Monday, October 29, 2007


How Bush Caused Wildfires

Part 8 in a series...

This one should be self-explanatory. It wasn't global warming. It wasn't Al Qaeda. It wasn't even Blackwater.

It certainly wasn't the same damn Santa Ana wind that causes wildfires in California every single year without fail.

No, sir! It was all Bush's fault.

Update: Oh, what a nice little Lanche! Welcome, Instapundit readers.

Friday, September 21, 2007


More Infamous Monsters

You decide: who is REALLY scary?

I have been neglecting my blog in general, and my "Infamous Monsters" collection in particular. But since I have a few minutes of downtime, I can't resist putting up a couple more. Especially with Halloween Chart Euro to Australian Dollar coming up...

The Green Slime

CBS News
Both of these slime mongers rely on smear tactics, spew out rubbish, and stink to high heaven. But only one of them claims to be unbiased. Also, the Green Slime doesn't relentlessly broadcast dead-baby stories every morning at the top of every hour to depress the heck out of you.

Phantom of the Opera

Joe Wilson
Here's a monster who was finally unmasked to reveal a secret shame that he had stuggled to conceal from the world. Feast your eyes, glut your soul on his accursed ugliness. And his wife, Valerie Plame, EUR/AUD is a bit of a skank as well.

The Mummy's Ghost

Helen Thomas
What but an ancient curse could allow this shambling mockery of a corpse to walk among us? The hideous shrieks that erupt from its gullet in defense of Arab death cults could curdle the hair of any press secretary. Why does it keep coming back? Why??!!! She should call it a wrap!

Frankenstein's Monster

Sheik Abdel Rahman
Blinded more by hate than by physical deformity, this shambling mockery of a human being mindlessly kills the innocent, while self-loathing liberals label him "misunderstood." The other guy is just Christopher Lee in makeup.

Unidentified Ghoul

Fauxtography Model
Usually, as children, we are reassured that the monsters we see on film are only fakes and not to worry, that such creeps and fiends are created only for the camera by crafty directors and special effects crews. Unfortunately, nowadays, that's the very reason to fear them.

The Gorgon

Nancy Pelosi
This hideous apparition may turn you into stone if you look at it. She came to power promising to "drain the swamp," but if she did that, she would be homeless. It's hard to clean up a "culture of corruption" when you are the head of a bunch of snakes.

Beneath the Planet of the Apes

The United Nations
These simians think they are so superior that they are above the law, and to a large degree they are right, because they always get away with the most heinous crimes against humanity. Human rights mean nothing to them, since they consider human life to be contemptible. They won't be happy until the Statue of Liberty's ruins are lying on a toxic beach. Damn you!

Nameless trolls

Useful Idiots
Living in a version of hell that they made for themselves, these pathetic devils are legion. Until they learn to deal with their own inner demons, no amount of apologizing will cleanse their empty souls. At least the gentleman on the right is obviously not a single-issue voter.

The Flesh Eaters

Islamic Rage Boy
It's all-consuming. It turns your face, in a matter of seconds, into a distorted mask of horror. And unlike the Flesh Eaters, the fake rage of professional protestors is treated by the mainstream media with undue seriousness.

More to come....

Thursday, August 09, 2007


What Would I Do If I Were a Terrorist?

Steven Levitt asked in his NY Times column "If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack?"

Both his ideas and the comments that followed lacked the creative thought that would make such a discussion valuable. This is a question that needs to be asked, most desperately by law enforcement, intelligence, military and engineering minds now employed in the war against radical islam.

But Levitt asks it in the manner of an adolescent boy who melts his plastic army guys and throws cans of beans into the campfire. To such people, planning the deaths of children and other living creatures is a fun mindgame. It's a video game. And for the New York Times, it's a Help Wanted ad.

First, a few misconceptions the author has about Al Qaeda. He states:

Third, unless terrorists always insist on suicide missions (which I can’t imagine they would), it would be optimal to hatch a plan in which your terrorists aren’t killed or caught in the act, if possible.

Unfortunately, to Al Qaeda, human life is the cheapest part of the package. They don't care if the messengers of their terror die during the delivery. In fact, it is part of the recruitment: the notion of the martyr who goes straight to Allah's side to claim 72 virgins, a signed Danish caricature of Mohammed, a guilt-free pork sausage and two tickets to the first Cat Stevens concert held in the Jewless Muslim Paradise (date TBA).

Also, contrary to the supposition that an attack should by economical, money is not an object. The attack doesn't have to be cheap, as the islamists are funded by the likes of the Saudis and Iranians. The WTC attack was pretty cheap considering the ROI, but that's only because box cutters and a submissive airline policy made a very inexpensive and fatal combination.

So Mr. Levitt's criteria are all wrong. He should have posed:

OK, now with these parameters in mind, what would you aim for as a terrorist? Well, in a perfect world, where I was some kind of superterrorist, I would pursue this strategy:

Now your common suicide bomber doesn't have the resources to mount this kind of strategy. But they don't have to. Their sympathizers, apoligists and useful idiots do this effective and damaging work for them. The Democrats in Congress, the New York Times, CAIR, the BBC, Reuters, the AP, CBS News, PBS, slip-and-fall lawyers, NPR, the United Nations, and an endless parade of America-haters, from Hollywood dults like George Clooney and Sean Penn to commie clowns like Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink, have all done their utmost to accomplish this amazing feat. Oh, and glib amateurs like Steven D. Levitt make it all seem so exciting and interesting.

Now all the terrorists have to do is the easy part: killing.

So, what would I target? How would I target it? I have some brilliant ideas. But I don't want to share them with Mr. Levitt or Mr. Bin Laden. I did share them with a dude at the FBI way back in 2001, and hopefully these avenues have been closed to the jihadis.

Let's hope we never have to find out.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007


Brooklyn Palindrome #1

Sun, a wog canal, an A/C . . . Gowanus!

Wednesday, April 04, 2007


Supporting the Troops. The Jihadi Troops.

Well, Nancy Pelosi, the standard bearer for the party of “supporting the troops,” “combatting the REAL terrorists,” “women’s rights,” “tolerance” and all those great Election Day promises has gone on a Middle East tour to go over the President’s head on matters of national security and foreign affairs, and go straight to the terrorists to arrange the formal surrender.

After a token stop in the hated Israel where she spoke a bunch of predictable lies to retain her mysteriously loyal Jewish voters, the cut-and-run Politburo Princess, went over to see Assad in Syria, one of the world’s worst supporters of terrorism (and by ’worst’ I don’t mean he’s bad at doing it).

She didn’t stop in Iraq, as she was afraid of looking our brave troops in the eye before pulling the carpet out from under them. But she did do a flyover to send the troops a message of her support:

Of course, she misspelled 'America,' but it's hard to concentrate on what you're skywriting when the broom handle is giving you anus-splinters.

Then, meeting with the jihadis, she showed proper humility that all women should show to their male masters by donning a good Muslim head covering. But it wasn't to show her support for Islamic subjugation of women, and all that. It was completely in the name of security. After all, she would otherwise be the target of rape by every man in the room, including her security detail who would be unable to stop themselves.

After all, as an imam explained Islamic reasoning:

“If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?” the sheik said in his sermon. “The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”

Now, c’mon guys! Admit it. If Pelosi wasn’t wearing that veil above, you would all lose control over your animal instincts, wouldn’t you?

Just look at this obviously pornographic photo of Nancy [gasp!] without her veil. Now, guys... Guys! Stop drooling over your keyboards; you’ll short out the entire Internet at this rate.

No! Stop!!! Stop doing that to the computer screen; it’s going to void your warranty! AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGHHH!!!!

Tuesday, February 20, 2007


Helping Heroes

I was just forwarded this letter from Bob Woodruff's wife Lee, describing the immense struggle that is faced by returning soldiers (and civilians) with brain trauma:

February 17, 2007

Dear Friends:

It has been slightly over one year since a bomb literally blew apart our lives when Bob was critically injured by an IED in Iraq. Our year has been hellish, and yet we consider ourselves infinitely fortunate as Bob continues to exceed all expectations for recovery.

As you may know, Bob and I have written a book called “In An Instant.” It’s about our journey over this past year and reflects back to our earlier life together as a couple and family. It also sheds some light on the kind of trauma that so many families with loved ones returning from Iraq with life changing injuries are enduring.

Though the book publicity will momentarily shine the spotlight on ourselves, it is all for a good cause as we hope to use the opportunity to engage in some grassroots guerilla marketing.

While Bob was medically sedated in Bethesda Naval Hospital, I saw more suffering than I could have ever imagined. Young mothers, separated from their children for weeks, waiting by the bedside of their injured husbands; men in the ICU next to Bob dying, their families hunched in grief. Sometimes there were soldiers with no one to visit them, alone in their rooms, trying to make sense of how one minute they were with their buddies and the next they are waking up without a limb or so addled they could no longer read or speak. And as awful as the first weeks of recovery are for the patients and families, the difficulties they face for long-term rehabilitation are equally challenging.

In addition to the book launch, on February 27th at 10:00 PM, Bob will report “To Iraq and Back” on ABC—a documentary about his personal struggle with traumatic brain injury and that of other soldiers. It will be a sobering look at what injured service men and women experience when they return from war and, sadly how many of them are not as fortunate as Bob.

No matter what your feelings are about the war in Iraq, these young people served their country and Bob and I would like to help them get the highest level of care necessary to regain their health, support their families, and return to as normal a life as possible. The military medical teams are performing so many miracles, saving lives in record numbers, more than any war in history. But down the road, once they are discharged from their acute care situation many of the injured do not receive the long-term rehabilitative care that they need, in particular, the cognitive therapy is sometimes terribly inadequate or non-existent.

To that end, our family has created the Bob Woodruff Family Fund for Traumatic Brain Injury (BWFF). We are committed to raising money for this important cause during and after our book tour through special events and promotions. We will focus on donating to existing organizations that are helping all members of the military receive cognitive rehabilitation.

During the past year so many of you have reached out to our extended family and offered your support and assistance, and we are turning back to you now to help the men and women from the military that need your support. Beginning February 27th you can log on to to learn about our mission, and consider making a donation. You can also pre-order the book today online at Barnes and Noble or Amazon. A portion of the proceeds from the sale of the book will go to BWFF. We have also included a media schedule of our national television appearances and book signings below.

We would be grateful if you would forward this email onto interested family and friends and hopefully encourage them to help us with our fundraising goals.


Lee and Bob Woodruff

Whatever your views on the war, Bob was not one of the typical journalists who sit in the Green Zone hotels getting their scoops from stringer/insurgents, or who give Photoshop a workout to create stories out of thin air. Bob put his life on the line, and almost lost it, risking all to get to the truth in Iraq.

He unfortunately became the story, and got an all too close-up look at what our brave military men and women risk every day they spend on the front lines. And Lee got to share in this terrible ordeal, which every military family faces on a constant basis.

Selflessly, Bob and Lee are asking us to support the men and women who have sacrificed and will continue to pay interest on that sacrifice every day for the rest of their lives. Many will never recover from that down payment.

So of course, the Woodruffs are about to become the target of the Kos Klowns, you can rest assured. They will be attacked because of their empathy and efforts to help fallen heroes. Happily, such slings and arrows are of the easily ignored type.

Friday, February 02, 2007


Bill Gates is on Acid or Something

In an interview at Newsweek, the richest man in the world said this:

You can go through and look at who showed any of these things first, if you care about the facts. If you just want to say, “Steve Jobs invented the world, and then the rest of us came along,” that’s fine. If you’re interested, [Vista development chief] Jim Allchin will be glad to educate you feature by feature what the truth is. I mean, it’s fascinating, maybe we shouldn’t have showed so publicly the stuff we were doing, because we knew how long the new security base was going to take us to get done. Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine. So, yes, it took us longer, and they had what we were doing, user interface-wise. Let’s be realistic, who came up with [the] file, edit, view, help [menu bar]? Do you want to go back to the original Mac and think about where those interface concepts came from?

Has he actually convinced himself, or is he just saying this because his low-level employee at MSNBC won’t ever call him on it?

Who showed it first? Xerox PARC. That's well known. Sure, Apple stole the concepts of the GUI and the mouse and the menus. But you stole it from Apple. The difference is this: Apple implemented it right. Your platform sucks. See the difference?

Besides, what is he worried about? People buying the Mac today can also run Windows on it, so he should be happy if they sell lots and lots of Intel Macs. What he should be complaining about is the intentionally sucky software his company writes for the Mac.

By the way, Bill, you should go and see those Apple ads. Now I probably hate the campaign more than anybody because they basically say: 'If you are a pretentious little snot, you should buy a Mac like this pretentious little snot.'

But take a close look at these ads, Bill, because the pretentious little snot is specifically Steve Jobs. The dork is you. Are you gonna take that lying down?

Thursday, February 01, 2007


Good Golly, Miss Molly!

Best-selling Bush-basher Molly Ivins has died of cancer. I won’t miss her unfunny and tired crap. I certainly wouldn’t wish cancer on somebody just because their views were idiotic and their pandering to the loony left was as funny as a dental exam. But it will be nice to see one less hack filling the New and Noteworthy tables at Barnes.

But in her last days, she left us with this unintentional glimmer of insight into why the antiwar radicals will never grasp the concept of defending this nation and civilization and modernity from the barbarians of islamofascism, just as they failed to understand how to win the Cold War:

“We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war,” Ivins wrote in the Jan. 11 column. “We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, ’Stop it, now!’”

These are people who think you can accomplish anything by going into the street and banging pots and pans.

They’re simply stupid.

And they’re easily led, especially in the Internet age, to form huge armies of morons standing in the street chanting pathetic slogans about Halliburton. And in part, these zombies are led by pseudo-authors with delusions of wisdom, like Molly Ivins.

So while I don’t cheer the death by cancer of an individual, I can at least take some satisfaction in knowing that one more of the middle managers of moonbattery will no longer produce free propaganda for the enemy.

One note of good news for Molly, however: she will probably continue to vote Democrat every Election Day.

Wednesday, January 31, 2007


Nutty Professor: We're Overreacting

In an absurdly ignorant (or sickeningly disingenuous) op-ed in the L.A. Times “Was 9/11 really that bad?”, David A. Bell suggests “The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting.”

First he kindly reminds us, as if we had all forgotten, what happened on that horrible day. I know many of his readers have forced themselves to forget, or were never really bothered by it to begin with, aside from the immense inconvenience of having all flights cancelled for a few days, and having to look at those embarrassingly “patriotic” flags on people's houses. He tells us that only 3,000 people were killed. Oh, and a couple of tall buildings that nobody really cared for anyway. No big deal. He continues:

Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

So the first flash of Bell's utter stupidity is his comparison of 3,000 civilians killed launching the U.S. into the war on terror with the total body count of all Russia at the end of World War II. Come on. That's embarrassing, even for an academic.

He implies here that the deaths of 20 million Russians were what pushed the Kremlin to finally declare war on Hitler.

Here's the comparison he missed: 2,400 Americans were killed in Pearl Harbor, a military target, which got us into WWII, which in turn killed over 400,000 American soldiers.

Contrast that with 3,000 civilian targets killed in the World Trade Center attacks, plus a large chunk of New York City destroyed, the nation’s economy nearly shattered, civil liberties constrained, etc, and the resulting War on Terror, which has so far claimed 3,000 American military lives.

Would this dimwit proclaim that FDR declaring war on the Axis powers was overreacting? Because if it was not, then he needs to explain how in merely three months in Okinawa, we lost 13,000 men, the Japanese lost 107,000 of theirs, and 142,000 civilians were killed, and yet this compares favorably to the “grave benchmarks” coming out of Iraq every other week.

The professor is right in one respect: Americans have had to make far fewer sacrifices in the current war than in WWII. And we have not yet been hit again since 2001. But the professor does not mention that it's not from a lack of trying on the enemy’s part. Several big attacks were prevented by the hated War on Terror, the evil Patriot Act and the unAmerican “domestic wiretapping” program that George W. Bush directed against the enemy.

Then he puts forth the notion that we didn't need to finally declare war back on the terrorists, because heck, they're not really that much of a threat to us after all:

The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the “Islamo-fascist” enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler's implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy.

Here, Bell displays his inability or unwillingness to grasp the concept of preemption. If we had allowed fate to take its course in Iraq, and the phony sanctions were eventually lifted, Saddam would have had nukes in just a few years. Similarly, if we don't take out the mad mullahs of Iran, they will have them as well. That's really the main idea of what this war is about: if the mass murdering death cult of islamism, which Bell admits would destroy us if it could, got ahold of nuclear weapons, they would use them on our cities. This is a threat we cannot afford to let

But then, I guess, if New York was totally destroyed, that's only 7 or 8 million dead. Nothing really, when compared to the total body count of the USSR at the end of WWII, so let's not overreact, OK?

Now here's a gem:

Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents.

Well, the genius professor should also bring up even more relevant factoids:

So if we were as logical as the good professor, rather than take out the Taliban, kill Al Qaeda when and where possible, and remove dictators who support terrorists and plot to build nukes, we should declare a war on dung and snail parasites. Oh! And automakers.

Bell concludes that by recognizing a threat beyond attacks that have already occurred, we are doing no more than pumping up the importance of our attackers, thereby fueling the fire.

Yet as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler — can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.

Yes, it is a “messy, difficult, long-term struggle,” which makes it even more impressive that the U.S. war and intelligence machine has been so effective in protecting us from attacks without the brutal and overwhelming response that defined wars of old.

What Bell is really trying to say is that there is nothing worth fighting for.

Saturday, January 06, 2007


Killed Dead

This interesting sentence appeared on the site:

Elsewhere in the capital and nationwide Saturday, police said at least 17 other people were reported killed dead as a result of sectarian violence.

Killed dead? I like that. I guess it must have been a Raid...

Tuesday, January 02, 2007


Citizen Saddam

There are various conflicting reports of what Saddam’s last word was before his plunge into hell. Some quote “Muqtada,” which would heap even further humliation on the dead dictator. Others claim it was “Mohammed,” in the middle of a prayer, which is less embarrassing. Still others claim it was “I am ready to negotiate!” As with much of the “news” coming out of Iraq, we will have to do some serious investigation to get to the truth.

Here is the infamous video of Saddam just a millisecond before his family reunion with Uday and Qusay. Now, by tweaking the awful pixelated cellphone frames with UltraEnhance 2.0, we are able to get a clear enough image of the dictator’s mouth to do some lip reading:

And sure enough, he’s saying “Mohammed.” But just what did it mean? Was there more to it than just a prayer? Did this last word offer some glimpse into the soul of not Saddam the Butcher of Baghdad, but down past the layer of Saddam the terrorist, past the thick crust of Saddam the torturer and Saddam the sadist, and into the soft gooey core of Saddam the man?

One clue comes to us from footage of Baathists protesting the execution of one of the world’s worst tyrants.

At a glance, this just looks like your dime-a-dozen protest by the “Arab Street,” the thinnest-skinned bunch of whiners since the ACLU, which starts burning signs in English at the drop of a fez. But if you zoom in on this image, you get an idea of what drove Saddam to be what he became.

So there you have it. They are burning Saddam’s symbol of youth and lost innocence.

I wonder what happened to his Declaration of Principles...

Tuesday, December 05, 2006


What We Need to Do in Iraq . . . Isn't in Iraq!

Instapundit asked the rest of us humble blog people our own thoughts on what new and different tactics the U.S. should be exploring to move us towards peace and democracy in Iraq. Here's my two cents' worth. But as many people already realize, our actions in Iraq can ever go only so far before they hit a wall.

The current war in Iraq, like many fronts of the Cold War, like the fiasco in Lebanon, and almost all modern wars, is being waged by proxy. The enemy in this war is not in Iraq. We could wipe out every so-called "insurgent" in Iraq, and not even touch the enemy.

We need to face the truth here. The enemy is Iran. They have been our enemy since the traitor Carter allowed the Shah to fall. Like all dems, Carter felt it was somehow divine punishment on the evil United States that our allies across the globe should be overthrown, and that our greatest foes, the Soviet Union and China should benefit from our many retreats. By allowing the Shiite revolution and the invasion and destruction of Afghanistan by the Russians, plus displaying an unprecedented cowardice and paralysis, Carter set up the table for the eight-ball shot we are facing today. He put all the ingredients in place for global jihad, including failed states for Al Qaeda to take root in. Also, his party's embrace of Yasser Arafat as a "statesman" led to decades of hopelessness in the middle east that was a petrie dish of brainwashed baby jihadis.

So the first thing to do in Iraq is in the United States: never allow a dem to take the reins of the U.S. military. Vote for Republicans, even if it's not Rudy Giuliani. We can't afford another wimp. Bush is too much of a wimp as it is. Another Clinton or Carter would be the end of it.

The second thing to do: confront our actual enemies. Give Iran the one thing that is sorely missing from this "war": an ultimatum. No more of this nonsense of having Euroweenie bureaucrats bargaining with the devil. These people want to kill us, even if it kills them. They don't care about using their nuclear and terrorist threats as bargaining chips to get concessions. They are on a mission from god to kill all infidels wherever they live, and god doesn't want no goddam half-measures.

We need to do exactly what we did with the Taliban and then with Saddam. Make a stern speech without the UN-sanctioned wishy-washiness we're hearing from the State Department. Iran: you have one week to stop arming the terrorist factions in Iraq, stop arming Hezbollah, stop arming Hamas, stop trying to make a nuclear bomb, and stop being a bunch of pricks. If you continue this stupid game, then you will find an end to our patience, and all diplomatic talk will be replaced with bombs. First the nuclear facilities that we know about. Then the oil fields. Then the nuclear facilities that we think we know about. Then the mullahs. Then every road, railroad, airport, dam, power plant, bike lane and porta-potty in the country.

Then, very important: do it.

Follow through with the tough talk. No more waiting for our other enemies Russia, China and France, to do any heavy lifting on our behalf. They are just as happy to see the U.S. suffer economically, militarily, diplomatically, and physically (as in millions dead), as they are to see us continue subsidizing their existence.

A sidebar to the ultimatum is to the lackeys of Iran (Syria, Hezbollah, etc) that they, too, are on the wrong end of the rifle. Any more trouble from them, either in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Israel, or anywhere else, and they will be attacked. Nothing so involved as in Iraq or Afghanistan. No rebuilding. No regime change necessary. Just a whooping good time for the Air Force boys. The real shock and awe we didn't get to see before. And keep it up until they and every other potential scumbag out there cries uncle.

The enemy has to get the main idea: don't attack the U.S. It ain't worth it. Then and only then will we be allowed to bring our troops home for good. Any compromise, anything less than total humiliation of the enemy, will only bring us further grief, whereas absolute surrender of the enemy will bring a better life not only to us, but to the miserable souls who have to live under the heels of tyrants.

Also, an all-out war is easy to get behind. The front at home is a lot easier to win when you aren't stuck in a mundane police action. War is hell, as they say, and if you try for a compromise, you end up in purgatory instead, which is worse.

Monday, July 24, 2006


Aryan Olbersupermann

It is amazing how comfortable the left is with comparing every person they don’t like to Adolf Hitler. Funny, considering their current support for every fascist under the sun, and their steadfast insistence that America is evil for opposing them. But not funny in that it belittles one of history’s greatest sadnesses.

Keith Olbermann is taking things to new heights of embarrassment. Here he is expressing his own personal ratings jealousy/perverse man-crush, and perhaps trying yet again to get the attention of the object of his strange desires. But such so-called “liberals” have become numb to the seriousness of such men as Hitler.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s good to make fun of such killers. They deserve mockery. The Producers is a prime example of the correct way to mock a mass murderer. But to call somebody else “Hitler” with such a glib smirk betrays a callous and willful ignorance.

Maybe Keith would find this more funny:

Hmmm. No, not funny at all, considering that if Hitler was running Germany now, Olbermann and his MSM buddies would be praising how the trains run on time, and the U.S. wasn’t attacked by Germany, and how we can’t beat the Japanese because they are willing to die in suicide attacks, etc, etc.

It’s just freakin’ sad.

Friday, July 07, 2006


It Was the Worst of Times

The American Spectator reveals that the Times went ahead and printed the SWIFT story despite repeated warnings from the Feds that doing so would jeopardize ongoing investigations of terrorist plots targeting you and me, as well as the idiots at the Times themselves:

According to Treasury and Justice Department officials familiar with the briefings their senior leadership undertook with editors and reporters from the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, the media outlets were told that their reports on the SWIFT financial tracking system presented risks for three ongoing terrorism financing investigations. Despite this information, both papers chose to move forward with their stories.

"We didn't give them specifics, just general information about regions where the investigations were ongoing, terrorist organizations that we believed were being assisted. These were off the record meetings set up to dissuade them from reporting on SWIFT, and we thought the pressing nature of the investigations might sway them, but they didn't," says a Treasury official.

In fact, according to a Justice Department official, one of the reporters involved with the story was caught attempting to gain more details about one of the investigations through different sources. "We believe it was to include it in their story," says the official.

And today it is revealed that these terrorists were indeed plotting to attack New York City once again, this time destroying the Holland Tunnel for starters:

The FBI has uncovered what officials consider a serious plot by jihadists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in hopes of causing a torrent of water to deluge lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned. The terrorists sought to drown the Financial District as New Orleans was by Hurricane Katrina, sources said. They also wanted to attack subways and other tunnels.

Well the Times doesn't care about that. They'd rather protect the privacy of terrorist masterminds than their own readers' lives. Now that the SWIFT program has been blown out of the water, how soon before a plot like this doesn't get caught in time? How many deaths will be on the head of the NY Times and their hateful little troll of a publisher?

Now, reread this quote:

. . . one of the reporters involved with the story was caught attempting to gain more details about one of the investigations through different sources. "We believe it was to include it in their story."

Did you get that?! They not only wanted to blow the SWIFT program itself out of the water; they wanted to announce to the world the details of an ongoing investigation! They wanted to warn off specific terrorists that they were being investigated. This is really getting out of control, and I truly wish the Bush Administration had the balls to arrest these traitors and give them an exclusive tour of the interrogation rooms with which the Times is so obsessed.

UPDATE: After the leak, the official corrections.

FBI and New York City officials would not go into details of the plot, but did confirm that the PATH system was the likely target, not the Holland Tunnel, as the Daily News reported.

And so, it turns out that three suspects are in custody, and that there were at least five other suspects they were hunting "around the world." Five terrorists we may never catch, thanks to our beloved free press exercising its Constitutional right to publish any classified top secrets they feel like publishing, without consideration of consequences, either from a legal standpoint, or from the perspective of a potential victim of the next major attack.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006


They Called Them 'Students' in Iran As Well

Since the so-called Students EURAUD Against the War so graciously gave us a way to contact them, at their email address, I thought I should take the opportunity to reinforce their belief that this war is immoral and we should not be getting involved in sovereign nations' affairs.

So I sent them this little note:

Here's why we should not be in this war:

Saddam wasn't bothering us! Why did we have to get involved?!

I will wait to see if these retards understand the concept of sarcasm. I guess they must; the very name of their little fascist gang is about as ironic as a name could be.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?