Almost Totally Unnoticed And Certainly Unreported In The Major Media, That Powerful And Enigmatic “Civilian National Security Force” Proposed By Candidate Obama Has Been Authorized. Be Concerned
Issue 39 of this newsletter (then called The Penguin Post) was published in November of 2008. It included this:
We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
See and hear it here.
What is this??
Why must this intra-national national security force be as well funded as the regular military? Why must it be federal? Is this constitutional? What will the domestic military’s mission be? Will it be some sort of “Super-SWAT” outfit? Who is to be targeted — who is the enemy to be vanquished with the help of the billions of dollars that will be poured into this force? Why are the nation’s internal enemies considered just as dangerous as all those jihadis beyond our borders? Will this mighty governmental arm (which it seems must be very like the conventional military in important ways) be staffed by volunteers, or by draftees? To whom will it be accountable? If they rough you up, whom do you call?
Beginning with that original publication some sixteen months ago, this newsletter has carried the URL for that video a total of eight times. If memory serves, the Obama proclamation of the need for a “civilian national security force” has also been mentioned a time or two without citation of the URL.
Not a single message was received by the PenPo/Lynx Bulletin regarding this matter, and the subject of the new domestic guards did not surface in the press (well, of course not). This newsletter was one of a very few information sources fretting about Obama’s threat to give his administration unprecedented, overwhelming police/military power for domestic use only.
This proposed “civilian national security force” could be seen as a way to nullify whatever might be left of posse comitatus protections enjoyed by the US public.
Now the claim has been made that The One has authorization for his federal domestic security force.
Reading the language of the bill, one can see at once that it is both broad enough and specific enough to permit the formation of armed and militarily trained cadres that will be commanded by the federal administration. An officer corps is defined, for example. Local law enforcement, the states and the military are all bypassed.
While the law mentions the delivery of health care, there is nothing in it to prevent these cadres from dealing with whatever circumstances might be part of a declared “emergency.” Who, exactly, declares the emergency and who defines it are not mentioned, so it must be supposed that the law tacitly assumes the president will do those things at his pleasure.
Would that be legal? The question would probably be moot in the event that the president wishes to act. He could simply extend his power and control over a region, or over people who are, in his view, troublesome. At such times the achievement of the fait accompli matters far, far more than do legal precedents and interpretations. The law is ponderous and can very seldom act to prevent the government from doing something until and unless the illegal action has already been committed.
The drafters of the US Constitution realized the practical limitations of the judiciary, and set firm limits on governmental power: by telling the federal administration in advance that it is not permitted to take certain actions, the founding document literally prevents trouble. Citizens, including many whose ethics are less than acceptable, recognize this. When criminals ignore the rules, the courts act to create precedents — and most administrations heed them. Most of the time.
Obama may have found a way to make a mockery of this excellent but imperfect system. And, just as Congress simply passed a seismic law that the public did not want, Obama will doubtless just do whatever he wants with his new force, and that will be that.
When the “civilian national security force” that is every bit as powerful as the US military comes for you — for whatever reason, legitimate or not — what can a federal court do to protect you?
Now pay attention, Pilgrims, because this is Truth: the things Obama may want his new domestic force to do fall into two categories. The first includes disaster relief, massive public health programs in the event of a pandemic, and control of civil disorder. The second involves illegitimate activity — repression of constitutional dissent, and any other things the government cannot ethically do. No one (except Obama) knows whether this second category will ever be the mission of the new domestic force. But everyone knows that all the tasks in the first category should be undertaken by local, state and selected federal agencies; if those organizations are not strong enough or are incompetent (think of Katrina), they need to be upgraded/reformed, now don’t they? A new “civilian national security force” is absolutely not required.
If those who recognize the nature of the threat act now, it may be possible to have the relevant sections of the Obamacare law declared unconstitutional. The US Constitution was drawn up to do a number of things, and among the most important is to prevent precisely this sort of power from coming into the hands of the federal government.
First, however, public, press and legislators must realize that the federalism mandated by the constitution is under attack by a perfidious administration.
There are huge problems with that prerequisite: most people won’t be alarmed by what the new law makes possible, and Obama’s unctuous words may make it very difficult to get widespread backing for a federal court case. The news media will report the attempt to correct things as a Quixotic effort by paranoids. Most “civil rights” organizations — such as the ACLU — will instinctively side with Obama, and ignore the need for immediate corrective actions that uphold the spirit of the US Constitution.
It will get even worse. Nutty militias and other armed groups, many of them religious cults and/or racist separatists, already consider Obama to be a deadly threat. Their perceptions will be validated when they learn that The One is now authorized by Congress to command a presidential strike force. The militias will certainly prepare for civil war. The inevitable violence will allow the federal administration to portray all opposition to its political designs as clearly and presently dangerous.
That’s bad, because the feds include some appalling mouth-breathers. If you think that harebrained Secretary Napolitano disgraced herself in recent months, brace yourself for what she will do if an FBI unit is ambushed and wiped out.
Yes, it can happen. The militias can’t win the war, but they have enough military experience, firepower and sheer fanaticism to kill a lot of people. They are eager to prove themselves. Don’t be surprised if they use aircraft, plant improvised bombs inspired by Taliban devices, and deploy effective anti-helicopter weapons. They believe that their heroic example will touch off a second American Revolution that will cleanse the nation.
The USA is rapidly approaching a crossroads, and taking the wrong turn will lead to disaster. The threat, which ultimately does not come from the lunatic militias but from the federal government, has to be aborted now.
That’s easier said than accomplished, for the Good Guys are going to have one hell of a time trying to convince everybody that they are on the side of the angels, rather than supporting the demented militias. As soon as repeal or a federal lawsuit is suggested, Obama will use soothing words to convince everyone that his ambitions are benign. The “civilian national security force” will be presented as necessary on many levels. He will then link his rational critics to the militias, and denounce them all as insane and unpatriotic.
The subsequent smear campaign executed by the White House’s “progressive” lickspittles can be precisely predicted, as it has already surfaced in the Washington Post and the New York Times. It will be very hard to counter. After all, no one can prove that he is not, in his heart of hearts, a racist.
Obama will get his way if press and public look the other way. Then what is almost certainly the worst Congress in US history will bend its knee yet again to the madcap fantasies of the president. The “civilian national security force” will be funded, and…well, nobody outside the White House knows what it will do.
Don’t dismiss this as hysterical speculation. The situation has unfolded far enough that the electorate should deal with it. The issue is crucial to the survival of the heritage the founders bequeathed to the nation.
Yes, of course it’s true that at present, no one outside Obama’s inner circle knows why this domestic force was planned in the first place, whether it will ever appear, and what its missions might be.
That’s exactly the way Obama wants it.
The Stealth Candidate Becomes The Stealth President
There were hints. In discussing taxation with Joe the Plumber, Obama talked about involuntarily “spreading it (privately owned wealth) around.” In explaining why a higher capital gains tax that lowered revenue was a good idea, he cited “fairness.” To those with a nose to sniff out a Marxist, those are suggestive odors of autocratic egalitarianism. Then came photos and an account from Obama’s college days, a period in his life that he has locked away from public view; the narrative paints a picture of a profoundly committed Marxist intent on changing the nation. All this has been reported in this newsletter.
Now it must be stated explicitly that what is known at present is not enough evidence to allow a rational judgment of the man’s ideological orientation. At the same time one must note, of course, that a moderate or even typical “progressive” would be unlikely to come to the voters with these suggestive events in his biography.
If these whiffs of Marxism were not partially definitive of Obama’s mindset, they would be countered by dozens of his statements, accounts of his life, things he wrote and accomplished that presented a three-dimensional view of the person. Obama has none of that. His life before becoming president is a virtual cypher.
If ever the US electorate had no information of consequence about its president, this is an instance of that bizarre circumstance.
Looking in from the outside, this newsletter sees the entire Obama campaign as carefully managed to avoid exposing significant aspects of the candidate’s core beliefs and goals. The more Obama said, the less we learned about him; the more proposals and slogans he tossed out, the less real he became. It’s bizarre but true: the president is an invisible man who’s in plain sight.
To many in the nation, candidate Obama was almost a pure symbol, roughly as well known and understood by his faithful followers as Kim Jong-il of North Korea is known by that nation’s slaves. In that cursed Asian nation, Dear Leader is like the Wizard of Oz — a quasi-mystical entity whose virtues and power are perceived as endless. To what should be a disturbing degree, the virtual deification of the current US president is a parallel instance.
The stage-managing of the candidate by Team Obama enclosed their man in an opaque, shiny and tightly-sealed envelope. At the same time the public was allowed to see a cameo, a stylized representation, of The One. The result was that voters projected their own hopes and dreams into the apparition, creating a mythical paragon.
Nobody tried to tear away the wrappings and see what Obama actually is. Of course the press would not do it, for reasons that predate Obama and have been discussed endlessly in this newsletter. Yet a full explanation of how the president gelded the journalists will probably never be possible.
For now, it is enough to note that when an ensorceled reporter admits that the mere sight of The One made a thrill run up the newshound’s leg — horrors! — one can only be shocked by the ethical infirmity that crippled the media. Surely more than just a partisan agreement on collectivist goals is involved.
So Obama was not investigated, while Palin was subjected to a frantic, meticulous campaign to find something, anything, in her career that could disqualify her. Palin was an open book; the secretive Obama was prepared to avoid and fend off the scrutiny of a good investigative reporter. The result was as Team Obama had planned: nobody dug into the real issues by, for example, interviewing those who knew Obama years ago. Instead the reverential press limited itself to debunking the hokum of Birthers and assorted rightist nutcases. This vivisect-Palin-and-ignore-Obama policy is one of the signal disgraces of recent US political journalism.
And Joe Biden? The press occasionally acknowledged his existence. That’s significant. Joe fooled this newsletter into attributing his ignorance and maladroit, embarrassing behavior to alcohol intoxication.
Whatever the cause of the media breakdown, the ethics, tenacity and skepticism of the press melted in the sheer radiance of the myth that is The One. If that does not sour your attitude toward the Fourth Estate, little ever will.
Because the press immediately prostrated itself, Obama remains to this day the man nobody knows.
College career? Next to nothing is available. Writings, activities while in law school? Zero. Political sensibilities and influences on his world-view before running for office? Only that he was a “community organizer,” which vaguely implies a kind of dogged activism, and that he was a lawyer for a public employees’ union. He was an empty suit in a law school, known only as someone just passing through who would never be on the tenure track (he taught constitutional law, which, in view of his opinion of the constitution, is a shame). Voting record in public office? When not voting “Present,” he voted with the most “progressive” members of the Democratic party. Legislative accomplishments? Nil.
His books? No one has ever found anything in them that tells us about his political goals and the values that underlie them. It’s all vague and smarmy; even The Audacity of Hope is a kind or Rorschach test for the reader. Whatever you want Obama to be, he is — if you read what he is alleged to have written.
Yet some things matter, and they are missing. Who are his heroes, and which historical figures does he damn as evil? We have nothing of substance (it’s too easy to cuss Hitler and praise Cincinnatus or Garibaldi).
The only interesting aspect of Obama’s claimed activity as an author is the evidence that strongly points to Billy “Bomber” Ayers as the real author of Dreams From My Father. That slim tome is a faux autobiography, personally unrevealing and ultimately unhelpful. It gives the appearance of being sincere ruminations on profound personal issues, but it could have been stapled together by any ghost writer with a “I heard like this neat quote at a cocktail party” familiarity with pop psychology. If Obama wrote it, he is either insensitive, secretive and deceitful, or simply shallow.
So what about that loony pastor Wright, who may have influenced Obama’s thinking? The perspective of time now allows the realization that Obama must have been relieved to see the press reporting on that trivial issue, instead of focusing on the candidate’s education (“corpse-man”?) and what appears to be his wholehearted adoption of Marxism. The religious embarrassment was dealt with by Obama’s public pronouncements, and the press grew quiet and quiescent. The tiny fuss allowed the journalists to pretend to be objective observers, while ignoring much more important questions than how much of Wright rubbed off on the candidate. For Obama, the “issue” must have been a welcome red herring.
Along the way, many people came to an erroneous conclusion without even giving the matter any thought. Marxists mock all religions, as everyone knows, so proclaimed Christian and actual church-goer Obama could not be a Marxist. Oh? How about being a Marxist who, for the sake of appearances, pretends not to be a Marxist? And who could better appreciate the entertainment value of those ignorant, histrionic sermons than a person who subscribes to Marx’s view of religion?
Think of it as like watching a “bout” between two professional wrestlers: the sideshow can be hilarious, and you have to respect the tumbling skills and coordinated trickery of the “combatants.” They do know how to excite the gallery. As does Wright. The pastor is first and last a showman.
TLB suggests that for Obama, those church services were pure theatre that addressed no transcendental reality.
Ultimately, our understanding of the real Obama must be based on his speeches, a few video clips, and his record so far in office. Again, much of that material could easily be and certainly is the work of speech writers and other advisors. We know from experience (reported in this newsletter) that he keeps only those promises that prove easy to live up to, and that he can look you in the eye and lie. He is also stubborn and determined to effect change.
Working only from negative evidence — the absence of material that is always available for every presidential candidate — one can conclude that Obama is closed, and very determined to remain that way. Beyond that, we know he counts on the permanent support of black voters and that he has the ability to inspire the current leadership of the Democratic party to Herculean efforts.
That’s all very interesting. But…where is he taking his nation, and why? Is his lack of candor a sign of deceit, indicating that he dare not reveal his true politics lest he be set aside even while in the White House? Does he realize that he can not allow the people to know him? Is he the alien he seems to be, as regards his understanding of the nation and its values?
This newsletter believes that the truthful answers to those questions are literally the last information Obama would ever want to provide.
Fightin’ Words From The “Democracy Is Bad For Obama, So Shut Up Or I’ll Kill You” Morons
Here is a list of some of the things the collectivist end of the political spectrum is saying and doing these days. If you click on everything here (which would be good of you), you will find the experience getting pretty tiresome as you move down the list of links. Of course the folks who read newspapers and news magazines and watch TV news and do not read this newsletter are never exposed to stuff like this. Does that help to explain how the USA got into the mess it’s in?
Bias in reporting: the recent Nevada Tea Party.
Here’s a shock: NYT columnist uses comparison to Nazis to describe Tea Partiers!
It looks as if Jimmy Carville forgot that most US voters opposed Obamacare. Never mind! He’s such a gifted writer, so eloquent, measured and subtle, that one can only admire his efforts at arousing the minority to action with elevated prose.
“Hey, what’s wrong with stating the simple facts? Two nukes only began to clean up the garbage. Uncle Sam should have incinerated a few million stinky Chinks, too. Yeah! C’mon, everybody, put good ol’ Levasso back in Congress in November! We need a 100% American like him making our laws!”
Related: “Goodness gracious, Muffy, look at this distressing item in our local news outlet! It seems our own outspoken Levasso had to defend himself against one of those rabid Republicans! Never mind, there’s a big teabagger shoot coming up real soon — time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana, hee hee — so I’m dropping by our Demo HQ to pick up the license, don’t you know. We’ll have to load some slugs, repulsive name, into that new ten gauge you just bought from Abercrombie and Fitch — are you sure you remember what that nice man did when he showed you how to do it? Mercy me, won’t it be diverting, dispatching those horrid teabaggers to Hades, or West Virginia, or wherever they go to receive their just desserts? Like pie a la Mort? Hee hee!”
Tea Partiers are racists. The Washington Post knows it’s true.
Yes, yes… this sort of talk is yet another example of prudent, moderate, informed and civilized discourse. And pigs can fly.
“What in the world is fake hate? It must be something dreamed up by Rush Limpbugger, the idiot’s favorite rotund, rotten and retarded junkie. Damn, there’s a lot of links in this stupid post…. Oh, that’s the website run by that Flip whore, whatshername, too bad the slut’s a neo-con….”
A look at the not-so-distant past to recall “progressives” committing acts of violence. It was OK back then, though.
Ah, words of wisdom from the king of three-dee: an invitation to a hunt. It’s amazing how the shooting sports have captured the imagination of the Bicoastal Elite. Just watch yourself when you go out, and try to avoid making right turns. You never know.
Wanna be a politician? One way to do it is to strip yourself of all shame and principle. It works for some people. You might have trouble doing it, though — TLB suspects a guy pretty much has to be born with a character flaw to be able to debase himself that completely.
Thoughts on the continuing culture war.
So how do you explain this?
This Newsletter Gets Very Little Mail, Which Might Be Just As Well
Weblogger Glenn Reynolds gets letters, which he appreciates and occasionally passes along to his readers. The other day he boiled over and printed part of one note:
I cannot emphasize this enough: your brand of public discourse is hurting our country. It us poison. So fuck you, you GOP utensil, and fuck your mother for bringing you forth.
Regarding which Reynolds responded:
Plus this stirring conclusion: “Replies will not be read, you fuck.” With this degree of eloquence and commitment to reasoned debate, he must be a Glenn Greenwald reader. But I blame the hateful, violent rhetoric from Democratic leaders and media figures. They’re like modern-day Klansmen, inciting a mob of ignorant, violent followers. When will they renounce their hateful rhetoric?
Sorry you asked, Glenn, because the answer is “Never.” People who are inspired by a Utopian principle and led by a charismatic figure often consider themselves exempt from the constraints imposed on the common herd. (That’s the Hoffer-ism of the Day.) Oh, you want an example? Well, there’s Congress, which is not covered by Obamacare….
The Muddle East: Obama’s Chessboard?
You probably would not click on a link to this post — yes, TLB knows the habits of its non-readers — so for the one or two of you who are perusing this issue, here’s the whole thing, complete with internal links, because you can’t afford to miss it (ignorance is a very expensive condition):
Obama’s secret plan for Middle East?
Why believe in a conspiracy when stupidity is explanation enough? With that at the front of my mind as a major caveat to my and others’ conjecture, aside from not knowing what is going on in the privacy of White House meetings, there may actually be a secret purposeful plan behind President Obama’s public undermining of Israel.
Stupidity isn’t enough of an explanation:
First off, there’s every reason to believe Obama’s pledge to be a “transformative” president. Nearly every policy, law and appointment from him and his allies have been distinctly left of those from previous Democrat and Republican administrations.
Second, there’s every reason to believe that Obama and his counsels are aware, how can they not be, of the past refusals by Palestinian leaders to accept offerings, to obstruct negotiations, to foment violence, to foster corruption, to be divided between the violently hostile and the very violently hostile, and that repeated and continuous Israeli concessions and withdrawals have encouraged more of the same from the Palestinians.
Third, there’s every reason to believe that Obama and his advisors are aware of Iran’s impending nuclear status (even the IAEA has finally publicly woken up) and that other MidEast nations are accommodating themselves to Iran, they seeing little likelihood that the US will push for severe enough sanctions in the face of Russian and Chinese opposition and European profits or the US striking Iran’s nuclear installations.
Fourth, there’s every reason to believe that the US has more influence upon Israel, given that Israel has heavily depended upon the US as a bulwark of support, than upon the Palestinians, MidEast nations, Russia, China or even Europe.
Fifth, there’s every reason to believe that President Obama and advisors, some of whom are Jewish, depend upon the Democrats’ base supporters, some of whom are Jewish, to at worst weakly react to the Obama administration undermining Israel. (See this post.)
Sixth, there’s a big difference between occasional ignorance or mistakes and a consistent pattern of such, particularly when the facts and errors are so well known.
Yesterday, I had a brief conversation with a very liberal, very smart friend who visits Israel several times a year to study. I shared my conjecture in an email to another very knowledgeable MSM friend:
My theory is that the O master plan, if there is one, is to force Israel to bomb Iran, then disavow Israel and further isolate it, and maybe even let it be overwhelmed.
It very well may not be true, but it does explain a lot.
This morning, Glenn Reynolds similarly conjectured:
WHY HAS BARACK OBAMA TREATED NETANYAHU SO RUDELY? “Obama would never treat the president of Equatorial Guinea that way.”
Possibly Obama just hates Israel and hates Jews. That’s plausible — certainly nothing in his actions suggests otherwise, really.
But it’s also possible — I’d say likely — that there’s something else going on. I think Obama expects Israel to strike Iran, and wants to put distance between the United States and Israel in advance of that happening. (Perhaps he even thinks that treating Israel rudely will provoke such a response, saving him the trouble of doing anything about Iran himself, and avoiding the risk that things might go wrong if he does). On the most optimistic level, maybe this whole thing is a sham, and the U.S. is really helping Israel strike Iran, with this as distraction. The question for readers is which of these — not necessarily mutually exclusive — explanations is most plausible.
I’d add to the above that President Obama may also, not mutually exclusive, be currying favor with the Moslem states in continuation of his seeming belief that rewarding enemies will somehow make them less hostile, particularly in a new world order in which the US is no longer and doesn’t act to be preeminent in its power or actions, regardless of the consequences domestically or abroad.
The TLB extends kudos to the author and compiler of this trenchant commentary, Bruce Kesler.
Well, that last paragraph is a train wreck of mangled rhetoric, but a little forensic probing will extract the ideas. Persevere, Pilgrims.
More On You-Know-What
What to do about Obamacare? Peaceful protest and political opposition are the answers. Some folks are planning a campaign of civil disobedience that will cripple the juggernaut. That’s as American as strikes, boycotts, sit-ins and teach-ins, shutting down the HUAC with hostile crowds, mass marches on Washington (ah, those inspirational anti-Vietnam protests), MacBird, and, years later, calling the president “BushHitler.” Let the good times roll yet again!
The Democrats, meanwhile, are obsessively playing the victim’s role. The resulting histrionics would remind one of pro wrestling, if it were less obviously fake. Ignoring the statement of a Democratic representative that his life was threatened when he announced that he might vote against Obamacare, Pelosi’s sheeple and their allies are whining about the anger of the public. Hah! All the sniveling is coming from the folks who won — they passed a bill they knew was overwhelmingly opposed by the US electorate (a poll on the eve of passage estimated 59% of the voters were against it). What did those anti-democratic Democrats expect? Thank-you notes and candy? (This weblog post puts it beautifully; don’t skip it.)
This newsletter expects some nasty incidents. Of course there will be nuts who go overboard — there always are. Recall, for example, that the BATF and FBI made a homicidal mess of the Branch Davidian standoff at Waco, provoking a couple of crazies to blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City. Recall that a Castro-loving Marxist with several loose screws assassinated a US president. You can’t ignore the fact that there are always one or two somewhere out there who are unhinged, and that truth holds for both left and right.
That being the case, what’s wrong with complaining about threats and potential violence? Well, breaking these two rules is what’s wrong:
1. If you are going to trumpet the dangers and fell events, don’t lie. (Here’s an obvious lie.) Don’t report as fact something that is an unsupported claim. Don’t make stuff up, even if you are PBS. Don’t skip fact-checking when the claims match your ideological biases. When evidence is produced to show that the claim is without merit or false or a hoax, report that. Anything less than full reporting is malicious propaganda, and these days you are likely to be called on it.
2. When wringing your hands in a plea for sympathy, don’t try to smear a large group because of the actions of a tiny number of lunatics. Political motives, in other words, are out of place when reporting stalking, threats, assaults and property damage.
The hoax began with attacks on the Tea Party Movement as racist. That was reported in TLB 139.
Summing up: do read this reasonable, practical view of political fussin’ and fumin’ and feudin’.
The press at work, Part 6,346,092: “Conservative columnist Andrew Breitbart disputed accounts that tea party activists in Washington shouted racial epithets at black members of Congress amid the health care debate, although he didn’t provide any evidence.” Well, since no one can prove a negative, he can’t possibly satisfy the biased journalists at the AP, now can he? You have already seen the “evidence” because this newsletter has linked to it. You know it does not back up the charges made by race-fakers. — You also know that three or four atypical members of a crowd do not define the character of the entire crowd…so you know why TLB insists that at some point, rational people are going to ask why the AP crafts “news” as it does. (This is an old, old issue for TLB and its predecessors. Down through the years, the AP has come in for almost as much outraged criticism in these pages as has the NY Times. If you want a few examples from the archives, request them.)
Harry Reid says that when he runs for another term in the Senate later this year, “This election will be decided by Nevadans, not people from other states who parachuted in for one day to have a tea party.” It’s those damned outside agitators, eh, Harry? Ri-i-i-ight. Nevadans, with their strong maverick/Libertarian streak, very high unemployment and weak commitment to the values of the Bicoastal Elite, will indeed decide this election. That’s not an implied prediction; it’s just some facts. If you don’t like them…”Well,” as Groucho said, “I have others.”
Do you want to know what really happened to the World Trade Center towers? Sure you do. Well, when virtual anencephalics like Rosie O’Donnell and the Truthers start explaining things, common sense never prevails. Those hypothyroid geese are not just ignorant, they are stubbornly so. You will find the hard facts that Rosie and the other pinheads literally can not understand if you look at this short video. It clarifies the “mysterious” collapse of WTC building 7. (No, 7 was not blown up by the federal government; it came apart because seven hours of fire expanded iron beams and loosened their connections. Why wasn’t the fire put out? The water mains were broken by the collapse of the taller WTC buildings. Overall, it was a cascade of events too massive to be halted.) While you are at the website, have a look around. The information there will not convince the Truthers, who will reject it as “all lies,” but at least you will know what really happened. That, in turn, will tell you something about Rosie and Company.
Humor with a point as sharp as the business end of a pen….
Michael Yon is back, and you know not to miss his latest post from Afghanistan.
Hell freezes over.
Obama’s in Afghanistan, which means a lot of Secret Service agents are going nuts.
Everyone knows by now that some news — the stuff that’s not PC — does not get reported. When an editor somewhere has the nerve to break the ideological embargo, as in this case, two responses automatically follow: first, the story is ignored instead of being passed around. Second, those who hear about it brush it off as “all lies,” or “unimportant.”