ATTACK AT DAWN – PEARL HARBOR. DECEMBER 7, 1941 is a post from: News Updated Frequently

Ignoring Godwin’s law, it is instructive to study the rise to power of Hitler from the inside. Not from the people who hated him, but from the people who supported him, from the people who put him in power and believed in him. Only from this perspective can we develop an understanding that will prevent us from making the same mistake the Germans made in the 1930s.

From the Daily Mail:

History has condemned him as the megalomaniac who brought death and misery to millions.

But for one woman, the name Adolf Hitler evokes a smile not a shudder.

She is Rosa Mitterer, who worked as a maid for the Fuhrer at his mountain retreat in Bavaria in the 1930s.

Rosa is 91 and until now has kept a vow of silence about her experiences. She has chosen to break it after realising she is the last survivor of the circle who served the tyrant in the years before he launched the Second World War.

And her verdict on her former master: ‘He was a charming man, someone who was only ever nice to me, a great boss to work for. You can say what you like, but he was a good man to us.’
…
Recalling her first direct request from her master, she said she was drying some porcelain cups when he came down the stairs.
‘Hello,’ he said softly. ‘Sorry to trouble you, but could you make me some coffee and bring some gingerbread biscuits to my study?’

Nor do all tyrants live lives of opulent splendor, in fact Hilter’s lifestyle was rather Spartan:

‘In those days, Hitler slept in his study. In it was an iron bed, one wardrobe, one table, two chairs and a shoebox. It was very modestly furnished. Beside the bed hung a picture of his mother.’

A man who loved his mother.

A generous neighbor:

Part of her duties involved sorting out the fan letters and presents that were delivered in their thousands to the house.

‘There were cigars, jars of jam, flowers, pictures,’ she recalled. ‘We gave most of them away to poorer peasant families nearby on Hitler’s orders

So how do we defend against the would-be Hitlers in our midst? Keep a very careful limit to the powers of the governments they head. And try to avoid electing people who appeal to your emotions, your grievances and your fears.

Hitler was the perfect boss: Former maid breaks her silence on the ‘charming’ dictator is a post from: News Updated Frequently

Gerard Vander Leun has a beautiful essay for a Sunday Morning:

I’ve written elsewhere that one of the “things you can’t say about the First Terrorist War” is that it is, at bottom, a war of two religions. So it is with the culture wars in America today. It too is, and you are not supposed to say this either, a war of TWO religions.

Then again, that is not quite right. Try it this way.

We are fighting a war of two religions in which only one side is allowed to be designated as a religion — the Right. “The Right” in these terms is always code for “The Religious Right”, which is, in turn, code for “Christianity.” This is sometimes, by the legion of scribblers ready to push out the party line at the drop of a hat, modified for form’s sake into “Christian Fundamentalism.” But realistic observers of this game are not fooled and know it to be the same sort of bearded shorthand by which “Islamic Fundamentalism” is made to stand in for Islam, pure and simple.

In whatever form the attack takes, we have seen — and will continue to see — an attack on Religious Americans by another group of Americans that previously identified themselves as “secular,” but who lately are trying to wrap themselves in the raiment of religion to a greater or lesser extent. I am expecting a plethora of punditry soon that includes the phrase, “Some of my best friends are Christians, but….” at every opportunity.

But this tactic will, in the end, not suffice. It will fail because those of real faith easily see through those of false faith. And to profess a faith is worse than to remain simply agnostic. Still, it will be tried because bare atheism reveals that the Religion of the Liberal/Left is not a religion of the people, but of those who would be master. In the coming years, the acolytes of this Religion may attempt to don the fleece of the flock, but the Shepherd will always be able to tell between the quick and the dead.

The real disaster for the Liberal/Left in the last 8-years was not that George Bush was religious, but that Bush’s religion was not the Liberal/Left’s approved religion; the Religion of the Self. They now have their new apotheosis in Obama, a man whose professed faith is plain to see — through.

The Religion of the Self is the most ancient religion. Indeed, many faiths were created, revealed, and promulgated to contain the Religion of the Self. I say “contain” because real faith is always a struggle to contain the Religion of the Self in the hopes of a more transformative life and a closer approach to God.

In the age of myth, the Religion of the Self first arose in the Garden as a result of a persuasive conversation between Eve, Adam, and a Serpent. As we know, but still have not learned, it did not work out well for Eve or her husband, and humanity has been struggling to get back to the state of the Garden ever since; a state that, without true faith, will forever recede beyond its grasp.

The Religion of the Self does not rest upon selfless service but upon ego, even as the ego calls upon selflessness in others to boost it to power. Today’s Religion of the Self spends a good many cycles advocating that others should serve its endless causes; that others should obey its endless requirements; that others should recite only its approved catechism. Above all it demands that others should reach for their wallets to pay for it all.

The Religion of the Self elects candidates to high office that promise equality and deliver obscenity. The Religion of the Self is composed of many millions of believers whose primary aim is their own glory at someone else’s expense. It is little wonder that the high priests of the Religion of the Self are today known as “celebrities,” and that the highest state sought by members of this religion is to be, themselves, “celebrated.”

A poet, who was taken for many decades to be one of their seers, but who has recently revealed he merely used them for his own,deeper purposes, once wrote of them:

“But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody….”

And they agreed as long as it was clear that the somebody they were to serve was always going to be the Self.

The Religion of the Self teaches, as its first and last precept, that there is nothing in this world greater than the self and — beyond this world, out beyond even the unimaginable edges of the universe — there is… well… nothing at all;

“purposeless matter hovering in the dark.”

Read the whole thing … and then go to church and pray.

The Religion of the Left is a post from: News Updated Frequently

For this exercise, a threat-representative target missile was launched from Kodiak, Alaska at 3:04pm (EST). This long-range ballistic target was tracked by several land- and sea-based radars, which sent targeting information to the interceptor missile. At 3:23pm (EST)the Ground-Based Interceptor was launched from the Ronald W. Reagan Missile Defense Site, located at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The interceptor’s exoatmospheric kill vehicle was carried into the target’s predicted trajectory in space, maneuvered to the target, performed discrimination, and intercepted the threat warhead

Multiple sensors fed the fire control:

The target was successfully tracked by a transportable AN/TPY-2 radar located in Juneau, Alaska, a U.S. Navy Aegis BMD ship with SPY-1 radar, the Upgraded Early Warning Radar at Beale Air Force Base, Calif., and the Sea-Based X-band radar. Each sensor sent information to the fire control system, which integrated the data together to provide the most accurate target trajectory for the interceptor.

Reuters expresses doubts with the headline U.S. says latest missile defense test a success

US Says?

The lead of the story:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. military conducted a successful test of its system built to knock out long-range missiles that could be fired by North Korea or Iran, the Pentagon said on Friday.

The target missile for the test over the Pacific was launched from Kodiak, Alaska and an interceptor was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, officials said. The intercept took place at 3:29 p.m. EST .

Boeing Co is prime contractor for the system, called the ground-based midcourse defense.

Anti Ballistic Missile System Test Successful is a post from: News Updated Frequently

Is it hatred, stupidity, ignorance or cowardice? Whose side are they on? Don’t answer that!

Mark Steyn in the Orange County Register:

Shortly after the London Tube bombings in 2005, a reader of Tim Blair, The Sydney Daily Telegraph’s columnist wag, sent him a note-perfect parody of a typical newspaper headline:

“British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow’s Train Bombing.”

Indeed. And so it goes. This time round – Mumbai – it was the Associated Press that filed a story about how Muslims “found themselves on the defensive once again about bloodshed linked to their religion”.

Oh, I don’t know about that. In fact, you’d be hard pressed from most news reports to figure out the bloodshed was “linked” to any religion, least of all one beginning with “I-” and ending in “-slam.” In the three years since those British bombings, the media have more or less entirely abandoned the offending formulations – “Islamic terrorists,” “Muslim extremists” – and by the time of the assault on Mumbai found it easier just to call the alleged perpetrators “militants” or “gunmen” or “teenage gunmen,” as in the opening line of this report in The Australian: “An Adelaide woman in India for her wedding is lucky to be alive after teenage gunmen ran amok.”

Kids today, eh? Always running amok in an aimless fashion.

The veteran British TV anchor Jon Snow, on the other hand, opted for the more cryptic locution “practitioners.” “Practitioners” of what, exactly?

Hard to say. And getting harder. For the Wall Street Journal, Tom Gross produced a jaw-dropping round-up of Mumbai media coverage: The discovery that, for the first time in an Indian terrorist atrocity, Jews had been attacked, tortured and killed produced from the New York Times a serene befuddlement: “It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.”

Hmm. Greater Mumbai forms one of the world’s five biggest cities. It has a population of nearly 20 million. But only one Jewish center, located in a building that gives no external clue as to the bounty waiting therein. An “accidental hostage scene” that one of the “practitioners” just happened to stumble upon? “I must be the luckiest jihadist in town. What are the odds?”

Meanwhile, the New Age guru Deepak Chopra laid all the blame on American foreign policy for “going after the wrong people” and inflaming moderates, and “that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster” in Mumbai.

Really? The inflammation just “appears”? Like a bad pimple? The “fairer” we get to the, ah, inflamed militant practitioners, the unfairer we get to everyone else. At the Chabad House, the murdered Jews were described in almost all the Western media as “ultra-Orthodox,” “ultra-” in this instance being less a term of theological precision than a generalized code for “strange, weird people, nothing against them personally, but they probably shouldn’t have been over there in the first place.”

Are they stranger or weirder than their killers? Two “inflamed moderates” entered the Chabad House, shouted “Allahu Akbar!,” tortured the Jews and murdered them, including the young rabbi’s pregnant wife. Their 2-year-old child escaped because of a quick-witted (non-Jewish) nanny who hid in a closet and then, risking being mowed down by machine-gun fire, ran with him to safety.

The Times was being silly in suggesting this was just an “accidental” hostage opportunity – and not just because, when Muslim terrorists capture Jews, it’s not a hostage situation, it’s a mass murder-in-waiting. The sole surviving “militant” revealed that the Jewish center had been targeted a year in advance. The 28-year-old rabbi was Gavriel Holtzberg. His pregnant wife was Rivka Holtzberg. Their orphaned son is Moshe Holtzberg, and his brave nanny is Sandra Samuels. Remember their names, not because they’re any more important than the Indians, Britons and Americans targeted in the attack, but because they are an especially revealing glimpse into the pathologies of the perpetrators.

In a well-planned attack on iconic Mumbai landmarks symbolizing great power and wealth, the “militants” nevertheless found time to divert 20 percent of their manpower to torturing and killing a handful of obscure Jews helping the city’s poor in a nondescript building. If they were just “teenage gunmen” or “militants” in the cause of Kashmir, engaged in a more or less conventional territorial dispute with India, why kill the only rabbi in Mumbai? Dennis Prager got to the absurdity of it when he invited his readers to imagine Basque separatists attacking Madrid: “Would the terrorists take time out to murder all those in the Madrid Chabad House? The idea is ludicrous.”

And yet we take it for granted that Pakistani “militants” in a long-running border dispute with India would take time out of their hectic schedule to kill Jews. In going to ever more baroque lengths to avoid saying “Islamic” or “Muslim” or “terrorist,” we have somehow managed to internalize the pathologies of these men.

We are enjoined to be “understanding,” and we’re doing our best. A Minnesotan suicide bomber (now there’s a phrase) originally from Somalia returned to the old country and blew up himself and 29 other people last October. His family prevailed upon your government to have his parts (or as many of them as could be sifted from the debris) returned to the United States at taxpayer expense and buried in Burnsville Cemetery. Well, hey, in the current climate, what’s the big deal about a federal bailout of jihad operational expenses? If that’s not “too big to fail,” what is?

Last week, a Canadian critic reprimanded me for failing to understand that Muslims feel “vulnerable.” Au contraire, they project tremendous cultural confidence, as well they might: They’re the world’s fastest-growing population. A prominent British Muslim announced the other day that, when the United Kingdom becomes a Muslim state, non-Muslims will be required to wear insignia identifying them as infidels. If he’s feeling “vulnerable,” he’s doing a terrific job of covering it up.

We are told that the “vast majority” of the 1.6 billion to 1.8 billion Muslims (in Deepak Chopra’s estimate) are “moderate.” Maybe so, but they’re also quiet. And, as the AIDS activists used to say, “Silence=Acceptance.” It equals acceptance of the things done in the name of their faith. Rabbi Holtzberg was not murdered because of a territorial dispute over Kashmir or because of Bush’s foreign policy. He was murdered in the name of Islam – “Allahu Akbar.”

I wrote in my book, “America Alone,” that “reforming” Islam is something only Muslims can do. But they show very little sign of being interested in doing it, and the rest of us are inclined to accept that. Spread a rumor that a Quran got flushed down the can at Gitmo, and there’ll be rioting throughout the Muslim world. Publish some dull cartoons in a minor Danish newspaper, and there’ll be protests around the planet. But slaughter the young pregnant wife of a rabbi in Mumbai in the name of Allah, and that’s just business as usual. And, if it is somehow “understandable” that for the first time in history it’s no longer safe for a Jew to live in India, then we are greasing the skids for a very slippery slope. Muslims, the AP headline informs us, “worry about image.” Not enough.

Mark Steyn: Jews get killed, but Muslims feel vulnerable is a post from: News Updated Frequently

NEW ORLEANS – In a year when national Republican fortunes took a turn for the worse, Louisiana delivered the GOP two seats in Congress in elections delayed by Hurricane Gustav.

Indicted Democratic U.S. Rep. William Jefferson was ousted Saturday from his New Orleans area district, while Republicans narrowly held on to the seat vacated by a retiring incumbent.

The wins followed Republicans’ reconquest of another House seat earlier this fall that had been lost to Democrats.

In the 2nd Congressional District, which includes most of New Orleans, Republican attorney Anh “Joseph” Cao won 50 percent of the vote to Jefferson’s 47 percent and will become the first Vietnamese-American in Congress. His only previous political experience was an unsuccessful 2007 bid for a seat in the state legislature.

This is actually shocking. Up until now, Democrats were totally immune from accusations of corruption, double dealing, lying, graft, sexual improprieties, etc. Only Republicans were punished for these things. But in Louisiana, which vies for the title of corruption HQ with Chicago, apparently the voters are marginally less forgiving of criminal activity.

Just recently this race was covered in Fox News and the default assumption was that Jefferson would be re-elected.

More from the Wall Street Journal:

Republicans made an aggressive push to take the 2nd District seat from the 61-year-old Mr. Jefferson, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of bribery, laundering money and misusing his congressional office.

Unofficial results showed Mr. Cao winning 50% of the vote to Mr. Jefferson’s 47%.

“The people of the 2nd District have spoken,” Mr. Cao, 41, told supporters at a restaurant near the French Quarter. “We want new direction. We want action. We want accountability.”

In a speech that was gracious but stopped short of concession, Mr. Jefferson blamed low voter turnout for his showing and said supporters may have thought he was a shoo-in after he won a Nov. 4 primary in the predominantly black and heavily Democratic district.

“I think people just ran out of gas a bit,” he said. “People today flat didn’t come out in large numbers.”

Greg Rigamer, a New Orleans political consultant, said his analysis showed turnout in predominantly white sections of the district was double that in black areas. He said that helped push Mr. Cao to victory over Mr. Jefferson, who became Louisiana’s first black congressman since Reconstruction when he took office in 1991. “This is quite a feat,” Mr. Rigamer said of Mr. Cao’s victory.

New Orleans voters had long been loyal to Mr. Jefferson, re-electing him in 2006 even after news of the bribery scandal broke. Late-night TV comics made him the butt of jokes after federal agents said they found $90,000 in alleged bribe money hidden in his freezer.

From Fox news:

Turnout appeared light in the district, where two-thirds of voters are Democrats and 11 percent are Republicans. More than 60 percent are black.

Though he was the underdog, Cao received endorsements from some Democrat and green-conscious groups as well as the area’s Vietnamese-American community. Cao came to the United States as a child after the fall of Saigon in 1975 and went on to earn degrees in philosophy, physics and law.
…
Prosecutors contend Jefferson used his influence as chairman of the congressional Africa Investment and Trade Caucus to broker deals in Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroon and other African nations on behalf of those who bribed him.

The 2007 indictment claims Jefferson received more than $500,000 in bribes and demanded millions more between 2000 and 2005, including the $90,000 found in the freezer of his Washington home.

One interesting flashback: how many remember the Republicans under Denny Hastert being outraged that the FBI raided Jefferson’s office? You realize that happened in 2006? How long does it take to get an indictment? What are the odds that the case will be dropped? Has he not “suffered enough?” Don’t Democrats have “get out of jail free” cards? Isn’t this a case of “the Man” getting all over a brother?

Bill “Cold Cash” Jefferson Ousted is a post from: News Updated Frequently

In Bush’s last days, if he suddenly unveils he is really Hitler and unleashes his Hitler plans involving world conquest through UFOs, dinosaurs, and pirates, the liberals are going to be like, “See! He was Hitler! We told you!” And we’re all going to look really stupid if we hadn’t even given that possibility some honest thought.

Read the whole thing.

Could Bush Be Hitler? is a post from: News Updated Frequently

Worth reading.

How Orson Bean found God is a post from: News Updated Frequently

The subhead reads:

Global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, but cooler temperature is not evidence that global warming is slowing, say climate scientists

The people whose reputations and financial well-being depend on the myth of global warming are desperately trying to convince you that the fact that this has been the coolest year in a decade does not affect their hypothesis. Their pronouncements are sort of funny, in a pathetic way.

This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.

The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing however, say climate scientists at the Met Office. “Absolutely not,” said Dr Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre. “If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends.”

I purchased a book a few years ago entitled “How to lie with statistics”. The graph shown in the article is a perfect example.

Give me the right to choose the beginning and the end point of a statistical series and I can prove anything. I am reminded of the old accountant joke that goes like this:

There once was a business owner who was interviewing people for a division manager position. He decided to select the individual that could answer the question “how much is 2+2?”

The engineer pulled out his slide rule and shuffled it back and forth, and finally announced, “It lies between 3.98 and 4.02″.

The mathematician said, “In two hours I can demonstrate it equals 4 with the following short proof.”

The physicist declared, “It’s in the magnitude of 1×101.”

The logician paused for a long while and then said, “This problem is solvable.”

The social worker said, “I don’t know the answer, but I a glad that we discussed this important question.

The attorney stated, “In the case of Svenson vs. the State, 2+2 was declared to be 4.”

The trader asked, “Are you buying or selling?”

The accountant looked at the business owner, then got out of his chair, went to see if anyone was listening at the door and pulled the drapes. Then he returned to the business owner, leaned across the desk and said in a low voice, “What would you like it to be?”

Do you want to see statistics that see the world getting warmer … or colder? I can show you both with computer generated graphs and charts.

But lately I have been intrigued with the question: what is the “proper” temperature for the earth, and why? For some reason the answer from the global warming hoaxers is a nostalgic yearning for the 1940s or 1960s. Why? Is that when they grew up? Is that where the earth’s temperature should be stabilized for all time? What do we do about other sources of warming or cooling like sunspots or volcanoes? What happens if we reduce carbon dioxide emissions and find that other factors we are unaware of are causing a new ice age which could have been prevented by a man-made increase in greenhouse gasses?

The obsessive focus on man’s impact on climate reminds me of another old joke about the drunk looking for the car keys he dropped. He was looking for them under a street lamp not because he dropped them there, but because it was night and it’s the only place illuminated.

Global Cooling Deniers is a post from: News Updated Frequently

Excerpt:

Given the nation’s Bush fatigue — no matter how unjustified from a broad historical perspective — and Bush’s very low approval ratings, it only made sense for Democratic presidential aspirants to make themselves the anti-Bush.

Because the Iraq war was perceived as Bush’s greatest sin and almost all other sins flowed from Iraq or were somehow conflated with it — Abu Ghraib, rendition, waterboarding, “unilateralism,” NSA surveillance, Halliburton, Gitmo, etc. — Obama was uniquely positioned to be the anti-Bush.
…
Although Obama certainly articulated policies that were contrary to the status quo under President Bush, many of his supporters didn’t care or weren’t the slightest bit informed about the specifics of his policies. They were just swept up in his personality cult and nebulous promises of hope and change.

So it should be no surprise that Obama’s series of head-spinning reversals so far have been met not with outrage from his supporters (fringe leftists excepted), but with glib rationalizations.

His newfound vacillation about Gitmo and NSA surveillance, his flip-flop on withdrawing from Iraq in 16 months, and his announced Cabinet appointments — particularly Gates and Clinton — are not being criticized as betrayals, but lauded as evidence that he is open-minded, adaptable, wise and, of course, presidential.

He’s facing nary a shred of accountability for his anticipatory breaches of campaign promises. His flock is just happy that he will be implementing these policies — not President Bush.

All of this says so many things about our electorate and the coming climate for the Obama presidency, but I’ll just leave you with two quick ones. First, it shows that most of the hatred for Bush was not based on his policies, but on the eight-year hate-filled propaganda campaign against him.

Read the whole thing.

Limbaugh makes a very important point that should be repeated time and again as we go on: if Obama continues Bush’s policies on Iraq after denouncing them during the campaign, and his supporters do not denounce him for doing so, we have incontrovertible proof that BDS – whipped up by the media and academia – is not just a hypothesis but a fact. It also shows that Obama’s followers are not issue oriented but personality oriented. But we knew that, didn’t we?

UPDATE: ‘Muted by Reality’ Now that Obama has won, we could be in Iraq for a hundred years.
From Best of the web in the Wall Street Journal we read

Barack Obama was elected president a month ago and does not take office for another 6½ weeks. But his most fervent supporters already have reason to be disappointed in him. Witness the headline of a “news analysis” in today’s New York Times: “Campaign Promises on Ending the War in Iraq Now Muted by Reality.”

“As he moves closer to the White House,” the Times reveals, “President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.” That itself is a big “if,” as the Times acknowledges:

That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000–and some say as high as 70,000–for a substantial time even beyond 2011.

We may be in Iraq for a hundred years! The Times notes that “there always was a tension, if not a bit of a contradiction, in the two parts of Mr. Obama’s campaign platform to ‘end the war’ by withdrawing all combat troops by May 2010″:

To be sure, Mr. Obama was careful to say that the drawdowns he was promising included only combat troops. But supporters who keyed on the language of ending the war might be forgiven if they thought that would mean bringing home all of the troops.

Hmm, here is what the Times editorial page said about the subject when it endorsed Obama back in October:

The unnecessary and staggeringly costly war in Iraq must be ended as quickly and responsibly as possible.
While Iraq’s leaders insist on a swift drawdown of American troops and a deadline for the end of the occupation, Mr. McCain is still talking about some ill-defined “victory.” As a result, he has offered no real plan for extracting American troops and limiting any further damage to Iraq and its neighbors.
Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq, and he has presented a military and diplomatic plan for withdrawing American forces. Mr. Obama also has correctly warned that until the Pentagon starts pulling troops out of Iraq, there will not be enough troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

It is awfully generous of the Times to forgive Obama’s supporters for believing what they read in the Times.

It must be said that not everyone is surprised to find Obama’s campaign promises “muted by reality.” Those of us who were paying attention to reality before Nov. 4 never took Obama’s pledge to flee Iraq seriously. Although it is especially repugnant to seek political gain by promising to lose a war, it is also common for presidential candidates to make unrealistic promises, especially on foreign policy, and disregard them once elected. (Remember how George W. Bush was going to stop “nation building” and Bill Clinton was going to get tough on the Red Chinese?)

Obama thus is carrying on a long tradition of making empty and irresponsible promises. While he may deliver victory in Iraq, his war against cynicism has already been lost.

This incredible back-flip by the NY Slimes and the rest of Obama’s acolytes is simply staggering. It is evidence that they did not believe their own propaganda at the time they were writing it. and give us not reason to believe a word they say now.

The War, Obama and His Acolytes – A Flip Of Unimaginable Cynicism is a post from: News Updated Frequently