Thursday's show, I believe, it's the most controversial of all the shows this week — and maybe ever.

I will give you some facts, some history but also some of the future.

The reason Thursday's show is the last before Friday's solution, I wanted you to see who was advising the president and what they are doing, before I could ask you to look at this phrase from Barack Obama and think he meant it literally:

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

I don't know how anyone will respond to the facts I am going to present, because they really haven't responded to any of our questions or challenged any of the facts in our last few shows other than "Hey, don't call him a 'czar!'"

But I can't make this piece of the puzzle fit, unless this piece is about building some kind of thug-ocracy.

All week we've been asking tough questions — here's one more, Mr. President: Why do we need a civilian national security force that is "just as strong, just as powerful" as the military?

Here's why I ask this question: Who are we fighting? Who internally is threatening our security?

It's clearly not because we feel there is a threat from illegal aliens crossing the border, because anyone who would say that has been deemed a racist. A civilian national security force on the border is called The Minuteman and the attitude from this administration — as well as the Bush administration — is that they were "vigilantes." So it's not for the border.

It can't be a civilian national security force against Islamic extremists, because according to this administration we aren't even at war against Islamic extremists anymore. Is this administration really going to ask the American people to profile and call-in tips on Muslim Americans who act suspiciously?

So, who's left? Is it possible we are seeing the beginnings of another enemy?

Mr. President, is your civilian national security force to protect us from things the Missouri State Police, your own Homeland Security and the liberal Southern Law Poverty Center have come out and said were a threat: militia groups; tea party goers; folks with "Don't Tread on Me" flags; me; Sarah Palin?

Think about this: Is it unreasonable to think this government would ask you to spy on your neighbors, in light of these recent stories:

— Flag.gov e-mail asking for tips on "fishy" behavior

— Cookies on your computer that track whenever you've been on a government Web site — this used to be illegal but that was changed

— The government is using outside companies to track and contact you. Are they gathering information on you? I know that on "cash for clunkers" they didn't trust the dealers.

To me, all of this sounds like a sci-fi movie, but again I have to ask the reasonable question, in these unreasonable times: Who will the civilian national security force protect us from?

Maybe a better question to ask is, Mr. President: Do you know of a coming event?

Or maybe we should ask Joe Biden, who said:

THEN-VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JOE BIDEN: "Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.... Remember I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said: Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

Is this civilian national security force just preparing for what Joe Biden predicted?

Who builds an army against an unidentified, unrecognized threat? Because we can't answer that question — or any of the others just proposed — then it's up to us to look for clues.

Maybe we have to start with the company whose CEO is a close financial adviser to the president of the United States, who helped write the health care bill and cap-and-trade bill and who has billions of dollars at stake: Jeffrey Immelt.

Immelt has been appointed by president to the board of directors to the New York Federal Reserve. Does he have any information? Let's look for what they may be saying the threat will be that we will need a civilian national security force against.

It would seem to me the network that sells "Yes We Did" dolls, mugs and t-shirts and is obviously extraordinarily close to the president in seven different ways — is it possible to watch their network and their news, to see if they have any inside information as to what this threat may be? Immelt's network seems to be the leading network in predicting a lot of trouble, but they're not alone:

ED SCHULTZ RADIO SHOW: "Folks, these people are psycho. That's what they are. Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot. I do. I really think that there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out."

FRANK RICH, NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST: "I'm just old enough, I was a kid, I remember I woke up in 1963 to the horrible events in Dallas. Even as a kid, I happened to be growing up in Washington, D.C., it was palatable to me all this hate talk about Kennedy and this sort of crazy fear.... But there were a lot of threats. There was a lot of stuff going on that in tone resembles this."

SEN. BARBARA BOXER, D-CALIF.: "All of this is a diversion by the people who want to, frankly, hurt President Obama. And by the way I saw some of the clips of people storming these townhall meetings. The last time I saw well-dressed people doing this, was when Al Gore asked me to go down to Florida when they were recounting the ballots, and I was confronted with the same type of people. They were there screaming and yelling, "Go back to California! Get out of here!" and all the rest of it."

CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC: "A man at a pro-health care reform rally just outside, wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip.... The Associated Press reports about a dozen people in all at that event were visible carrying firearms.... There are questions about whether this has racial overtones. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists."

Is it reasonable to ask the question — based on these clips — do they think that a good portion of the American people are the enemy? They are such a danger we need a civilian national security force as well-funded and well-trained as the military?

That's who they think the enemy is and, once again, the media has it completely wrong.

So who is the real enemy?

"Common Sense" has been No. 1 for the last 10 weeks. One of the last chapters is "The Enemy Within" — I wrote it months ago. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out — let me give you this quote:

"It's not just the political class who has mastered the art of deception. There are other potentially deadly masters who will seek to exploit your frustration and sense of desperation. Many will warn you of government tyranny; they'll talk of secret societies, vast conspiracies, shadow governments, and the need for violent action. I urge you to stay away from these individuals and those ideas."

We've showed you the radicals in this administration. Now I'll show you the radicals outside the administration who are being used and will be used by the media and by this administration:

There was the Obama Joker poster creator; the right tried to take advantage of this and added the word "socialist" under it. But the creator of the poster is a Kucinich supporter who doesn't like Obama because he's not left enough.

Then there was that clip on MSNBC: The racist white person (according to MSNBC) who brought a rifle to the Obama town hall — wasn't even white! He was black.

In Denver, Maurice Joseph Schwenkler and an at-large accomplish smashed in windows at the Democratic Party HQ in Denver. Both parties accused Schwenkler of supporting the other, but he's a "trans-gendered anarchist" who belongs to the radical anarchist protest group Denver Bash Back.

While the radicals in the White House may not be connected to the radicals just mentioned, they are connected by the fact that they are radicals.

Remember, Obama adviser "czar" Jones created STORM who believes: "Revolutionaries need to be militant in street actions. As leaders in the fight for liberation, we should be role models of fearlessness before the state and the oppressor."

These are the sort of tactics some of Obama's "czars" know best.

So when we've got a president creating a "civilian force" as strong as the military and an admitted far-left radical in the White House doing this:

VAN JONES, GREEN JOBS 'CZAR': Actually, my job is not so dissimilar than my job was before.... What I do, can I make it simple, I'm basically a community organizer with the federal family.

How else am I supposed to read this? I'm happy to hear any other explanation than "don't call him a czar."

A Call to Action

What a week.

The president said he was going to fundamentally transform America. Since January 20, he's been racing full steam ahead toward doing just that. This week, can you feel a pivot point? Doesn't it feel like, as a nation, we are waking up?

We've showed you some amazing, frightening facts and the White House hasn't challenged any of it.

Unfortunately, I guess that means they agree with the information we've presented on people like green jobs "czar" Van Jones. He's an avowed communist and radical activist who co-founded the communist group STORM — a group that describes themselves and their activities as:

"We upheld the Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation. We agree with Lenin's analysis of the state and the party. And we found inspiration and guidance in the insurgent revolutionary strategies developed by third world revolutionaries like Mao Tse-Tung and Amilcar Cabral."

The White House hasn't bothered to even spin the information we presented on FCC diversity "czar" Mark Lloyd. This guy actually lamented the fact that non-state-run radio stations prevented the "incredible" revolution in Venezuela:

MARK LLOYD, FCC DIVERSITY CHIEF: "In Venezuela, with Chavez, really an incredible revolution — a democratic revolution — to begin to put in place saying that we're going to have impact on the people of Venezuela the property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled — work frankly with folks here in the U.S. government worked to oust him and came back and had another revolution. And Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in this country."

That pesky private sector! It's just littered with that non-propaganda talk.

Lloyd has talked about balancing out the airwaves — and that's not just conservatives, that's everyone who doesn't agree with the state. Again, the White House is not disputing any of this. That should frighten you. Especially in light of the story on Drudge today about the bill that would give Obama emergency control of the Internet. Wait, that sounds familiar... oh yeah, that's "czar" Cass Sunstein's idea.

How about the New York chair of the Apollo Alliance — the people who designed the stimulus package? His name is Jeff Jones. Before deciding who to give your tax money to, Jones co-founded the Weather Underground with Bill Ayers. The Weather Underground is a domestic terrorist group that came out of the communist revolutionary group Students for Democratic Society of the 1960s.

Does that bother the White House? Apparently not because they haven't denied any of this, nor have they fired anyone or even denounced these radical backgrounds. And the radical Jones is currently helping New York spend more of the stimulus.

Yet, the White House does seem pretty concerned about you.

The Department of Homeland Security warned of the rise in "right-wing militia" groups — their report said if you are concerned about "legislation on tighter firearms" you could be in a "white supremacist militia movement."

They are name-calling you.

Saul Alinsky's big strategy was to take the enemy out of their comfort zone. Van Jones and all of these "czars" know this; they are radicals. To quote Van Jones: "We need to be about the whup-a**. Somebody's f****ng up somewhere. They have names and job descriptions. You have to be creative about how you engage the enemy, because if you do it on his terms, the outcome is already known."

You are fighting on their level. We're taking it. We're being called greedy hate-mongers who only care about profits whatever else and we cower.

Tonight, I am going to lay out a plan.

Step 1: Fear not and take them on.

We've been fighting on their terms — afraid to say anything. It's time to forget that! Let's make them uncomfortable with the facts:

— You think I want to starve inner-city children? Really? Let's look at the policies where radical progressives have had control. The cities with the top 10 poverty rates in America have been run by Republicans only 8 percent of the time since 1965 and eight out of the 11 have been run by Democrats 100 percent of the time.

— Am I the one that hurts education? Washington, D.C., has long been controlled by progressives. They spend $15,000 per student (the national average is $10,000), yet they are still ranked among the worst in the country: Only 60 percent of the kids graduate and only 9 percent will complete college within five years of graduating.

— Am I reckless for supporting gun rights? In England they banned guns in 1998. For the next seven years, the number of deaths and injuries from gun crimes increased 340 percent — because, guess what, criminals aren't going to wait on a background check on their way to shoot someone.

— I'm "unpatriotic" and "cold-hearted" and even part of "the mob" for opposing government-run health care? When was the last time, in America, you saw patients in hospitals so thirsty they had to drink water from the nearby plants or 4,000 new moms being forced to give birth in hallways because of a shortage of rooms or see someone have their supposedly removed spleen suddenly rupture? Because all of those things did happen in the U.K., where they do have government health care.

The argument isn't about the facts anymore. When the shouters — on either side — are wrong, instead of admitting it, they just call you a hatemonger. They try and shame you into silence.

We need to screw our courage to the sticking place and, without fear, force them to face the tough questions — no matter what name you're called or what threat you face because the truth shall set you free.

Sure, groups will come after you. If you disagree with man-made global warming the radicals will attack you and call you a flat-Earth believing, Holocaust-denying, selfish jerk who would rather drive an SUV than save the planet from certain destruction.

But the IPCC report that they so love to quote says the best way to fight global warming isn't by getting a Prius, it's by not eating meat. How many of your Earth-loving green friends are vegans? From here on out, when they start lecturing you about the planet, ask: Do you eat meat? Do you have leather shoes? If they say anything else other than "absolutely not," tell them to sit down and shut up. And when they stop doing more supposed damage with their steak, then you can talk to me about my SUV.

And maybe we'll also talk about the green jobs "czar," who sees green jobs like this:

VAN JONES, GREEN JOBS 'CZAR': "We want a green economy that is strong enough to lift people out of poverty. We're not leaving anybody behind. We don't want an eco-elite economy."

"We're talking about people that don't have a home. How do they get to be part of this green economy?"

"What good is a green economy if at the end of the day, it's just eco-apartheid anyway?"

Which is it: We need green jobs because the Earth has a temperature (like Al Gore said) or we need green jobs for social justice?

By the way, that's Marxist code language. Social justice equals "take from him and give to him."

America, don't you see it? This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats. This is about Republicans and Democrats and Independents against radicals, revolutionaries and anti-capitalist nut jobs.

Almost all Americans love the Constitution and we may disagree with this policy or that, but the fundamental transformation — the change that 80 percent of America was looking for — was a driving out of the money changers — those in bed with special interests, global corporations, Wall Street fat cats and political party hacks.

In the coming weeks on this program I'm going to ask you to continue to watch with a piece of paper because I'm going to continue to expose these connections and plans that are out of step with almost everybody in this country — unless you live in the basement of Nancy Pelosi's house in the most radically progressive neighborhood in the country while eating arugula and roast beef sandwiches!

But we're also going to arm you with facts. It's time to be unafraid and stop fearing name-calling, because sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

And just so you know, for those of you who are working for this revolution at the White House and SEIU and ACORN and Americorps, you should go back and listen to The Beatles' "White Album." Listen to a song, co-written by your progressive friend, John Lennon — who got it.

Even during the peak of 1960s radicalism, the Beatles understood:

"You say you want a revolution.

Well, you know,

We all want to change the world.

You say you'll change the Constitution,

Well, you know,

We all want to change your head.

You tell me it's the institution,

Well, you know,

You better free your mind instead.

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,

You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow.

Don't you know it's gonna be all right."

My Patriotic Page www.starlightinnerprizes.com Bonnie M. Wells