Forget the shoe-bomber and the pantybomber

January 31, 2010

The next attack by al Qaeda may come via the boob-bomber:

Terrorists ‘plan attack on Britain with bombs INSIDE their bodies’ to foil new airport scanners

Britain is facing a new Al Qaeda terror threat from suicide ‘body bombers’ with explosives surgically inserted inside them.

Until now, terrorists have attacked airlines, Underground trains and buses by secreting bombs in bags, shoes or underwear to avoid detection.

But an operation by MI5 has uncovered evidence that Al Qaeda is planning a new stage in its terror campaign by inserting ‘surgical bombs’ inside people for the first time.

Security services believe the move has been prompted by the recent introduction at airports of body scanners, which are designed to catch terrorists before they board flights.

It is understood MI5 became aware of the threat after observing increasingly vocal internet ‘chatter’ on Arab websites this year.

The warning comes in the wake of the failed attempt by London-educated Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up an airliner approaching Detroit on Christmas Day.

One security source said: ‘If the terrorists are talking about this, we need to be ready and do all we can to counter the threat.’

A leading source added that male bombers would have the explosive secreted near their appendix or in their buttocks, while females would have the material placed inside their breasts in the same way as figure-enhancing implants.

When you’re done laughing, bear in mind, as the article points out, it only takes a few ounces of PETN to blow a fatal whole in an airplane. And this is being planned to circumvent body scanners, which would find explosives hidden where the sun doesn’t shine.

This goes to show that a sole focus on the tactic or the device is wrong, because the enemy will always find a new (and bizarre) way to try to kill us. Until we target the jihadi himself, via profiling, we are exposing innocent people to grave risks.

(hat tip: Fausta)

RELATED: Maybe the boob-bombers will be entering the swimsuit competition?


The Holder Hangover

January 31, 2010

The Holder Justice Department has made several serious mistakes in its handling of jihadi detainees: treating the Detroit Pantybomber as a common criminal with constitutional rights; ordering a trial in Federal court for the plotter of 9-11, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad; and the end of the CIA interrogation program are among several. Power Line’s Scott Johnson looks to the source of these errors and find it not, where many would put it, in the Attorney General’s office, but in President Obama’s misguided view of constitutional rights:

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania during the presidential campaign in June 2008, Barack Obama addressed the Supreme Court’s Boumediene decision granting Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their confinement through habeas corpus proceedings in federal court. Obama asserted that the “principle of habeas corpus, that a state can’t just hold you for any reason without charging you and without giving you any kind of due process — that’s the essence of who we are.” He explained:

“I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday.”

Obama’s comments derive from what I facetiously call “the higher wisdom” that fueled his campaign and that is now operative in his administration. Attorney General Eric Holder perfectly reflects it.

In designating the mastermind of 9/11 and his co-conspirators who are detained in Guantanamo for trial in federal court in Manhattan, cloaking them with the rights of American citizens under the Constitution of the United States, Holder sought to give them their “day in court.” He also sought to “t[each] the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law.”

The only appropriate response to Obama’s campaign comments on Boumediene is: “Not true.”

Scott then proceeds to dismantle the President’s use of the Nuremberg hearings as a precedent, exposing the supposed “constitutional scholar’s” ignorance of legal history. From this fundamental error, that war criminals and enemy combatants should be treated as ordinary defendants with the full protection of the Bill of Rights flows every other dumb decision Obama and Holder have made.

Sadly, there are many.

And they will come back to haunt us.

RELATED: Scott links this in his piece, but I wanted to point out here an excellent essay by Thomas Sowell that describes the administration’s decision to try terrorists in criminal court as insanity.


Swimsuits and suicide-belts?

January 30, 2010

According to Dr. Kifah Al-Ramali of the Gaza Islamic University, beauty contests are yet another part of the eternal Western plot against Islam. The true beauty queen, according to Cousin Itt Dr. Al-Ramali, is the “jihad mother” who waits patiently while her menfolk blow themselves up or otherwise get themselves killed trying to murder Jews:

From the transcript:

The real Palestinian beauty queen is the Jihad-fighting mother, the mother who perseveres and endures the siege, the mother who says: We will suffer hunger, but we will not bow down, the mother who sacrificed martyrs and demonstrated forbearance. She is the wife of the martyr, who left her in the prime of life, with her children, yet she says: I will persevere, and I will raise my children to be mujahideen. She is the mother who has lost her husband, her sons, her daughters, her home and her shelter, yet she displays forbearance. She is the queen of the women of the world in its entirety, not just of Palestine.

Of course, the real target of the Evil Beauty Contest Plot(tm) is Muslim men.  Dr. Al-Ramali explains:

The enemies of Allah have studied the mentality of the Muslims, and have studied what harms their religion and their faith. They have studied how to infiltrate our society. First, they intervened in women’s [issues]. This is because they know that the prophet Muhammad said: “The greatest temptation for men is women.” Women are the greatest temptation. They know what weapon to use to fight [Muslim] society. Allah sowed in men the attraction to women, and vice versa.

Devious, isn’t it? The Crusaders (that’s us) and the Jews (We’re their puppets, you know) will distract brave, brave mujahideen from blowing up Jews by showing them a little skin. That’s why women have to be covered, you see: men are unable to control themselves  around an “immodest” woman, like a cat that sees uncovered meat. In other words, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has pointed out, under Islam women are responsible for the sexual behavior and misbehavior of men. To come back to Dr. Al-Ramali’s sick mind arguments, this is why beauty contests are evil: to participate in them is to allow oneself to be used as a weapon against Islam and to avoid one’s duty as a mujahideen-making machine.

With “intellectuals” like this, is it any wonder Palestinian society is hopeless?

RELATED: More anti-Semitic tripe from the good doctor. In an earlier panel interview, she tells us that Judaism teaches its followers that it is okay to rape and murder non-Jews:

The killing of Palestinian women, and women in general, by the Jews is not a random thing. Rather, it is their ideology, which is taught to their children in their curricula. It is mentioned in the books of the Torah. I will present some short samples, although their books are full of this. For instance, the greatest Jewish scholar, on whom they completely rely, Maimonides, wrote in his book that the Jews have the right to rape non-believing women. By non-believing, he meant non-Jewish.

Read the full transcript and watch the video. Her co-panelists are equally charming.


Chief Estes for President!

January 30, 2010

A 95-year old Navy veteran unleashes his inner Dutch Uncle in an open letter to President Obama:

After 9/11 you said, “America hasn’t lived up to her ideals.”

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn’t mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don’t think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don’t, I’ll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

You tell him, Chief! Applause

(via Obi’s Sister)


The Bizarro legislature

January 30, 2010

Remember Bizarro World? The planet on which every Earthman had a weird duplicate, and these duplicates would do the opposite of whatever was the intelligent, sensible thing to do? A people for whom doing the dumb thing was doing the right thing?

That’s the California legislature.

Driving pedal-to-the-metal for that cliff, the state senate voted to approve legislation earlier passed by the Appropriations Committee to create a single-payer universal health-care system:

The 22-14 vote was nearly party-line, with one Democrat, Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, voting no. It now moves to the Assembly.

The proposal would create the California Health System, which would be funded by pooling all federal and state money California currently spends on health care and a yet-to-be-determined payroll tax. It is anticipated to cost about $200 billion a year. All state residents would be provided health care and people could buy private health care to cover services not offered through the state plan.

Why do I describe this as something out of Bizarro World? Because the state will run out of cash in less than three months:

State Controller John Chiang issued a stern warning Friday about California’s cash reserves, telling legislative leaders and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger they must act on nearly $9 billion in budget cuts the governor is seeking by March — or the state will run out of cash to pay its bills.

Without making those cuts — which Chiang says will pump $1.3 billion into the state’s checking account — California would be broke by April 1, no fooling.

So, in a time of severe recession with unemployment and under-employment pushing 20%, state revenues crashing, and the treasury almost empty, Senate Democrats want to create a $200 billion entitlement (and we know that’s the low end) and tax even more an already over-taxed population.

Only in Bizarro World could this be considered a bright idea.

(hat tip: Michelle Malkin)


No, he wouldn’t. Would he?

January 28, 2010

Yes, he would.

Barack Obama wants to deny money to help 9-11 rescue workers who developed health problems because of what they were exposed to that day:

The Obama administration stunned New York’s delegation Thursday, dropping the bombshell news that it does not support funding the 9/11 health bill.

The state’s two senators and 14 House members met with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius just hours before President Obama implored in his speech to the nation for Congress to come together and deliver a government that delivers on its promises to the American people.

So the legislators were floored to learn the Democratic administration does not want to deliver for the tens of thousands of people who sacrificed after 9/11, and the untold numbers now getting sick.

“I was stunned — and very disappointed,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who like most of the other legislators had expected more of a discussion on how to more forward.

“To say the least, I was flabbergasted,” said Staten Island Rep. Mike McMahon.

I can think of a lot worse words to use. But this is a family show, so I’ll restrain myself.

Dear Mr. President: You’re a JACKASS!!

You were willing to blow nearly $800 billion on a stimulus bill that was a monument to waste. You want to take over one-sixth of the American economy, a move opposed by nearly two-thirds of the nation, at a cost of … what is it these days, a trillion dollars? You have flushed down the toilet tens of billions on auto and mortgage bailout programs that have netted the Republic nothing. And that’s only in your first year!

But you can’t spare $11 billion over 30 years to help people who risked their own health to save others on the worst day this nation experienced since Pearl Harbor? This is how you choose to pretend you’re serious about fiscal restraint? On the backs of people who breathed in God knows how much asbestos and released chemicals from collapsing buildings?

You slimy, hypocritical punk.

Congratulations, Mr. President. You’ve just earned my heartfelt contempt.

I hope the voters of New York remember this in 2010 and 2012. I know I will.

You betcha.

(via Allahpundit)

RELATED: This is, after all, the same man who administration floated the idea of saving money by having soldiers wounded in combat pay for their own insurance.


The Cuda unleashes her nightstick

January 28, 2010

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin on President Obama’s State of the Union address. Boom.

He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.

He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?

He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases. If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.

He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?

Emphasis added. And let’s not forget his support for a Chavista tool against the constitutional government of Honduras, either.

You can read it all (and much more) at Sarah Palin’s Facebook page.


A diminished, petty President

January 28, 2010

I was out last night and so missed President Obama’s State of the Union address. Thus, it wasn’t until late last night that I learned to my shock that he had directly criticized the Supreme Court over its decision in Citizens United (PDF) in front of a joint session of Congress (and the entire nation), with the Justices present. This is what Obama said:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.  (Applause.)  I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.  (Applause.)  They should be decided by the American people.  And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

The Justices sat stony-faced while the Democrats stood to cheer, other than for Justice Alito, who shook his head and said “not true:”

It was an unprecedented humiliation for the Court to be called out like that in such a venue, a fit of pique beneath the dignity of a Chief of State. It was also, in my opinion, an indirect but substantial attack on the First Amendment, the provisions of which the Court had reaffirmed and defended in Citizens United. But, anyone who’s been paying attention knows Obama has a problem with free speech.

And the hypocrisy was breathtaking. The Obama campaign had accepted tens of thousands of dollars  in foreign and otherwise illegal campaign donations during the last presidential election cycle. To complain that the Supreme Court had now opened the doors to “foreign entities” should have provoked derisive laughter, not applause.

I was going to write a long rant about how dumb the President’s statement was, but William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection covers the ground much better than I:

The attack on the Supreme Court during the State of the Union was a window into Obama’s divisive soul. I have posted numerous times before about Obama’s need to identify and campaign against enemies. He did it during the campaign and he does it every day in office.

Last night it was (mostly) the bankers and Wall Street (which donated more money to his campaign than to Republicans) and the Senate Republicans who were his target. But it those were the only attacks, it would have been merely another typical political speech.

The attack on the Supreme Court exposes the intolerance of this President. The politician who campaigned and allegedly champions the rule of law actually has very little use for the rule of law when it does not advance his political agenda.

Read the whole thing and follow the links. It will be well-worth your time.

Is it 2012, yet?  Sigh

RELATED: Alito’s “Not True” Moment at Reason; Fausta, who provides quotes about why Obama was wrong and demagogic; neo-neocon; and Hot Air. Obi’s Sister calls the whole speech a FAIL.

UPDATE: The quote that summarizes it all:

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind.

How about both?


Is there anything the IPCC hasn’t lied about?

January 27, 2010

Ye gods. The whole edifice of their “settled science” is crumbling like a wet cookie. From James Delingpole:

After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate

AGW theory is toast. So’s Dr Rajendra Pachauri. So’s the Stern Review. So’s the credibility of the IPCC. But if you think I’m cheered by this you’re very much mistaken. I’m trying to write a Climategate book but the way things are going by the time I’m finished there won’t be anything left to say: the battle will already have been won and the only people left who still believe in Man Made Global Warming will be the eco-loon equivalents of those wartime Japanese soldiers left abandoned and forgotten on remote Pacific atolls.


Here’s the latest development, courtesy of Dr Richard North – and it’s a cracker. It seems that, not content with having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCC’s latest assessment report also told us a complete load of porkies about the danger posed by climate change to the Amazon rainforest.

Hint: The geniuses of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claimed we were in danger of losing up to 40% of the Amazon rainforests to global warming. Trouble is, there’s no evidence to back their claims.

At this rate, only carbon-trading con artists and bawling emo-hippies will take this global-warming garbage seriously.


I like Nature, too, but…

January 27, 2010

I’ve heard of tree-huggers, but tree-mourners?

Ummm… Get a grip?


Free speech on trial in The Netherlands

January 27, 2010

For the last several days, Dutch parliamentarian and head of the Freedom Party Geert Wilders, who has to live in hiding because of death threats from Muslims, has been on trial in The Netherlands for exercising his rights to free speech by criticizing Islam and Muslim immigration to his country.  He has been charged under laws against “inciting hatred,” which, in effect, criminalize thought and speech that deviates from a  politically correct norm. At the opening of his trial, Wilders made a statement using truth as a defense and asking how a fact can be illegal:

Whether one agrees with Wilders or not about the problems and challenges posed by aggressive Islam (and I largely do), I should think everyone concerned with the fundamental liberties we consider unalienable would be worried by any attempt to punish a freeborn citizen for his or her opinions.

At Big Journalism, Rich Trzupek looks at the Wilders trial and what it says about the decadent state of Liberty in The Netherlands, where it is permissible to criticize Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, or any religion, but criticizing Islam is somehow “hate speech.” He offers two reasons: first, the dead hand of politically-correct multiculturalism, which declares all cultures of equal worth and free of criticism – unless it is Western culture being attacked. The second is simple fear: criticism of Islam can result in threats, violence, and even murder from Islamic supremacists.

Both are at play, along with a supine unwillingness to stand for those liberties the West has spent millennia building as a civilization, to declare their value and, indeed, their superiority, and to defend them against those who would hide behind them to advance their own illiberal, fascist agendas. In short, surrender.

The Wilders trial, taking place in a small corner of the world, should be something watched by all concerned for civil liberties.

LINKS: You can learn more at Defend Geert Wilders.


When famous dead economists rap

January 27, 2010

Who says economists aren’t cool? Watch John Maynard Keynes and F.A. Hayek rap about managed vs. free-market economies:

All they needed was Milton Friedman to fill the posse.

Yo!  Cool

(via R.S. McCain and A Conservative Lesbian)


John Edwards embarrasses even sleaze-bags

January 26, 2010

Sure, he’ll admit admit little Frances Quinn is his child by Rielle Hunter… after a year of lying about it. But pay for his toddler’s dental work?

Forget it.

And this walking, talking pustule came close to being vice-president and had a reasonable chance at the Democratic nomination for president? Excuse me while I go find the nearest church and light several candles in thanks for us not being stuck with the living incarnation of Elmer Gantry.

(Via Ace. Sure, it’s the Enquirer. But, remember, they were right all along about the affair and illegitimate child.)


Tuesday chuckles

January 26, 2010

The latest NewsBusted, starring the ever-hawt Jodi Miller:


As comfortable as an old shoe

January 26, 2010

What do Democrats do when they get bad news about their economic policies? Why, slip right back into that old favorite, “blame Bush:”

The CBO has a new report predicting huge deficits, a slow economic recovery, and a $75 billion cost overrun on President Obama’s stimulus package.

…Democrats are taking a page out of David Plouffe’s playbook: Blame the other guy.

House Democratic leaders said a report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) showing a $1.35 trillion deficit in 2010 was the result of policies put in place by President George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress…”90 percent of the projected deficit is due to the cost of the Bush economic collapse and Bush policies like his unpaid for tax cuts for the wealthy,” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.).

It gets old to say this, but Democrats have controlled the Congress since 2007 and the White House since last year. And the stimulus package was their pet project, supposedly needed to keep unemployment at  eight percent. (It’s currently over 10%.) They’re the ones who pushed for it, and it is not just a failure, but a budget-busting nightmare.

Sorry guys, but, after more than a year in total control… You broke it, you own it.


It’s all the Jews’ fault

January 26, 2010

Let’s see. The Jews are behind a worldwide conspiracy, they murder people to steal their organs, they are the eternal enemies of the Muslims (according to Qur’an 5:82 ), and they have the power to cause earthquakes. So, it’s not surprising that they must be responsible for wife-beating by Palestinian Arabs.

What is surprising is that this garbage was printed in the once-respectable British medical journal, Lancet:

The Lancet researchers operated in exceedingly bad faith both academically and politically. For example, they write: “Occupation policies, including a separation barrier that is being erected in various parts of the West Bank, affect family connectedness, depriving women of regular contact with their families who might otherwise intervene to prevent intimate-partner violence.”

Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim families do not intervene when a husband is beating a wife. On the contrary. Both the husband’s family and the wife’s own family view this as a husband’s right or as a wife’s fault. These researchers have got to know that. Thus, they are playing to western naivete or ignorance about this by claiming the Israeli road blockades are stopping such imaginary, pro-woman family interventions.

The author, Phyllis Chesler, is an American Jewish feminist who is well-familiar with the miserable state of women in the Muslim world. She points out the political agenda and bias in the Lancet article, evident from the funding sources for the research, the lack of any consideration of domestic violence in Israeli homes that may be a result of war-stress, and the lack of any consideration of Arab-Muslim domestic violence in countries not “occupied” by the Israelis.

In passing Chesler connects this to the earlier, and now disgraced, Lancet study that exaggerated Iraqi casualties after the Anglo-American liberation, a report that had a clear political agenda. It seems this “domestic violence” article is likewise a piece of propaganda.


Who ya gonna call?

January 25, 2010

You’re President Obama. (Oh, stop crying. It’s just pretend.) Most of the country hates the centerpiece policy of your administration, health care reform. Those same people think you’re doing a lousy job creating jobs, protecting the country, and even just keeping your word. Your personal ratings are tanking and you’ve just had your butt kicked in three straight state elections.

Things are looking bad, so whom do you send for to help right the ship? Why, your ex-campaign manager, of course!

David Plouffe, the man who managed President Barack Obamas campaign, will be taking on an expanded role as an outside adviser to the White House, according to sources familiar with the plan, a move that comes just days after a stunning defeat for Democrats in a Massachusetts Senate special election.

Jennifer Rubin sees this as the essence of Obamaism:

Not a new economic team. Not a new chief of staff. Not even a new national security staff to replace the gang that dropped the ball on the Christmas Day bomber. No, with the Obami, it is never about substance or getting the policy right. It’s not about governance. It is about the perpetual campaign. So the campaign manager gets the emergency call.

Of course, because all Obama knows is how to campaign; he’s never held a position with real executive accountability before, either in government or out, unlike, oh, Sarah Palin. As Mark Steyn puts it:

The most striking aspect of his performance (in Massachusetts) was how unhappy he looked, as if he doesn’t enjoy the job. You can understand why. He ran as something he’s not, and never has been: a post-partisan, centrist, transformative healer. That’d be a difficult trick to pull off even for somebody with any prior executive experience, someone who’d actually run something, like a state, or even a town, or even a commercial fishing operation, like that poor chillbilly boob Sarah Palin. At one point late in the 2008 campaign, when someone suggested that if Governor Palin was “unqualified” then surely he was too, Obama pointed out as evidence to the contrary his ability to run such an effective campaign. In other words, running for president was his main qualification for being president.

No wonder he’s summoned Plouffe: our president wants to go back to his “happy place” – being on campaign.

Back to Rubin, she goes on to comment on a recent article by Plouffe that’s nothing less than a masterpiece of denial. In it, he argues that the Democrats just need to double-down on what they’ve been doing for the last year, and everything will come up rainbows and unicorns next November. Jennifer rolls her eyes at him, but Jim Geraghty unleashes both barrels of a 12-gauge fisking:

If his op-ed accurately depicts what the Obama and broader Democratic strategy is going to be, then I think the floor for Republican wins in the House in 2010 will be about 217 seats and the ceiling is . . . oh, 435?

Plouffe describes the health-care bill as “a good plan that has become a demonized caricature.” It seems to him incomprehensible that a majority might genuinely oppose legislation that includes government fees for having too much health insurance — with or without a union exemption — taxpayer funding of abortions, potential coverage of illegal immigrants, special deals for the states of Nebraska and Louisiana because their senators held out, and the government eventually taking some treatments off the table because they’re deemed insufficiently cost-effective.

Strangely, a few paragraphs later, “Voters are always smarter than they are given credit for.” Except when they disagree with you, huh, David?

And that’s just for starters: read and enjoy the whole thing.

So, with his policy a shambles, his administration disoriented, and his party heading for the rocks in November, Barack Obama calls for a man who urges more cowbell.

Are we sure this isn’t a Karl Rove plot?  I dont know

(via Obi’s Sister)


Chemical Ali becomes fertilizer

January 25, 2010

This genuinely brightens my day: Ali Hassan al-Majid, known to the world as “Chemical Ali” for his use of nerve gas against Kurds in Iraq, has been hanged:

Majid, an enforcer in Saddam Hussein’s regime and his cousin, had earlier been sentenced to death four times for genocide and crimes against humanity.

In January, he was sentenced to death for ordering the gas attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988.

It is believed that about 5,000 people died in the attack.

Hanging will suffice, though, to be honest, I would have released him naked in the middle of Halabja and told him to start running.

Rot in Hell, you son of a bitch.

Now at room temperature.

(hat tip: The Jawa Report)


And yet the Left made fun of Bush??

January 24, 2010

At least he didn’t need a teleprompter to speak to school children:

(UPDATE: video)

I wonder where else The One might need his presidential binky…

Yeesh.

UPDATE 2: According to AOL, Obama talked to the schoolchildren in another room, sans teleprompters. The photo above comes from a subsequent “brief remarks” session with the press. Not as pathetic as first thought, therefore, but only somewhat so. I mean, can’t he make even a few comments to the press without the darned things?


Sunday funnies

January 24, 2010

The latest NewsBusted, starring Jodi Miller:

Hee hee