STEP RIGHT UP, FOLKS! GENUINE H2O ON SELL!

It seems to me that as long as I can remember I've been drinking water for free. My Mom was pretty tight with the coins, and it would take a pretty good struggle to wring a coin from her paw. Now, don't get me wrong! My Mom wasn't a beast or anything. It's just that what she put away in the "cookie jar," she defended fiercely. You had to have a good reason to get any of it. Real good!.

Yet, my Mom never charged us kids any money for food, or for a place to sleep for the night, nor for water, whether utilized for bath or to drink. Mom understood that there were things that you just didn't have a right to charge for.

There was a time that this was a common belief. I speak here of the 1950s. Virtually everyone thought that water provision was a governmental function, and city waterworks were the norm. The idea that someone might try to create a scarcity of water so as to make a big profit entered no one's head.

Apparently, that's not the case anymore. How do I know? Well, sir, several years ago I read an article in the Wall Street Journal which described how "mergers and acquisitions" mogul, T. Boone Pickens of Texas, was investing in water rights in the great central aquafer that rests beneath the Plains States. I believe it has a fancy name, whether of palaeontology, geography, or marine science, I cannot recall. At any rate Mr. Pickens expected that water would be a commodity whose price was certain to rise. He planned on making a bundle of loot, as water scarcity and human demand compelled an upward trajectory for a "gallon of water."

Parenthetically, I'm not certain whether Mr. Pickens plans to sell water by the gallon, or, as with oil (of which he knows a lot), he plans to sell by the barrel.

I did receive in the mail an unsolicited stock "tout sheet" from a Mr. Jarret Wollstein, who seems to believe that "the biggest commodity boom in history is building steam as I write...That commodity is clean fresh water, and I can assure you, the smart money is getting in now..."

Now, Mr. Wollstein is a convincing, enthusiastic salesman. He cites logically that there are no new sources of fresh water. The world population is increasing, and as many of them as possible will try to come here. That means greater pressure on a limited resource. He also points out ecological considerations and water pollution with toxic chemicals. Science, he seems to feel, cannot rescue the situation in the limited time before the onset of the "Great Water Famine." He offers other reasons but lets stop here.

Who is "the smart money?" Well, of course, I've mentioned Mr. Pickens. One assumes he has some sharp associates in the project as well. Who else? According to Mr. Wollstein's tout sheet, the Queen of England warned in March about the "competition for fresh water by a growing population is itself becoming a source of potential conflict." Further, former Federal Reserve chairman, Allen Greenspan, according to this tout sheet, believes that a bad economic turndown is certain, but that the potential for water price increase makes it the new road to riches. Well, I paraphrase the sense of the quoted chairman.

If Greenspan were interested, its a good bet that the Rockefeller condominum of rich and savvy investors have already taken substantial stakes in water. As with the "art" purchased by the Rockefellers at a cheap price and later unloaded at stupendous profits and/or tax write-offs, so it may be with water. This would also explain the enthusiastic support of Latin peon migration into America by the Rockefeller crowd. This migration would generate a quantum leap in American water usage, starting the pressure upward for the water commodity. But Latins are not the only people pouring into America.

Now, if the Queen of England can perceive water shortages causing conflicts, do not suppose for a moment that the ruling circles in America don't understand that as well. So, why do they do all that they can to ease the travail of invading hordes of people? Why have they NEVER made any semi-serious effort to control our borders and regulate rationally (or at least according to the legislation of record) migration? Why have they always used rhetoric to stall any effective action? They wanted to create a fait accompli.

Since water shortages in America can only be hastened by unrestricted invasion whereby scores of millions of people clandestinely take their refuge in America, awaiting Jorge W. Arbusto's amnesty and "instant citizenship" proclamation. In gratitude they can only respond: "Hail, Caesar!"

Things at the highest levels of government operate with knowledge, purpose and vision. What is the vision of those who "pull the strings" of the Democrat-Republican Socialist Party? It is one of global order, created out of chaos. They are the ones who create the chaos. When the old structures lie in ruin, they will gather together like Nehemiah, Ezra, and the remnant of Israel to rebuild the world ("tikkun olam") They imagine this, as they have a zany understanding of the pertinent relationships.

It is difficult to know how to halt their madness. I recall seeing a roughly formed phalanx of "Weathermen" (or a similar Marxist group) walking down 15th street in Washington, D.C., about 1970 or '71, heading for The Mall area. Their phalanx was perhaps five across and twenty-five deep (as I now recall). Maybe more. I supposed them to be mostly Jewish. They got my attention, and I watched as they "marched," thrusting their fists into the air and chanting: "One more war! Revolution! One more war! Revolution!" I watched them turn the corner, marching toward Fourteenth Street, NW.

When I think back upon those Jewish lads, I believe that they offered an answer to America's looming problems. When leaders are deranged, corrupt, martial, dictatorial, and insatiably greedy, maybe it is time for a "Tea Party." If anyone can afford the water, that is!

AUTHORITIES SUSPECT SUICIDE

Now, dodging bullets ain't no fun, but it beats getting hit. I believe that I'm on the same page with most people on this issue. It is with great reluctance (hey! I'm a clown!) that I bring up the subject of "politics and foul play" again. Still, with Hillary Clinton running for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States, and with her husband--so to speak--lurking in the shadows, one must expect bodies, some how or other, to start surfacing, "bobbing on the sea of political change." This couple has a track record which includes in its wake enough bodies to make a respectable professional football team. Well, I exaggerate a tad.

The recent news which has come to my attention of "nightriders" stiking the celebrated church of Barack Obama has caused much misgivings as to its source. I personally rule out the Ku Klux Klan. Yet, within the African-American community--even today--resides a residual fear of the Klan. Hence, for many African-Americans upon hearing that "death" stalked the congregation of Trinity United Church of Christ, an instant image of white-sheeted Klansmen, dragging an innocent member of the congregation to his doom entered their collective consciousness.

Part of a tragedy can be its generation of involuntary misgivings and suspicions. This is especially so when the tragedy involves a murder. Hence, three murders over a brief period of time has people looking over their collective shoulders. Any odd fellow immediately draws suspicious glances, as people are always certain that "evil" doesn't look like them.

Some readers may be scratching their heads and asking: What is he talking about? Let me give the basic data by means of a citation from a usually reliable source. Consider:

"The bombshell may involve the murder of Donald Young, a 47-year-old choir master at former Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ--the same congregation that Obama has attended for the past 20 years. Two other young black men that attended the same church--Larry Bland and Nate Spencer--were also murdered execution style with bullets to the backs of their heads--all within 40 days of each other, beginning in November 2007. All three were openly homosexual.

"What links this story to Barack Obama is that, according to an acquaintance of Obama, Larry Sinclair, Obama is a closet bisexual with whom he had sexual and drug-related encounters in November 1990. Further, Sinclair claims that Obama was friendly with at least two of these deceased parishioners, and that choir director Donald had contacted him shortly before being murdered from multiple gunshot wounds on December 23, 2007....

"An even more sinister aspect of this case is being investigated. According to Sinclair in an affidavit to the Chicago Police Department, Donald Young had informed him that he and Barack Obama were 'intimate' with each other....

"Another questionable Obama associate is openly homosexual. That person is Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, who was listed during the 2008 campaign as being part of Obama's 'technology initiative.' " [AMERICAN FREE PRESS, June 2, 2008, p.13, Article by Victor Thorn, a well-known author]

The allegations against Barack Obama seem to depend heavily at this time on one man, Mr. Sinclair. The whole story calls to mind the fine political novel by Allen Drury entitled, ADVISE AND CONSENT, wherein a similar problem lurked. Is life imitating Art?

Regardless of the issue of sex--and Washington politicians are beyond blushing at any sexual act done by them or anyone else, the inconvenient fact of at least two homosexual members of Obama's congregation getting bullets to the back of the head must lead to undesirable questions, from the point of view of the Democrat's leading candidate for office.

For the American public--what with "surf's up!" and all--there may be minimal heed paid to the matter. It would tend to be "rolled up" in the issue: "Isn't that the strangest church? I'm so glad that Obama decided to leave it." No one will wonder if he took a smoking gun with him.

Did Obama's rather steely wife get rid of her husband's potential problems? Were these C.I.A. "hits" ordered by a) Billy Jeff Clinton or b) Daddy Bush? If Bush, the reason is obvious: help Sen. John McCain get elected, so he can continue "W's" war--maybe even let him carry the burden of "dropping the bomb" on Iran, so that history books can later make "W" into a lonely, courageous President standing tall against an implacable, evil foe, at a time when others were calling for "cut and run" policies. "W" --basically a man of peace--refused to use the bomb.

John McCain may be a "patsy." If he's wise, he won't select Jeb Bush to be his vice presidential running mate. "Patsies" die promptly, as if on cue.