Not to mention, what could this have to do with the Government's "thrist [sic] for energy?"

Is that Roseanne?

Ha, they do sound similar. I wonder what this woman thinks rainbows are in the sky when it's raining, and why she doesn't make the connection. Or, for that matter, why they are called rainbows.

"What is oozing out of..." her head. Oh, that's just them smarts.

She says of a rainbow: "this cannot be natural!"

Also, what "constitutional rights" is she even referring to?

I believe she is referring to the Ninth Amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Which I, in my role of amateur lawyer and general know-it-all, take to mean that all rights not specifically mentioned as belonging to the government, are retained by the people. Which, unless I missed the part of the constitution where they government claimed the right to 'manipulate near ground level rainbows as required for the defense of the nation', and to be fair I didn't really look that hard, would mean that the right to 'rainbow free sprinklers' would still rest with we the people. I assume similar logic would apply to 'non-oozing ground', and the right to 'things that are natural'. The legal interpretation of this amendment is a bit hazy though. However, I fully expect that is particular case will go all the way to the supreme court (Crazy Lady vs. Rainbows, Sprinklers, Ooze, et al).

Maybe the military is testing it's new anti- anti-missile laser shield?

http://www.space.com/news/laser_weapon_000607_wg.html

"What the hell is going on?" indeed. I love the sirens in the background.