THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND YOUR CIVIC DUTY - A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

Let's begin this by presuming that the drafters of our Constitution wrote the Second Amendment to the Constitution to make sure that the citizenry would have the means to keep the federal government honest and defend our national security. Here's what they said:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Put another way, our Founding Fathers intended that our citizens be able to defend our freedom by force of arms, if necessary. We can reasonably presume this was their intent by simply looking at the history of the times leading up to that Constitution - they'd just been through a terrible shooting war to overthrow a tyrannical government. That war is called the Revolutionary War, and it resulted in the founding of a new country, the United States of America. Without an armed citizenry at that time, that war could not have been fought. There would be no United States of America. So, extrapolating, it's perfectly logical to conclude that our Founding Fathers meant to preserve that same capability for the citizenry of the new country. They meant to preserve an armed citizenry.

But back to our thought experiment: when does it become a civic duty to pick up that musket?

Our Founding Fathers gave us the legal, Constitutional means to do that if necessary, to preserve our freedoms. Freedoms won with blood, sustained with more blood, and promising to cost yet more blood. Does that imply an ugly duty, if necessary? After all, it is the right to keep and bear - emphasis on 'bear' - arms that makes all other rights possible.

Some would tell us that under no circumstances should anyone pick up a musket and join like-thinkers to protect our freedoms from the enemy, be they from abroad or from within. To them your Ostrich Killer says that a citizenry that under no circumstances will pick up their muskets to protect our national sovereignty or our Constitution is one that has already agreed to be ruled, that is tamed and subdued. They would be right at home in North Korea.

Your Ostrich Killer is not sure we're at that point yet, as a citizenry, but wonders what catalyst - or final straw, if you will - would trigger a little house cleaning? It would have to be something massive, obviously, but the possibility has to exist if our employees in Washington are to be kept honest. So is it a civic duty to actually bear those arms, then? That's the question that this thought experiment raises.

Or is your Ostrich Killer missing something here? If you think so, drop me a note and let me know the error of my thinking.

Now, another cup of coffee . . .

A NUCLEAR HOMICIDE BOMBING SCENARIO

We're all far too familiar with the near daily reports of homicide bombings, those murderous attacks on non-military and non-political people and targets. In those attacks the murderer commits his / her heinous crime with the full knowledge that they will be instantly destroyed.

People like that are either captured or killed before they carry out their planned crimes, or they succeed. If the 'civilized' world knows of such an impending event, they arrest or kill the perps. Either is an appropriate action.

But what happens when an entire nation develops that homicide bomber mentality? A nation that so hates another nation or group that they are perfectly willing to be destroyed just so the history of the world will note that they struck a blow for their cause?

You're the leader of the free world. You know of such countries. You, my faithful readers, can all name more than one like that. So what do you do? You can't arrest them. Will you legitimately kill them by striking pre-emptively? Or will you wait for them to strike their blow first, suffer untold millions of deaths, before you do the 'civilized' thing - retaliate?

But wait! Don't call yet! There is a complication! Our current poser, Barack Hussein Obama, has all but announced to the world that he will not use nukes. I guess, should we be attacked, our retaliation will be his superior intellect, good intentions and vast hordes of briefcase-wielding lawyers - assuming he survives. But what message do you think those homicidal nations will take from his 'no nukes' position? Remember, these are nations whose leadership cares nothing for who might be in charge of 'civilized' nations. It is enough that 'civilized' nations exist, for them to be the targets of their hatred.

Your ostrich killer has the answer, as do many millions like myself. It isn't a pretty one, since deterrence of the classical sort (big stick) won't work. But sometimes survival depends on beheading the snake before it bites.

National security, then, would seem to have at least two distinct components: deterrence of rational nations via 'big stick,' and neutralization of nations that can't be deterred by any way other than depriving them of means to carry out such an attack. Neutralization means simply making them harmless. There are obviously many ways to do that, all of them difficult and distasteful. But make no mistake - failure to do so will result in millions of American deaths, because we are the Great Satan, or whatever odious name other irrational countries call us.

I don't see any tangible proof that 'civilized' attempts at neutralization anywhere in the world are paying off. Do you? Doesn't that beg the question 'Okay, so what else can we do?'

PROFILING IS A TOOL - USE IT!

Okay, so your ostrich killer is becoming famous for saying what everyone already knows anyway. So be it. Here's the latest: profiling works. Duh.

Looking for a rapist? Maybe one should focus on males . . .

Looking for homicide bombers? Maybe one should focus on followers of islam . . .

Looking for high-priced call girls? Maybe one should pay particular attention to attractive younger females . . .

Looking for illegal immigrants? Maybe one should look more carefully at Mexicans . . .

All the above are examples of how applying demographic, ethnological, gender, and and religious 'filters' to a person of interest pool will shorten searches and produce quicker results. You can think of many, many more examples.

But we live in a society where, for some reason, 'profiling' is considered somehow discriminatory.

Guess what? It is. That's why it works. We all discriminate. Discrimination is a tool that helps us all make our choices in life. All our choices, if you think about it. Every one. Yet, when it comes to immigration law enforcement, or national security, or any number of other arenas, somehow it's gaspingly offensive.

Spare me. Did you know that at least one 9-11 bomber was allowed on an airplane because the ticket agent was afraid of being accused of profiling if she / he raised an alarm? PC has a price, usually paid in blood.

Accusations of profiling is a PC-enforcement tool. Thoughtful people ignore PC. Thoughtful people know profiling works.

Where are the thoughtful people in government?

BOYCOTTS OF LAWBREAKER BUSINESSES

This column is a call to boycott two types of products and businesses: those sold, owned or operated by, or staffed by, followers of islam, and those sold, owned, operated or staffed by mexicans, whether legal or not.

Why? you ask. Isn't that a little broad-brushed of you?

Your Ostrich Killer has an explanation. How often do you hear any major leadership in the islamic community of this country, or any other, taking any significant action to reduce or thwart terrorism? Along the same lines, when do you hear of any major leadership in the mexican community standing up to encourage strong action against illegal immigration?

So your Ostrich Killer, who already knows the answers to those questions just as you do, has decided to let his dollars do the talking. Hurt them where it hurts: in their bank accounts until they take the lead on demanding the right sort of action on these matters, because otherwise they'll starve.

Nothing like a little starvation to help clarify right from wrong. In this case, bottom lines will improve when those two communities start standing up and doing what's right.

How do you start?

. Patronize no arab restaurants, gift shops, markets, etc. Buy no arabic goods, patronize no businesses whose employees seem to be arabic. Do the same with mexican products and businesses. Remember, you don't have to prove in a court of law that those businesses are arabic or mexican, or that employees are. It's enough to suspect it. It's your money, after all. You get to decide where to spend it.

. Insist on being spoken with in English in this country. Anyplace that brags about being multilingual (code for Spanish-speaking) ought not get your dollars.

. Let your friends and family know what you are doing, and why.

At some point in the future, when you are satisfied that those ethnic groups are doing what's right, you can adjust your spending habits.

One last note: your ostrich killer has exempted the Persian / Iranian community from this boycott, because there is a very strong ex-pat community in this country. They are vocal and noisy and carry signs and pass out leaflets condemning what is happening in Iran, their home country. They want to change it, but fear living in it for obvious reasons. So if you see a Persian business with revolutionary literature or posters in the windows, go out of your way to help them succeed. A successful Iranian revolution will benefit the entire world, and you want to be a part of that.

ANOTHER INTERVIEW (I WISH)

Goldman Sachs Representative to Senate panel:

"Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to set the record straight on what this panel has called 'sh__ty deal' investment vehicles which, this panel would have the press believe, were both designed to fail and marketed in some shady way to unsuspecting clients and customers.

"As this panel well knows, or should, all investment vehicles must pass SEC scrutiny before they can be offered to the public. That includes information on how they are to be marketed, and their risks. This was, and is, the case with any investments offered by my firm. While we are in the business of making our clients and customers richer and more financially secure, something we do very well judging by our list of satisfied clients, we freely - even cheerfully - acknowledge that some investments are more secure than others. We offer a wide range of investment vehicles of all categories, all of which have passed through the SEC first for evaluation and approval, and all of which are described in detail for the benefit of any client who might be considering an investment.

"We stand ready to participate in any SEC re-evaluation of our methods, policies, or products, confident that any such re-evaluation will not only exonerate us of these charges but will applaud our diligent conformity to their rules and governance. The SEC has published rules and is the proper body to determine the quality of our diligence. Sadly, the same cannot be said for this panel.

"By definition any Senate investigation panel is about politics. In a heavily partisan panel such as this one, that includes posturing, rhetoric of questionable content and quality, back-handed name calling, and the harvesting of political points at the expense of the person or entity represented on this side of the table. This is not the place to explore conformity with published policy or governance rules; that is the purview of the experts at the SEC. We submit to this panel's chest-thumping and allusions to unwritten law because that is our duty as responsible citizens and businesses in this great country. So ask your questions and make your points, now that our statement is part of the record of these proceedings.

"Thank you."

YOU MIGHT BE AN AMERICAN SCUMBAG IF . . . (Apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)

- You pay no taxes (that means someone else is paying your rightful share)

- You receive any form of government support greater than your contribution to that support

- You've been 'between jobs' more than 3 years

- You think a lottery ticket is an investment in the future

- Someone else is feeding your kids

- You think that the wealthy should give you some of their money

- You think success is mostly luck

- You think you have a right to a home, a car, a job, privacy, a cell phone, HDTV, your health, or anything else that needs to be paid for

- You think work is for suckers who don't know how to work the system

- You think doing your duty to your country is allowing them to support you and your spawn

- You pay no taxes, or you have no job, or you have no home, but you vote

- You think the First Amendment allows you to say what you want, but those with differing opinions need to be 'regulated'

- You think you're not a racist and you voted for a 'black' to prove it

- You take from your country, but you don't give to it (we're not talking taxes here)

- You think Oprah, Jerry Springer, Sean Penn or anyone else in Hollywood are astute political visionaries

Enjoy that? Your Ostrich Killer certainly did. Did I miss anything? Drop a comment and tell me what else belongs on this list.

THE AMERICAN TRADITION

"DEMS FEAR VIOLENT BACKLASH," shouts today's Drudge Report headline. As though, somehow, that should be a surprise or even news-worthy.

I heard one of the more civilized conservative talk show commentators say yesterday that Americans don't get violent, they go to the ballot box.

I wonder if he forgot how this country was wrested away from a tyrannical government in the first place? True, back then there was no ballot box. But look what it's done to us lately. And what is the recourse? To shrug it off and condemn generations of our descendants to fiscal servitude - servitude to an overlord government, that rules instead of carrying out the duties the citizens assign it?

Isn't a tyrannical government one that governs without or against the consent of the people? And didn't this government recently ram multi-trillion dollar spending down our throats despite the sure knowledge that the overwhelming majority of us did NOT want them to do that? And aren't they promising to do the same again, on other issues?

"DEMS FEAR VIOLENT BACKLASH." I wonder if they think they're exempt from suffering the consequences of their actions.

Let the Ostrich Killer make it crystal clear: in no way do I condone violence (other, maybe, than a quick trip out behind the barn with an offending legislator and a belt) to solve the problem of a runaway congress and executive branch. But that doesn't mean I don't completely understand it.

It should be no surprise. Screw with the people enough, they will screw right back. That's in the American tradition.

THE WAR ON PERSONAL MOBILITY

Your government is doing all it can to restrict your ability to move anonymously around the country. Here's how:

1. Traffic Cams. They're everywhere. Ten years ago the average citizen was photographed / taped 18 times a day as they carried out their normal daily routines. Today most of these cameras are linked to servers, so they can be viewed by interested parties in near real time. So the capability to monitor your every movement exists. Doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy?

2. Transmitters and receivers embedded in your new cars, probably to be followed soon by mandated retrofits for older vehicles. You've seen that commercial where OnStar is used to slow a stolen vehicle so that police could capture it? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that police might not be the only ones interested in that capability, under certain circumstances.

3. Legislation whose hidden agenda is to drive the cost of oil so high that few will be able to fill their fuel tanks.

4. RFID tags on your car, which today you pay for if you want to use certain bridges or traffic lanes, but tomorrow (? or sooner?) may be factory-installed and hidden and used to track your movements. Maybe in that 'black box' that some in congress keep talking about adding to all new cars.

What would be the motive for this war on mobility? The government is getting increasingly nervous about the citizens of this country getting fed up and doing something decisive about them. The citizenry needs to be controlled, many of our elected officials might think. Limit their mobility. Threaten them with less than optimum health care if we say or do anything they don't like. Find ways to abridge the first and second amendment rights of all citizens. A citizenry that must depend on government-provided transport (buses, ferries, light rail, trains, air) and government-provided health care is a citizenry that can be controlled - especially if that same citizenry is given a check every month, that might go away if they misbehave.

The war on mobility is part of the greater effort to 'harness' (euphemism for subjugate and enslave) the citizenry. Oh, and just because I might be paranoid doesn't mean I'm not right about this. Pay attention to the news and see if you don't eventually come to the same conclusion.

HOW DARE YOU, MR. PRESIDENT!

Just who do you think you are, sir? You're president. Not king. There is a separation of powers in this country, which you know at least intellectually since you mentioned it at the State of the Union address just before you took the Supreme Court to the woodshed for an old-fashioned paddling.

How dare you? The court is, as a body, your co-equal under the Constitution in that they represent one-third of our government - just as you do. They are the judicial branch, you the executive branch.

And then, just days later, you crash a Republican retreat and do the same to them! Did you forget that the Congress is, as a body, one third of our government - just as you are?

You have the right to open your mouth and reveal your disdain for that separation of powers. The First Amendment gives all Americans that right. You have the right to continue to bash the U.S. Constitution with rhetoric and actions. And we have the right to wait, hopefully, for that last arrogant gesture that will move you from mere malpractitioner to prime subject in a felonies and misdemeanors investigation.

Keep it up, you arrogant POS. We Americans may be stupid enough to have elected you, but we're not deaf to your anti-American apologies, your anti-Constitutional words, and we're not too stupid to miss an opportunity to remedy that bad choice.

How dare you, sir!

NEW AMERICAN SPENDING HABITS - A SUGGESTION

Our money - that which is still left after our government chops off what it wants - is our money, the tangible reward for our life energy expenditures. We get to decide how to spend it. Your Ostrich Killer, disgusted with what he's seen transpire over the last year or so, has decided to take action by voting with his slim wallet. The contents of his wallet will go to those businesses which operate without any government 'investment'.

Take the examples of Government Motors (formerly General Motors) and Chrysler. The Federal Government owns substantial part of each of those companies. The Poser in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, personally fired the CEO of GM. Where in hell was the Constitutional uproar over that? The Federal Government has Board of Directors presence and tight oversight of both those companies, all in the name of protecting taxpayer money (spent to buy those companies so they wouldn't fail and thereby throw thousands of UAW workers out into the street where they belong.)

So using just the examples of GM and Chrysler, your Ostrich Killer will buy neither GM nor Chrysler products. As he does his research, he will find out whether other companies are owned in part by the Federal Government. And he won't buy.

The goal here is to help bring about the demise of any company in which the Federal Government takes any ownership or directorship authority. The touch of the Federal Government should eventually become an automatic kiss of death. Business belongs in the hands of entrepreneurs, not bureaucrats. They need to operate from cash reserves, not taxpayer dollars. They need to produce products that do well in the market place, not products that the government wants to force us to use.

For a broader approach to accomplishing the same thing, your Ostrich Killer will spend no money with any business that voluntarily took TARP money. Period. Real simple. For an outdated but representative discussion of TARP and a list of some recipients, you can check Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP

THE 2010 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

Incumbent Democrats in Congress who are running for re-election this year have to be wondering about the answer to this question: if a Republican can win handily in a state where the history and conventional wisdom says the Democrat should win in a landslide, what does that imply about Congressional elections in states where those races are generally closer?

Since the answer is pretty obvious, that means a second question is necessary: how do incumbent Democrats improve their chances of re-election?

Here are some possible answers to that one:

1. Change parties in both name, rhetoric and voting habits, or

2. just change their voting on spending, taxing and social re-engineering issues, or

3. lie loudly and often enough to do what Obama did - fool the electorate.

4. Recognize that their rhetoric and voting record are irrefutable and unescapable, and not run for re-election.

The electorate can be fooled. One can point to any number of examples of that, only the latest and most egregious of which is the poser Barack Hussein Obama. So your Ostrich Killer will make a prediction: we, the American electorate, will see all four choices attempted. But being once burned, we will be twice shy of anyone with a 'Democrat' or 'Liberal' label.

The new Congress will have a new agenda: how to get started dismantling all the harm that was done by the outgoing Congress. I'd suggest using a sledge hammer would be a good beginning.

VOTER FRAUD - WHAT'S THE PENALTY?

Something has sat at the back of your friendly Ostrich Killer's brain for years, eating away, and finally it came out and made itself known. It's the question: what is the penalty for a person voting illegally? That means voting when not a citizen, when not registered, or more than once. The operative word is illegal, right?

Near as I've been able to find out, although there are laws against fraud, there is no penalty in practice. State elections committees rarely, if ever, prosecute. Courts are busy with real crimes, we're told, such as marijuana possession and child support cases.

Fraud of the above sort should be prosecuted and punished. Breaking that law when casting votes for federal office would be a federal felony, complete with a federal conviction if found guilty. We're talking prison here, not just a piddling fine that the local Democratic campaign committee will happily pay. What is more precious to an American citizen than their right to vote? Yet that right receives almost no legal protection.

Anyone who thinks as your Ostrich Killer does on this matter might consider passing along their thoughts to their representatives in Congress.

GLOBAL WARMING IS NOW 'CLIMATE CHANGE'

The envirowacko fringe has apparently adopted a new tactic in the face of growing skepticism over human-caused global warming: they've de-emphasized the 'human caused' part of their rhetoric, and they've changed the concern to 'climate change.'

Convenient. Now no matter which way the climate changes, they can say they warned us.

New flash: the climate is always changing. Never in the history of this planet has it just sat there, twiddling its thumbs. No, sir. It's always changing - sometimes fast, sometimes slow, but always. So announcing that the climate is changing is comparable to announcing that the dead vegetation littering North America right now will start to turn green in a few months. Both climate and foliage greening are cyclical, and just as certain. And both will take place with or without Man's impact, if any.

So why the big concern by these envirowackos? The short answer is, it isn't about climate at all. It's about sucking tens of trillions of dollars out of the world's productivity in order to create a global serfdom, dependent upon government benevolence for simple subsistence; enslaved to work but not excel; survive but not thrive; obey but not dare to challenge. A humanity of that sort can be easily ruled. So - you think your Ostrich Killer is paranoid again? Well maybe so, but that doesn't mean I'm not right about this. Want proof?

Think for a moment: do you REALLY think that these envirowackos will call for more SUV sales should climate change mean cooling? You remember that these envirowackos and their pet 'scientists' have hammered at us for years that carbon emissions were heating up the planet. So wouldn't it be logical, if we discover we are actually cooling, to want to increase those carbon emissions in order to slow or reverse that cooling? Build more coal-fueled power plants. Burn more wood openly. Oh, there are many ways to increase carbon emissions. But have you heard even one of these guys suggest anything of this nature?

You can certainly think of many more things they've said or pronounced as gospel that they simply will not reverse, no matter whether the climate is cooling or warming. That's because the goal is not reducing the rate of climate change, it's eliminating profit and productivity, thereby 'taming' the human population so that it depends on government for meals and health and transportation and entertainment, which of course means they'll be easily ruled. Got unclean, anti-government thoughts in your head? Your food ration will be cut. Say anything the government might not like? Avoid the hospital . . .

Energy drives the world's economies. Energy comes from coal and wood, nuclear fission, hydroelectric, and oil. All other sources of energy combined make up about one percent of output. But the envirowackos will tell you that coal and wood, nuclear reactors, hydroelectric and oil are unacceptable. So what does that leave us with to drive the world's industries, to light the world's cities, to heat the world's homes, to fuel the global transportation grid?

Exactly. I think you're beginning to get it. Without access to cheap energy, we grind back into a pre-industrial revolution agri-economy. A massive, global feudalism similar to that which existed in King Arthur's time. It would almost seem that the envirowackos are targeting energy on purpose, wouldn't it? What better way to lower productivity than to deprive it of energy? What better way to eliminate profit than to make industry impossible due to lack of energy?

Call it a conspiracy theory if you like, but expect to think about this as you listen to the news about climate change. If you don't believe in this conspiracy now, just wait.

A Tiger Woods Press Conference (I Wish)

"Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the media. I'm glad you all were able to come out today and allow me to bring you up to date on my personal situation, which all of you have covered in exquisite detail, and my plans for the future. This will be a short conference, and I will not entertain questions when I am done.

"First, my personal situation: That is personal. It's between myself and my family, and between myself and the local police, who cited me for that stupid driving accident. So it's none of your business. However, I realize you don't get paid for not digging up dirt, so dig away and be damned. Publish what you will, but expect no comment from me on any of it. Why? Because - duh - it's all personal.

"Next, my plans for the future: I'm Tiger Woods. I'm the best damned golfer in the world. I win piles of money and even do a little good with it, if you'll bother to look into my philanthropic efforts. So what I'm going to do is play golf, and kick every other golfer's butts as often as I can and as convincingly as I can. I will do this no matter what the media has to say about it, because frankly I no longer give a crap what you have to say. What I have to say, I'll say with my golf clubs.

"In case you missed any of what I just said, you can pick up a transcript outside in the lobby. Good day. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out."

DWTS - A WAY TO SELL ADVERTISING, NOT A TALENT COMPETITION

In case some of you might have misunderstood the show, it's not a serious dance contest. It's only partly about talent - dancing talent, that is - and that part is provided by the panel of judges who mostly get it right. The other, apparently far larger part is just a popularity contest fueled by viewers calling in to vote for their favorites. Even Dumbo the Flying Elephant would make the cuts, if kids called in. And this has happened with other talent-challenged pop culture figures (many of them plus sizes, or far too old to be agile). One only has to look at who makes the cuts to figure this out.

And please spare me any complaints about my fatism-ageism comments. They are simply reality: fat, out of condition past their primes people have no business pretending to be dancers. They should be marketing their personal brands of low-calorie popcorn or AARP insurance, or something.

As much as your Ostrich Killer likes to watch some of these shows, he has decided to stop watching DWTS until and unless talent is the sole criteria. That is the only fair way - fairest to viewers who tune in to watch what are often incredible dance routines, fairest to the dancers who work very hard to put on the best show they can. It must be professionally disgusting to the judge panel to see the better dancers get eliminated week after week because they don't get as many phone calls as the Pillbury Marshmallow Man, who fell on his ass twice in one dance but who has a great smile. But hey. Judges are professionals. They get paid to judge. They do that. And then they go home and kick the dog.

Maybe there can be two categories of winners: Judge's Choice, and Viewer's Choice. Cuts would be made based solely on dancing talent (Judge's Choice), but at the end of the show there would be a second award of Viewer's Choice. Any contestant pair, no matter when they were cut, would be eligible for that award. This would show beyond any possibility of doubt that viewers don't care a whit or don't know squat about dancing talent, but so what? The judges already chose the best talent.

OBAMA'S WEST POINT SPEECH - WHAT PEOPLE HEARD

What General McChrystal heard: "Over 3 months ago you asked for 40,000 troops. I and my other hand-picked roomful of REMFs sat around and tried to figure out how I could appear to support your request and still not support it. Here's what we came up with: I'll loan you 30,000 and ask our NATO allies to send the other 10,000. Being NATO and therefore of no common will or commitment, they won't send that many, so I'll have at least two built-in ways to blame you and them should you fail in your assigned mission. I'll send the troops to you in piddling installments over a period of about six months, and then I'll start taking them away again. In a year and a half you won't have any troops. And in the meantime, you'd better sound convincingly pleased with my plan, and save my ass by finding some way to announce victory no matter the real outcome."

What Afghan Leadership heard: "You people have been lazy and timid and worthless as both political practitioners and overseers of your country's internal security. You've got a year and a half to figure out how to survive our departure, because that's when the Taliban will no longer meet military resistance from the United States. Good luck."

What the Taliban heard: "Honored Colleagues: Please withdraw the majority of your forces to secure locations, and take the next year and a half to recruit, train, re-arm and rebuild. At the end of that time we will announce victory, then you will be free to do as you wish with Afghanistan. In the meantime, though, in order to maintain my personal credibility - important to you, I assure you - we will conduct periodic raids and military strikes upon some of your lesser outlying assets. But don't worry too much, because these raids will be mostly for show, so that back in the US I can appear to be doing something of value. You shouldn't suffer too badly from these photo-op military actions because I will ensure that our troops are severely limited by imposing such strict Rules of Engagement (ROE) that few will dare even pull a trigger. So rest easy, my friends, and plan for the glorious future - a future of Afghanistan, free of American military presence."

What the Afghan citizen heard: "You'd better get rid of any ideas you might have about being helpful to American or allied troops over the next year and a half, because after we leave the Taliban will cut your nuts off and feed them to your daughters before they rape them as punishment for helping us."

What the American citizen heard: "Blah, blahblah, blah de blah blah . . . How do I look? Am I pretty? Do I look stalwart and determined? Do I . . . I . . . I . . . blahblahblah."

What his West Point audience heard: "You future war criminals are going to listen to me attentively because this is an important photo op for me, your commander in chief. Using you as background window dressing for my speech will make my American electorate sob with patriotic pride. But just in case your enthusiasm is less than total, we're taking lots of video and photos of you during my speech, and any of you who don't have smiles on your faces can expect to find your futures a little less bright. So applaud and cheer, you baby killers."

What the troops in the field heard: "I'm not interested in winning or even fighting. I'm interested in appearing to fight and win. Some of you will have to die for that to happen. But that's what you get paid for, so get at it. It's important for my image."

RIGHT TO WORK STATES AND STATE UNEMPLOYMENT

The other day your friendly Ostrich Killer got curious about so-called 'right to work' states and the rate of unemployment by state.

So I googled that information. First, the Right to Work states (versus forced unionization): you can see this info at http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

Next, the state unemployment rates as of October: http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/11/state_unemployment_changes_mixed_in_october.php

Go ahead, click back and forth. See if you come up with the same sorts of observations I do.

Bottom line: it looks to me like there is some sort of correlation between forced unionization states and high unemployment. As I write this, it occurs to me that it might be worth researching states in budget crisis and comparing that info with the above info, too.

No, your Ostrich Killer is NOT an economist. I'm just a curious guy.

In the news the other day I read that Boeing decided to build a second 787 line in South Carolina. According to the info above, it's both a 'right to work' state AND a state with high unemployment - an anomaly, with a large available workforce. It should be no surprise that Boeing, who suffered five major, very expensive strikes in the last twenty years at the hands of the International Association of Machinists union, saw this as an opportunity to limit its vulnerability to future such strikes by building a plant in South Carolina.

Is this part of a trend for businesses around the world who decided to build plants and industries in the United States? According to most info I've seen, few of those overseas firms build their plants in forced unionization states. If so, what does it mean about the future of union jobs? Have unions outlived their original purposes, to become just a tool for blackmail?

Many would agree with you if you think so. Few would blame industries for electing to simply move in order to avoid that expensive blackmail.

ANOTHER OBAMA HALF-BROTHER - WTF??

Not one to begrudge anyone a family tree, nonetheless your Ostrich Killer was surprised to hear, as a one-liner during an ABC newscast on the radio, that during Obama's visit to China he "...took time out to visit with his half-brother, who lives there."

Let's see now - that's a half-brother living in Kenya, I believe it is, in a grass hut, and a half-brother living in China. That's the ones I've heard about. Have you heard of any others?

This sort of 'oh by the way' method of dropping the news on us is sure to fuel more speculation among the group that many sneering lefties like to call the 'birthers'. You recall that 'birthers' want to see Obama's birth certificate, the one that he won't release, because they suspect that he is not a natural born American, and think that part of the vetting process for President should be a public review of birth records. After all, the Constitution requires such natural born status. What could be more routine than a release of those records? And why hide them? For that matter, the 'birthers' proclaim, how can he hide them? Those are PUBLIC records. How can any individual hide his birth certificate from anyone?

But back to the discussion: the 'birthers' are going to want to know where any other siblings might have been born, and where they are now. I would think that any American might want to have at least passing knowledge of his immediate family tree. Wouldn't you?

MORE OBAMA COMFORT FOR AMERICA'S ENEMIES

Barack Hussein Obama today announced three new executive orders: No torture, no Guantanamo, and new legal means of dealing with terrorism using the 'rule of law.'

I know all true Americans will rejoice that we have left the dark ages of worrying about our own security and rights behind us, and emerged into a glorious new future where those that try to kill us are afforded the very best protection we taxpayers can provide.

When is ANYONE in Congress going to articulate the obvious truth: the way to deal with terrorism is to kill terrorists? To hunt them down and take them, their support communities, and any enablers, out?

Rule of law. Yeah, right. Oh that'll be a real deterrent. In practice, it'll be more of a deterrent to security than to the terrorists.

TREASON: WHAT IS IT?

". . . the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

I dunno, folks. Can you think of anyone in high office who gives aid and comfort to our enemies? Anyone at all, anyone who tries to cover up for our enemies? Who tries to convince us our enemies are really our friends, or maybe just misunderstood, or maybe they're our enemies because we're the bad guys? Anyone who goes around apologizing for America? Would you call any of that 'aid and comfort?'