You thought Howard “the Scream” Dean had some notable quotables? His replacement is certainly proving herself to be a worthwhile heir.
Here‘s what Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (no relation to the foul-mouthed, little-watched, suspended cretin at MSDNC) had to say about those crazy Republicans and what they consider to be crimes:
And that it would be harmful if — the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries, and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrest them all.
Um, I don’t know how to break this to you, Mrs. Hyphenated-Moonbat, but illegal immigration is just that…illegal. You know, il-legal? As in “not legal”, “against the law”, and heck, even “a crime“? So yeah, we right-wing nutbars happen to think Merriam Webster was onto something by defining “illegal” as “criminal”. We’re kind of funny that way.
I hope everyone has a great weekend, and please take a few moments to reflect on the sacrifices made by those who gave their lives for this country.
And I hope you don’t go all Sixth Sense like ObaMao and see any dead people like he did on the campaign trail in 2008.
Hypocrite DNC chief: Republicans want you to drive foreign cars…which, as luck would have it, I already drive
When she’s not humiliating herself in front of the Israeli prime minister, the new top moonbat Debbie Loserman Schmuck likes to spend her spare time exposing herself as a Class A hypocritical ditz. Details:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the chairwoman of the DNC, ripped into Republican presidential contenders who opposed President Obama’s 2009 bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler.
“If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars; they would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes,” she said at a breakfast for reporters organized by The Christian Science Monitor.
So she leads by example, right?
But according to Florida motor vehicle records, the Wasserman Schultz household owns a 2010 Infiniti FX35, a Japanese car whose parent company is Nissan, another Japanese company.
Snarks Doug Powers:
Don’t let this happen to you. Vote Democrat in 2012 so the Republicans can’t force you buy a foreign car. They’ve already gotten to the DNC Chair, but it’s not too late for the rest of America.
Harry Reid said last week that the Senate Dems will not be presenting a budget for 2012, meaning that for the second year in a row, they refuse to do their lavishly-funded jobs. Apparently, Reid is insistent that no Democrat budget gets passed…including his own president’s:
The Senate voted unanimously on Wednesday to reject a $3.7 trillion budget plan that President Obama sent to Capitol Hill in February.
Ninety-seven senators voted against a motion to take it up.
Democratic aides said ahead of the vote that the Democratic caucus would not support the plan because it has been supplanted by the deficit-reduction plan Obama outlined at a speech at George Washington University in April.
Is that right? Well that’s odd, since Reid said there will be NO Dem budget in the Senate. If there’s no budget that will see the light of day, then how can the Dems claim they only voted down ObaMao’s budget because of another budget that they…uh…won’t be voting on? Huh?
By the way, the MSM narrative has been that the Paul Ryan budget that was passed by the House was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 57-40, with five Republicans voting “No” with the Dems. The MSM hasn’t focused nearly the same amount on the 53 Dems who rejected the Obama budget. Because in MSM math, “5 GOP > 53 Dem” in newsworthiness.
Exit question: Will race-baiting black Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC) accuse Reid and the other 52 Senate Democrats of opposing Obama’s budget because they’re racist? I dunno.
He hasn’t jumped in, yet. His name’s being tossed around quite a bit, though.
What do you think?
Unfreakingbelievable! DNC Chair asks Netanyahu to tell Republican Jews not to make Israel an issue in 2012!
Ho. Ly. Shiite. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the new moonbat-in-chief of the DNC, doesn’t have an ounce of friggin’ shame.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday met with representative delegates of the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) and the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC).
OK, so Bibi is meeting with Republican Jews and Democrat Jews. Seems reasonable, no? But then this wench has the temerity to do this crap in front of Bibi:
But while the meeting was meant to shore up bipartisan support for Israel from American Jewish political organizations, it quickly became a partisan bickering match, with the chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Debbie Wasserman Schultz, using the platform to tell Republican Jews to stop doing what they’re doing.
The RJC used their opening remarks to say that now was a historical time for the future of the Middle East, and to thank Prime Minister Netanyahu for meeting with them. But while the NJDC’s chairman said essentially the same thing, he was followed by hyper-partisan comments, first from Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Steve Israel and then from the DNC chair, Wasserman Schultz.
Sitting in front of Netanyahu, the DNC chair asked the RJC to “pledge to refrain in 2012 from using Israel as part of the issues in campaigns,” according to RJC executive director Matt Brooks. “It started that way. Right from the get go they just jumped on it.”
“They decided to hijack these meeting in order to, in front of the prime minister, put a gag order in effect to prevent us from speaking out on Israel,” Brooks says.
It is highly unusual for a sitting DNC chair to try to use a foreign prime minister to pressure another political group to act in a way that she deems appropriate. But this seems to have been what happened yesterday.
Asked about Netanyahu’s reaction, Brooks said Netanyahu was “clearly uncomfortable and at one point said, ‘do you guys want me to leave the room and give you guys some privacy?’”
Are you freakin’ kidding me? How embarrassing! How disrespectful for a respected world leader!
Hey, DWS, I got a question for you, Toots. How’s about you take the plank out of your party’s eye before you
shove it up your matzo hole pluck the splinter from your neighbor’s eye?
Senate Democrats are expected to support a resolution intended as a rebuff to President Obama’s call for basing Middle East peace talks on the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders.
It would be a rare rebuke of the president by the upper chamber and a sign that Democrats are worried about the impact of last week’s speech on the U.S.-Israel relationship and pro-Israel constituents.
Democrats in both chambers are scrambling to fix the damage caused when Obama called for the 1967 borders and land swaps as a basis for peace.
Some Democrats have tried to downplay the rift, but Israel’s strongest supporters in Congress say there’s no denying that Obama made a tactical mistake in handling the relationship.
I guess those pesky Jews need to “know their place”, right?
Boy, that Fox News sure is biased, huh? What about NBC?
DAVID GREGORY: At the same time, what’s happening today, we want to take you live here in Washington, D.C., to the scene of AIPAC. This is the pro-Israel lobby, very powerful in the United States. The President will be speaking here, Andrea Mitchell, and this is on the heels of a rupture with Israel. The President said this week that any peace plan, a Palestinian state would have to go back to the borders of prior to the 1967 war. This was significant.
[ANDREA] MITCHELL: He did have language that said there would be land swaps to protect Israel’s security, but it was taken as a red flag by Netanyahu. And what happened then was that even if this was implicit in things that previous presidents had said, Netanyahu seized on it. Even before he got on the plane, he criticized the President, and in such a fashion! He lectured him in the Oval Office. And if you look at that picture that you have up there right now, it was a stone-faced Barack Obama and Netanyahu basically treating him like a school boy. People even who work for Netanyahu, some Israeli officials, told him later that he went too far. That it was, it was really rude and that there would be blowback to this.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And we’re back with the Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Mister Gingrich, the President made a big speech on the Middle East last week. What did you think of it?
NEWT GINGRICH: I think it is a disaster. I think it is extraordinarily dangerous. I think that it–defining the 1967 border would be an act of suicide for Israel. They are totally non-defensible. Ithink for the United States, you know– we don’t have moral equivalence here. You have Hamas which is a terrorist organization whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel. You have a democracy. Now the idea that somehow we’re supposed to be neutral between Hamas and Israel is fundamentally flawed. And I do not believe that we should have any pressure on Israel as long as Hamas’s policy is the destruction of Israel. And as long as missiles are being fired into Israel and terrorists are preparing to try to kill Israelis. And I think it is– a President who can’t control his own border probably shouldn’t lecture Israel about their border.
SCHIEFFER: I have to ask you though you’re using words like dangerous. I mean, the President was calling for peace. How- why – why can you characterize that as dangerous?
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: So you talked about no relationship. I mean, they have a frosty relationship at best, right, Jake?
JAKE TAPPER: It’s – there’s no love lost, I think it’s fair to say. And I also think it’s fair to say that when Bibi in the Oval Office did something I’ve never seen happen-
AMANPOUR: I was going to ask you-
TAPPER: -which is, which is this little history lesson on the Jewish people and suffering, that did not endear him further to the White House.
AMANPOUR: Were you, were you stunned by that? I mean, it did look like a public lecture.
SPITZER: Did Netanyahu blow it? Israel’s prime minister draws a line in the sand and Obama walks over it. If your best friend can’t tell you you’re wrong, who can?
MITCHELL: John Heilemann is National Affairs editor for New York Magazine and joins us from New York. So first of all, the angry reception that the President got, was that predictable? Whatever happened to politics ending at the water’s edge? (Right, because Mitchell and her ilk really adhered to that premise during the Bush years, right? – CL)
Signed today. I’m guessing he didn’t have his telebinky available to bail him out of this one:
Hey, SEIU: GPS. Google it.
When union workers and environmental activists picked a Hastings-area site to protest inaction on a Marcellus Shale severance tax, they made one mistake.
Marcellus activity isn’t occurring within miles of it.
Service Employees International Union officials issued an apology Monday, saying they mistakenly set up their protest Thursday – and a makeshift tollbooth asking the industry to pay its fair share – next to a surface well property that has been around for years and isn’t set up for shale drilling.
“There is no Marcellus Shale drilling on that property, and we’ve contacted the property owners and apologized. It was a mistake, and there was no malice intended even when we thought it was a Marcellus well,” said Neil Bhaerman, a SEIU Healthcare spokesman. “It was an honest mistake that we are going to take extra care to ensure never happens again.”
Just remember, the same people who couldn’t find an actual Marcellus shale site with both hands and a map will be the same people expected to administer ObamaCare.
Scary, no? Hey, wasn’t it the deposed former Senate Dem leader Tom Dasshole who once said “You don’t professionalize unless you federalize”? Yeah, I’m thinking “No!”
David Gregory: All kinds of prominent Israelis agree with Obama’s calls to 1967 borders…but I can’t name a single one of these people
When he’s not busy accusing Newt Gingrich of racism for using the racial epithet “food stamp” (I feel dirty just typing that), David Gregory likes to pass him time by publicly exposing himself as a leftist hack d0uchebag. From Newsbusters:
DAVID GREGORY, “MEET THE PRESS” HOST: I just want to make a point here. Joe, I disagree with you. This is not just the view of the White House in terms of what they think Israel ought to accept. This also reflects prominent views within Israel that this speech was actually good news for the Israeli government for some of the points that have already been laid out here.…
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Obviously, we talked about earlier, on the minds of a lot of people inside the White House and the state department is the U.N. vote coming up this fall, David, and this is seen as leverage obviously for that. We’ve talked about that. But you said this is also seen as good news for some in Israel. What major Israeli public figures have come out supporting the President’s speech?
GREGORY: Well, I (stammers), I don’t think there have been major public figures that have, but some of the commentary that’s coming out of (stammers) the commentary in the press there and others who are looking at the situation are, are recognizing that some of these factors diplomatically are actually positive for Netanyahu.
Well, there’s, um….I mean, there is uh…I almost forgot that guy, um…
Newt: As if my presidential aspirations weren’t dead yet, I propose a new kind of amnesty program for illegal aliens
Sitting on the couch with Pe-loser to talk about a junk science fad? Check. Pushing for a RINO-turned-Dem supporter in NY-23? Check. Tossing Paul Ryan’s popular fiscal plan under the bus and allowing Dems to use his words in their campaign material? Check.
If Gingrich’s campaign were on life support before, this just might pull the plug:
Newt Gingrich, whose campaign for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination has gotten off to a rocky start, risked fresh controversy on Thursday by suggesting that some illegal immigrants living in the United States “may have earned the right to become legal.”…
Gingrich recounted how World War Two-era U.S. draft boards chose who would serve in the military, saying a similar system might help deal with the millions of immigrants living in the United States illegally.
“Because I think we are going to want to find some way to deal with the people who are here to distinguish between those who have no ties to the United States, and therefore you can deport them at minimum human cost, and those who, in fact, may have earned the right to become legal, but not citizens,” Gingrich said.
Brilliant, Newt. The base was already pretty inflamed, so it only makes sense on “Apocalypse Eve” to poke them in the eye on the way to Eternity, right?
Which hour would than be? Oh, just the 8:00 hour, which just so happens to be…Eliot Spitzer’s show:
Every hour but one of CNN’s Tuesday evening news coverage featured at least a mention of former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s marital infidelity. Guess which anchor backed away from any mention of the scandal?
Schwarzenegger’s revelation of his fathering a child with a mistress was one of the day’s leading headlines, and merited a mention if not a segment on most every CNN news hour Tuesday. During its 5 p.m.-12 a.m. EDT coverage, CNN reported the story every hour except during the 8 p.m. EDT slot – the prime-time show In the Arena with Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer made no mention of the story.
Spitzer was embroiled in a scandal of his own just three years ago as governor of New York. A federal wiretap linked him to a high-end prostitution ring, and he resigned his office abruptly after the news was made public.
I’m sure it was merely an editorial oversight.
media bias hypocrisy!
I don’t wanna like her. OK, the fact is I don’t like her. But I gotta give the she-devil her due on this one:
Former President Jimmy Carter and former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari were hoping to visit the State Department this week to brief officials on their recent trip to North Korea, but nobody at the State Department was available to meet with them…
It’s no secret at all that the Elders’ trip to North Korea was viewed as extremely unhelpful by the governments both in Washington and Seoul. Chris Nelson reported on April 29 that Clinton reacted strongly when asked in a morning meeting if she wanted to meet with Carter. From the Nelson report:
“The performance of President Carter and his delegation in N. Korea this week was either shameful or fatuous…or both…and exemplifies why Carter had no…zero…USG support going in, and even less coming out, per an alleged eye witness account of Sec. St. Clinton at the morning meeting the other day:
“‘Do you want to meet with Carter?’ Clinton is looking at papers, and just says ‘No.’ Then she pauses, looks up and adds, ‘HELL no!!!’”
Jimmy the Dhimmi is persona non grata among national Dems. Savor the aroma of that for a moment.
David Gregory to Newt: Say, isn’t it racist to note that food stamp use has skyrocketed under Obama?
While I have been piling on Newt recently, and rightly so, this is one instance where I have to defend the big goof. From Meet the Press, hosted by hostile-to-conservatives (yet untouchably “objective”) David Gregory:
DAVID GREGORY, HOST: What, what about jobs? Jobless rate now at 9 percent. You gave a speech on Friday in Georgia, and you said the following about this president:
NEWT GINGRICH: You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama’s is an enormous success. The most successful food stamp president in American history. Or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?
GREGORY: First of all, you gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people think could be coded racially-tinged language, calling the president, the first black president, a food stamp president.
Gingrich wasn’t having it:
GINGRICH: Oh, come on, David.
GREGORY: What did you mean? What was the point?
REP. GINGRICH: That’s, that’s bizarre. That–this kind of automatic reference to racism, this is the president of the United States. The president of the United States has to be held accountable. Now, the idea that–and what I said is factually true. Forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps. One out of every six Americans is on food stamps. And to hide behind the charge of racism? I have–I have never said anything about President Obama which is racist.
Numbers are racist. So are stats. And statistical numbers. And numerical statistics. Racist, all of them. And if you look at numbers, you’re a racist, too.
This has been the m.o. of the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) since the man-child announced he was running in 2007: any criticism of his policies or the havoc they have wreaked upon this country will automatically and reflexively be chalked up to racism.
That’s one of the many things I’ve always loathed about modern liberalism: for an ideology that fancies itself to be intellectually nuanced, its adherents sure are a bunch of emotional twits devoid of any real rational thought or critical thinking skills. Just like my blog’s subtitle says about liberalism: Why think when you can feel?
As for NBC and Gregory: nope…no liberal media bias!
Conservatives: You know, maybe we should just spend less money.
Liberals: That’s just crazy talk. No, thanks, we’ll just raid federal employee pensions and replace the confiscated money with IOU’s. That’s working like gangbusters for Social Security so far, isn’t it?
Our buddies from Dumb and Dumber illustrate how sound this is (you may need to click through to Youtube to watch this, since for some reason, they’ve disabled embedding this video. But DO IT, since it’s only 1:11 long).
Hey, guess which former president is now suddenly interested in the truth? Bubba, that’s who! And his newly found interest in pursuit of the truth is to be mainfested Big Brother style, like only a liberal Democrat can suggest with a straight face. Excerpt:
Bill Clinton doesn’t like all the misinformation and rumors floating on the Internet. And he thinks the United Nations or the U.S. government should create an agency to do something about it.
“It would be a legitimate thing to do,” Clinton said in an interview airing Friday on CNBC.
One wonders how this “agency” would have reacted to accusations of a sitting president diddling a portly intern while declaring to the world that it wasn’t true.
So exactly who does Bubba see as unbiased arbiters of all things factual?
“That is, it would be like, I don’t know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors” he said.
I should have issued a beverage warning before that. I’m cleaning Diet Pepsi off my monitor as I type this.
Bill Clinton, truth-seeker. Irony: it tastes great with some fava beans and a nice Chianti. Slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp!
Islam: The religion of
The pornography recovered in bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The officials said they were not yet sure precisely where in the compound the pornography was discovered or who had been viewing it. Specifically, the officials said they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials.
Heh. Goats Gone Wild or Camels in Bondage?
“I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,” he said when asked about Ryan’s plan to transition to a “premium support” model for Medicare. “I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”
Yeah, because trying to prevent the country from falling into insolvency is radical…but leaving spending on everything, including entitlements, is much more rational. Right? Continuing:
In another surprising move, Gingrich also reiterated his previous support for a “variation of the individual mandate” for health care. “I believe all of us — and this is going to be a big debate — I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care,” he said, insisting there is “a way to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy.” (Yeah, libertarians get all warm and fuzzy at the thought of government-mandated purchases. – CL)
“It’s a system that allows people to have a range of choices that are designed by the economy,” he said. “I don’t think having a free rider system in [health care] is any more appropriate than having a free rider system in any other part of the economy.”
As far as an alternative, Gingrich trotted out the same appeal employed by Obama/Reid/Pelosi — for a “national conversation” on how to “improve” Medicare, and promised to eliminate ‘waste, fraud and abuse,’ etc.
If he’s trotting out Pelosi’s idea, that just confirms my suspicions that her lunacy is actually contagious. He must have caught it from her on the couch. Notes Drew M.:
Either way, I’m sure the Democrats appreciate the campaign ad, “The GOP Medicare Plan Is Too Extreme For Newt Gingrich”.
Funny that he seems to oppose Paul Ryan’s plan for fiscal sanity now. He seemed to embrace it just two short weeks ago. John Kerry just e-mailed to say “Dude, you need to be more subtle than that.”
Exit question: What in the blue h3ll is this guy thinking? He does realize he’s running in a GOP primary where the conservative base is highly motivated, right?
OBAMA: Let me just first of all say that workers like you, for the federal, state, and local governments, are so important for our vital services. And it frustrates me sometimes when people talk about ‘government jobs’ as if somehow those are worth less than private sector jobs. I think there is nothing more important than working on behalf of the American people.
FEDERAL WORKER: I thought I would be more important and secure.
OBAMA: I agree with you.
There you have it, straight from the jackass’ mouth: Government jobs are much more important than private sector jobs. Never mind that it takes private sector jobs to fund public sector jobs. Yeah, that doesn’t seem to resonate with the economic illiterate-in-chief.
It’ll be interesting to see if the Paulnuts will try to polish this turd:
Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid.“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”
Asked by WHO Radio’s Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it “absolutely was not necessary.”
“I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary,” Paul said during his Tuesday comments. “I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he’d been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?”
Let’s see: if bin Laden had been holed up in a London hotel room, we could have counted on, with 100% certainty, cooperation from the British intelligence services and military. However, we had evidence that Pakistan’s intel may not have exactly had our best interests at heart and concealed OBL for years now. So you can forgive a rational being for thinking that maybe, just maybe, it wouldn’t have been a wise decision to send our playbook to the opposing team seconds before kickoff.
If Dr. Paul cannot see the difference between the “London hotel vs. Pakistani palace” scenario, then he has absolutely no business being commander-in-chief. Dude, how sad is it that B.O. has more street cred on national defense than Republican Ron Paul?
Video clip at RCP. Here’s part of the transcript:
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you for getting bin Laden.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there you go. (Applause.) Case in point. (Applause.) It should inspire us to finish what we started. Because of you, we were able to prevent a second Great Depression. But in the next few weeks, in the next few months, the next few years, we have to make sure that the new jobs in industries of our time are created right here in the United States of America. We have to make sure that America is prepared to win the future.
In other words: Hey, I killed OBL, but I have only started to kill the American economy! Until the economy is totally destroyed, I’m gonna need another term.
Remember when the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) feared Bush would try to politicize 9/11? Those were the days, eh?
AP: Obama’s approval rating now at 60%, and his rating on the economy now over 50%! Hmm? Our sampling? Yeah, don’t worry about that.
President Barack Obama’s approval rating has hit its highest point in two years — 60 percent — and more than half of Americans now say he deserves to be re-elected, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll taken after U.S. forces killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
In worrisome signs for Republicans, the president’s standing improved not just on foreign policy but also on the economy, and independent Americans — a key voting bloc in the November 2012 presidential election — caused the overall uptick in support by sliding back to Obama after fleeing for much of the past two years.
They don’t have a link back to their sampling in the story, so you actually have to go find it elsewhere (PDF link here). Once you do, though, it becomes pretty clear why the AP was in no mood to put the raw data link directly in the story. From Ed:
The Dem/Rep/Ind breakdown in this poll is 46/29/4, as AP assigned most of the leaners to the parties. That is a 17-point gap, more than twice what was seen in the 2008 actual popular vote that elected Obama. It only gets worse when independents are assigned properly. When taking out the leaners, the split becomes — I’m not kidding — 35/18/27. Oh, and another 20% “don’t know.” That’s significantly worse than the March poll, in which the proper D/R/I was 29/20/34, and far beyond their post-midterm sample of 31/28/26. It’s pretty easy to get Obama to 60% when Republicans are undersampled by almost half.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
The passengers sat stunned as they watched a man walk quickly toward the front of American Airlines Flight 1561 as it was descending toward San Francisco. He was screaming and then began pounding on the cockpit door.
“I kept saying to myself: ‘What’s he doing? Does he have a bomb? Is he armed?’” passenger Angelina Marty said.
Within moments Sunday, a flight attendant tackled Rageh Almurisi. Authorities do not yet have a motive.
While authorities said that Almurisi, 28, of Vallejo, Calif., has no clear or known ties to terrorism, the incident underscored fears that extremists may try to mount attacks to retaliate for the death of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden last week.
Federal agents are investigating Almurisi’s background. He was carrying a Yemeni passport and a California identification card, authorities said.
…Marty, 35, recalled that she and other passengers on the plane were stunned when they saw Almurisi walking down the aisle. She said a woman in a row across from her who speaks Arabic translated that Almurisi said “God is Great!” in Arabic.
Andrew Wai, another passenger, told KGO-TV on Monday that the wife of one of the men who took Almurisi down later said Almurisi was yelling “Allahu Akbar.”
“There was no question in everybody’s mind that he was going to do something,” Marty said.
A male flight attendant tackled Almurisi, and other crew members and passengers, including a retired Secret Service agent and a retired San Mateo police officer, helped subdue him as he banged on the door, police said. The flight attendant put plastic handcuffs on him.
Missing from the story is any mention of Islam or a Muslim background. I’m probably bigoted just for making that observation. I will go flail myself now to appease the P.C.
gods goddesses deities. The flight attendant and crew members who subdued the man will probably be investigated by Nappy Napolitano for their right-wing extremism any day now.
Let’s see: Yemeni passport; speaking in Arabic; shouting “Allahu Akbar”, words that normally proceed acts of jihadism; trying to commandeer an airplane. If only there were some common or connecting bond…
But wait! The sleuths at the AP have it figured out!
“He might have seriously mistaken the cockpit for the bathroom,” Almoraissi said. “He’s only been on three planes in his whole life.” Almurisi was taking classes in California to learn English but was not happy with his progress, his cousin said.
Oh. My. Word.
Ah, yes. I mean, normally when I’ve really got to pinch a loaf, I bolt for the john screaming “Praise Jesus!” Who among us hasn’t broken out into a chorus of “Amazing Grace” while our bowels rumbled? You know, if I had a nickel for every time I had to tap a kidney I yelled “God is awesome!”, I would…um…not even have a nickel.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
McQ illustrates how the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) are locked on to their talking points about Obama, specifically using the word “gutsy” in reference to BO’s decision to let the Navy SEALs take out Osama. You can tell the memo has circulated to keep parroting that word, and the left is obliging.
But dude, this one really takes the cake. If you’re prone to high blood pressure, you may want to cease reading this quote from former Ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain. OK, you’ve been warned.
But he made that decision to go without telling Pakistan and that took some real courage, as much courage as our Navy SEALs did in pulling off a near flawless operation.
Yessiree Bob – not telling Pakistan was just as gutsy as flying into a foreign land, at night, nap of the earth, hoping no one sees your helicopter and blows it out of the sky. Then fast roping into a compound of hostiles, number unknown, engaging in a firefight and clearing it. Then exfiltrating. Yup, not telling Pakistan is just like that.
Telling the SEALs “go ahead” is exactly like personally risking life and limb (and possibly torture, if captured), isn’t it? Talking tough = being tough. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Interesting, since the left was fond of accusing Bush of alleged “cowardice” in sending soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan. Guess it’s not cowardice when a Marxist president orders a military operation, though, is it?
Obama to 9/11 victim’s sister: The criminal probe of CIA agents who used interrogation techniques that got us bin Laden will go on
Obama: Hey, guys, thanks for helping procure critical information that nabbed OBL for us. Now where were we? Oh, yeah, now I remember: trying to send your butts to prison for using harsh interrogation techniques! Details:
The sister of a Sept. 11 victim said President Obama on Thursday turned down her request to advise Attorney General Eric Holder to drop his probe of CIA agents whose interrogation methods may have provided information leading to the raid on Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden.
Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, which was hijacked and forced into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, told Fox News on Thursday that she made the request during Obama’s meeting with families of victims of the Al Qaeda attack.
When the president approached her table, Burlingame said she told him that as a former attorney she knows he can’t tell the attorney general what to do – an assessment the president agreed with, she said.
“And I said, but that shouldn’t stop you from offering your opinion. After all, we wouldn’t be here celebrating today if they hadn’t done their job,” she said. “And they have the hammer of a possible indictment over their heads. Can’t you at least give him your opinion?”
The president replied that he wouldn’t, she said. She added, “And he turned around and walked away.”
B.O. in 2009: Let’s release those photos detailing alleged abuse by American soldiers.
BO in 2011: I’m not releasing photos of Osama’s stinking corpse.
What’s that, Mr. President? The photos are “very graphic”? So was watching people jump to their deaths from the blazing Twin Towers, you hyperactive condescending nanny. About ten years ago, we had a national traumatic experience as we all watched thousands of people die before our very eyes when the towers collapsed. Since then, we’ve seen Daniel Pearl beheaded, Madrid subway cars blown up, London buses and trains blown up, Bali nightclubs blown up, a Beslan school turned into a massacre site. We’ve seen enough death and dismemberment of innocent civilians to last a lifetime. So pardon me for thinking that our delicate sensibilities might be able to handle seeing the man with more American blood on his hands than anyone else on the planet missing an eye and with some brain matter exposed.
What’s that? It might be “an incitement to additional violence”? Show me one extremist Muslim who’s not going to go into a violent rage over killing bin Laden, but who will do so if he sees the photos. Go out and find him. A few weeks ago, a bunch of Afghanis went on a rampage and killed a bunch of aid workers because Pastor Pyro down in Florida decided to flame-broil a Koran. A controversial book, a cartoon, the latest conspiracy theory — it doesn’t matter. These guys are just looking for excuses to run around and kill people in a frenzy.
I am tired of my government’s adjusting its policies in these inane attempts to placate the triggers of rage among unstable people — as if it’s our fault for provoking them.
Apparently, releasing photos that may portray America in a bad light and may endanger our war-on-terrorism goals is fine and dandy. But releasing photos that don’t portray America in a bad light is verboten. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
It was said in 2009 that while bloodthirsty camelhumping Islamonuts would get whipped into yet another frothing frenzy after seeing the photos, we absolutely had to release them. But now we can’t release photos of OBL with a hidey-hole in his gourd because…bloodthirsty camelhumping Islamonuts would get whipped into yet another frothing frenzy?
Queen Botox in 2006:
[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done . . . is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer.
The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. . . . [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic. . . .
But it’s the Republicans that are politicizing OBL’s death, right?
Consistency, integrity, and shame are sooooooo passé!
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett