“ELYSIUM” — Hollywood Describes Socialist Dystopia — and doesn’t even know it

January 1, 2014

Okay, I admit it — I rented “Elysium.” It’s supposed to be science fiction, so I thought I’d like it, but there isn’t a lot of science, except for political science. It’s mostly a lame attempt at socialist propaganda, but it winds up being, accidentally, a fairly accurate portrayal of a socialist dystopia.

I found myself looking at ruined, impoverished Earth, and thinking, “Oh, look! The Democrats and Muslims took over the world, and now the whole planet is a toxic blend of Detroit and a Palestinian refugee camp. That’s totally believable.”

That was the the last, believable thread of the whole story concept, and the irony of it was absolutely unintentional. My overtaxed willful suspension of disbelief snapped right after that.

Next, there’s the alleged “science” in this propaganda piece. What technology could stuff the energy to take one of those “Aliens”-era shuttles from a dead stop to escape velocity (18,000+ mph) in the thickness of Earth’s atmosphere (all without smearing the occupants all over the back end with the acceleration and incinerating them against atmospheric friction), but couldn’t make every inhabitant of Earth rich beyond his wildest dreams?

What technology could put a magical wellness and tanning bed in every house on Elysium, but not a single one on poor, ole’ proletarian Earth? That’s not a science-based decision; it’s a political one — one Communist elites have made for their vaunted working classes in every Socialist People’s Paradise ever built.

In the best Communist tradition, the best health care is reserved for the party members, and the proles get the dilapidated, dirty, “Los Angeles County Public Hospital,” with its “matured Obamacare” health-care horror show. Oh, sorry — it was “Hospital Publico de la Condad de Los Angeles.” Spanish is the language of poverty, on Planet Kabul/Detroit.

What sort of Hollywood-based cultural bias does that reveal, and where do we go to get an apology for it?

Only Communism could spread poverty over a whole planet, isolate a ruling class in space, literally and metaphorically above the “Proletariat,” and want to preserve that status at all costs.

Only lame-ass Hollywood writers would steal the Ringworld concept from Larry Niven, and trash it with a simple-minded and physically-impossible interpretation. But, hey, the writers are probably Commies, too, so what’s a little intellectual property expatriation to them? Larry Niven didn’t build that!

Well, yeah, he DID build it. And HE got it right.

Lame-ass writing. Lame-ass actors. ELYSIUM is a lame-ass movie.

DEFUND OBAMACARE, or Kiss the Constitution Goodbye — A Letter to My Senators

July 25, 2013

Senator ___________,

I have no idea if you are thinking in these terms, but it is apparent to me that the Obama Administration intends to render the Legislative Branch irrelevant, thus destroying the Constitutional principle of Separation of Powers.

Building on the Administration’s refusal to enforce DOMA, and continuing with the refusal of the Justice Department to indict the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation, the President has now arrogated the power to decide which portions of the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) will be enforced, and on which citizens and organizations.

The next opportunity — and quite possibly the last one — for the Legislative Branch to fight back against irrelevancy in the processes of government, will come in the vote on the coming Continuing Resolution (CR) on the budget, at the end of the current fiscal year, on September 30.

Any member of the House or Senate who votes for a Continuing Resolution that includes funds for Obamacare, will, in effect, be voting to cede the responsibility to write law to the Executive Branch. Any member who does so will thus be violating the portion of his or her oath of office that obligates members to support and defend the Constitution.

For your convenience, the Oath of Office is reproduced below, as listed on the U. S. Senate Website:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm

In addition to this symbolic act, the members who vote for a CR that funds Obamacare will be contributing materially to the destruction of the United States as we know it, and opening the door to a government that is no longer a representative republic, but is an autocracy, run by judges and bureaucrats.

The position of “legislator” will be reduced to that of an irrelevant, impotent actor on the order of a member of the former Soviet Duma.

No Member of Congress, of either party, who votes for this or any measure that results on the funding of Obamacare deserves to serve in Congress.

I respectfully request that you commit explicitly and publicly against any vote or procedural measure in the US Senate which would result, directly or indirectly, in any taxpayer funds going to Obamacare.

Respectfully,

[etc.]

Perfection Is Unnecessary; It’s the Constitution That Counts

March 10, 2013

Forgive me if I’ve restated the obvious, or RE-restated the obvious that has already been stated recently, but I want to emphasize that

(1) No candidate is perfect; and

(2) A perfect candidate is not necessary.

Government is an aggregate effect, as is an economy. An economy is the aggregate effect of millions of millions of individual transactions (or refusals to transact). A government is the aggregate effect of millions of laws, regulations court decisions, bureaucratic actions or inactions, law enforcement actions and decisions, and abuse and neglect at all levels, including in the  decisions, or the lack thereof, of individual citizens and non-citizens, voters and non-voters.

A perfect president is desirable, but not required. A perfect legislator is desirable, but not required. A perfect judge is desirable, but not required. If.

If we have a Congress whose majority understood and respected the Constitution, NO president could get away with what presidents have been getting away with for the last hundred years, or so.

If we have a lazy Congress whose goal seems to be making itself irrelevant to the operation of government, as Congresses have appeared to be for that same, hundred-year interval, an extremely disciplined, Constitutional president might temper or even thwart the negligence and corruption of a Congress.

Either a Constitutional Congress, or a Constitutional president, could thwart or reverse an overreaching federal judiciary.

That is the lasting beauty of our checks-and-balances system — if and when it is applied.

If the aggregate legislator, judge and chief executive are Constitutionalists, the evil or stupidity of a few individuals is cancelled out by the actions of the whole.

To get a Constitutional government, and keep it, requires a vocal, relentless and determinedly Constitutional electorate. The aggregate effect of a Constitutional electorate outweighs the efforts of the stupid and corrupt few — or, of the corrupt many, if the Constitutionalists are sufficiently relentless and vocal.

Again, forgive me for any redundancy, or for re-stating the obvious, but there it is. Perfection in government is unnecessary, if the aggregate effect is Constitutional, and if the aggregate voter keeps it that way.

Warm and Fuzzy versus Fangs and Venom — Predators Know the Difference.

December 17, 2012
Coyote_arizonaWikipediaC1

Coyotes prefer prey WITHOUT fangs and venom, thank you, very much.

Rabbit_in_montana

Coyotes, the media and Progressive elites — pragmatic predators all — prefer THESE as prey…

Rattlesnake_Dance_01

… Over THESE, as prey, although both are edible. Do we know WHY?
Yes, we do, even if the wizards in the media-government complex do not.

Just as a hungry coyote understands the important difference between a rabbit and a rattlesnake, a would-be armed robber, or a glory-seeking spree killer, understands the difference between a victim who may be armed, and one who certainly is not.

Both the rabbit and the rattler can be eaten, but preying on rattlers involves considerably more risk than preying on rabbits. Why? Fangs and venom, that’s why. A coyote or a human predator that chooses the wrong prey is more likely to end up floating, face-down, in the gene pool.

There has been supportive chatter in the media-government complex  for decades, on the efforts of the UN and American “Progressives” to  get small arms out of the hands of individuals, and make them a government monopoly.

The media tend to chide Americans who cherish their Second Amendment right, for being afraid the UN wants to take away “their deer rifles.” Silly Second Amendment types! All the UN is concerned about, the editorials say, is “rocket launchers and machine guns.”

Of course, that’s a lie. The UN, whose membership is composed mainly of tin-horn dictatorships and bankrupt, socialist dis-utopias, and the Progressives, who cherish their own safety enough to hire armed bodyguards, want to relieve all of us of all of our firearms, down to the last pellet gun and antique flintlock. It’s for our own good, right?

Hardly.

The UN’s problem is that an armed populace is a terrible inconvenience to a would-be despot. Armed citizens may not go along with certain kinds of government excesses, such as pogroms, purges, gulags, concentration camps and slavery.

Armed citizens introduce an element of risk and expense to such ventures that discourages governments from undertaking them. Beneath their veneer of compassion and care for our collective safety, the Progressives share the UN’s concerns.

Armed citizens are also a nuisance to the dictator next door, whose stupid policies have wasted all his country’s resources. He must now prey on his neighbors to satisfy his needs, and “reallocating their resources” may be difficult, if his neighbors are armed. Charitable by nature, perhaps, they may not share the great leader’s vision for their future. Their privately-owned weapons may frustrate their acquisitive neighbors’ plans long enough for regular military forces to show up and end them altogether.

On a much smaller scale, armed citizens are also a nuisance to the individual predator, who dislikes assuming the risk of attacking a crowd of rabbits, only to find that one or more of them has hidden rattlesnake fangs and venom, and the will and skill to use them in his defense, or in defense of innocents around him.

America’s founders understood this principle of nature (and of human nature), and built the individual right to be armed into our Constitution.

Coyotes, armed robbers and dictators understand this principle.

Someone, please explain it to the nation’s media-government complex, and to our Progressive elite.

Citizenship Is More Than Voting. It’s a Full-Time Job

October 26, 2012

My First Voting machine (Wikipedia)

Our failure in the last 3+ elections was the lack of follow-through by voters. Our mistake was assuming that government can govern itself, like an autopilot we could set for a destination, and go back about our business. We were spectacularly wrong, and we are now seeing what happens when government unrestrained becomes not just incompetent and stupid, but overtly hostile and aggressive toward its own citizens.

A Romney administration will have to be stung repeatedly by popular reactions that dwarf the vehemence and strength of the anti-amnesty campaign that made political whores like John McCain wonder where the truck came from that had just run over them. With alternative media and the Internet, we CAN make that happen.

It will be an interruption of our “normal” lives, but living those normal lives was what got us here. Normalcy has to stop, or we are looking at the end of American history, and the beginning of something else — something ugly, toxic and terminal. If we choose “normal” life over passionate, continuous involvement, we deserve the consequences of that choice.

Punch-type voting machine (Remember “hanging chads”?)

One Blog, One Vote. Not Wasting It.

August 31, 2012

I’m following the comments on the conservative blogs and social media since the Republican National Convention, and I see two, diverging threads of interest.

One is cautiously optimistic that Romney WILL actually be better for the future of the USA than four more years of Obamanation.

The other sees no differences between them, and sees the choice as binary — either Obama OR Romney — is a false choice. Somehow, they believe, voting for a third-party candidate, or sitting out the presidential race, or even sitting out the whole election, is the only honorable and/or Godly choice. Romney is simply too flawed to be worthy of their votes.

I can identify strongly with portions of both threads, but the appeal of the sitting-it-out option for me is purely emotional, and I’m over it. I was angry about the selection process that gave us Romney, but hardly surprised. The same backstage manipulators that gave us McCain were responsible for giving us Romney, and I’m angry about that, too.

Anger, however, is a dangerous motivation for any decision, but especially for deciding how, or whether, to vote, and especially dangerous this time around.

Alan Keyes, whom I admire and respect, seems firmly convinced that Romney is evil, and only trivially different from Obama. He thinks voting for Romney “just” to keep Obama from a second term is tantamount to selling his soul. Others, friends whose opinions I take seriously, believe that, as well, to one degree or another.

A subset of the above group think Romney is just this election’s John McCain, but I think John McCain was not only a RINO, but an abysmal candidate for President. He may have been able to convince enough Arizonans over the last hundred years to keep him in the Senate, but he was either utterly inept at running for the presidency, or actively defeating himself at every turn, because he couldn’t have done a worse job of running for president if he really didn’t want to be president.

Either way, Romney is far better as a candidate. At least that is my current assessment, based on his acceptance speech at the RNC and his actions in the first day after that.

Having vacillated in 2008 between Joseph Farah’s “None of the Above” position, and writing in Alan Keyes because I could not bring myself to vote for McCain, and because there was no way in Hell I was going to vote for Obama, I finally settled on writing-in Keyes. I don’t regret that vote, because McCain was, and is, as sleazy and success-driven a politician as Obama, but with more history to prove it.

Contrary to what some of my Republican friends say, I have no faith that McCain would have been a better president that Obama has been. Where Obama is ideologically driven to do whatever is worst for America, I believe John McCain would have done whatever his sycophants and manipulators could persuade him to do, and he was as much a chump for the global warming scams and other liberal pretexts for grabbing power, and for establishment Republican “inclusiveness” and “compassionate conservatism” scams as any RINO, and as most out-front Liberals.

While his motivations might have been portrayed as noble, his results would have differed only in degree from those of Obama. If McCain could rationalize any decision with his imaginary legacy, or his chances at re-election, or that coveted chairman-emeritus spot on some tax-money-laundering “non-profit” foundation, he would have done so, and the Constitution, “quote-Conservatives-unquote,”  and his country could be damned.

Any reasoned comparison between McCain and Romney will go in favor of Romney, but, who cares?  Romney isn’t running against McCain. McCain isn’t running, Gingrich isn’t running, Bachmann isn’t running, Cain isn’t running, and Santorum isn’t running.

Ron Paul is running, as always. But it doesn’t matter, because he is a reptile with not more than one view or belief in a hundred in common with me, so he might as well not be running. Ron Paul zealots did their best to steal the nomination, and failed spectacularly. It was a pratfall-on-a-banana-peel, slapstick failure – one that would embarrass into silence and self-imposed obscurity anyone capable of embarrassment.

I now know what another four years of Obama would bring, and I see voting for him, not voting, or voting for a write-in or third-party candidate as an absolute betrayal of my country.

With the huge effort at vote fraud Obama and his troops will undertake, and have already undertaken, including registering illegal aliens, registering dead and non-existent voters, busing union stooges from one polling place to another to vote multiple times, forging and mass-producing fraudulent absentee and early ballots, the living, legitimate voters may be outnumbered. (That isn’t hyperbole. In more than one precinct in 2008, actual votes cast outnumbered registered voters significantly. Vote fraud is a Democrat industry. Fraudulent votes are the one commodity they produce on a regular basis.)

I will be casting my one, legal vote for Romney.

Arithmetic is relentlessly non-ideological, and absolutely dispassionate. My one, legal vote for Romney will require two votes for Obama from the dead, and/or cartoon characters, and/or union thugs, and/or incarcerated felons, and/or illegal aliens, to put him back in the lead.

One vote is all I have, and I’ll be damned (with apologies to my friends who think I will be jeopardizing my soul) if I’ll give Obama even the slightest advantage by wasting it.

Girls, Beware — Mohammed’s Boys Will Be Boys

August 24, 2012

Those trademark Islamic fashion accessories, the burqa, the hijab  and the niqab, are a strong hint that “prophet” Mohammed believed Muslim men to be barely civilized human beings. He was clearly convinced that his fellow Muslim males and their male offspring, and their offspring in perpetuity, were doomed to be feral creatures, possessing only a veneer of civilization, and by their very nature, unable to restrain their savage impulses to commit rape, in the presence of any sexual provocation, real or imagined.

Yes, Mohammed set the bar for Muslim men’s behavior toward women that low. I didn’t.

Don’t take my word for it. Check the ahadith, faithful recordings of the acts and sayings of Mohammed, as witnessed by his contemporaries, and gathered over centuries by authoritative Islamic scholars.

Book 32, Number 4092:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:

Asma, daughter of AbuBakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) turned his attention from her. He said: O Asma’, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this, and he pointed to her face and hands.

Even the mere presence in the same room of a Muslim man and a woman who is not his wife, sister or mother may trigger an irresistible rape impulse in the superficially-civilized Muslim male, according to the hadith:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 250:

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

That he heard the Prophet saying, “It is not permissible for a man to be alone with a woman, and no lady should travel except with a Muhram (i.e. her husband or a person whom she cannot marry in any case for ever; e.g. her father, brother, etc.).” Then a man got up and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have enlisted in the army for such-and-such Ghazwa and my wife is proceeding for Hajj.” Allah’s Apostle said, “Go, and perform the Hajj with your wife.”

Maybe we should take Mohammed’s word for it, and treat Muslim males accordingly. Mohammed, after all, is the standard against which all Muslims are to be compared, and not just in the Seventh Century, but today, and forever, because his example and his teachings are eternal, according to him and the authoritative Muslim scholars.

Perhaps during this year’s Democratic National Convention, we should direct the attention of Western feminists and other Cultural Marxists, who share Islam’s disdain for Western culture, to this “feature” of Muslim men — or at least of those who follow Mohammed’s example – the real Muslim men.

Modern Western women’s fashions are likely to be an irresistible provocation to the irrepressible, animal instincts of Muslim men, who cannot be held accountable for the resulting sexual aggression and violence toward those women.

After all, those Western women have brought it upon themselves, by going out among men not their husbands, sons or brothers, and without covering everything but “face and hands.”

Those Muslim boys just can’t help themselves. Mohammed said so.

College Degree? Great. What Can You DO?

August 23, 2012

Any pug can go to college, but don’t bet on impressing employers unless you can do something they need.

As a college-educated retiree, I can tell you that a four-year college degree is not now, and for decades has not been, a reliable path to high-paying employment.

The scandal of tuition inflation (fueled in part by government subsidies) is only compounded by the lack of capacity for independent research and analytical thinking a typical graduate has when the cap and gown get tossed into the closet, and the grad gets tossed into the job market.

(To be fair, most of them enter college without those skills, or with those skills seriously underdeveloped, because their K-12 public education has concentrated on sociopolitical indoctrination at the expense of basic skills — reading, writing, math, reasoning and research.)

The rapid pace of change in Information Technology, and its pervasive effect at every level of everyday life, certainly changing the way business is done, means that a specific skill set that is in demand halfway through a college student’s four-year education track, and which may influence his choice of major, may well be obsolete by the time that same student graduates.

In fact, a technology in high demand when this year’s crop of freshmen graduate from college in 2017, may not even have a name, now, much less a defined curriculum that makes a grad attractive to a prospective employer. How many incoming freshmen in the fall of 2007 thought they should be learning how to write smart phone apps?

While the four-year graduate is still flying a touch-screen cash register for Apu, at the Springfield Kwik-E-Mart, living in Mom’s basement, and wondering where the money to pay his hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans is coming from, his more-adaptive contemporary, a student who left college in his sophomore year – or even with high-school diploma – has entered the job market with the ability to adapt as the job market changes, and to TEACH HIMSELF new skills ,as well as to absorb new developments in his existing skills.

By the time the “dropout” is a successful entrepreneur, or well up the ladder in a thriving business, the college grad will just be showing up on his doorstep, asking for an entry-level job, and not bringing much to recommend him. And, his student loan payments will still be due.
While he works nights in Apu’s emporium, he will need to struggle through some shady online college, incurring even more student loan debt,  and hope that he can use those skills before they go obsolete, to make better money, someday.

 
“So, you’ve got a BA in Poly Sci, with a minor in Women’s Lit? Great. Set me up for $30 on Pump 4, will ya? Is that coffee fresh?”

Kwik-E-Mart

“So, college grad, huh? Hang up that cap and gown, and get me some coffee.” (Photo Courtesy of The Simpsons at Wikipedia — Thanks, Apu!)

Hard Choices Versus Bad Choices — There IS a Difference

August 10, 2012
Image

Do I take my chances on the fire escape, jump to my death, or quietly barbeque when the fire gets there? I’m trying the fire escape. (Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.)

Here’s what I think about having to vote for Romney:

I can just throw myself out the window of my burning, ninth-floor hotel room, arriving with a splash on the pavement, or on the hood of some unlucky illegal alien’s cab.

I can try the rickety-looking fire escape, MAYBE making it to the ground at less than the speed dictated by the acceleration of gravity on a falling body, MAYBE living another day.

OR,  I can wait for the fire to cook me alive.

Rotten choice? Hell, yes.

Hard choice? Hell, no. I’m trying the fire escape — Romney 2012.

It’s About Time for a Reichstag Fire

July 10, 2012

The Reichstag burns, and Hitler decides “no crisis should go to waste.”

One of several reasons I am frequently annoyed with Glenn Beck, is his obsessive penchant for admonishing his listeners to disavow violence, utterly and unconditionally.

While I think I understand his motivation – to avoid giving the Obama administration any pretext to violence to “restore order” – I tire of the implication in Beck’s admonitions that his position is morally superior to that of ordinary citizens who acknowledge a rational limit to their willingness to submit to coercion from Muslims, Occupiers, union thugs or any other pressure group used by the Left as a weapon against us. .

It was obviously very important to Beck to discourage his listeners from any impulse to gather up the “pitchforks and torches” and march up to the Frankenstein castle, demanding that the authorities hand over the monster. I excused that the first few times, but after a few dozen, I started to resent the implication that I was some volatile, redneck Timothy-McVeigh-type who was a hair’s breadth from taking up arms in violent insurrection

I have not been recruited into revolutionary violence by Glenn Beck, McVeigh, or anyone else. I do not feel on the verge of becoming a serial killer, a guerrilla, a bandito, or a freedom fighter, toting RPGs and EIDs.

Thanks for caring, though, Glenn.

I do not, however, ignore the possibility that the Obama regime may metastasize on very short notice from a wanna-be socialist utopia to an iron-fisted, Communist dictatorship.

The magnificent socialist utopian experiments of the 1900s killed more people and wasted more wealth and resources in a single century than all the socio-political systems tried in all the rest of recorded history (with the possible exception of the first thousand years of political Islam – accurate stats on that are hard to come by). There is no reason to believe that this latest bunch of unaccountable, self-righteous, arrogant ideologues would do any less damage than their failed predecessors.

That would not keep them from trying, of course.

But, really, what makes anyone think an armed uprising among some serious believers on the Right would be necessary to provide the pretext for an Obama dictatorship? Have you not read about the Reichstag Fire?

One man could do it.

A lone Dutchman, Marinus van der Lubbe, was caught at the scene of the Reichstag fire, confessed, and described in detail his procedure for spreading fire in the old structure. British intelligence agent Denis Sefton Delmer,  wrote that he was on the scene at that fire in 1933. He reports reports his conclusion that van der Lubbe was plausibly the lone arsonist responsible for the destruction of the historic German parliament building. Delmer says senior fire investigators reenacted the attack following van der Lubber’s detailed account, and found that one man could have quite easily done the deed. Other evidence gathered after the fire tended to support the “lone arsonist” theory.

The truth became less and less important, even before the smoke cleared. The Nazis pounced on the event to accuse the Communists of committing the attack as the signal to begin a concerted, premeditated terror campaign, including “dynamiting, incendiarism and mass murder” all over the country.

The Soviet Communists fabricated and spread legends to convince the public that in the immediate aftermath of the fire, the building had been found to be crawling with Nazi Stormtroopers, who were supposed to have spread the fire so quickly, and, implausibly, hung around to watch it burn. Delmer, under his cover as a reporter in that period before open conflict between Britain and Germany, asserts that he entered the building in the wake of Hitler and his entourage as soon as the fire was under control, and that there were no Stormtroopers in evidence.

None of the Communists’ efforts to capitalize on the event  mattered, either, because Hitler and Goering, his adroit propaganda minister, successfully used the event to persuade the Germans to give the Nazis extraordinary authority over them — only for the duration of the emergency, of course – which his party used to round up the Communists and any other opposing political leadership, and to curtail free speech and opposition political activity nation-wide.

Hitler only had to invoke the Germans’ historic animosity toward Russia to justify his “conclusion” that the Soviet Communist political apparatus was on the verge of attempting a coup d’état. That van der Lubbe was a different brand of Communist – one with lasting hostility toward the Soviets – mattered not at all. The Germans reacted by allowing Hitler to stage his own coup d’état, without firing a shot. The Third Reich, and the War of Revenge, The Great Patriotic War, or World War II — depending on the version of history by which you choose to describe it – followed shortly.

History, as is often repeated, has a way of repeating itself. If the history presented by Mr. Delmer is accurate, one man, a small cadre, a group of government agents or, say, some “community organizers” could light the American Reichstag Fire, if the benefits seem to outweigh the risks, or – just for a bit of evil fun. The key factor in the succession of events isn’t the exact nature of the initial act, but the reaction to it by authority, and the willingness of the media to question or swallow the “official” explanation that best fits the political agenda.

With people such as Rahm Emanuel in positions of influence in the Obama White House, it’s unlikely that Emanuel’s maxim that, “[y]ou never want a serious crisis to go to waste” would be ignored for long.

All it takes is a crisis – real, imagined or staged. Is our Reichstag Fire smoldering at this moment?

Does it even have to be a “man-made disaster? Nope. How about a natural one that affects most of the country, like a New Madrid earthquake that crumbles every bridge over the Mississippi, or a huge solar flare that wipes out the national electrical infrastructure? Neither event would be unprecedented. Nature has served this continent both dishes before.

And, if nature won’t step up and provide a “serious crisis,” how about the Iranians, with their “peaceful” nuclear power, that, for some reason, requires the parallel development of Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs)? Those wacky, nuclear North Koreans can’t be counted out, either.

If so, then what?

Glenn, Rush and Sean will disappear from the airwaves, and we “sick, twisted freaks” will be on our own.

The Obama goons will exert whatever power they have, and the competing factions among them (Brotherhood Muslims vs. Communists vs. Old Left vs. Black Muslims vs. foreign agents and sleeper cells, etc…) will jump at the chance to flex their muscles, jockeying for position, with one eye on owning the ruins when the smoke clears.

The First Tuesday after the First Monday in November is right around the corner.  Will we have an election?

It forces one to think the unthinkable, doesn’t it?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.