Two on the military:<\/p>\n
Almost certainly too good to be true<\/a>. But wouldn’t it be wonderful? (Tip o’ hat to JS.)<\/p>\n Definitely true<\/a> and far less good, particularly in light of the onrushing National Defense Authorization Act<\/a><\/p>\n ADDED: Speaking of the NDAA, why are they continuing to be so secretive about it<\/a> even now that it’s gone into conference committee? (Another h\/t JS.)<\/p>\n And speaking of “too good to be true,” if you were encouraged by the Obama administration’s threat to veto the bill if it contained the military law-enforcement and limitless detention provisions, you can stop now. Our Glorious Leader hasn’t suddenly developed any Ron-Paulian reverence for the Bill of Rights. It’s all just a power struggle<\/a> over which<\/i> branch of government should be “authorized” to do the worst things to us.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Two on the military: Almost certainly too good to be true. But wouldn’t it be wonderful? (Tip o’ hat to JS.) Definitely true and far less good, particularly in light of the onrushing National Defense Authorization Act ADDED: Speaking of the NDAA, why are they continuing to be so secretive about it even now that it’s gone into conference committee? (Another h\/t JS.) And speaking of “too good to be true,” if you were encouraged by the Obama administration’s threat to veto the bill if it contained the military law-enforcement and limitless detention provisions, you can stop now. Our Glorious…<\/p>\n