SMOKEY’S COUNTDOWN TO IMMINENT ARMAGEDDON

DD-The correct phrase you refer to is “a mortal lock”. You’re welcome.

Of course, on the other hand, if Smokey’s correct, and a huge event DOES take place between now and Friday, you’ll never hear the end of it.

Hugh Hendry is Killing It Shorting China This Year

http://www.businessinsider.com/hugh-hendry-short-china-up-39-2011

Smokey says:

flash,

Paul Craig Roberts may be the most outspoken 9/11 Truther in the country, short of DP.

Sure, and why not? I’ve yet to read an essayist yet whose opinion diodn’t have one or two gaping holes,no matter how educated.
That said, PCR does raise some interesting questions that where never answered by the 9/11 Commission. I may be mistaken , but seems to me even some of the members of that appointed commission called some of the finding into question.
I. for one have never delved into the subject at all. for me,there are to many other evils that the Federal government has committed to even contemplated one more.
I think it safe to say that since the beginning of this so called Union the US government has killed enough innocent people in the name of “We the consented” to rival the governments of Hitler, Mao, and Stalin combined.
Start adding up the southerners slaughtered, the tens of thousands of native Americans annihilated, the German,Japanese, Filipinos,Korean , Cambodian , Laos,Vietnamese, South American, Mexican, Iraqi, Iranians, Yemen-ese, Libyan and various other civilians killed by US military,or US military trained killers then we’ve killed and participated in killing more than enough.
When will US sanctioned murder stop.
The US is certainly not a nation of godly people to allow so much murder to be conducted in their name, which is why I believe that God has no mercy left for this country.
I’m feel safe in saying that God has had enough.

What to disagree with?He’s asking the right questions,not that anyone can ever expect to get a straight answer from a Godless pack of liars….never happened, never will.
Oh, but sometimes they tell the truth, you say?
How can you tell?

The Critics of 9/11 Truth: Do They Have A Case?

by Paul Craig Roberts

Recently by Paul Craig Roberts: In America the Rule of Law Is Vacated

The short answer to the question in the title is no.

The 9/11 truth critics have nothing but ad hominem arguments.

Let’s examine the case against the truthers presented by Ted Rall, Ann Barnhardt, and Alexander Cockburn.

But first let’s define who the truthers are.

The Internet has made it possible for anyone to have a web site and to rant and speculate to their heart’s content. There are a large number of 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Many on both sides of the issue are equally ignorant. Neither side has any shame about demonstrating ignorance.

Both sides of the issue have conspiracy theories. 9/11 was a conspiracy whether a person believes that it was an inside job or that a handful of Arabs outwitted the entire intelligence apparatus of the Western world and the operational response of NORAD and the US Air Force.

For one side to call the other conspiracy theorists is the pot calling the kettle black.

The question turns not on name-calling but on evidence.

The 9/11 Truth movement was not created by bloggers ranting on their web sites. It was created by professional architects and engineers some of whom are known for having designed steel high rise buildings. It was created by distinguished scientists, such as University of Copenhagen nano-Chemist Niels Harrit who has 60 scientific papers to his credit and physicist Steven Jones. It was created by US Air Force pilots and commercial airline pilots who are expert at flying airplanes. It was created by firefighters who were in the twin towers and who personally heard and experienced numerous explosions including explosions in the sub-basements. It was created by members of 9/11 families who desire to know how such an improbable event as 9/11 could possibly occur.

The professionals and the scientists are speaking from the basis of years of experience and expert knowledge. Moreover, the scientists are speaking from the basis of careful research into the evidence that exists. When an international research team of scientists spends 18 months studying the components in the dust from the towers and the fused pieces of concrete and steel, they know what they are doing. When they announce that they have definite evidence of incendiaries and explosives, you can bet your life that that have the evidence.

When a physicist proves that Building 7 (the stories not obscured by other buildings) fell at free fall speed and NIST has to acknowledge that he is correct, you can bet your life that the physicist is correct.

When fire department captains and clean-up teams report molten steel – and their testimony is backed up with photographs – in the debris of the ruins weeks and months after the buildings’ destruction, you can bet your life the molten steel was there. When the same authorities report pumping fire suppressants and huge quantities of water with no effect on the molten steel, you can bet your life that the temperature long after the buildings’ destruction remained extremely high, far higher than any building fire can reach.

When the architects, engineers, and scientists speak, they offer no theory of who is responsible for 9/11. They state that the known evidence supports neither the NIST reports nor the 9/11 Commission Report. They say that the explanation that the government has provided is demonstrably wrong and that an investigation is required if we are to discover the truth about the event.

It is not a conspiracy theory to examine the evidence and to state that the evidence does not support the explanation that has been given.

That is the position of the 9/11 Truth movement.

What is the position of the movement’s critics? Ted Rall says: “Everything I’ve read and watched on Truther sites is easily dismissed by anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and architecture. (I spent three years in engineering school.)

Wow! What powerful credentials. Has Rall ever designed a high rise steel building? Could Rall engage in a debate with a professor of nano-chemistry? Could he refute Newton’s laws in a debate with university physicists? Does Rall know anything about maneuvering airplanes? Does he have an explanation why 100 firefighters, janitors, and police report hearing and experiencing explosions that they did not hear or experience?

Clearly, Ted Rall has no qualifications whatsoever to make any judgment about the judgments of experts whose knowledge exceeds his meager understanding by a large amount.

Ann Barnhardt writes: “I gotta tell you, I’ve just about had it with these 9/11 truthers. If there is one phenomenon in our sick, sick culture that sums up how far gone and utterly damaged we are as a people, it is 9/11 trutherism. It pretty much covers everything: self-loathing, antisemitism, zero knowledge of rudimentary physics and a general inability to think logically.” She goes down hill from here.

Amazing, isn’t she? Physics professors have “zero knowledge of rudimentary physics.”

Internationally recognized logicians have “a general inability to think logically.” People trained in the scientific method who use it to seek truth are “self-loathing.” If you doubt the government’s account you are antisemitic. Barnhardt then provides her readers with a lesson in physics, structural architecture and engineering, and the behavior of steel under heat and stress that is the most absolute nonsense imaginable.

Obviously, Barnhardt knows nothing whatsoever about what she is talking about, but overflowing with hubris she dismisses real scientists and professionals with ad hominem arguments. She adds to her luster with a video of herself tearing out pages of the Koran, which she has marked with slices of bacon, and burning the pages.

Now we come to Alex Cockburn. He is certainly not stupid. I know him. He is pleasant company. He provides interesting intellectual conversation. I like him. Yet, he also arrogantly dismisses highly qualified experts who provide evidence contrary to the official government story of 9/11.

Alex avoids evidence presented by credentialed experts and relies on parody. He writes that the conspiracists claim that the twin towers “pancaked because Dick Cheney’s agents – scores of them – methodically planted demolition charges.”

Little doubt but there are bloggers somewhere in the vast Internet world who say this. But this is not what the professionals are saying who have provided evidence that the official account is not correct. The experts are simply saying that the evidence does not support the official explanation. More recently, an international team of scientists has reported finding unequivocal evidence of incendiaries and explosives. They have not said anything about who planted them. Indeed, they have said that other scientists should test their conclusions by repeating the research. After calling experts “conspiracy kooks,” Alex then damns them for not putting forward “a scenario of the alleged conspiracy.”

Moreover, not a single one of the experts believes the towers “pancaked.” This was an early explanation that, I believe, was tentatively put forward by NIST, but it had to be abandoned because of the speed with which the buildings came down and due to other problems.

Unlike Rall and Barnhardt, Alex does refer to evidence, but it is second or third-hand hearsay evidence that is nonsensical on its face. For example, Alex writes that Chuck Spinney “tells me that ‘there ARE pictures taken of the 757 plane hitting Pentagon – they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon’s heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them both – stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows.’”

If there were pictures or videos of an airliner hitting the Pentagon, they would have been released years ago. They would have been supplied to the 9/11 Commission. Why would the government refuse for 10 years to release pictures that prove its case? The FBI confiscated all film from all surveillance cameras. No one has seen them, much less a Pentagon critic such as Spinney.

I have to say that the van driver must have better eyes than an eagle if he could see expressions on passenger faces through those small airliner portholes in a plane traveling around 500 mph. Try it sometimes. Sit on your front steps and try to discern the expressions of automobile passengers through much larger and clearer windows traveling down your street in a vehicle moving 30 mph. Then kick the speed up 16.7 times to 500 mph and report if you see anything but a blur.

Alex’s other evidence that 9/11 truthers are kooks is a letter that Herman Soifer, who claims to be a retired structural engineer, wrote to him summarizing “the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 succinctly.” This is what Soifer, who “had followed the plans and engineering of the Towers during construction” wrote to Alex: “The towers were basically tubes, essentially hollow.” This canard was disposed of years ago. If Alex had merely googled the plans of the buildings, he would have discovered that there were no thin-walled hollow tubes, but a very large number of massively thick steel beams.

Alex’s willingness to dismiss as kooks numerous acknowledged experts on the basis of a claim that a van driver saw terrified faces of passengers moving at 500 mph and a totally erroneous description in a letter from a person who knew nothing whatsoever about the structural integrity of the buildings means that he is a much braver person than I.

Before I call architects kooks whose careers were spent building steel high rises, I would want to know a lot more about the subject than I do. Before I poke fun at nano-chemists and physicists, I would want to at least be able to read their papers and find the scientific flaws in their arguments.

Yet, none of the people who ridicule 9/11 skeptics are capable of this. How, for example, can Rall, Barnhardt, or Cockburn pass judgment on a nano-chemist with 40 years of experience and 60 scientific publications to his credit?

They cannot, but nevertheless do. They don’t hesitate to pass judgment on issues about which they have no knowledge or understanding. This is an interesting psychological phenomenon worthy of study and analysis.

Another interesting phenomenon is the strong emotional reactions that many have to 9/11, an event about which they have little information. Even the lead members of the 9/11 Commission itself have said that information was withheld from them and the commission was set up to fail. People who rush to the defense of NIST do not even know what they are defending as NIST refuses to release the details of the simulation upon which NIST bases its conclusion.

There is no 9/11 debate. On the one hand there are credentialed experts who demonstrate problems in the official account, and on the other hand there are non-experts who denounce the experts as conspiracy kooks. The experts are cautious and careful about what they say, and their detractors have thrown caution and care to the wind. That is the state of the debate.

September 14, 2011

Paul Craig Roberts [send him mail], a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House.

Copyright © 2011 Paul Craig Roberts

The Best of Paul Craig Roberts

Jim – these AKs must have been leftovers from Project Gunwalker. Some two-bit Mexican narco thug is alive today because the feds didn’t have time to send those AKs down to Mexico like the other couple thousand they sent down there.

Sergeant GreyBush is disguised as Captain Cuttenpaste again.

-Booger Eater

“See flash, that’s the thing about the Hate-America club, and you are a charter member. You can’t just say, “Well, America has committed some atrocities as have all countries.” and leave it there.”
That’s not enough for you or your club. You simply can’t resist the urge to LIE in your insatiable quest to motherfuck this country.Why don’t you just move to North Korea or Syria and be done with it ?”

You fucking moron, this country hasn’t a goddman thing to do with that fascist fucking government in DC.
The majority of American could give a fuck less if the Federal government nuked any other country on the earth…just wouldn’t give a shit if they got their free shit on time.

That said, fuck you and your fascsit banana Republic.I love my country , was born here and plan on dying here .Got it shit stain?
If you want to persist in blind idol worship, be my guest,nut the fact are indisputable.

Hundred of thousands killed in The war of
Northern Aggression,hundreds of thousands of American Indians murdered, millions of “Huns” murdered during WWI and over a million more starved to death by blockade after WWI by Treaty of Versailles, millions more murdered by bombing campaigns in Japan, Germany , Italy, Vietnam,Lao, Cambodia,Iraq, Afghanistan.Then death by embargo of millions more in Iran, Iraq,ect.
And don’t forget all the shitstom of death rained down in Nicaragua and neighboring countries by Reagan and predecessors.

I don’t have time to do a chronological timeline documenting all the direct and indirect genocide caused by the Fascist fucks in DC due to bandwidth limits, but I’ll leave you with this.
ESAD.

Smokey,

I’ve been thinking about all the harsh words Between us and I like to clarify one point in particular,
You still eat shit….hope you don’t take it personal though.

People like you give my country a bad fucking name.

Love It or Leave It?

by Michael S. Rozeff

Recently by Michael S. Rozeff: ‘Central Banks’ Are Not Banks

Libertarians who criticize the United States government are sometimes told “If you don’t like it here, leave.” Sir Walter Scott’s lines are a poetic reply:

“Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land?
Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d,
As home his footsteps he hath turn’d,
From wandering on a foreign strand?”

Even the patriotic song “This Is My Country” at least begins well with

“This is my country! Land of my birth!
This is my country! Grandest on earth!”

before it veers off into a pledge of allegiance, which is, however, to America, and not to the United States of America, which is America’s federal government.

One’s native land and country are not the government. America is not the United States of America, which is a government. One’s land and country are not the Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and the Transportation Security Administration. Emotion felt toward one’s country is different than emotion felt toward the government of one’s country.

Why connect one’s consent or non-consent to government (one’s loving it or not) to staying in the country or leaving it? Why connect consent to location? If one does not consent to a government, why is exit from the country thought to be a necessary implication? Why not simply end one’s relations with that government and remain in the country?

The government won’t let you. That’s why.

A little background first.

Libertarians stand for freedom and against undesirable government coercion, which is coercion that is aggressive in nature and not defensive; or coercion that attacks freedom rather than protects it.

Libertarians are not necessarily anarchists. Anarchists either prefer no government at all for themselves or else are comfortable with a voluntary form of self-government. Some libertarians are anarchists, while others desire various forms of government. Both libertarians and anarchists do not want others to impose their governments on them. Panarchists are persons who desire that all persons, right down to the individual, have the freedom to choose their own governments within one’s native land and country. This means that one country could contain many possible governments. As this freedom increases, it means that territoriality of government diminishes or even ceases.

Libertarians, anarchists and panarchists, whatever may be these shades of difference, all would be happy if other people would leave them to their own devices and not coerce them via governments.

Fred Reed recently expressed a degree of panarchist belief when he separated living in a country from consent to its government:

“A fruitful field of disengagement might be called domestic expatriation – the recognition that living in a country makes you a resident, not a subscriber. It is one thing to be loyal to a government that is loyal to you, another thing entirely to continue that loyalty when the Brown Shirts march and the government rejects everything that you believe in. While the phrase has become unbearably pretentious, it is possible to regard oneself as a citizen of the world rather than of the Reich.”

This passage refers to a given person residing in a country without consenting (subscribing) to a government. This statement is consistent with panarchism. It contrasts sharply with the exercise of the right of revolution of an entire people that Jefferson proposes in the Declaration of Independence:

“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…”

Jefferson reserved a right of revolution to an entire people. Panarchism does not preclude this possibility, but this is really not how revolutions proceed. Usually they are led by small groups that manage to install new and coercive governments. By contrast, panarchism is brought into being by any size group, from one person on up, that is able to release itself from coercive government restrictions to any degree.

To panarchists, the right to alter government is not a right only of “the people” as a whole but of every single person. Freedom is at the level of each person. It is not necessarily an idea belonging to an aggregate called “the people”. However, whatever person or group or people can gain a freedom-expanding concession from government by removing some coercion, even if others do not, is altering its relation to government. A partial abolition of some facet of government occurs.

For example, there are 564 Indian tribes (nations) in America that currently have their own relations, as peoples, with the U.S. government. This number is not fixed. The Amish do not have a separate nation within a nation but their church officials led a campaign that ended in 1965 with the Old Order Amish not having to pay social security taxes. On the other hand, the government (through the Food and Drug Administration) is enforcing restrictions on Amish sales of unpasteurized milk to willing customers.

Lysander Spooner criticized the Constitution as not being a contract among known individuals who agreed to it and signed it. Spooner’s analysis of consent reaches the point where he writes

“The question, then, returns, what is implied in a government’s resting on consent?

“Manifestly this one thing (to say nothing of the others) is necessarily implied in the idea of a government’s resting on consent, viz: the separate, individual consent of every man who is required to contribute, either by taxation or personal service, to the support of the government.”

“Separate, individual consent of every man” is the key conclusion of any logical analysis of consent such as Spooner’s. This is the panarchist view. Panarchists are aiming for each and every person to get out from under a government that is not of their choice. Jefferson wrote

“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Panarchists take this seriously. Consent of the governed does not mean consent of an arbitrary group that someone designates as “a people” or as “the people”. It means individual consent.

It is the case that some persons wish to be coerced by a government in certain matters. They accept that government willingly and allow such coercion. In this choice there is no diminishment of their freedom. But when that government coerces other persons who do not accept that government’s rule, then those involuntarily-coerced persons suffer a loss of freedom.

Those people who want their governments to coerce them in certain activities or want their goverments to have certain powers over them have a right to erect such governments; but they do not have a right to erect their coercive governments over other people who do not want them or choose them.

One denies freedom to others when one denies them their right to consent to coercive governments for themselves. Libertarians and anarchists cannot make others free by abolishing their governments – not if those people want them. Efforts to persuade others of the virtues of life without government should not be misconstrued as attempts to infringe upon the right to choose one’s government – even a coercive government at that.

Whoever supports the most extensive freedom of every person cannot favor governments that coerce people who do not wish to be coerced, but they can tolerate governments whose subjects consent to them, as long as they keep their coercion limited to those who consent.

The loss of freedom today is very large because today’s governments exercise extensive powers upon non-consenting persons as a routine matter. Since these powers touch so very many aspects of people’s lives, freedom of the person is vastly diminished. This would not be the case if governments allowed exit or personal secession within the country; but, to the contrary, they nearly always exclude the freedom of each person to exit from a government’s rule while remaining in the country. Governments punish attempts to exit. Governments punish attempts to live under alternative rules and laws.

The freedom to exit the oppressions of unwanted government is a long-sought centuries-old goal, often accomplished through migration or physical exit from a country. This goal is far from being a reality. Present-day governments with constitutions would have us believe that all of us are free because of various voting procedures or some semblance of rule of law, but of course all of us are not free. Most of us can find many denials of freedom in our lives.

Libertarian calls for greater freedom and libertarian statements that many people in this and other “free” countries lack freedom often meet with denial, resentment and anger. Libertarians are sometimes told to pack up and leave if they don’t like it. This suggestion only proves that the freedom to exit is exactly that freedom which people do not currently possess, for freedom to exit from a government means freedom to choose one’s government where one lives.

It is undeniably true that one may expatriate or emigrate as a means of seeking greater freedom, but why should a person have to move? Being forced to move in order to exit a government means that one is subject to a government’s coercion. Moving should be voluntary. One’s country and one’s land are not the same as the government that claims to rule that country and the persons living in that land. Leaving the country, leaving one’s land, and leaving one’s relations and relationships behind in order to exit a government is not a solution consistent with full freedom. That action is chosen by some only because the government coercively claims jurisdiction over territory and all persons within that territory. Those who leave their country are being involuntarily coerced into a second-best solution.

Panarchists point out that territory is the heart of the matter. Territory is the device by means of which governments inflict uniformity of law when what is required for full freedom is non-uniformity of law within a given land. One person’s government may wish to forbid drugs for its subscribers, but another person’s government may not. One person’s government may wish to coerce everyone into a health insurance policy while another person’s may not. One person’s government may wish to tax its subjects, arm some of them and attack Libya while another person’s government may not. A high degree of freedom in a land or country cannot occur when government is government by territory and when that government possesses power over many facets of life and living.

All of Spooner’s No Treason is worth reading carefully. Spooner wrote of the Civil War

“The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

“No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom.”

Majority rule doesn’t determine right. Freely-given consent is the support of a government of free persons:

“Majorities and minorities cannot rightfully be taken at all into account in deciding questions of justice. And all talk about them, in matters of government, is mere absurdity. Men are dunces for uniting to sustain any government, or any laws, except those in which they are all agreed. And nothing but force and fraud compel men to sustain any other. To say that majorities, as such, have a right to rule minorities, is equivalent to saying that minorities have, and ought to have, no rights, except such as majorities please to allow them.”

The only way that persons can all agree to a set of laws and a government within what we call a country like America is to abandon the idea that a government must be territorial. A government of free people is not marked by borders and territory imposed by government or arrived at by wile, treachery, seizure, and warfare, but by people who freely consent or subscribe to it. Instead of the territorial notion of government, or the notion that majority rules in a given territory, government is properly thought of as something to which a group of persons willingly subscribe, while leaving other groups to subscribe to their preferred governments or none at all.

If some persons form a government, what right do they have to govern, make laws and tax everyone within a territory that their government claims, even those who do not consent? None. Governments routinely rule out secession by their claims to territory and their claims to rule over everyone within that territory. They back up these claims by force, not right.

It is when governments peacefully allow exceptions to their coercive laws for some persons or groups, or recognize different laws for different groups within their borders, or allow some lands to escape their jurisdiction, or allow peoples to secede and form their own governments that we get movement in the direction of greater freedom.

There are many separatist movements throughout the world. They struggle. This is because governments and majorities refuse freedom to minorities. It is quite often the case that groups seeking to end the domination of one government behave no differently from the government they seek to replace or secede from. They often believe in coercing those who may fall into its newly-won domain as defined by a new set of borders. Even secessionists fail to recognize that the principle of secession as a bulwark of freedom of the person can only be applied consistently right down to the personal level.

The right or freedom personally and individually to choose one’s government goes largely unrecognized, unacknowledged and unsupported. It is not only not taken seriously in today’s world by almost everyone, it is a freedom that is denied by governments worldwide and denied with force of arms and bloodshed.

Consent of the governed should be a matter of clear, open and free choice of each person. Consent of the governed cannot be inferred from a situation in which government has the guns and individual persons obey, or in which citizens must follow a set of highly complex voting procedures, determined by governments and parties, within and bounded by bordered territories in which governments reign without competition.

The usual ways to alter this situation are unusual. They involve revolutions, rebellions, and bloody secessionist movements; and they often lead right back to governments that are territorial. The alternative is to recognize the right to choose one’s government and that government need not necessarily be territorial.

Across the world, people are automatically placed beneath and under governments by virtue of where they happen to live. The spot of territory where one happens to be born or where one spends one’s life is the criterion that governments use in order to identify, tag, monitor and coerce people. The territorial principle that governments invoke is, with few exceptions, that all those people within its borders are its subjects or citizens, regardless of whether or not they willingly accept the coercions that such a government entails. Governments at all levels do not allow people under them to opt out. They do not allow secession down to the personal level, which is what freedom to choose one’s government actually means.

Governments fight tooth and nail against secession. The very existence of these governments as territorially-coercive entities is why they fight secession, and this resistance to secession is clear proof that today’s governments are coercing people who do not want to be coerced.

Government by territory and by coercion within territory cannot be reconciled with full freedom of the person and consent of the governed. At the extremes, it is one or the other. In between the extremes, which is life as we know it, there is a constant struggle that moves us toward greater coercion or toward fuller freedom of the person.

Who has the gall to tell the Amish that if they do not like the government’s milk regulations that they can jolly well pack up and leave the country? The FDA does. The government does. This is the government’s policy and if you live in this country, you shall obey.

Almost every American today is the Amish. Everyone must obey all sorts of objectionable uniform laws and regulations, without exception. Love it here or leave. The reason for this connection is force, not justice. This is coercive government by territory. It is not government by consent.

September 27, 2011

Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. He is the author of the free e-book Essays on American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free e-book The U.S. Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff

Smokey says: If you and I are to do battle, you may want to recruit some help. I have many fine enemies on this site who would be glad to team up with you.

Need help? Just act retarded…works for RE.

Ahhh… like the good ol’ days.

Flash: Don’t be a poon. You and Smokey might need to team up on a BBES thread, and certainly if a cum-guzzler shows up trolling… now that you’re back, I might have something ready for the weekend that’ll rile you up into old form.