In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light.

The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. (John bore witness to him, and cried, “This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'”) And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace.

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. John, 1:1-18

For thy steadfast love was established for ever, thy faithfulness is firm as the heavens. Thou hast said, “I have made a covenant with my chosen one, I have sworn to David my servant: `I will establish your descendants for ever, and build your throne for all generations.'” Let the heavens praise thy wonders, O LORD, thy faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones!

And I will make him the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth.

I will establish his line for ever and his throne as the days of the heavens. Psalm 89:2-5, 27, 29

Discuss what you will, but spare some thoughts and some prayers for those who are going without this season, and those who will be standing in defense of our lives and homes.

Interesting:

On January 20th, President-elect Barack Obama will take the oath of office using the same Bible upon which President Lincoln was sworn in at his first inauguration. The Bible is currently part of the collections of the Library of Congress. Though there is no constitutional requirement for the use of a Bible during the swearing-in, Presidents have traditionally used Bibles for the ceremony, choosing a volume with personal or historical significance. President-elect Obama will be the first President sworn in using the Lincoln Bible since its initial use in 1861.

“President-elect Obama is deeply honored that the Library of Congress has made the Lincoln Bible available for use during his swearing-in,” said Presidential Inaugural Committee Executive Director Emmett Beliveau. “The President-elect is committed to holding an Inauguration that celebrates America’s unity, and the use of this historic Bible will provide a powerful connection to our common past and common heritage.”

This meets with my whole-hearted approval given both its Christian and tradition aspects…

From Smoking Gun via Drudge:

President-elect Barack Obama and two of his top advisers were interviewed last week by federal prosecutors probing Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s alleged bid to sell Obama’s vacated Senate seat, according to a report issued today by an Obama lawyer. The lawyer, Gregory Craig, concluded that Obama and his aides engaged in no improper conduct in connection with the Senate opening… As part of his review of transition team “contacts” with Blagojevich, Craig reported that only incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoke with the Illinois pol. Emanuel, Craig disclosed, had “one or two telephone calls” with Blagojevich in early-November. Emanuel reportedly gave Blagojevich a “heads up” that he was accepting Obama’s offer of the chief of staff job (and, as a result, would be resigning his congressional seat). Emanuel also “had a brief discussion with the Governor about the Senate seat and the merits of various people whom the Governor might consider.” Craig also noted that Emanuel had “about four telephone conversations with John Harris, Chief of Staff to the Governor, on the subject of the Senate seat. In these conversations, Mr. Emanuel and Mr. Harris discussed the merits of potential candidates and the strategic benefit that each candidate would bring to the Senate seat.” In addition to the president-elect, Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett, an Obama confidante, were interviewed in the past few days by investigators with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago, which, on December 9, announced criminal charges against Blagojevich and Harris.

Obama, of course, is having himself white-washed in all this – nice to have your own people do an investigation and discover – surprise, surprise, surprise! – that there was no improper contacts between Team Obama and Blagojevich. This is a preview, I guess, of how Obama’s Justice Department will deal with corruption amongst Democrat politicians.

The spreading stain of Blagojevich is something Obama needs to go away, and go away fast. Its not so much whether or not Obama, himself, had improper contacts (I’ll bet he didn’t – at least to the extent that there won’t be anything on tape or paper saying he did), but that Obama’s deep connections to the corrupt political machine which raised Blagojevich to the governorship and which made selling a Senate seat seem ok will continue to dog Obama unless there is a complete conclusion to this matter. Obama is either being ill-served by advisers who are neck-deep in Blagojevich, or is being a fool in his own right – the way out of this is to get right into it and admit error, promise complete cooperation and insist that anyone who broke the law go to jail. Having your own people pretend to clear you of wrongdoing will convince Daily Kos kooks, but not many other people.

The old saw is that its not the crime, but the cover up which causes the problem – in my view, its a bit different. Presidents, especially, are not involved in crimes unless they are really, really stupid (like Nixon) in their actions. Whatever else I may think of Obama, “stupid” doesn’t come to mind. To me, the problem is the failure to immediately admit culpability. Now, you can’t do this endlessly – no matter how sincere the apology, by the time you’re apologizing for the 20th mistake, you’re being taken for an incompetent boob. But when something really bad comes along – like a governor attempting to sell your Senate seat and there’s clear indications that your top people were talking to the guy – its time to get out in front, admit error, apologize and then be seen to be working to clear the air. The American people are understanding and forgiving – but impatient with people who try to hem and haw their way out of trouble.

Obama has already half blown this – if he keeps going on like this, then he’s going to have a vested interest in defending the indefensible (ie, anyone on his team who turns out to have been involved in actual seat-selling), and that is the recipe for ultimate political disaster. Obama can un-blow it (as it were), but time is running out.

But will Obama have the wisdom to reflect on our views?

Pro-life leaders are seeking a meeting with President-elect Obama to “establish a foundation” for cooperation in building a culture of life which “honors equality and human rights and ends abortion.”

A December 17 letter seeking a meeting has been signed by Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition; Brandi Swindell, Founder and President of Stanton Healthcare; Deborah Frantzich of Rachel’s Vineyard; and Day Gardner, President of the National Black Pro-life Union.

“The thoughts and prayers of the pro-life community have been with you since your historic victory,” the letter professes.

“Since social justice and compassion begin in the womb, it is essential that we purpose in our hearts to end the pain and tragedy of abortion in our lifetime,” it adds.

Calling on Obama to fulfill his promise that all viewpoints will be heard and respected in the White House, the coalition promises to send an advisory delegation to Obama composed of women who run medical clinics for those in “challenging pregnancies” and for post-abortive women who have been “wounded and diminished” by abortion.

“It is important that you hear from professionals in the field who daily reduce the number of abortions through their labor of love and sacrifice,” the letter adds, saying Obama should also hear first-hand stories from a “growing chorus of women” who suffer because of their abortion.

Writing in a press release, Rev. Mahoney explained the motivations behind the letter.

“President-Elect Obama has never sat down face with members of the pro-life community that represent the values embraced by millions of Americans. He has never heard the narratives of women who have been bruised and diminished through abortion,” he claimed.

“Mr. Obama has never heard the personal stories from thousands of dedicated professionals that have laid aside personal ambition and financial gain in order to serve women who find themselves in challenging pregnancies. He has never heard from faith and human rights leaders that are devoted to standing for social justice and ending the tragedy and violence of abortion.”

It is an amazing blind spot in so many liberals – their unwillingness to consider just what “pro choice” entails. It will be worthwhile for Obama – and his Administration – to sit down with these people and hear their views, and look for ways that the liberal concept of social justice can be worked in with the pro-life viewpoint. It does stagger me to think that people can consider a dead baby a proper solution to poverty, or fear. Though, to be generous about it, 99% of pro-choicers don’t think of it like that – and its my contention that most of them, in the final analysis, really haven’t thought the matter all the way through. Partially, no doubt, because they’ve never been truly exposed to the pro-life viewpoint. Obama meeting with this groups would be a good start.

The question is whether or not the pro-abortion groups like NARAL and NOW will even allow Obama to meet with the pro-life groups? One thing the pro-abort people know is that they can’t withstand comparison with the actual pro-life movement. They can shadow-box with great success against the mythical pro-life community, but the actual people in the pro-life movement – especially those women who have suffered abortion – are insurmountable, and deadly arguments against the moral and intellectual cowardice which lies at the bottom – unsuspected by most – of the pro-choice movement.

From NRO’s The Corner:

Rod Blagojevich, $1 trillion “fiscal stimulus”, Harry Reid, expiring tax cuts, Nancy Pelosi, socialized health care, Charlie Rangel, reinstitution of the oil drilling ban, Joe Biden, liberal judicial nominees, Al Franken (maybe), nuclear Iran, John Murtha, car czars, Dennis Kucinich, PC culture, Chris Dodd, entitlement explosion, Barney Frank, entitlement implosion, Barbara Boxer, card check, the Clintons, Russian adventurism.

If Republicans can’t come back in 2010 they should be sued for political malpractice.

As for me, I figure 9-10% unemployment…one friend of mine figures that is too optimistic, and that 12% is more likely. There is a fairly easy fix to prevent all of this – deep spending cuts, across the board tax cuts and a fiscal stimulus not for dinosaurs like GM, but for small businesses willing to hire and expand. Obama could do this or a variant of it – but he’s unlikely to for the simple reason he and his advisers probably don’t suspect the existence of such possibilities. So, we’re likely to have a pretty bad dose of economic liberalism, and thus my friend’s negative view.

Now, my dear liberals, you can say all you want that the economic legacy Obama deals with is all Bush’s fault – it isn’t (though he certainly played a role, being President for the past 8 years), but Bush’s fault or not, by June of 2009, its Obama’s economy, not Bush’s. For good or ill, the praise or blame for how things are going falls on the guy in charge, and his political party, as we GOPers learned to our sorrow this past November. The MSM will do what it can for you in burnishing Obama, downplaying the ills of the economy and laying as much blame as they can on President Bush…but when push comes to shove, the government on January 20th, 2009 becomes all yours, and thus what happens in the country is your responsibility. If things work out well, you’ll reap the electoral benefits – if things don’t, then you’ll reap the electoral whirlwind.

As for me, I’m expecting a pretty good 2010 for us – I’m not, at this time, predicting a GOP Congressional majority, but I can see us picking up a score of House seats, and perhaps a bit more, without too much effort or too large a GOP wave. As for the Senate, I was convinced that we didn’t have a chance of a majority before 2012, but now with Obama, Hillary, Biden and Salazar moving from the Senate to the Executive, Kennedy’s longevity in doubt, Byrd not looking too healthy and a mid-term with the other party in the White House, I figure we’ve got an outside shot at a majority in 2010, and a pretty sure 4-6 seat gain.

And like the NRO comment, if we can’t do well in 2010 then we are the biggest bunch of losers in political history.

One hopes that one day a majority figures out just what a scam “higher education” has become:

Government figures show that of students who entered four-year colleges in 1997, just 54% had earned a degree six years later. A professor wrote about this issue in The Atlantic earlier this year, arguing that it’s immoral to tell all students they can go to college, then crush their dreams by failing half of them. But the problem has deeper effects than hurt feelings: the 54% graduation rate means that around 46% of all money used to finance college tuition results in no degree.

Which means that financially speaking, the spectacularly high dropout rate boils down to a spectacularly bad investment. Though there’s no specific data, one can imagine the countless millions that are wasted financing educations that never come to fruition. We could try to predict which students would be part of the 46% who don’t finish, then encourage those students not to go to college. But to do this would mean a lot of students who might graduate never get to give it a shot. That wouldn’t be fair. So what we can do instead is identify the 5% or 10% of students who are the least likely to graduate, and not send them to college.

The problem is, the current system provides no way, and no incentive, for doing that. In fact, the Free Application For Student Aid (FAFSA) doesn’t take into account an applicant’s academic record at all. The rationale behind this is reasonable and admirable: we don’t want federal student aid to be restricted only to the best and the brightest, many of whom come from backgrounds that made it easy for them to excel. But doesn’t it make sense, on some level, to withhold aid from the students who have shown during high school that they’re clearly not equipped to make it through four years of college? Doing so would be a big step toward recouping some of that wasted 46% of lost financing.

Our liberals, from Obama on down, are pledged to making college more “affordable” – which isn’t the same as “less expensive” and has zero to do with “more effective”. What it means is “making it easier for ever more kids to enter the schools, thus providing an ever increasing pool of money for those bastions of liberal/left orthodoxy, the colleges and universities of the United States”. One only has to consider that people affiliated with the University of California gave $2 million in political donations in 2008, with 93% of that going to the Democrats, to understand that Democrats have a vested interest in making college more “affordable”. The more “affordable” it is, the more election swag they’ll get. Overall, $51 million was donated by people in education in 2008, with 82% of the total going to Democrats. This is a sweet deal, and whether or not kids are getting educated doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference. We’re talking money and power here, understand?

Now, don’t get me wrong – college has its purpose. We certainly want our doctors and engineers well educated in their trade before they take a knife to us or design the new bridge – and, on the whole, we get good results from our engineering and medical courses. But outside of those areas where results are very concrete and easily measurable, we’re not really getting all that much.

To be sure, having a degree can help, especially if its a degree from a prestige university – but mostly its a help in getting someone ensconced in government or corporate bureaucracy. This is because of a combination of “old boy” networks and hiring manager laziness – given a choice between a guy with a degree from Podunk U and Harvard, the hiring manager will take the Harvard applicant simply because Harvard has a good reputation and so even if the new hire turns out to be a bonehead, the man who hired him can credibly say, “hey, how was I to know? The kid has a degree from Harvard!”. So, too, with the choice between the Podunk U graduate and the kid with the high school diploma or GED – the hiring manager will make it easy on himself, rather than actually try to determine who has the better skill set.

But suppose you are one who doesn’t have a hankering for climbing the bureaucratic ladder? Maybe a person likes constructing things, and so would like to start up a construction business. Perhaps another likes the hustle and bustle of a sales job and so looks into opening up an appliance store. And then there’s the person who has a bit of artistic talent and thus wants make sculptures for people’s gardens. On and on it goes – a whole bunch of things, mostly very useful, for which a college degree would be mostly useless. And therein lies the rub – we’ve got this education system which is a one-size-fits-all-everyone-goes-to-college bit of nonsense. And even in that nonsense it fails miserably given the number of kids who wind up illiterate after spending years in the education system.

In my view, public education in America is a racket – and higher education the most corrupt part of it. We’re pouring huge sums of money into institutions which give a new definition to “getting richer by degrees”. Kids are burdened with absurd student loans, taxpayers are burdened with grants for un-needed education programs (can anyone think of one reason the US taxpayer should in any way, shape or form provide assistance to law schools?), tenured radicals pollute our political system, bloated education bureaucracies provide sinecures for liberals who then lobby for more funding, ad infinitum. Time to cut out the cancer – time, that is, for conservatism to take a hand at education reform.

The best thing we can do is to terminate the idiotic student loan program and opt instead for a series of grants based on income level and academic achievement. And the grants will be “X” dollars and no more – the schools will still want the money, and so they’ll be forced to cut their prices to match the grants, and this will make college more genuinely affordable to those middle and upper class kids who would not be eligible for the grants given to poor kids. After that, we can come up with a host of other reforms (free medical school – if you commit to serving 6 years in a poor area of the country, eg), but we can gut this education scam right out the gate by getting rid of the student loans and other government programs which have only inflated the cost of education and provided funding for Democrats and their supporters.

Is it right over to where Britain is, today, or a rediscovery of the will to fight?

Britain has lost the stomach for a fight

Last week Gordon Brown announced a date for Britain’s withdrawal from Iraq. Most troops will be back in time for a spring general election. The prime minister posed with soldiers and expressed his sorrow over yet more fatal casualties in Afghanistan. He did not dwell on Britain’s humiliation in Basra, nor mention that this is the most inglorious withdrawal since Sir Anthony Eden ordered the boys back from Suez.

The fundamental cause of the British failure was political. Tony Blair wanted to join the United States in its toppling of Saddam Hussein because if Britain does not back America it is hard to know what our role in the world is: certainly not a seat at the top table. But, for all his persuasiveness, Blair could not hold public opinion over the medium term and so he cut troop numbers fast and sought to avoid casualties. As a result, British forces lost control of Basra and left the population at the mercy of fundamentalist thugs and warring militias, in particular Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army…

…If a fair-minded account of the Iraq war is written, credit should go to President Bush for rejecting two years ago the report by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that called for force reductions. He defied conventional wisdom and ordered a troop surge instead. It has been an extraordinary success and, unlike Britain, the Americans will not withdraw in defeat. During debates in Washington, British forces’ ignominious withdrawal to barracks was cited to argue that the United States could not contemplate being humbled in a similar way. In the end Bush was not a quitter. Blair “cut and ran”.

Britain’s shaming was completed in March 2008 when Iraqi forces, backed by the US, moved decisively against the Mahdi Army, inflicting huge casualties and removing them from Basra. Operation Charge of the Knights was supervised by Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, exasperated that Iraq’s second city was controlled not by Britain but by an Iranian-backed Shi’ite militia.

Trust in the British had fallen so low that neither the Iraqi nor the US government was willing to give us much notice of the operation. General Mohammed Jawad Humeidi remarked that his forces battled for a week before receiving British support. He rubbed salt in the wound by noting that for five years the Mahdi Army had “ruled Basra without being punished or held to account”, and had during that time controlled ports, oil, electricity and government agencies, whose funds bought them weapons…

…The extent of Britain’s fiasco has been masked by the media’s relief that we are at last leaving Iraq. Those who have been urging Britain to quit are not in a strong position to criticise the government’s lack of staying power. Reporting of Basra has mainly focused on British casualties and the prospect for withdrawal. The British media and public have shown scant regard for our failure to protect Iraqis, so the British nation, not just its government, has attracted distrust. We should reflect on what sort of country we have become. We may enjoy patronising Americans but they demonstrate a fibre that we now lack.

The United States will have drawn its conclusions about our reliability in future and British policy-makers, too, will need to recognise that we lack the troops, wealth and stomach for anything more than the briefest conflict…

You must never, ever lose a war. And in war, as America’s greatest general pointed out, there is no substitute for victory. You have to clearly win – if you don’t, then you’ve lost. Britain wasn’t forced to surrender. Britain’s casualties were not high. Britain’s resources are entirely intact. Britain’s military, man for man and in equipment, is vastly superior to any force any middle eastern nation can bring against it, let alone what ragged terrorists can bring to the field. But all of that doesn’t matter – Britain didn’t win, and is now withdrawing in shame from a victory won by Americans, Iraqis and others who proved they have the stomach for a long fight. Nothing will ever repair Britain’s credibility save engaging in a future fight with the same sort of spirit which saw Britain through wars past.

This is what Democrats, with a few exceptions like Sen. Joe Lieberman, don’t get – it doesn’t matter, in the end, how you got into a fight. All that matters is that, in the end, you win it. Call President Bush the most wickedly stupid man who ever lived, and it won’t matter in the least – the rest of the world will be concerning itself not with how Daily Kos and Democratic Underground view President Bush, but whether or not America wins. The Obama plan for Iraq, fortunately never enacted, would have handed us a crushing defeat – no matter how you slice it, if we had left Iraq at the end of March, it would have been viewed as an American defeat, and the whole world would make its global security arrangements on the assumption that America lacked the stomach for a long fight. The results would have been disasterous – and not just in an emboldened terrorism attempting to strike at the United States anew, but with Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and Syria seeking to profit off our weakness, and potential allies like India and Poland seeking the best deal they could with their antagonists.

And now in comes President Obama with a Democrat majority in Congress – and not only that, but a strong majority of Americans, including very many who didn’t vote for him, willing to give him his chance. In short, Obama and his Democrats have wide discretion in setting American military policy. For at least a year, they can pretty much do as they please. Obama has pledged to win in Afghanistan, and in that effort he has my rock-ribbed support – but the enemy will shortly test Obama’s mettle to see if he’s made of the same stuff as President Bush. In short, they will want to find out if he can stick it out in a long fight.

We can look for the terrorists to attempt some sort of spectacular, high casualty attack on American troops and/or a series of bloody terrorist incidents around Afghanistan. The purpose will not be to defeat us militarily – that is out of their reach – but to see whether or not our new President will absorb the news of death and destruction and emerge just more convinced than ever that fighting it out to a victorious finish is the only way to go. Or will Obama seek to get out of the mess and keep our casualties low? If he follows the course the Brits did in Basra, then we’ll lose only few lives and it might even seem that things are working out ok – but a defeat it would be, and we’d be proffered that cup of defeat year after year by our enemies until we recovered – especially in our leadership – the sheer guts necessary to fight.

I hope Obama passes the test – and I hope our Democrats learn the lesson: when the guns go off, the only concern for any patriotic American must be victory. Victory regardless of how hard the fight is, or how high the cost in blood and treasure.

The Wall Street Journal‘s Kim Strassel notes something Mark and I know all too well, that the Blagojevich scandal is just the typical iceberg of Democrat corruption…

A note to all those visitors who will soon flood Washington for the inauguration: Be careful of the “swamp.”

That would be the swamp Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed to drain when she led her party to victory in 2006. The GOP had been rocked by scandal, and Mrs. Pelosi and Democrats won, in part, by promising to clean up the “culture of corruption” that pervaded Washington.

Instead, Democrats now have an image problem. The real issue isn’t so much Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s Senate-seat auction, as it is the focus that his scandal has directed toward a wider assortment of Democratic troubles. This isn’t great timing for Barack Obama, who campaigned on cleaner government.

The Blagojevich drama is titillating enough, and local Democrats’ dithering over how to fill Mr. Obama’s seat guarantees it will remain a storyline longer than is comfortable. But the Illinois drama has also thrust new light on the ongoing ethical controversies of House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel. At the rate the House Ethics Committee is receiving complaints — over Mr. Rangel’s real-estate problems, tax problems, his privately sponsored trips to the Caribbean, and donations to his center in New York — this too will make headlines for a while.

This is actually something Mark and I mentioned in our book, Caucus of Corruption. Since Republicans were in the majority in 2006, it was easier for the Democrats to charge corruption against the majority — while their own rampant corruption went unreported on. Perhaps now that the Democrats will be in total power for the next two years the media will shift focus back on the corruption that has been rampant in the Democratic Party for years. 

To do our part to help, of course there is our book, which still has lots of relevant information, and there is Democrat Corruption, our new, rebranded and relaunched version of No Agenda, which chronicled Democrat corruption between 2005 and 2007. This new site includes all our earlier content, as well as new material recently added, that will continue to grow.

Ever wonder why our European friends are less enthusiastic about fighting Islamism than we are? Here’s your answer, in a BBC report:

Swedish city hit by youth riots

Dozens of youths have rioted in the southern Swedish city of Malmo for a second consecutive night, setting cars on fire and clashing with police.

“We’ve had a very difficult evening,” a police spokeswoman told the AFP news agency late on Thursday.

“There have been fires burning since this afternoon… extensive damage to public property, and… stone-throwing and bomb threats against police.”

She said the trouble was linked to the closure of an Islamic centre.

The owner of the building, in an immigrant neighbourhood, had decided not to renew the centre’s lease. The centre, which included a mosque, had to move out.

But some youths squatted in the premises, until they were evicted by police earlier this week.

Once police left the premises, the youths returned, setting fires in the area. They then clashed with police.

“The origin of the riots is the occupation of the building. But that’s not really the reason now, now other troublemakers have just joined in, taking advantage of the situation,” police spokeswoman Ewa-Gun Westford told AFP. (emphasis added)

That is four mentions of “youth” and only one tangential mention of “Islamic” – but, lets face it, the real story is about Islamists running riot because a property owner decided not to renew a lease. These Islamists, in accordance with Islamist ideology, hold that non-Islamist laws aren’t binding and that non-Moslems must be subservient to their Moslem masters…and, so, when a non-Moslem wasn’t sufficiently servile, the Islamists went on a rampage. Very easy to understand – and also easy to understand both why they did it and while they’ll keep doing it until the wind up a majority of the population…the Europeans are simply too cowardly to defend themselves and the MSM bias prevents the non-Moslem population from learning their true peril.

Part of the problem we have – and part of the reason we lost this past November – is because of this relentless hiding of the truth. Coupled with an equally pervasive transmission of falsehoods about our side, we have come back to that perfect period – for Islamists – where action against them is nearly paralyzed. Will the current paralysis result in another 9/11? Only time will tell – but you can get your last dollar that the MSM will be surprised when it happens, and just as insistent that we not speak the truth about who did it, and why.

HAT TIP: NRO’s The Corner