Therefore, The Fed should issue some 10 trillion in debt to itself , then use the proceeds to buy all the current government debt at a discount. The Fed would then own America - Mount Rushmore and all.
The Fed would proceed to throw America into The Bankruptcy Court , reorganize the entire Federal Government, close worthless agencies, fire half the bureaucracy and restore our freedoms in line with what The Founders envisioned.
Their next act would be to radically change our tax code so citizens could post their returns on a card..
This is a novel idea . Doubt has much chance of passage but it has potential and beats the way Obama, the current administration and Congress are handling matters!
---
.jpg)
How Obama feels when he thinks about Fox News!.jpg)
.jpg)
What a real president does.
PJTV.com: "Afterburner -- Real People
When it rains, it pours. Bill Whittle shows you an iconic image of a rainy day when a U.S. Marine held an umbrella over the head of President Obama. Is this photograph a metaphor for President Obama's actions in Benghazi and his administration's targeting of the AP, Fox News and the Tea Party? Hear what Bill Whittle thinks about the storm of scandals hanging over the president’s administration, and how Obama’s America is affecting real people like you."
Upset because government cannot find him a job.
---
Did the intense heat of The Middle East clear Perry's head? (See 1 below.)
---
Iran's future nuclear capability - a prediction!
--
Obama's war with the media. Will those in the press and the media do their job now that his antipathy towards some of them is exposed? Maybe if you believe leopards change their spots! However even MSNBC Scarborough finally opened his eyes! (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
This bit of logic from a long and dear friend: "Obama asked Burma's leader to quit persecuting Muslims, but has he asked Iran and Egypt to quit persecuting Christians and Jews?"
In Syria he seems willing to allow persecution because he is unable to makeup his mind.
---
Palestinians have decided Kerry is barking up the wrong palm tree. (See 4 below.)
Surprise, surprise! More hypocrisy from the U.N. aimed exclusively at Israel. (See 4a below.)
---
Hug Obama and kiss away your freedoms!
Now that the New York Times feels threatened even they are beginning to arise but they are not to be trusted to stay the course. (See 5 below.)
---
Just returned from long weekendand next memo will simply be posting some of the best f what Ihave been sent. Then I will get back in the saddle and start writing some of my own material as well.
Hope you had an enjoyable Memorial Day and did something to thank those living and past who secured the freedom Obama, his attorney General and his appointed thugs at the IRS are bent on destroying.
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Egypt is not at peace with Israel, admits John Kerry
By Moshe Phillips
In a press conference in Washington on April 30th U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that Egypt is not at peace with Israel.
In response to reporter's question about what is now being called the “Arab League land swap proposal” Kerry declared:
“This is literally a statement by the Arab world that they are prepared to make peace providing the Palestinians and Israelis reach a final status agreement. I don't think you can underestimate the – I don't underestimate the significance of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, [United] Arab Emirates, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and others coming to the table and saying, “We are prepared to make peace now in 2013,” …” [See the full State Department transcript of Kerry's April 30th remarks here:
A simple question: If Egypt and Jordan are already “at peace” with Israel than how can they be “saying, “We are prepared to make peace now in 2013,” …”
Kerry said what everyone really knows. That is, Egypt may not be in a state of war with Israel right at this moment. And Egypt may have not taken overt military action against Israel since the 1970s but that is a far cry from peace.
Egypt's stance towards Israel is now (and was throughout the Mubarak era) one that can only be truly categorized as adversarial.
The United States and Canada are at peace. Israel and Egypt?
It should also be mentioned that Egypt's mass media is notoriously anti-Semitic and has remained stridently so since the Camp David Accords. In 2002, the ADL reported that the anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion “Emerge(d) as Key Theme (on an) Egyptian TV Series.” There had been numerous other examples of similar things throughout Mubarak's rule. Anti-Semitic images were frequently used during the Arab Spring riots in Cairo.
This was not a mere slip of the tongue for Kerry. He knows full well that Egypt's peace with Israel is a sham. What's worse is that the State Department expects Israel to continue to negotiate away the strategic depth that it won in battle to neighbors that have never shown even the slightest interest in being neighborly or peaceful. The dangers to Israel have been compounded over the last two years as nations throughout the Arab world have shown remarkable instability. Kerry has admitted what everyday Israelis have always known: their peace agreement with Egypt is a piece of paper that means nothing to the average Egyptian.
The territory that Israel gained in 1967 provided it with strategic depth that proved to be vital to Israel's ability to defend itself.
Israel's standing army is a small percentage of its military strength. The territory that Kerry would have Israel swap takes time for enemy forces to cross and allows the Israeli army reserve to be called up and enter combat. This is something the Arab world learned in 1973 during the first days of the Yom Kippur War.
Prime Minister Netanyahu fought on the front lines in that war. Let's hope he never forgets that those lands saved Israel's cities from destruction then and may have to serve the same purpose again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Israeli Official: Iran Could Produce Dozens of Nukes A Year
By Greg Richter
Iran's nuclear ambitions are bigger than most people think, with the country capable of becoming a nuclear superpower, Israel's strategic affairs minister said Tuesday.
If not stopped, Iran could produce dozens of nuclear weapons a year, Yuval Steinitz said.
“This is a ramified nuclear industry that has been built not to produce a few bombs but to produce fissionable material for dozens and hundreds of nuclear bombs. The issue at hand is not a nuclear state but the possibility of creating a nuclear superpower,” Steinitz wrote in a government memo obtained by The Algemeiner.
Iran's Natanz nuclear facility currently has about 12,000 centrifuges and plans to reach 54,000, he said. That would make it capable of enriching enough uranium to produce 20-30 atomic bombs a year.
Though it has yet to produce a single nuclear weapon, Iran still poses a grave threat to the West, Steinitz said. “It already has missiles directed towards Israel and missiles that cover much of mainland Europe and is making a concerted effort to basically have intercontinental ballistic missiles.”
“The Iranian nuclear program is changing the rules of the game,” Steinitz said. “It will change the state of Israel, the state of the Middle East and even the world situation. The Iranians’ ambition is to change the global balance of power from end to end, between Islam and the West.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Obama-Media War
By Daniel Greenfield
Revolutions are rarely undone from the outside. Mostly they come apart from the inside as the forty thieves descend into petty squabbling over the loot.
The loot comes in different forms, but at its core it is always power. It may be the power to kill or to steal. It may be the power to claim a nice piece of real estate or to send a million people off to their deaths. The scale of it will occupy historians and shock the people of the future who leaf through the history books and walk through the silent museums, but it is all of one piece. The purpose of power, as a fellow in a little book by George Orwell once said, is power.
The quarrel between Obama and the Media is largely a lovers' quarrel, but the love is only there on one side. The media made Obama what he is. But what he is, among many other things, is a control freak spawned by a political ideology that distrusts everyone and consolidates power at all cost.
The media loved Obama, but it discovered early on that he did not love it back. Instead of basking in the adoration of the Candy Crowleys and the Anderson Coopers and the massive corporate machines behind them, the love child of every liberal fantasy shut them out, rigidly controlled their access and ruthlessly punished unauthorized conversations with the press.
The media had made Obama into a tin god, but were constantly suspected of heresy. Instead of being rewarded for their loyalty, they were kept at arm's length.
Obama Inc. knew that their biggest asset was the narrative. A close study of Obama's qualifications or accomplishments would have given no conceivable reason for voting for him. The only thing he brought to the table was race and even in this he was less qualified than most of the black men who had run for president.
The narrative was the dearest treasure of Obama Inc. It was the one thing that its cronies protected. The economy could tank, wars could be lost and an asteroid could smack into the Pacific Ocean and none of it mattered nearly as much as the golden narrative. They didn't trust anyone with it including the media.
The media these days doesn't have much. Its numbers are bad in every medium from the tube to the inky pages of newsprint to the crackling AM radio waves. It isn't very profitable. Often it's a dead weight. But it wields a great deal of institutional power. The New York Times and CNN may both be dogs when it comes to the balance sheets, but owning either one gives you an impressive amount of heft in the national dialogue; though not as much as working for one of them does.
Power is all that the media has. Its power is projected in a fairly narrow circle. Fewer people are reading, watching and listening to it, so its circle becomes more incestuous. Everyone has learned to act like a member of the D.C. press corps, interpreting events through the lens of old West Wing episodes. The resulting noise reaches fewer people, but helps form the shaky consensus on which the institutional power of the media stands.
In its dying hour, the media used that power to ensure the double coronation of a corrupt Chicago politician with a facility for mimicking speech patterns. And that politician rewarded it by trying to bypass it and set up his own media.
Obama's vision of the proper place of the media isn't just at his feet, but under his control. Instead of dealing with the media, he has tried to cut it out of the loop by putting a larger emphasis on social media and developing narratives through think-tanks and media influencing groups. It was a power struggle that the media was initially baffled by. It had held out an ice cream cone to the little boy, only to have the little boy kick it in the shin, grab the ice cream cone and run away.
For years the media had groused about a lack of transparency, the unprecedented prosecution of whistleblowers and the hostile relationship between Obama Inc's minions and many reporters. The grousing was usually understated. It could be mentioned offhand, but not too loudly. When Bob Woodward made the mistake of speaking his mind, he was swiftly punished for it by the avatars of the post-media media, while the old media sat silently and watched the show.
But then Obama pushed its limits by invading the sanctum of the Associated Press. It was one thing when the administration was targeting whistleblowers, but quite another when the media's power became part of the collateral damage.
The week of scandals was the media reminding Obama that his smooth ride had been provided by them and that the ride could get very bumpy if his media ponies decide to take the back road to Benghazigate or drop by the IRS headquarters. It's a bluff, of course. The day may come when the media takes Obama out back and disposes of him so that the new messiah, perhaps in a pantsuit, can ascend the old Camelot throne, but that day isn't here yet.
Scandal week was a game of chicken between Obama and the media to see who would blink first. Would Obama decide to respect the institutional power of the media or would be consider pushing forward until the media blinked. A brief history of Obama Inc. suggests that he will keep pushing on. Obama backs down from Muslim terrorists and Russian government thugs, but not from Americans.
Like most cowards, Obama only attacks those he knows won't fight back. And the only people who won't fight back are either helpless or bound by their politics not to resist the liberal messiah.
Obama knows that the media does not dare harm a hair on the head of the liberal agenda. And he made certain to appoint a Vice President whom no one in their right mind would want to see take over. Until 2016, it's Hussein or the highway. The media has shown that it can hamstring him even when the coverage is only mild. It is quite capable of turning up the temperature to boiling, though not without a civil war with Media Matters, Think Progress and a chunk of the liberal new media.
The media is a prisoner of its own ideology. It can't hit Obama too hard… yet. Not until they're making the case that Hillary will do a better job of governing than this inexperienced tyro did. Having abandoned any professional integrity years ago, it would be too late for most of the media to reclaim it now. Even in the name of its own institutional power.
This is the process by which leftists have collaborated in their own purges. It is why wealthy leftists financed revolutions that would rob them. The media's wealth is in its institutional power and it is being forced to accede to the redistribution of that influence.
Obama is not interested in an independent media, even if it is biased his own way. Leftists are great centralizers. They seize power by consolidating it under their control. The Democratic Party is struggling as Obama's OFA Super PAC loots their fundraising operations. Why does Obama need a Super PAC? Because it gives him another source of personal power while diminishing the power of established institutions. And the news media is just one more established institution for the children of the counterculture to beat to death with its own microphones.
The media is trying to make a statement about boundaries, but it lacks commitment. Even as it halfheartedly, though for the first time, covers actual misconduct by Obama Inc. with that smidgen of outrage which usually only creeps into its own when reporting on the dreaded (R's), it undermines its own show of force by discussing how quickly Obama will be able to get over the hump and back to his agenda. The media's blackmail of the man listening to its phone calls and scanning through its emails lacks conviction.
Obama needs the media, but the media needs him more. It doesn't need him for practical reasons, but for emotional reasons. It needs to believe that its corrupt institutional power has been put at the service of a higher purpose and a higher calling. It needs to believe this all the more as the ratings drop, the papers go unsold and the radio stations fill up with the voices of conservative talk show hosts. That emotional need makes the media the prisoner of this administration.
On his end, Obama has a practical need for the media, but no emotional need. Interviews, even of the softball media kind, challenge his control. They question him and Obama does not like being questioned. While media figures see themselves as serving a meaningful liberalizing institution, he sees them as carriers of a narrative. A narrative that can just as easily be carried anywhere else.
When Obama looks at the media, he doesn't see Walter Cronkite, he sees a bunch of radios, televisions and newspapers; which these days are little more than footnotes for the internet. There is nothing special about that to him or his cronies. Just mediums that distort his message because he doesn't control them. And so Obama chooses to control every medium he uses.
The Obama media war is good clean fun, but it's also a brief skirmish. Neither side can afford to extend the battle for very long. For the media the scandals will vanish as soon as they hear magic words like “Gun Control” or “Illegal Alien Amnesty”. And for Obama, the war will end when one side or the other blinks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
3a)Scarborough: Feds' Fox News Snooping 'Out of Control'
The Justice Department's secret seizure of phone records from a top Fox News reporter is "disturbing" and suggests the agency is "out of control," Joe Scarborough says.
"It would be one thing if you're monitoring MSNBC's number … but you talk about the Fox News bureau, that's what makes it so damning for this White House," Scarborough said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"This is a Justice Department that seems out of control."
Scarborough compared the Justice Department fingering of Fox reporter James Rosen, who it suggests is a "co-conspirator" for soliciting classified information about North Korea, to the case of Daniel Ellsberg.
"This is Daniel Ellsberg, like, 40 years later," Scarborough said, referring to the military analyst prosecuted for leaking a Pentagon study of Vietnam War strategies to The New York Times in 1971. The charges were later dropped.
"What [Rosen] is doing is what The New York Times had to decide. … Do we go with this information? … What people have to decide year in, year out, as reporters. How far do we push it?
"You always have the White House calling … please don't run with this story right now. There's always that friction."
He said the sheer size of the Pentagon's seizure, which comes on top of its investigation into editors and reporters at the Associated Press, was jolting.
"Five numbers inside Fox News' Washington bureau, numbers inside the White House, 30 phone numbers. Add this on top of the AP. How disturbing can this be to you?'" Scarborough asked.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Palestinians have little faith in Kerry effort
By MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH
Palestinians believe the U.S. effort to restart peace talks is doomed, and they're preparing instead to resume their campaign of seeking membership in key international organizations as soon as next month, officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday.
As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrives on another peace mission, Israel and the Palestinians appear to be as divided as ever over the issue of Israeli settlement building. Without major U.S. pressure on Israel, Palestinians believe the outlook seems bleak.
Kerry's arrival Thursday is the latest in a series of meetings with Israelis and Palestinians over the past two months aimed at getting them back to the negotiating table.
While Palestinians praised Kerry's efforts, they said there has been little progress ahead of what they believe to be a June 7 deadline and said they are already beginning work on a "day-after" strategy.
"We don't have unrealistic expectations. We know the immensity of obstacles," said Hanan Ashrawi, a senior Palestinian official. "If it doesn't work, of course we have our own plans."
Peace negotiations broke down in late 2008 and have remained stalled since then, in large part due to disputes over Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.
The Palestinians claim both areas, as well as the Gaza Strip, for their future state, and say there is no point in negotiating while Israel continues to build Jewish settlements. More than 500,000 Israelis now live in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. Palestinians say that makes it increasingly difficult to share the land with Israel. Israel captured all three territories in 1967, though it withdrew from Gaza in 2005, dismantling its 21 settlements there.
The Palestinians have demanded that Israel freeze settlement construction and accept the pre-1967 lines as the basis of a future border. While previous Israeli leaders have used the 1967 lines as a starting point for talks that failed to produce an accord, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin says negotiations should begin without any preconditions.
When President Barack Obama took office in 2009, he took a tough line against the settlements and prodded Israel into a partial construction freeze. A short-lived round of negotiations quickly collapsed, and Israel refused to extend the freeze. Obama similarly tried unsuccessfully to press Israel into accepting the 1967 lines as a baseline for talks.
Fed up with the impasse and disillusioned with Obama, the Palestinians last fall won recognition from the U.N. General Assembly as a nonmember state, an upgraded diplomatic status that gives them access to key U.N. bodies. The U.S. was one of just eight countries that sided with Israel in opposing the bid.
Israel fears the Palestinians will now seek membership in international agencies to promote an anti-Israel agenda. Its biggest concern is that the Palestinians will try to join the International Criminal Court and press war crimes charges against Israel.
Since taking office this year, Kerry has devoted substantial efforts toward finding a formula to restart negotiations. He is working on a package that would include economic incentives to the Palestinians and confidence-building measures by both sides. In a significant breakthrough, Kerry recently persuaded the 22-member Arab League to renew a decade-old peace offer to Israel, with new incentives aimed at making it more attractive to Israel.
Economic development is a key aspect of Palestinian state building, and the president of the Palestinian national investment fund, Mohammed Mustafa, said hopes are high for Kerry in that regard.
In an interview, Mustafa said the Palestinian economy is in a dire state, with the government $3 billion in debt and unemployment at 23 percent. Among Palestinians ages 20 to 24, the unemployment rate is 40 percent.
"We can't continue like this," he said. "We need an urgent solution."
The Palestinians have long complained that Israeli control over the West Bank has stifled their economy with military checkpoints, travel restrictions and limits on development.
Mustafa said he has presented development proposals to Kerry, including the creation of tourism projects on the Dead Sea, an industrial park and construction of a new Palestinian city. He claimed that foreign investors are prepared to invest, and that the projects could create tens of thousands of jobs.
"I told Kerry that talking about an independent state requires building the economy," he said. "If Kerry's efforts get these projects approved, they will create huge economic gains. But so far there is no indication from the Israeli side."
Palestinian officials said, however, that even the most ambitious economic projects are no substitute for a serious diplomatic process. They say they will not give up their demand that Israel stop building settlements on occupied land.
"Kerry's plan should be a comprehensive one, not just economic and confidence-building measures and security, but also political and legal," Ashrawi said.
Without a breakthrough in the coming weeks, she said the Palestinians have plans to join international organizations. "That would enable us not just to curb Israeli violations, but also to hold Israel accountable," she said.
Palestinian officials say that Kerry has given them a June 7 deadline for finding a framework for talks. American officials say they have never set a formal deadline for Mideast peace talks resuming or any other benchmark being reached.
Concerned that the international community might blame them for the standstill, Palestinian officials are planning a public relations offensive and diplomatic meetings around the world.
Their main points will be to claim their willingness to compromise, based on a 25-year-old policy of recognizing Israel along the 1967 lines, their commitments to meeting past obligations and their acceptance of the renewed Arab peace initiative.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office declined comment ahead of Kerry's visit.
Zalman Shoval, an unofficial adviser to the prime minister, said it is the Palestinians who are preventing peace talks from resuming. "The Palestinians unfortunately created a situation from the very beginning that Secretary Kerry's initiative has no chance at the present time," Shoval said.
He said Israel and the U.S share the view that negotiations should begin without preconditions, but the Palestinians are refusing to resume talks unless their demands are met first.
4a)UN Health Assembly Slams Israel: Syria decries "inhuman Israeli practices"
The annual assembly of the UN's World Health Organization today adopted a resolution criticizing Israel -- in the organization's only debate on a specific country -- with Syria protesting "inhuman Israeli practices" that target "the health of Syrian citizens.” Click here for links to documents.
The WHO resolution against Israel was not yet published, but was likely a copy of last year's condemnation.
Observers of the world body in Geneva said the annual hypocrisy nevertheless reached a new low this year.
"To see the Assad regime point the finger at Israel out of professed concern for the health of Syrians is, frankly, a sick joke," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, a non-governmental monitoring group accredited to the UN.
"They've slaughtered 80,000 of their own people, and are now busy destroying the lives of millions more. The real question is this: Why is the UN allowing mass murderers to deflect attention from their crimes by scapegoating democracies?"
"A world health assembly should be about Hippocrates, not hypocrisy," said Neuer.
Syria's report expressed concern that “the health conditions of the Syrian population in the occupied Golan continue to deteriorate, as a result of the suppressive practices of the Israeli occupation.”
Out of 25 agenda items on the WHO's conference agenda, all but one address global themes.
The exception, today's Item No. 20 -- entitled "Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan" -- turned a spotlight on one specific country: Israel. No other country in the world -- not Mexico, Russia, Syria, or anywhere else -- is treated this way.
Despite what's being said at the UN, the Palestinians' own health minister recentlyacknowledged Israel's extensive medical care for Palestinian children and its training of Palestinians doctors.
The UN debate also failed to mention that only last week, an Israeli hospital saved the life of a four-year-old Syrian girl, in a successful operation for a deadly heart condition.
What we heard at the UN today was political fiction, not science.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)
Paranoid or Prescient?
Government is now so huge, powerful and callous that citizens risk becoming proverbial serfs without the freedoms guaranteed by the Founders.
Is that perennial fear an exaggeration? Survey the current news.
We have just learned that the Internal Revenue Service before the 2012 election predicated its tax-exempt policies on politics. It inordinately denied tax exemption to groups considered either conservative or possibly antagonistic to the president's agenda.
If the supposedly nonpartisan IRS is perceived as scoring our taxes based on our politics, then the entire system of trust in self-reporting is rendered null and void. Worse still, the bureaucratic overseer at the center of the controversy, Sarah Hall Ingram, now runs the IRS division charged with enforcing compliance with the new Obamacare requirements.
Recently, some reporters at the Associated Press had their private and work phone records monitored by the government, supposedly because of fear about national-security leaks. The Justice Department gave the AP no chance, as usually happens, first to question its own journalists. The AP ran a story in May 2012 about the success of a Yemeni double agent before the administration itself could brag about it.
In fact, the Obama White House itself has been accused of leaking classified information deemed favorable to the administration -- top-secret details concerning the Stuxnet computer virus used against Iran, the specifics of the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound, and the decision-making behind the drone program -- often to favored journalists. The message is clear: A reporter may have his most intimate work and private correspondence turned over to government -- a Fox News journalist had his email account tapped into -- on the mere allegation that he might have tried to do what his own government had in fact already done.
Now, the civil rights divisions of the Department of Education and the Department of Justice have issued new speech codes for campuses, focusing on supposed gender insensitivities. The result is that federal bureaucrats can restrict the constitutionally protected rights of free speech for millions of American college students -- including during routine classroom discussions -- in ways they feel are proper and correct.
Eight months after the Benghazi mess, Americans only now are discovering that the government, for political reasons, failed to beef up security at our Libyan consulate or send it help when under attack. It also lied in blaming the violence on a spontaneous demonstration prompted by an Internet video. That pre-election narrative was known to be untrue when the president, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney all pedaled it.
The problem with an all-powerful, rogue government is not just that it becomes quite adept at doing what it should not. Increasingly, it also cannot even do what it should.
Philadelphia abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell may well turn out to be the most lethal serial murder in U.S. history. His recent murder conviction gave only a glimpse of his carnage at the end of a career that spanned more than three decades. Yet Gosnell operated with impunity right under the noses of Pennsylvania health and legal authorities for years, without routine government health code and licensing oversight.
In the case of Boston terrorist bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, his loud jihadist activity earned him a visit from the FBI, and the attention of both the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security. But all that government monitoring was for naught. Tsarnaev was not detained, but allowed to visit Dagestan and Chechnya -- both located in the supposedly dangerous region that prompted his family's flight to the U.S. in the first place.
In all of these abuses and laxities there is one common theme. Bureaucrats, political appointees, regulators, intelligence officials and law enforcement personnel wanted to fall in line with the perceived correct agenda of the day. Right now, that party line seems to be protecting the progressive interests of the Obama administration, going after its critics, turning a blind eye toward illegal abortions, in politically correct fashion ignoring warnings about radical Islam, and restricting some rights of free speech to curtail language declared potentially hurtful.
Conspiracists, left and right, are sometimes understandably derided as paranoids for alleging that Big Government steadily absorbs the private sector, taps private communications, targets tax filers it doesn't like, and lies to the people about what it is up to. The only missing theme of such classic paranoia is the perennial worry over the right to bear arms.
I went to several sporting goods stores recently to buy commonplace rifle shells. For the first time in my life, there were none to be found. Can widespread shortages of ammunition be attributed to panic buying or production shortfalls caused by inexplicably massive purchases by the Department of Homeland Security at a time of acrimonious debate over the Second Amendment?
Who knows, but yesterday's wacky conspiracist is becoming today's Nostradamus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment