The whole world is talking about the SpaceX IPO. Even Elon sounded surprised: "It’s hard to believe a little company started in a warehouse in El Segundo is now the largest IPO ever."
You’ve heard me rave about El Segundo before. It’s a 5-square-mile beach town in the shadow of an oil refinery, 10 minutes south of LAX, that’s now the beating heart of America’s hard-tech revival.
Last month I spent time inside one of its most storied buildings: the factory where America tested Space Shuttle engines and built the Minuteman nuclear missile.
The factory stood dark for years and became a monument to things America used to make.
A new tenant just moved in, and the building is making critical parts again, for fighter jets, nuclear reactors, and the AI boom.
The company is called Rangeview. Its founder, 26-year-old Cameron Schiller, is one of the most impressive entrepreneurs I’ve met.
Every time I meet a new founder, I ask...
What did you build as a kid?
Building things when nobody is making you is the hallmark of a great founder.
As a high-school freshman Cameron won the world’s largest robotics competition... as a one-person team, beating squads of kids.
But Cameron’s real education happened 7,000 miles away. His father worked in offshoring and started bringing him inside Chinese factories at age eight. By 14 Cameron was flying over alone to manage production runs.
China seduced him first. He rode bullet trains while California couldn’t lay a mile of track. He worked in an 11-story building where his entire supply chain was one elevator ride. "I found the American dream in China," he says.
Then it horrified him. Factories with suicide nets. Workers color-coded by performance score. Today, he says, "all I want to do is get America working as hard as China has."
Cameron doesn’t look like your typical factory worker. He has flowing hair, the good-looking California surfer type. A Joe Rogan CEO who could carry three hours of airtime. And a great storyteller, which you learn the moment you walk into his factory.
Past the customary giant American flag, down the entrance hallway, Cameron stops me in front of four posters. Together they tell the whole arc of American manufacturing:
I put a toothbrush in the bit of a hand turned auger when I was 7.
A little awkward for the back molars.
Hard to get the dog to sit still.
My sister wouldn't play.
When I moved to an electric drill,
the dog ran away.
[PJMedia] There's a story making the rounds in the European press right now, and it's starting to gain real traction among YouTubers here in the States, too. It's worth your attention — not because it's fake, but because of what's conspicuously missing from it.
The headline version goes like this: Educated, professional French Moslems — not new immigrants colonists, mind you, but the French-born children of immigrants colonists, people who grew up speaking French, attended French schools, built French careers — are quietly packing up and leaving for London, Dubai, Montreal, and yes, New York. Something to be said for the schooling in France.
So who's actually telling this story? A researcher named Julien Talpin has spent years documenting it, surveying over a thousand French Moslems living abroad and conducting 140 in-depth interviews for a book with the on-the-nose title La Belle France, You Love It But You Leave. Outlets from La Belle France24 to TRT World to Arab News have covered the phenomenon since at least 2024, calling it a "silent exodus" and a "brain drain."
Some of the individual stories genuinely land. One business-school graduate, rejected from fifty consulting interviews despite solid qualifications, finally gave up and moved to Dubai. "I feel much better here," he told AFP. "We're all equal. You can have a boss who's Indian, Arab, or French." Another interviewee, a tech worker pulling a five-figure monthly salary, described still getting stopped by neighbors after two years living in the same Gay Paree apartment building, and asked what exactly he was doing inside it.
I won't tell you those stories are fabricated. They're not. Stretched, maybe, here and there — but not invented. And there's a real number backing at least part of this up: La Belle France's own Interior Ministry recorded a 32% year-over-year jump in Islamophobic incidents in 2021 — a government figure, not an activist talking point. Worth noting in the same breath, because context matters: antisemitic attacks in La Belle France fell 15% that same year. Draw your own conclusions about which direction French public sentiment actually leans.
So the trend is real. Here's where the story needs a much harder second look: Nobody actually knows how big this is — and the researchers quietly admit this themselves.
La Belle France maintains a legal ban on collecting ethnic or religious data in its census. That's a deliberate feature of French secularism, not an oversight, and it means there's no hard count of how many Moslems have left the country, or how that stacks up against any other group leaving for the same reasons people always leave anywhere — better pay, better opportunity, a fresh start. Talpin's own estimate, when pressed, puts departures "in the thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands" over recent years. Take the generous end of that range against La Belle France's Moslem population, conservatively estimated at 5 to 6 million people, and you're looking at a fraction of a single percent choosing to relocate. That's not nothing. It's also nowhere near the mass "exodus" the headlines are selling.
And here's the part that should bother you more than the underlying story: Look at exactly who's telling the tale.
Arab News. TRT World — Ottoman Turkish state media, hardly a neutral party on questions of Islam and the West. Jacobin. Get The Trolls Out, an openly advocacy-driven outlet. Every single source pushing this narrative comes from the same ideological lane. That doesn't make the discrimination these individuals describe imaginary. It does mean you're getting one interpretation of the data, from outlets with an obvious stake in that interpretation, without a single dissenting voice anywhere in the coverage. A hundred and forty interviews conducted, and apparently not one French Moslem who stayed pushed back on the "Islamophobic" framing or offered a competing theory for why the numbers look the way they do.
Because La Belle France has a much bigger, much better documented brain drain problem — one that spans every demographic, driven by tax rates that would make an American accountant weep and a job market that's stayed sclerotic for a generation. High earners of every background have been fleeing La Belle France for London and beyond for decades. Nobody writes "silent exodus" pieces about French Catholics or French atheists doing precisely the same thing for precisely the same economic reasons. Let a Moslem professional do it, though, and suddenly the story demands a religious explanation, even when a purely economic one sits in plain view.
Then there's laïcité itself — La Belle France's foundational secularism principle, restricting religious symbols and dress in public and professional life. Watch how every piece of the coverage treats it: as functionally synonymous with anti-Moslem discrimination. But laïcité, on paper and by design, applies neutrally to every faith — crosses, kippahs, hijabs, all of it banned equally in the same public spaces. You can absolutely argue laïcité lands harder in practice on visibly religious Moslem women than on anyone else, and that's a fair, serious policy argument worth having openly. What you can't honestly do is collapse "La Belle France enforces a religiously neutral public sphere, as it has for over a century" into "La Belle France is Islamophobic," without admitting you're relitigating a century-old church-state debate and rebranding it as fresh bigotry.
Now, my actual conclusion on all this: I think the underlying story is genuine, and I also think the people amplifying it are playing it for exactly the angle that suits them. The outlets driving this narrative have an obvious dog in the fight, and that alone should raise real credibility questions. Just as telling, though, is who's staying quiet. The French government — particularly the globalist wing that's spent years selling multiculturalism to a skeptical French electorate — has said remarkably little about any of this. They don't want to entertain the economic explanation, because acknowledging it would mean confessing that their own policies drove these people out. It's easier, politically, to let the discrimination narrative run unchallenged than to own the failures, both in terms of financial and cultural management, underneath it.
There's one more piece nobody involved — not the Moslem-advocacy outlets pushing the exodus story, not the French government staying silent about it — wants to bring up too often. La Belle France, like the rest of Europa ...the land mass occupying the space between the English Channel and the Urals, also known as Moslem Lebensraum... right now, is on edge over its relationship with Moslemmigrants colonists, and it isn't hard to see why. Just last week, a man stabbed three women in central Gay Paree and told police he'd been "sent by Allah" to do it. That came on the heels of a van attack in Berlin's Tiergarten Park that killed one person and injured 29 others at the city's Pride celebration. German authorities have officially classified it as an Islamist terror attack, carried out by a 21-year-old previously known to the system for radicalization. Two separate countries, two separate attacks, within weeks of each other. The outlets driving the "exodus" narrative call the backlash to incidents like these "Islamophobia ...the irrational fear that Moslems will act the way they usually do... ." I'd push back on that label right at the door: A public growing wary after a string of attacks explicitly invoking religious justification isn't manufacturing a phobia out of thin air. It's pattern recognition, and pretending otherwise insults the intelligence of anyone paying attention.
None of this is new territory for this column. It's the same shape we caught with the Mamdani "30%" question a few weeks back — a real data point, given a single interpretation by people with an obvious interest in that interpretation while readers get left assuming that's the only honest way to read it. Worth asking every time this pattern shows up: Who decided this was the only lens on offer, and what happened to everyone who might've offered a different one?
The people leaving La Belle France deserve to be believed about their own experiences. La Belle France deserves an honest accounting of why they're going — one that includes economics, opportunity, a century of secular tradition, and yes, a legitimate public reckoning with a real and rising security threat. Not just the one word doing all the work in every headline covering it.
Every one of these issues traces back to the same misguided notion that mass migration into the West, with no requirement and no real effort to culturally assimilate, carries no consequence. It does. In every European nation, native populations are speaking up, loudly, and their own governments are working overtime to tamp those protests down rather than listen to them. Look at La Belle France's efforts to sideline Marine Le Pen through the courts. Look at Britannia's treatment of Tommy Robinson.
Le Pen carries real support from French voters precisely because she's become an embarrassment to her own government's establishment. Robinson carries the same kind of support in Britannia, for the same reason, on the other side of the Channel. And those are just the loudest examples that make it into the American press. The respective governments have as much blame for twisting the story as any other player in this sordid mess.
[AT] The impetus for the absurd White House ballroom decision is the desire to hamstring the President in all things large or small.
Article III of the Constitution allows Congress to establish courts below the Supreme Court, which includes federal District and Circuit Courts. If Congress can establish them, it can abolish them. In 1801, in the waning days of John Adams’ presidency, Congress did just that and abolished the district and circuit courts of the District of Columbia.
These two courts display widespread intransigent partisanship and demonstrably poor scholarship, exemplified by this week’s ruling on the new White House construction. Given the difficulty of removing so many bad judges in these two courts by impeaching them, it’s time to repeat John Adams’ move: Abolish these courts. Cases that normally would be heard in them should be assigned to courts elsewhere.
The case which most showcases the lunacy of the D.C. courts is National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service, et al. As is often the case in poorly reasoned opinions, the author substitutes words for reason.
As you may know, the old East Wing of the White House which, among other things, contained underground security facilities (bunkers, bomb-shelters, and military and medical infrastructure), presidential offices and some minimal public meeting spaces, was torn down and construction begun on a replacement with a larger number of more modern offices and a ballroom to provide a larger, much-needed entertainment and meeting space, better security facilities, and protection against drone attacks. Up to now, rented tents and outdoor porta potty facilities have had to be utilized for state events, and the assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents Dinner surely underscores the need for a safe venue for such things. Except for the congressional appropriation for the upgraded secure facilities in this new wing, the remainder of the cost is being borne by private contributions to the National Park Service, which is administering these funds.
But this is hate Trump city, and Alison Hoagland, a board member of the National Trust, said that she takes monthly walks past the White House and that the aesthetics of the new construction would cause her harm.
In the real world, monthly aesthetic harm to one person’s delicate sensibilities would not upend a needed improvement to the White House grounds, which are exempt by its terms from the National Historic Preservation Act (which establishes the Trust). The litigation has been long and involved back-and-forth court rulings between the district and circuit courts.
The courts have now finally agreed the below-ground construction would not be halted, but this week ruled the above-ground work must be, even though that is a structural impossibility and a security (and aesthetic) nightmare.
The first question that every court must decide before proceeding further in any case is whether or not it even has jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. The majority opinion doesn’t get to this until page 30 of its opinion, and then, for all its flowery verbosity, it got it wrong, just as the dissenting judge notes:
...the district court had no jurisdiction because the Trust has no standing to stop construction at the White House. The ballroom is also likely within the President’s authority to make improvements to the Executive Residence at the White House. Finally, the balance of equities overwhelmingly favors the government. The district court elevated the aesthetic displeasure of a single passerby over the government’s security interests in the ballroom and the security risks of leaving an open construction site at the President’s home and office.
In assessing the balance of equities between Ms. Hoagland’s claimed aesthetic harms and the needs of the White House, Judge Rao shows the Court “improperly glossed over, ignored or discounted the government’s evidence demonstrating the security harms from construction of the ballroom.” Nor could it, as Rao noted, “compensate for the slight aesthetic harm by resorting to hyperbole and its view of the legal merits. Every day the project is delayed increases the security risk according to declarations from senior military and Secret Service officials. Moreover, the creation of the above-ground ballroom “will alleviate security vulnerabilities that currently impact large events involving the President.”
As a practical matter, the underground and above-ground facilities cannot be separated out at this point.
The Secretary of the Army has further explained why the underground national security facilities cannot be adequately protected by the concrete slab and modest topping structure allowed by the district court’s injunction… The ballroom’s dimensions and structure are essential for security. According to the Secretary, “[t]o provide adequate subterranean protection without” the “height and mass” of the ballroom, “engineers would need to dig impractically deep.”...The ballroom provides a critical “dual-layered system” of protection for the national security facilities, “comprising a sacrificial outer cover coupled with a hardened inner structural element.” …Corroborating the Secretary’s account, the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has similarly described how the “height and mass” of the ballroom “provide crucial, physical layers to shield” the national security facilities. The height of the ballroom will also provide an “essential elevated platform to engage and neutralize aerial systems,” such as drones, that pose an increasingly serious threat to White House security. …There is no dispute that the Secretary’s declaration and the Army Corps memorandum are authentic, credible, and “go[] to the heart of the contested issue,” so it would be “inconsistent with this court’s own equitable obligations to pretend that [they] do[] not exist.”
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/09/2026 14:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[87 views]
Top|| File under: Lawfare
[Politifact] Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign promises: Here’s his vision for a second term.
What's your opinion on various Trump 2024 campaign promises?
Choose one:
* Accomplished these,
* Still in process and waiting to see on these,
* Didn't care about these promise,
* Questioning the Constitutionality of a promise,
* Failed or failing us on these promises,
* Being fought tooth and nail by the DNC, Socialist and Left?
#2
In his first term, a lot of masks dropped showing us who many people really are.
In his second term, he has shown us we don't have a representative republic but rather a judicial tyranny of people who sit for life and are unaccountable to the people.
#3
Ok up front I feel Trump is far better than anything the DNC had and has too offer.
But it is also clear he plays a hyped up mega media presentation deflection game. When he needs to divert our atention from something eles. Twosuch examples are the Gulf of America bliz & the Ft. Knox visit. He has mastered the trick of watch this while I do that, avoid it, or surpress public interest. S lot of the redirection like NGO, FRAUD WASTE AND ABUSE do accomplish something at least.
[ACLEDdata] ACLED’s Middle East Assistant Research Manager, Nasser Khdour, comments on the challenges facing the proposed Hamas disarmament agreement.
by Nasser Khdour
Middle East Assistant Research Manager
On 30 July, US President Donald Trump announced that negotiations with Hamas have produced an agreement on the group’s full disarmament. Under the plan, Israel should accept withdrawal and halt its attacks in Gaza. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pushed back against the plan, insisting that Israeli forces will not withdraw from their current positions before Hamas fully disarms.
Nasser Khdour, Middle East Assistant Research Manager at ACLED, said:
"Hamas’ position on disarmament follows months of increasing Israeli military pressure. Indeed, July was the deadliest month since the ceasefire began in October 2025, with 170 fatalities. It also recorded at least 53 air and drone strikes targeting militants, police targets, and Hamas infrastructure —the highest monthly total recorded during that period.
"The timing presents an opportunity for Hamas, which expects President Trump to increase pressure on Israel ahead of the US midterm elections in November. Agreeing to the plan helps Hamas ease Israeli military pressure as Israel's national election campaign intensifies, while transferring greater responsibility for governing Gaza to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza helps relieve Palestinian domestic pressure.
No. The world will let Hamas rearm if Israel does not hold the line here. Then Hamas, et al will try to do another 10/7 — and then Israel will clear the entire Gaza Strip from security fence to Mediterranean seashore to ensure there is no third try by anyone, uncaring that the world screams.
[TurkiyeToday] Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa faces challenges from multiple political and armed fronts in Syria.
By Omer Ozkizilcik
On the night of August 4, the Syrian army put its units on maximum alert. No one said why.
Speculation filled the gap. Some pointed to Iran-backed Shia militias in Iraq. Others whispered about infighting within the army's own ranks.
What almost no one mentioned was Israel.
For Turkey, everything is ultimately the fault of eeeeeevil Israel.
WHAT HAPPENED?
Türkiye Today's Levent Kemal wrote in detail about what happened. In short, the entire episode was part of an effort to build a professional army in Syria and dismantle the old group loyalties left over from the civil war.
The outcome, as it turns out, was a promotion. Mohammad al-Jassem—Abu Amsha—was elevated to deputy commander of the army's central corps. But the promotion cuts both ways: it also strips him of direct command over the men of the 62nd Division, the fighters who had stayed loyal to him for years.
As is known, some divisions of the Syrian army have largely retained their old civil-war dynamics. The 62nd Division, for instance, was built from former Sultan Suleiman Shah faction members. Deep State, ala mode.
But this process didn't unfold without turmoil or public confusion, as Levent Kemal detailed in the article mentioned above.
[AccordingToHoyt] Why go to war with Iran now? When we have so many problems to solve — still — at home, and with the midterms looming?
If you just said "Because Israel" go and sit down. No, sit ALL THE WAY DOWN. And stay there, quietly, while the adults talk. You’ve been sold a fable by people who would love to split up that alliance in order to destroy both countries piecemeal. And yes, a lot of the people in this country you trust are in the pay of those people or alternately truly vulnerable to manipulation.
Yes, Israel is at war and has been at war. Not out of some desire of being a local hegemon — after all, they gave back a lot of territory in the early 2000s in the hope of buying peace for their people for all the good it did them
…they have, in fact, given up or given back a great deal more territory than they now hold, multiple times...
— but because they would like to survive. And even then, they were soft-handed to the point of insanity until they got the wake up call of 10/7.
Indeed.
Not responding to that wake up call would have been suicidal. Apparently they are not that. This makes them neither an evil scheming nation nor manipulators of US politics. Go sit all the way down, and think shame you allowed the likes of China and Russia and dissatisfied Arab elements (now their leadership is becoming marginally saner) to manipulate you.
However, our war with Iran has nothing to do with Israel except insofar as Israel has provided able support in it, taking down the "Hamas fighters" Iran would have sent against us when we moved against Iran.
And if you think that Trump just up one morning and decided to go to war with Iran because he’s just that crazy, you have the president completely wrong. He had a public persona that is a little unpredictable. This I think is intentional just as I think Reagan’s "the bombing will now begin" was "accidentally open mike." If you believe that, I have some bridges to sell you. They might be underwater, but great property.
Trump’s philosophy of government is "Make money, not war." And I don’t mean making money for himself, though setting the US as the leader of the economic world definitely will end up in his children and grandchildren being richer. And ours too, think on. What I mean is that he uses money the way other presidents used war. He makes it profitable to be on good terms with the US, rather than beating people into not hurting us. By and large, it works.
Until you come to something like Iran. An "Islamic Republic" established with heavy propping by the USSR and still used as a proxy by Russia (and China. And every bad actor who wanted to use them.)
None of which would be an immediate problem, necessitating war. The world is full of crazy little countries, armed to the teeth and with evil intentions towards everyone starting with their own people.
Except for three things: 1- Iran’s evil intent is real and proactive. They declared war on us (And yes, Israel, but remember Israel is "little Satan" to our "Big Satan.") They’re not just squatting on their territory, murdering their own people and muttering "touch me and you’ll die." They actively want to eliminate us. (And Israel, but honestly, mostly us.) They believe a final, massive war, will bring about their end times and paradise for the faithful. And they are, yes, sincerely religious. At least the leadership. 2-They either had a nuke, or were very close to having one, and as we have learned through their bombing every one and their cousins, they actually and for real had delivery means. To the US? who knows? And anyway, with a nuke and open borders, there are many means of delivery. 3- Pallets of cash given to them by Obama, which greatly accelerated the nuclear program. Which we supposedly have maybe thoroughly degraded. Maybe. Apparently the terrain and capacity of the Iranians.... it’s difficult to ascertain that, or to be sure they won’t be up to their games next week absent thorough regime change.
In other words, our war with Iran right now is very simple: Because the enemy gets a vote. And so do others who would love to be the enemy if we give them an opening and who are now at BEST "adversaries".
Because if we give in to the "peace at all costs" people we’ll likely go back in a year or two. And if two who knows who’ll be in charge or what they’ll use "war time emergency" to do. Remember the covidiocy?
Now imagine that we have Kamala, or G-d forbid AOC in charge when Iran hits NYC or Chicago, or Denver, or any of our big cities. Or three or four of them.
Imagine millions dead, and the US suddenly on a war footing. Imagine what a "Democratic socialist" would do in an environment 10 times what the post 9/11 fervor was, when speaking out against war is political and perhaps physical suicide. Or, you know, you don’t have to imagine. Go and study the unvarnished presidencies of Woodrow Wilson or FDR and you’ll KNOW.
Beyond the fact that China is running out of time to make with aggression. Their demographics don’t support a long wait to go to war with us. They must do it soon. But to do it now would be suicide. To do it after Iran hits us with a nuke and we’re in disarray (particularly, if G-d forbid we have a Democrat in charge.)... golden opportunity. (And don’t tell me there’s no chance of a democrat in 2028. The right is riven by discord being sown by enemies domestic and foreign, and a lot of duckies on the right fall for it every single time.)
THAT is why we are at war with Iran now. And why Trump is doing it (he said he couldn’t risk a president he couldn’t be sure of facing this, remember?) right now, regardless of political price. Because undoing the damage that Obama wrought is essential if we are to thrive or even — just — to survive as a nation.
Is it ideal? Well, no. Do I like it? Well, no. Is it possible the president is misinformed on Iran’s capabilities? Sure is. Heinlein, who is my guide for US politics before I was born, said that the US had the worst intelligence services possible, and I’ve seen nothing since I’ve been an American to doubt it. It’s entirely possible they are either lying or think that Iran has more capacity than it does. The thing is... It’s also possible they think it has less.
Can you be sure? No? Neither can Trump. So to be on the safe side and avoid the end game scenario for our enemies, he HAS to make sure Iran is put down and put down for good.
Yes, I do hear some of you bleating "no more wars". Stop bleating. "No more wars" is a hope for the future, when the world is redeemed, by whatever means you believe (religiously) that the world will be redeemed. (And if you are not religious, you know better. The only way to have "no more wars" is to allow the kind of social engineering that always ends in communism and mass graves.) It is neither a strategy nor a political philosophy.
"No more wars" can’t be a political philosophy BECAUSE THE ENEMY GETS A VOTE. And a lot of places become enemies when you lay down your weapons and announce your intention to never fight again. Announcing "No more wars" is the same as announcing "I’m ready to be assisted into dying." And there’s no dignity in that, whatever Canada says. (MAID is a lie. There is no dignity in letting yourself be killed.)
No more wars in which we have no interest involved? Sure. I’m glad we didn’t directly involve ourselves between Russia and the Ukraine for instance. It is a big problem for Europe potentially, so Europe should deal with it. I was deeply opposed to the Balkan war under Clinton for that reason. And the war in Somalia.
The wars I oppose are those in which the democrats use our army for things we have no interest in, or sometimes against our interests. I don’t want to use the r word, but yes, it’s retarded. DEEPLY retarded. And that’s an insult to every mentally handicapped person or living organism ever.
But Iran isn’t one of those cases. They mean us ill and MIGHT have the means to make it so. (Why Obama isn’t being tried for treason... yes, I know why. Bad precedent, but still.) They declared war on us and caused the deaths of countless Americans already. And want to cause more. That’s casus belli if there’s ever been one.
Now, I oppose turning this into an endless war, with our troops stationed there forever. I say we hit them hard, we hit them terminally, and we get heck out of dodge. And use economic and other means to control what comes after, rather than our people in harm’s way.
In that, my philosophy is pretty congruent with Trump’s, I think.
But it not "No war."
You can imagine Whirled Peas all you want. The rest of the world has no obligation to play along. And if they imagine a nuke in our cities and have the means to do it, we’ll go to war under much worse conditions.
Now, Mr. President, can we make it quick and decisive? And get the heck out of dodge fast?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Posted by: Grom the Reflective ||
08/09/2026 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[171 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
...the land mass occupying the space between the English Channel and the Urals, also known as Moslem Lebensraum...
