Friday, September 28, 2012
Barker's Newsbites: Friday, September 28, 2012
Today's musical interlude...
(*WINK*)
So... did you catch all of yesterday's newsbites, folks? My advice? Make sure you do.
Mary and I are headin' up to Boston later today so newsbites will be a bit abbreviated today and there'll be no weekend newsbites.
Anyway... have a great weekend, everyone!
Thursday, September 27, 2012
By the way...
This "Rob" who I off and on rant "to"...
He's a friend. A real person. "His" name may or may not be "Rob." Indeed... "he" may well be a "she."
"Rob" is a busy guy...gal...guy..girl... er... person.
He/she doesn't have time to "play" here on my blog.
In a sense ALL of my newsbites are "conversations." I use them to inform and comment. Sometimes I address the reporters/editors/pundits by name during newsbiting... usually I don't. (But since I always provide links... they're always identifiable - except where the reporting has no byline.)
Anyway... my point... don't take the "tone" as anything besides what it is - my writing style. (And, yeah... my face to face style as well - for good or ill.)
For a variety of reasons I don't get much feedback here at my blog. I do get a fair amount of hits. Many are no doubt random views. But I do have my regulars.
(*SMILE*)
Most of my regulars are... er... important... important in the sense that they have public personae to safeguard; professional reputations to keep clean. (Heck... a few have federal security clearances!)
Agreeing with some of my more... er... "robustly stated" contentions publicly might well cause some of my regulars "problems" of one sort or another down the road.
Even disagreeing with me here requires... er... creating a public record which could come back to haunt someone. (Hey... there's a reason lawyers tell their clients to keep their friggin' mouths shut!)
Anyway... just wanted to make clear that what might seem to the casual reader an "attack" on "Rob" is really more of me thinking out loud and continuing real conversations that he/she and I have had.
I Recommend Reading Today's "Newsbite #3" Prior to Reading This Stand-Alone
Taken from today's Wall Street Journal
Yet another stand-alone newsbite on the Libyan "incident" of 9/11/12:
In his United Nations speech on Tuesday, President Obama
talked about the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and
declared that "there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in
tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice."
FOLKS... DID YOU READ THE PREVIOUS NEWSBITE? (ENOUGH
SAID.)
What he didn't say is how relentless he'll be in tracking
down the security lapses and intelligence failures that contributed to the
murders.
None of the initial explanations offered by the White
House and State Department since the assault on the Benghazi consulate has held
up.
BUT, HEY... THEY'VE BEEN GOOD ENOUGH FOR MY BUDDY ROB
SO FAR - GO FIGURE!
First the Administration blamed protests provoked by an
amateurish anti-Islam clip posted on YouTube. Cue Susan Rice, the U.N.
Ambassador and leading candidate for Secretary of State in a second Obama term:
"What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction . . . as a
consequence of the video, that people gathered outside the embassy and then it
grew very violent."
IF NOT A LIE... THAN INCOMPETENCE. RIGHT? THE PROBLEM
WITH GIVING MS. RICE "THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT" IS THAT I CERTAINLY
KNEW SHE WASN'T MAKING AN ACCURATE STATEMENT. WHY DIDN'T SHE...? (AND ASSUMING
"SIMPLE" INCOMPETENCE IS THE BEST CASE SCENARIO, ROB.)
Administration officials also maintained that the
diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt, the site of the first attacks this
September 11, were properly defended and that the U.S. had no reason to prepare
for any attack.
ROB. IT WAS 9/11. ISN'T THAT REASON ENOUGH ALONE - ALL
BY ITSELF - TO INCREASE SECURITY FOR THE DAY? ISN'T THAT ENOUGH TO TRIGGER
COMMON SENSE "PREPARATION" FOR A WORST-CASE SCENARIO?
"The office of the director of National Intelligence
has said we have no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in
Benghazi was planned or imminent," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said
last week...
ROB... THE AMBASSADOR HIMSELF FELT HIMSELF TO BE AN
AT-RISK TARGET. (REMEMBER, BUDDY... OBAMA AND CLINTON DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE
DIARY - LET ALONE ENVISION IT'S CONTENTS BEING MADE PUBLIC.)
...calling the security measures in place there "robust."
ROB... "ROBUST...???" REALLY...?!?!
Cell phone video footage and witness testimony from
Benghazi soon undercut the Administration trope of an angry march
"hijacked" by a few bad people. As it turned out, the assault was
well-coordinated, with fighters armed with guns, RPGs and diesel canisters,
which were used to set the buildings on fire. Ambassador Chris Stevens died of
smoke inhalation. Briefing Congress, the Administration changed its story and
said the attacks were pre-planned and linked to al Qaeda.
RIGHT? TRUE? (BUT HERE'S THE THING, ROB... WHY DID THEY
HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR STORY IN THE FIRST PLACE? WHY DIDN'T THEY KNOW WHAT THE
FOREIGN MEDIA KNEW... WHAT LIBYAN OFFICIALS KNEW... WHAT WILLIAM R. BARKER KNEW
(THANKS TO SIMPLY READING OPEN-SOURCE SOURCES)?
AGAIN... BEST CASE... INCOMPETENCE. (BUT IT SURE STILL
LOOKS LIKE A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT EARLY ON TO SHIFT BLAME... TO SHIFT FOCUS AND
ATTENTION... (AND WHO COULD BLAME THEM FOR TAKING THE BET THAT THEY COULD GET
AWAY WITH IT? PERHAPS THEY WERE CONFIDENT THE LIBYAN AUTHORITIES WOULD BACK
THEIR PLAY? PERHAPS THEY COUNTED ON THEIR ALLIES IN THE MSM TO PROTECT THEM AND
NOT "GO OFF THE RESERVATION" LIKE CNN HAS DONE.) NO, BUD... I DON'T
HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS... BUT I'M CERTAINLY LOOKING AT ALL THIS THE SAME WAY I
WOULD IF IT WERE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OR A ROMNEY ADMINISTRATION.
(*SHRUG*)
You'd think this admission would focus attention on why
the compound was so vulnerable to begin with.
I KNOW, ROB... I KNOW... IT WAS A CONSULATE, NOT AN
EMBASSY. GRANTED! SO LET'S SUBSTITUTE FOR "COMPOUND" THE WORD...
"AMBASSADOR." WHY WAS ANY AMERICAN AMBASSADOR ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD SO
OUT OF CONTACT AND RELATIVELY UNPROTECTED ON 9/11?
(*TWIDDLING MY THUMBS*)
The removal of all staff from Benghazi, including a large
component of intelligence officers, would also seem to hinder their ability to
investigate the attacks and bring the killers to justice.
YEP. TO ME IT WOULD. HOW'BOUT TO YOU...?
Journalists have stayed on the case, however, and their
reporting is filling in the Administration's holes.
AND, YET... YOU DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY.
(*SHRUG*)
On Friday, our WSJ colleagues showed that starting in
spring, U.S. intelligence had been worried about radical militias in eastern
Libya. These armed groups helped topple Moammar Ghadhafi last year but weren't
demobilized as a new government has slowly found its legs.
Deteriorating security was no secret. On April 10, for
example, an explosive device was thrown at a convoy carrying U.N. envoy Ian
Martin. On June 6, an improvised explosive device exploded outside the U.S.
consulate. In late August, State warned American citizens who were planning to
travel to Libya about the threat of assassinations and car bombings.
ROB. UNLESS YOU BELIEVE THAT ALL THESE ARE RIGHT-WING WSJ
LIES... CAN YOU UNDERSTAND WHY I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DON'T SEE WHAT I SEE
(AND HAVE SEEN ALL ALONG) SO CLEARLY?
Despite all this, U.S. diplomatic missions had minimal
security. Officials told the Journal that the Administration put too much faith
in weak Libyan police and military forces. The night of the Benghazi attack,
four lightly armed Libyans and five American security officers were on duty.
The complex lacked smoke-protection masks and fire extinguishers. Neither the
consulate in Benghazi nor the embassy in Tripoli were guarded by U.S. Marines,
whose deployment to Libya wasn't a priority.
OOH...! I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT NO MARINES ASSIGNED TO
THE EMBASSY! WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT ONE, ROB?
Rummaging through the Benghazi compound, a CNN reporter
found a seven-page notebook belonging to Ambassador Stevens. According to the
network, the diary said he was concerned about the "never-ending"
security threats in Benghazi and wrote that he was on an al Qaeda hit list.
COULD IT BE THAT STEVENS NEVER MENTIONED ANY OF HIS
FEARS TO HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON? IS THAT POSSIBLE? ROB... IF ANYONE IN THE
PRESS HAS BOTHERED TO ASK HRC, I FOR ONE AM NOT AWARE OF IT. ARE YOU? IT'S A
GOOD QUESTION... RIGHT? ME? IF FIND IT VERY DOUBTFUL THAT STEVENS FAILED TO
KEEP HRC IN THE LOOP. BUT EVEN IF HE HAD... ISN'T IT HRC's RESPONSIBILITY TO
KNOW STUFF LIKE THIS...??? (OH... WAIT... RE-READING FROM PREVIOUS
PARAGRAPHS IT'S CLEAR HRC DID KNOW ABOUT IT! AT LEAST THE STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIALLY KNEW ABOUT IT. RE-READ THE "DETERIORATING SECURITY WAS NO
SECRET" PARAGRAPH.)
(*SHRUG*)
Imagine the uproar if, barely a month before Election
Day, the Bush Administration had responded to a terrorist strike — on Sept. 11
no less — in this fashion.
ROB. YOU'VE TOLD ME YOU DIDN'T BLAME BUSH FOR 9/11.
FAIR ENOUGH. I ACTUALLY DID... TO A CERTAIN EXTENT... A FAR LESSER EXTENT THAN
I BLAME CLINTON... BUT IN ANY CASE I "GET" YOUR RATIONALE. BUT AS TO
THE QUESTION ABOVE RAISED BY THE WSJ... WHAT SAY YOU?
Obfuscating about what happened. Refusing to acknowledge
that clear security warnings were apparently ignored. Then trying to shoot the
messengers who bring these inconvenient truths to light in order to talk about
anything but a stunning and deadly attack on U.S. sovereign territory...
(*SHRUG*)
I DON'T KNOW, ROB. MAYBE I'M JUST A CYNIC... BUT I'M
GUESSING THE MEDIA HEAT ON BUSH WOULD HAVE BEEN A HELL OF A LOT HOTTER AND I REITERATE
MY GUESS THAT HAD THIS HAPPENED UNDER BUSH'S WATCH AND YOU AND I HAD A RIDE
TOGETHER WITHIN A FEW DAYS... WE WOULD SURELY HAVE DISCUSSED IT.
(*SHRUG*)
AND MORE IMPORTANT... MY GUESS IS THAT THE WHOLE
COUNTRY WOULD HAVE BEEN "DISCUSSING" IT.
(*YET ANOTHER SHRUG*)
Four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi in a
terrorist attack that evidence suggests should have been anticipated and might
have been stopped. Rather than accept responsibility, the Administration has
tried to stonewall and blame others.
FRANKLY I'LL STICK WITH "LIED."
Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, September 27, 2012
My Buddy Rob Sent Me...
...the following link to an essay penned by Trevor Burrus
and Aaron Ross Powell posted via The Libertarian Library on September 14, 2012.
I'm posting the essay here at Usually Right - interspaced
with my commentary, of course:
(*GRIN*)
* * *
* * *
Even if we try to ignore it, politics influences much of
our world. For those who do pay attention, politics invariably leads in
newspapers and on TV news and gets discussed, or shouted about, everywhere
people gather. Politics can weigh heavily in forging friendships, choosing
enemies, and coloring who we respect.
So far, so good; no disagreement as yet!
(*GRIN*) (*WINK*)
It’s not difficult to understand why politics plays such
a central role in our lives: political decision-making increasingly determines
so much of what we do and how we’re permitted to do it.
Again... alright... I'm with the authors so far.
We vote on what our children will learn in school...
We do...?!?! Since when...??? I never have. The most I
can do is vote for School Board members whose direct policy responsibilities
encompass an effect upon perhaps 2% of the school budget (around 98% of school
spending is mandate-bracketed to one extent or another) and who have basically
nothing to do with curriculum setting.
...and how they will be taught.
Again... not quite sure where the authors are getting
this from - but it's not true.
We vote on what people are allowed to drink, smoke, and
eat.
No... actually our representatives do - often, in my
opinion, illegitimately claiming this power... and almost always getting away
with their power grabs.
We vote on which people are allowed to marry those they
love.
Actually... direct referendums are few and far between.
(*SHRUG*)
In such crucial life decisions, as well as countless others,
we have given politics a substantial impact on the direction of our lives. No
wonder it’s so important to so many people.
But do we really want to live in a world where politics
is so important to our lives that we cannot help but be politically involved?
Many, both on the Left and the Right, answer yes.
True...
And frankly, they're wise to answer yes - at least in the
sense that if we have government in the first place, it's best for the People to
have at least theoretical control over government and a voice in
decision-making effecting private citizens. Where the debate properly lays is
the size, scope, and limitations imposed upon government power - of which I
believe there should be many!
A politically engaged citizenry will not only make more
decisions democratically but also be better people for it.
This depends. It depends upon whether the People - or
should I say a transitory majority of the People - have their power properly
constricted by the Rule of Law. (America was founded as a Republic - not a
Democracy - deliberately and for good reason!)
From communitarians to neo-conservatives, there’s a sense
that civic virtue is virtue — or at least that individually we cannot be fully
virtuous without exercising a robust political participation. Politics, when
sufficiently unconstrained by crude individualism and sufficiently embraced by
an actively democratic polity, makes us better people.
Er... it depends.
(*CHUCKLING*)
Seriously... I'd have to hear specific scenarios laid out
by the authors in order to give a fair up or down response to their last
paragraph.
Yet the increasing scope of politics and political
decision making in America and other Western nations has precisely the opposite
effect. It’s bad for our policies and, just as important, it’s bad for our
souls. The solution is simple: when questions arise about whether the scope of
politics should be broadened, we must realistically look at the effects that
politics itself has on the quality of those decisions and on our own virtue.
Politics takes a continuum of possibilities and turns it
into a small group of discrete outcomes, often just two. Either this guy gets
elected, or that guy does. Either a give policy becomes law or it doesn’t.
Ah... but now we're back to the issue of "Constitutional
Republic Under the Rule of Law" vs. "Democracy." I believe that
there are many, many, many decisions that government has no business sticking
its nose into. There are many laws on the books that I don't consider
legitimate laws. This goes beyond simply "policy preference" or
"personnel preference" to the central question of what are the proper
limits of governmental authority even assuming said authority is in line with
the "popular will."
As a result, political choices matter greatly to those
most affected. An electoral loss is the loss of a possibility. These black and
white choices mean politics will often manufacture problems that previously
didn’t exist, such as the “problem” of whether we — as a community, as a nation
—will teach children creation or evolution.
Agreed.
Oddly, many believe that political decision making is an
egalitarian way of allowing all voices to be heard. Nearly everyone can vote
after all and because no one has more than one vote, the outcome seems fair.
Again... a very large and complicated topic to deal with.
Obviously the authors "get" this (or else why write
"seems"), so I'll continue reading rather than try to respond to the
authors' contention at this point.
(*WINK*)
But outcomes in politics are hardly ever fair. Once
decisions are given over to the political process, the only citizens who can
affect the outcome are those with sufficient political power. The most
disenfranchised minorities become those whose opinions are too rare to register
on the political radar. In an election with thousands of voters, a politician
is wise to ignore the grievances of 100 people whose rights are trampled given
how unlikely those 100 are to determine the outcome.
The black-and-white aspect of politics also encourages
people to think in black-and-white terms. Not only do political parties emerge,
but their supporters become akin to sports fans...
Oh, yeah! On this one the authors have reiterated one of
my own most common complaints concerning how human nature impacts politics and
thus policy-making!
...feuding families, or students at rival high schools.
Nuances of differences in opinions are traded for stark dichotomies that are
largely fabrications. Thus, we get the “no regulation, hate the environment,
hate poor people” party and the “socialist, nanny-state, hate the rich” party —
and the discussions rarely go deeper than this.
True... and regrettable... but again, the "cause"
of this isn't the two-party system; the "cause" is sheer human
nature!
People are stupid... selfish... unsophisticated...
ill-educated... stubborn... and so on and so forth. Not all share all - or even
most - of the ills I've mentioned, but far too many do.
Politics like this is no better than arguments between
rival sports fans, and often worse because politics is more morally charged.
Most Americans find themselves committed to either the red team (Republicans)
or the blue (Democrats)...
True... but on the bright side, a plurality of Americans
are registered neither Democrat nor Republican, but "Independent."
On the dark side... in order to "impact"
elections from the bottom up it's often necessary to be a registered party
member in order to take part in actual candidate selection, party platforms,
etc.
...and those on the other team are not merely rivals, but
represent much that is evil in the world.
Not to be picky... but I'd prefer use of the word
"bad" as opposed to "evil."
To further narrow it down, I'd like to add the word
"policies." As in "bad policies" vs. "evil
policies."
Politics often forces its participants into pointless
internecine conflict, as they struggle with the other guy not over legitimate
differences in policy opinion but in an apocalyptic battle between virtue and
vice.
For the dullards... sure. But obviously for the rest of
us there are degrees... there's reasoned "compare and contrast" involved
in the ultimate decision making. In other words... "greater good" can
equate with "lesser evil" and most often it does!
How can this be? Republicans and Democrats hold opinions
fully within the realm of acceptable political discourse...
Many do... but many don't.
(*SHRUG*)
...with each side’s positions having the support of
roughly half our fellow citizens.
Ah... now we come to another MASSIVE misunderstanding of
reality!
Here's the problem with the authors' above contention:
Both sides distort their own positions AS WELL as their opponents'! Therefore,
unless one is fully engaged, sophisticated, knowledgeable, bright, and reads A
LOT... the average American believes quite a lot about "their team"
and "the other team" that just.. isn't... true..! And, folks... this skews
the outcome of Democratic governance. It skews it badly.
If we can see around partisanship’s Manichean blinders,
both sides have views about government and human nature that are at least
understandable to normal people of normal disposition — understandable, that
is, in the sense of “I can appreciate how someone would think that.”
Well... yes and no. For example, I recently referred to
my friend Rob as "deranged" because he refuses to acknowledge that the
Obama administration "lied" about the Libyan "incident" and
its cause. I don't "appreciate" how Rob can think this. I don't
understand how Rob can think this. And of course on certain topics Rob no doubt
feels that I am the one who is "deranged."
But, when you add politics to the mix, simple and modest
differences of opinion become instead the difference between those who want to
save America and those who seek to destroy it.
Back to Rob... funny thing... just this morning he and I
were discussing the meaning of the word "destroy" in the political
context.
Bottom line... if one feels that "fundamental
change" is "destructive"... well... then using the word
"destroy" makes sense. (And the same for those who view "staying
the course" or "adhering to tradition" as
"destructive.")
This behavior, while appalling, shouldn’t surprise us.
But it's not necessarily "appalling." Often
it's simply "shorthand" for complex, multi-faceted beliefs,
assumptions, and analysis.
(*SHRUG*)
Psychologists have shown for decades how people will
gravitate to group mentalities that can make them downright hostile. They’ve
shown how strong group identification creates systematic errors in thinking.
Your “teammates” are held to less exacting standards of competence...
True for most people to a greater degree than not... but
less - much less - true for me. (Or for Rob for that matter!)
...while those on the other team are often presumed to be
mendacious and acting from ignoble motives. This is yet another way in which
politics makes us worse: it cripples our thinking critically about the choices
before us.
Again... not to toot my own horn... but my critical
thinking is just fine. (Indeed, superior to most!)
(*WINK*) (*HUGE FRIGGIN' GRIN*)
What’s troubling about politics from a moral perspective
is not that it encourages group mentalities, for a great many other activities
encourage similar group thinking without raising significant moral concerns.
Rather, it’s the way politics interacts with group mentalities, creating
negative feedback leading directly to viciousness.
Obviously the authors have never been to a Yankees vs.
Red Sox game at EITHER Yankee Stadium or Fenway Park...
(*CHUCKLE*)
Politics, all too often, makes us hate each other.
Umm... more in the abstract than in reality. In the real
word reasonable people maintain friendships - and certainly family bonds - with
those who differ from them politically. This "hate"... as a real
emotion directed at real, specific people... is the exception - not the rule.
Politics encourages us to behave toward each other in
ways that, were they to occur in a different context, would repel us.
Speak for yourselves, boys...
No truly virtuous person ought to behave as politics so
often makes us act.
With all due respect... this "us" the authors
refer to isn't me. Oh, sure, I can be (and often am) a condescending prick when
it comes to politics, but "hatred"... "viciousness"...
no... when push comes to shove... well... actually "shoving" is the
exception, not the rule.
While we may be able to slightly alter how political decisions
are made, we cannot change the essential nature of politics. We cannot conform
it to the utopian vision of good policies and virtuous citizens.
Who said most citizens are virtuous...? (And how is
"virtuous" to be defined?)
The problem is not bugs in the system but the nature of
political decision-making itself. The only way to better both our world and
ourselves — to promote good policies and virtue — is to abandon, to the
greatest extent possible, politics itself.
Speaking of utopian visions...
(*SNORT*)
No. Just the opposite. Americans must become more
engaged, better informed, indeed proactive! Americans must "take
back" our country from the politicians who are slowly but surely
destroying it.
"Power" is the key and whether we're talking Republicans or Democrats, Left or Right, we must take power away from the politicians and return to the ideals of the Founders and the blueprint of the Constitution!
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Did you folks know about Hillary Clinton's "security waiver?"
Read today's first newsbite...
(Inside the comments section!)
(Hey, Rob... check out newsbite #3 as well!)
(And #9, Rob... read #9!)
NCIS - Season 10, Episode 1 - "Extreme Prejudice"
Yep... remember back when Jack Bauer represented the dark side of the George W. Bush administration?
Well... Jack is long "retired," but Jethro Gibbs and his NCIS team are still on the job over at CBS reflecting the values of America in the Age of Obama!
Tonight's episode... "Extreme Prejudice."
Yep... the title refers to the plot anchor - an illegal presidential assassination order that apparently no one in TV land... or in the real word... looks upon as anything out of the ordinary - never mind out of bounds... illegal... unconstitutional...
Why do I say this? Well, prior to writing this I did a bit of googling and didn't find one negative comment on tonight's NCIS episode premise! Not one!
So... anyway... tonight's episode was the continuation of last season's closing cliffhanger.
American "terrorist" Harper Dearing has set off a bomb which has taken out part of the NCIS complex. People have died. People have been hurt. (All the major - and minor - recurring characters are ok, though...)
Actually... Dearing isn't so much a "terrorist" as he is a vengeful father who blames the U.S. Navy for the death of his son. The TV guide episode synopsis refers to Dearing as a "criminal mastermind."
In any case, prior to this latest crime...
(Previously Dearing had planted bombs in U.S. navy ships in order to force the navy to acknowledge the potential cost... now real cost... of allowing ship construction along a faulty design which made the ships vulnerable to internal fires... but that's going back to previous episodes...)
...Dearing had been "wanted."
But tonight... oh... tonight... the plot expanded to double-down on recent real presidential assassination orders to create the plot device of a very, very, very angry President (Obama) reacting to Dearing's latest bombing by ordering NCIS, the FBI, and by extension any and all U.S. governmental agencies, departments, and the military to go after Dearing with "extreme prejudice" - in other words... Dearing... an American citizen on American soil... was no longer a "wanted" man... he was now a marked man... marked for "termination."
And, oh, yeah... by the end of the episode he'd been... er... "terminated." Killed. Murdered. Assassinated. Pick your favorite term.
And... this being the age of Obama... no one in CBS's fictional reflection of the real America 2012 had a problem with this illegal, unconstitutional presidential order!
Nope... there wasn't even a philosophical discussion!
The President of the United States says "kill the bastard" then by God we kill the bastard!
Hell... the FBI deliberately blew off an opportunity to peacefully capture the "suspect" and bring him to justice just so that - instead - a uniformed FBI "SWAT" team would literally pour automatic weapons firepower into a bathroom where they thought Dearing was taking a wiz or perhaps just washing his hands.
(No calls for surrender... just an ambush... an ambush planned with one objective in mind - to kill, not capture, the "suspect.")
Yeah... it's "only a TV show." Keep on telling yourselves that, my friends.
No. What it is is a further "socialization" of the American People to "the new normal" where civil rights are what those in power say they are... the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are more like guidelines and suggestions... and the Rule of Law is replaced by the rule of the POTUS.
It really is amazing, folks. And most of you don't even see it.
That's what's so friggin' scary...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)