This kinda beats Bush’s sixteen words, doesn’t it? Especially considering Bush wasn’t actually lying.

Sharia law says you cannot invest your money in Rolling Rock, but it’s fine to cut open your body and insert explosives intended to be detonated when it will kill the most people.

Or am I misunderstanding what these folks are doing:

…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.

…

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.

Experts said the explosive PETN (Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate) would be placed in a plastic sachet inside the bomber’s body before the wound was stitched up like a normal operation incision and allowed to heal.

Failed attempt: Abdulmutallab tried to detonate a bomb sewn into his pants

A shaped charge of 8oz of PETN can penetrate five inches of armour and would easily blow a large hole in an airliner.

That last sentence is important. If the terrorists implant a shaped charge inside of someone sitting next to a plane’s bulkhead, it’s game over. For those who don’t know what a shaped charge is, here’s a great video explaining how powerful they can be:

I’ve seen the bottom of a champagne bottle, filled with explosives, used to punch a hole in 3/4″ steel. While breast implant bombs may sound funny, they can be very deadly.

It’s coming down to the final days of my fundraiser here on All American Blogger and I’m short about $200. I know that there were be more than 200 visitors to the blog today. If you can each drop a buck in the tip jar, it will be used towards getting me to CPAC, not frittered away on Mountain Dew and Funyuns.

Every little bit helps and is appreciated.

Thanks!

Perhaps he’s just admiring her shoes…

Here’s the original post.

Hat Tip: Say Anything

I wrote last week about President Obama’s pledge to increase the amount of federal money available to loan out to people so they can build new nuclear power plants. I wrote:

In reality, this is very easy for him to promote. He knows that any new proposed nuclear power plants would be smothered in red tape, eco-Marxist protests and the usual NIMBY push back.

He loses nothing by pushing it. He knows it will never happen but can position himself as being for it.

When you look at the actions he has taken, or lack thereof, you can see that I was pretty much spot on. Obama has no intent of pushing nuclear power. Via Moonbattery:

…he has stacked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with anti-nuclear activists.

He has replaced Bush’s NRC Chairman (a strong pro-nuclear guy) with a former Harry Reid anti-nuclear Senate staffer. He has also left two (of the five Commission positions) vacant.

Basically, this “push” for nuclear power is just a ruse to try and get cap and trade passed. Democrats are far to beholden to the Luddite environmental left to seriously support nuclear power. The only place Obama really supports nuclear power is Iran.

I agree. Van Helsing makes a great point. I hadn’t considered the cap and trade aspect of it. But it makes sense.

In related news, check out this post on Pajamas Media, showing that you don’t need $9 billion to get a nuke plant. This is the answer.

The New York Post is reporting that since New Yorkers are a bunch of wussies (according to the Center for American Progress), then the Justice Department has to find a new venue for the trial. Inside sources say they are looking at moving the trial to a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Wait, what?

Administration officials said that no final decision had been made but that officials of the Department of Justice and the White House were working feverishly to find a venue that would be less expensive and less of a security risk than New York City.

The back-to-the-future Gitmo option was reported yesterday by Fox News and was not disputed by White House officials.

Such a move would likely bring howls of protest from liberals already frustrated that President Obama has failed to meet his deadline for closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

It would also indicate that after years of attacking the Bush administration for its handling of the war on terror, Obama officials are embracing one of the most controversial aspects of it.

This administration is starting to look less like the well oiled machine that derailed the Clinton campaign and won America’s imagination and more like an episode of Keystone Kops. If this happens, it does nothing to strengthen the Obama Administration.

It does, however, strengthen the likelihood of Obama facing a primary challenger in 2012. Hillary perhaps?

Be advised, the videos featuring the Motor City Mad Man have some foul language.  Thought you would want to know before clicking them at work or around children.  Have a great weekend.

Don Surber: President Waterboy now wants control of college football

Left Coast Rebel: Apollo 11 Made World History, Obama to End the NASA Constellation Program

Weasel Zippers: PETA Protester Dressed in a Seal Costume Hunted Down by a Local Wearing a Fisherman Costume, Comedy Gold Ensues…

Doug Ross: The Obama Recovery Continues: More Than a Dozen Banks Seized by the FDIC in January Alone

Ace of Spades: Nancy Pelosi Stopped One Useful CIA Operation in 2004. So, Um, If Waterboarding Was So Bad, How Come She Couldn’t Stop That?

The Patriot Room: Obama: “The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries”

Gateway Pundit: Obama Defends Failed Stimulus Plan at GOP House Members Retreat (Video)

Gina Cobb: “Out of Auschwitz”

Fausta’s Blog: Chris Matthews, deconstructed by the Daily Show

Weasel Zippers: I Would Own The School: School Forces Girl To Have H1N1 Vaccine Even Though Parents Told School ‘No’ and Daughter Told School/Nurse/Guard ‘No’

The Patriot Room: Hero is home: Soldier Missing in Action from Vietnam War Identified

American Thinker: Foreign contributions to Obama campaign should be investigated

The American Pundit: Revealed: The SEIU’s Assault on Tea Party Activists

Left Coast Rebel: Side by Side Comparison of Bill Clinton and Obama’s State of the Union Speeches

While I was reading about the increase in federal funds promised by President Barack Obama to help facilitate the construction of new nuclear power plants, I was stunned to read something I thought was a game changer. I’ll post the paragraphs below, and see if you can see what I saw:

Nuclear plants accounted for 20 percent of U.S. power generation in 2008, according to the Energy Department. Generation was off 13 percent through October of 2009 compared to the same period in 2007, before the worst economic slump since the Great Depression hit the U.S. economy.

Industry groups such as the Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute have said the loan guarantees are critical to reviving the industry because most companies can’t afford the capital investment in a facility that can take a decade to complete. The institute in a December report put the cost of a reactor at as much as $9 billion.   

Did you see it?

Here’s what gave me pause:

Industry groups such as the Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute have said the loan guarantees are critical to reviving the industry because most companies can’t afford the capital investment in a facility that can take a decade to complete.

When I read that, I thought, “That’s the reason the liberals gave to squash the idea of drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.”

That ’s what the Natural Resource Defense Council said:

It would take 10 years for any Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market, and even when production peaks — in the distant year of 2027 — the refuge would produce a paltry 3 percent of Americans’ daily consumption.

That’s what Democrat Matthew Littman said during the ‘08 campaign:

Well, what good would it do? We wouldn’t get that gasoline from ANWR for 10 years, even if we started drilling tomorrow. So for the next 10 years, what are we going to do?

That’s what CBS News said:

While ANWR has substantial oil, none would flow for 10 years.

That’s not what I said:

Tell a liberal that you think there should be drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and you can expect to hear that it will take 10 years to get that oil out of the ground. TEN years! Which is far too long of course, because in ten years, crude oil will be useless to the world. Right?

That’s the mantra from the left, though. Ten years will pass before we see anything from ANWR. It’s hard to believe when you consider the following ten things were done in less than ten years…

So, if a decade is a reason to forego any consideration of drilling for oil in ANWR, why is it not a reason to forget about building nuclear power plants?

In the words of President Obama, let me be clear. I am not opposed to the construction of new nuclear power plants. I am very much for them. But I think the duplicity here by the president in promoting an exercise that will take just as long as a process he and his leftist brethren rejected needs to be highlighted. We need oil just as much as we need electricity from nuclear power.

In reality, this is very easy for him to promote. He knows that any new proposed nuclear power plants would be smothered in red tape, eco-Marxist protests and the usual NIMBY push back.

He loses nothing by pushing it. He knows it will never happen but can position himself as being for it.