittle Raid on Japan just four months after Pearl Harbor and then, there is everything else."

To note that in less than an average lifespan after this event, it no longer has a place as even the merest footnote in lists of significant events on, 'This Date in History', is tragic. It is a deplorable and a truly sad commentary on this generation's knowledge of or respect for, such a significant event in our nation's history.

While others might forget, I shall never forget. God bless the Doolittle Raiders and all the other courageous men and women who heeded the call to duty, to protect and defend their country, when called upon to serve during World War II. They did so, unselfishly and without a whimper.

Lest we forget.

Conservative Commentary by MORT KUFF © 2011

THE BUSH TAX CUTS WORK & THE STIMULUS DOESN'T!

Bush Tax Cuts vs. the Stimulus

•16 months after Bush passed his tax cuts the unemployment rate was 5.7%
•16 months after Obama passed his drunken spending bills the unemployment rate has skyrocketed to 9.6%.%
•The Bush tax cuts cost taxpayers nothing.%
•bill for the Liberal's so-called "stimulus" is over $1.2 trillion dollars and climbing.%
•The disposable income 16 months after the Bush tax cuts was $758.%
•The disposable income 16 months after the so-called stimulus is $82.%

IT'S CLEAR: THE BUSH TAX CUTS WORK & THE STIMULUS DOESN'T!

Taxing people who fall into a higher income bracket during a Recession is pure lunacy. In order to have a sound economic recovery people need to start spending money again. I've got news for HARVARD Obama , and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Businesses DEPEND on people to spend money for their survival! If the wealthy stop spending because their taxes have skyrocketed we can look forward to a NEVER ENDING RECESSION!

Tax hikes have a domino effect. Annihilating the Bush tax cuts will not just affect high earners; regular hard working folks will suffer even more adverse consequences. What is going to happen when "John Doe" who owns the dry cleaners down the street gets walloped with the Liberal's enormous new tax? He will look at his payroll and start laying people off so his business can survive. Our jobless rate is at a staggering 9.6%. Obama and his Progressive henchmen are going to make our unemployment rate shoot through the roof!


WE MUST REINSTATE THE BUSH TAX CUTS OR WE WILL HAVE AN ECONOMIC MELTDOWN THAT WE WILL NEVER RECOVER FROM!


THIS IS A FIGHT WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE. YOUR FUTURE IS AT STAKE AND ALSO THE FUTURE OF YOUR FAMILY.

Tell our lame Congress full of mostly Marxists, that They Must Reinstate The Bush Tax Cuts- NOW!

Why Michelle Never Goes to any Arab country

Very Interesting and newsworthy!
From an unknown source

"If you check President Obama's last trip over-seas, his wife left Just after their visit to France. She has yet to accompany him to any Arab country. Think about it. Why is Michelle returning to the states when 'official' trips to foreign countries generally include the First Lady."

Here's one thought on the matter.

While in a Blockbuster renting videos I came across a video called "Obama". There were two men standing next to me and we talked about President Obama. These guys were Arabs, so I asked them why they thought Michele Obama Headed home following the President's recent visit to France instead of traveling On to Saudi Arabia and Turkey with her husband. They told me she could not go to Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Iraq. I said "Why not,(?) -- Laura Bush went to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Dubai." They said that Obama is a Muslim and therefore he is not allowed to bring his wife into countries that adhere to Sharia Law.

Two points of interest here:

1) I thought it interesting that two American Arabs at Blockbuster believe that our President is a Muslim, 2) who follows a strict Islamic creed.

They also said that's the reason he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. It was a signal to the Muslim world, acknowledging his religion.

For further consideration, here is a response from Dr. Jim Murk, a Middle Eastern Scholar and expert on Islam. This is his explanation of what the Arab American's were saying.

"An orthodox Muslim man would never take his wife on a politically oriented trip to any nation which practices Sharia law, particularly Saudi Arabia where the Wahhabi sect is dominant. This is true and it is why Obama left Michelle in Europe. She will stay home when he visits Arab countries. He knows Muslim protocol; this includes, bowing to the Saudi King. Obama is regarded as a Muslim in the Arab world, because he was born to a Muslim father; he acknowledged his Muslim faith with George Stephanopoulus. Note that he downplays his involvement with Christianity, by not publicly joining a Christian church in D.C. And occasionally attending the chapel for services at Camp David. He also played down the fact that America is a Christian country and said, unbelievably, that it was one of the largest Muslim nations in the world, which is nonsense. He has publicly taken the side of the Palestinians in the conflict with Israel and he ignored the National Day of Prayer, something no other President has ever done.

He is bad news! He conceals his true faith to the detriment of the American people."
--- Jim Murk, Doctor of Philosophy in Middle Eastern Culture & Religion.

ACTIONS speak louder than words.

Another interesting item regarding Sharia Law.

Why has Barack Hussein Obama insisted that the U.S. Attorney General hold the trials of the 911 Muslim Terrorists in Civilian Courts as Common Criminals instead of as Terrorists who attacked the United States of America?

If the Muslim Terrorists are tried in Military Tribunals, convicted and sentenced to death, by LAW, Barack Hussein Obama, as President of the United States, would be required to sign their Death Warrants. He would not be required to sign the death warrants if they are sentenced to death by a Civilian Court. Last year, Muslim Jihadist, Army Major Hassan slaughtered non-Muslim soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas rather than go to Afghanistan and be a part of anything that could lead to the deaths of fellow Muslims. He stated that Muslims "could not and should not kill fellow Muslims."

Is the motive for Barack Hussein Obama's insistence on civilian trials, to make sure he doesn't have to sign the death warrants for the Muslim Terrorists? Why would he, as President of the United States , not sign the death warrants for Muslim Terrorists who attacked the United States and murdered over 3,000 U. S. Citizens on 9/11? Could it be that he is FORBIDDEN by his RELIGION to authorize the execution of Muslims?

Think about that! Open your eyes, ears and mind to WHO the President is, HOW he behaves and WHAT he is doing.


Hat Tip to George, a Real Conservative

Show Your ID

I'm a legal American citizen and I must show my ID when:

1. Pulled over by the police.
2. Making purchases on my department store credit card.
3. When I show up for a doctor's appointment.
4. When filling out a credit card or loan application.
5. When applying for or renewing a driver's license or passport.
6. When applying for any kind of insurance.
7. When filling out college applications.
8. When donating blood.
9. When obtaining certain prescription drugs.
10. When making some debit purchases, especially if I'm out of state.
11. When collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel.

I'm sure there are more instances, but the point is that we citizens of the USA are required to prove who we are nearly every day!
Why should people in this country illegally, be exempt!!!!!
Why shouldn't we guard our borders as closely as every other country in the world does?

Support ARIZONA and Stop Marxism!!!

Stop Marxism & Stop Liberal Kagan!

The U.S. Supreme Court, in rare 8-0 unanimous decision, ruled that Obama court nominee Elena Kagan was wrong to ban ROTC military recruiters from the Harvard campus in 2004-05. Even the liberals on the Court ruled against her.
She is unqualified and a poison to be spread on America by Barry Soetoro.
A great article below why Kagen is wrong for America.


Why Kagan Is Unqualified -- and Dangerous
By Selwyn Duke

Despite being thoroughly unqualified to occupy the bench, Elena Kagan will most likely be confirmed to the Supreme Court. This is because most of our hundred senators are almost as unqualified to judge a judge as she is to be one. What is the proper criterion to apply? Well, a simple analogy illustrates the point best.


Let's say you needed to hire a football referee. If he said that he was a "pragmatic" referee, who viewed the rule book as "living" and thus would interpret the rules to suit the "times," would he be your man?


Since it's the job of the rule-makers to craft the rules, and the referee's role is only to determine if they've been broken, I think you'd be aghast. It would be obvious that you were dealing with someone who didn't know what his job was or was unwilling to perform it. And you certainly wouldn't want to hire a referee who was giving himself the latitude to say, "This fellow here violated a rule, but since I don't like that rule, I'm going to let his action stand" or "That guy over there has gone by the book, but I don't like something he did, so I'll penalize him anyway."


A judge's job is analogous to a referee's. It is the legislature's (rule-makers') place to make the rules, and the judge's only role is to determine if they've been broken. How he feels about a given law is irrelevant. He is but a gatekeeper.


Yet there is a difference between the two examples: While people could easily grasp this if the matter were a frivolity such as sports, they entertain the most inane rationalizations when the issue is our national rulebook, the Constitution. They then allow judicial con artists to muddy the waters with specious concepts such as the "living document," interpretations that suit the "times" and "pragmatism." They take people such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg seriously when she says the Constitution shouldn't be "stuck in time." (It's not. It's stuck in law, which can be changed through the Amendment Process.) But these are all dodges that distract us from the truth: There aren't constructionists and pragmatists, times-oriented judges and text-oriented ones, living-document ones and originalists. At the end of the day, there are only two kinds of justices:


Good justices and bad justices.


Good justices do their job and abide by the Constitution. Bad ones don't.


And Elena Kagan would be a remarkably bad justice.


Her history and words reveal this clearly. As Phyllis Schlafly recently wrote:


When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court.


... Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs."


Barak wrote that a judge "is subject to no authority" except himself, and he "must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it" [emphasis mine].


And how does Kagan feel about this man?


She calls him her "judicial hero."


Now, such judges are often characterized as judicial activists, but that is too kind a term. They are Nullification Jurists -- and they represent a profound danger to our republic. Let's examine why.


John Stuart Mill once said, "I can hardly imagine any laws so bad, to which I would not rather be subject than to the caprice of a man." Well, you can dress the Nullification Jurist fiction up any way you want, but at the end of the day, it is nothing but subjection to the caprice of a man in a black robe.


Think about it: Jurists may say they are interpreting the Constitution to suit the times, but who determines the "times"? The people do. And what are the implications of this "times" philosophy?


First, to abide by the "times" would be to render the Constitution unnecessary, for the very purpose of a constitution is to temper the times with the timeless. That is to say, a good constitution reflects enduring truths, not alluring fashions. It embodies the "votes" of not merely those walking about today, but of all those who have lived since our republic's inception, for it exists only because the founding generation created it and subsequent ones tacitly approved it by allowing it to stand. It represents the democracy of the whole family of man -- including his ancestors.


This stabilizing factor is important because, even collectively, people are prone to fits of emotionalism -- to the caprice of men. And because a good constitution is hard to change, it forces a capricious citizenry to take a deep breath and count to ten, at which point the emotion may have subsided and cooler heads may prevail. It acts as a firewall against the mob-rule phenomenon.


Thus, to truly abide by the times would be to reduce us to what remains when you strip away both the Constitution and the legislature: a straight democracy. That is, a democracy with a little twist.


The votes are inferred by judges, who supposedly are infallible conduits of popular opinion.


This is how it could work in theory, anyway. But the reality is that most Nullification Jurists couldn't care less about the "times." Case in point: In recent years we've seen some state courts divine a right to faux marriage in their state constitutions. But since a majority in every one of those states opposes faux marriage, were the judges really interpreting their constitutions to suit the times? Sure, if it was The New York Times.


The truth is that "living document," the "times," and "pragmatism" are nothing but weasel words that facilitate rationalization and obscure Nullification Jurists' true modus operandi. What is this? Well, since they aren't abiding by the Constitution or the times, there is only one thing left: what feels right to them.


This mindset isn't unusual, as people have always found a rationale for their tyranny. For a long time, we had the Divine Right of Kings, stating that a monarch governed according to God's will and thus wasn't subject to the will of the people, or any other worldly authority, and that he could do no wrong. Relativists are even worse. A person such as Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot deified himself, made his worldview (based on what felt right) the little god's law, and believed he was "subject to no authority except himself." Sound familiar?


It also sounds dangerous. And we should all be enraged. Remember that while government is supposed to derive its just powers from the consent of the governed, the jurists in question are doing nothing less than nullifying our votes. For they are ignoring the law, which reflects the will of the people as expressed through duly elected representatives. These judges aren't channeling democracy -- they are stealing it.



So what is the solution? Note that Nullification Jurists have signaled their contempt for the law loud and clear. And if they won't submit to the rule of law, why should we submit to the rule of lawyers? If they won't accept that the Constitution is "stuck" in law, why should we accept that the law is stuck in courts? Let me be clear: There is neither a moral nor a legal obligation to abide by the rules of the game when judicial oligarchs have brazenly said they will game the rules. Being a Nullification Jurist is a constitution-breaker, a republic-breaker, and, my fellow Americans, a deal-breaker.


The fact that an Elena Kagan could even make it to hearings is already a confirmation. It confirms that most of our leaders haven't a clue as to how a constitutional republic is supposed to work or, worse still, are content to create an oligarchy of like-minded judicial statists. It is unlawful and renders the government illegitimate, but they do it because they can. And unless we Americans wish to be subject to those who are "subject to no authority except themselves," governors and citizens should remember this: Nullification works both ways.
By Selwyn Duke

Jon Voight's Open Letter to Barry

This is what America needs! Jon Voight is a real Patriotic Conservative American. We MUST SAY NO to the Low Life Tom Hanks and despicable Rosie O'Donnell types.

An open letter from actor Jon Voight to President Obama:

June 22, 2010

President Obama:

You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies. You have done just the opposite. You have propagandized Israel, until they look like they are everyone's enemy — and it has resonated throughout the world. You are putting Israel in harm's way, and you have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.

You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today. The Jewish people have given the world our greatest scientists and philosophers, and the cures for many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and say are the underdogs. But the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals who want Israel eradicated.

You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.

With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel,

Jon Voight

The Left Focuses On “Skin Color”, Not LAWS Or Protecting America

The Left keeps shouting Racism at Arizona. This shows the stupidity and racism of the Left Wing Marxists. We can agree that most of the Illegal Aliens, not all, come from Mexico.
First of all, not all People from Mexico have what the Racist Left call “Brown Skin”. So when the the Left says The Brown Skin People are the illegals, the liberal left is just focusing on skin color. Does the word “Illegal” not exist in left wingers Dictionary? Or only when it pertains to the left being a Victim of something Illegal.
It is as bad as Low Life Tom Hanks saying we went after the Japanese because of the way they looked. How about the fact that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor or the Radical Islamic Hate Mongers bombed New York. Or should we say anyone who looks like Barry Soetero or the guy who taught Ralph Macchio on Karate Kid, can bomb us but we can not fight back.

Please read some more facts below that is written by J. Robert Smith, a great writer.
J. Robert Smith informs us about how Illegal Aliens are destroying our Country.

Retaking the Offensive in the Illegals Fight

By J. Robert Smith

Arizona's new law clamping down on illegals has given Barack Obama and the left an opening to unlimber their big guns. The incoming fire has been brutal. The rounds landing have been charges of racism. But conservatives, Republicans, and all pro-law Americans need to get out of their foxholes and return fire. Better yet, pro-law forces need to outflank Mr. Obama's army. A battle plan follows.

The key to end-running Mr. Obama is to factually assert that he's failing his oath of office. The president of the United States is firing off charges of racism because he doesn't want to do anything substantive to seal the nation's borders, staunch the flow of illegals, and send illegals on American soil packing. His partisan agenda to legalize illegals and harvest their votes trumps American national security interests. Mr. Obama aims to keep the illegals pipeline open between Mexico and the United States. A steady supply of new Democratic voters is a very good thing for Democrats.

Most Americans see the Democrats' harvest of illegals has a Harvest of Shame. To turn a blind eye to America's porous southern border makes a mockery of Mr. Obama's constitutional oath to protect and defend the United States. It flouts the nation's immigration laws, thereby undermining respect for law generally. It tells those immigrants and their American sponsors who are playing by the rules and jumping through every hoop to obtain and keep legal residence that they're awfully big suckers.

The charge of dereliction of duty against Mr. Obama needs to be made over and over again until it sticks like superglue. Is this a tough line of attack? You bet. But charging Americans as being racists because they simply want state and national laws against illegals upheld and enforced ain't exactly beanbag. When it comes to grabbing power and holding it, the left and Democrats never play beanbag.

Mr. Obama's abdication on southern border security is permitting an increasing number of ruthless drug dealers and other criminals (coyotes, mostly) to enter the United States. Crime along the Mexican-American border is high, rising, and moving north. The vicious Mexican Drug War, pitting cartels against one another and the Mexican government, has begun to spill over the American border.

Go asks citizens in Laredo, Brownsville, and El Paso about the Mexican Drug War and the impact on their communities. Ask especially the citizens of El Paso, who live across the Rio Grande, a stone's throw from Ciudad Juarez, where drug gangs routinely murder Juarez police, engage in combat with elite federal troops, and kill Americans, and where they forced Juarez's public safety secretary, Roberto Orduna Cruz, to forfeit his office under threat that gangs would kill police officers every forty-eight hours until he resigned.

Ask any American who lives along or near the I-35 corridor, which runs out of Mexico into Texas and north into the nation's heartland, about the criminals that are traveling that route north. Ask the family, friends, and neighbors of the Arizona rancher Robert Krentz, who was murdered by a suspected Mexican drug smuggler, about the criminals that are infesting the country.

In fact, conservatives and Republicans need to go to America's southern border communities to harvest testimonies from Anglo-Americans and Mexican-Americans about the heartbreak of having loved ones kidnapped, assaulted, and murdered; having daughters, sisters, and wives raped and abducted; and having to live in fear for property and lives.

It's time for conservatives and pro-law Americans to humanize and broadcast the violence being done to American citizens, regardless of race, by the criminal element coming north from Mexico. Make Americans from Bangor, Maine to Portland, Oregon, from Georgia's piney woods to Alaska's snowy mountains, uneasily familiar with the names and faces of the victims of border crime. Let them know that that crime is coming their way, if it hasn't touched their communities already.

Short-term, Mr. Obama and his handlers are trying to leverage the new Arizona law to gin up Hispanic votes this November. In states with larger concentrations of Hispanic voters, Mr. Obama and his handlers wish to more than offset an expected surge in voters disgruntled with Mr. Obama's big-government raw deal.

Perhaps Mr. Obama's ploy will work, but it's guaranteed to work if conservatives and Republicans fail to contest Mr. Obama in Hispanic communities. Despite the left's propaganda, there is an abundance of Hispanic Americans who are offended by and worried about the violations of law that illegals present. Hispanics see and fear the disruptions that illegals -- especially the criminal element -- are bringing to their neighborhoods.

To paraphrase the late Barry Goldwater, in their hearts, many Hispanics know that conservatives are right about illegal immigration. Hispanic-Americans need to be encouraged to vote their hearts in the secrecy of voting booths. Conservatives and the GOP may be nicely surprised by the outcome.

Finally, no American who favors the rule of law can permit President Obama to pay mere lip service to stronger border security, nor can Mr. Obama be permitted to cite his scant efforts along the border as proof positive of his commitment to tighter security. The counter is simple: Each fresh failure along the nation's southern border, each new crime, needs to be publicized and made Mr. Obama's responsibility. Mr. Obama may not favor an ownership society, but he darned well needs to be an ownership president, and that goes for every failure along the Mexican-American border.

The sixty-four-thousand-dollar question is do Washington conservatives -- moreover, Republicans -- have the guts to make a tough fight against Mr. Obama and the left on the terms outlined? Or will quaking conservative and Republican establishmentarians continue to huddle in foxholes, hoping to avoid a battering on charges of racism?

Who said that victory belongs to the stout of heart, to those willing to brave enemy fire and audaciously take the fight to the enemy? It doesn't really matter, on second thought. What matters is the doing of it.