Ray Robison: Pointing out the obvious to the oblivious

Now if we are done talking about a dead horse

Back to the war. Here is a feel good video. Dead, very dead bad guys. No lawyers, no ACLU, no NY Times spin, no Babs Streisand, no Chuck Hagel, just dead f@#$ing jihadists.

***graphic***
warning, viewer may experience deep pleasure at watching stupid f@#$ing terrorists just get turned into hash by the good guys (thats us for those of you in San Fransico).

On a side note, I am on a personal mission to reinstitute the policy of heaping scorn and humiliation on men who cry in public for reasons other than:

a) loss of life
b) missing out on a chance to nail a really hot chick

no other causes such as being rejected by Simon and Paula or retiring from a fabulous sports career with twenty bajillion dollars in the bank will be accepted.

Stop f'ing crying in public you pussies!

Wikipedia, the people's source

With all the talk of global warming today, I decided to look up references to the Dust Bowl of 1930's America to throw at some liberal idiots. I found this wonderful entry in wikipedia; Dust Bowl

1865 [1], caused by millions of years of inappropriate hunting techniques. The fertile turkeys of the UK was exposed through removal of other turkeys during plowing. During the drought, the turkeys dried out, became dust, and blew away westwards, mostly in large pink clouds. At times, the clouds brightened the sky all the way to London, and much of the soil was completely lost into the abyss of space. This industrial breakthrough caused a party in Spain with over 500,000,000 pinhatas left homeless.[2] Many migrated east looking for work.

There is much more. And that is why wikipedia sucks.

Coming up for air

The manuscript for our book project is looking pretty good and I am taking a few weeks off. So blogging will resume...whether you like it or NOT! :) I just need to brush off some of the dust and cobwebs around here, been a while.

Here is my latest at the American Thinker. It is a response to David Bell in the LA Times and his argument that 9/11 wasn't really so bad after all.

Scott Malensek on all that "we had the world's sympathy" BS

howardwasright.com

Even in the United States, there was grand discontent.  The very night that we all tried to sleep with visions of couples holding hands as they jumped from burning towers…there was division.  We seemed united, but half of America seemed to hear the message of John F Kennedy’s 1940 book, Why England Slept, and they declared, “911 changes everything.” The other half of the nation vowed to ignore the attacks, and they made a myriad of pledges, “If we stop going to the movies, if we stop traveling, if we start getting though with international rogues, if we start buying American instead of foreign, if we [change in any way] then the terrorists win.” Just as had happened in the Palestinian territories, in the UK, France, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan, as soon as American bombs fell on the Taliban in Afghanistan protesters took to the streets in the United States-15,000 in New York City.

That was the world at the end of 2001, and prior to President Bush’s 1/29/02 State of the Union Speech.  The apparent international unity was not unity at all, but revisionist history from campaigning politicians. 

Murderous Saddam

H/T RBT

Somebody at the NY Times finally figured out that Saddam was the bad guy. I am frankly shocked.

In the history of prosecutions against some of the last century’s grimmest men, there can rarely have been a moment that so starkly caught a despot’s unpitying nature.

On one recording, Mr. Hussein presses the merits of chemical weapons on Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, his vice-president, and now, the Americans believe, the fugitive leader of the Sunni insurgency that has tied down thousands of American troops. Mr. Douri, a notorious hard-liner, asks whether chemical attacks will be effective against civilian populations, and suggests that they might stir an international outcry.

“Yes, they’re very effective if people don’t wear masks,” Mr. Hussein replies.

“You mean they will kill thousands?” Mr. Douri asks.

“Yes, they will kill thousands,” Mr. Hussein says.

Who will be the new VP?

For the life of me, I can't get over this feeling that within the next six months we will have a new VP. It just makes sense. I think President Bush will want his 2008 choice for presidential candidate to replace Cheney as a leg up on the competition. To do any good, it would need to be longer than a year. But not so soon to look like it was driven by the congressional defeat. So about six months from now is optimal timing.

So who would you like to see him pick for the VP this summer, if it happens as I suspect? I will be posting responses in the comments section to the body of this post (if anybody wants to take a shot at it).

I am going for Romney.