The airbrushed, Harlequin Romance version of a TSA pat-down


Some of you may have already seen this creative joke, but I just got wind of it tonight and wanted to share it …

He grasped me firmly, but gently, just above my elbow, and guided me into a room, ‘his’ room. Then he quietly shut the door and we were alone. He approached me soundlessly, from behind, and spoke in a low, reassuring voice close to my ear,

“Just relax.”

Without warning, he reached down, and I felt his strong, calloused hands start at my ankles, gently probing, and moving upward along my calves, slowly but steadily.

My breath caught in my throat.

I knew I should be afraid, but somehow I didn’t care. His touch was so experienced, so sure.

When his hands moved up onto my thighs, I gave a slight shudder, and partly closed my eyes. My pulse was pounding. I felt his knowing fingers caress my abdomen, my ribcage. Then, as he cupped my firm, full breasts in his hands, I inhaled sharply.

Probing, searching, knowing what he wanted, he brought his hands to my shoulders, slid them down my tingling spine and into my panties.

Although I knew nothing about this man, I felt oddly trusting and expectant. This is a man, I thought, a man used to taking charge. A man not used to taking ‘No’ for an answer. A man who would tell me what he wanted.

A man who would look into my soul and say .. . .

“Okay,ma’am,you can board your flight now.”

I say “airbrushed” because the description above is certainly NOT how most women feel when getting a pat-down by a TSA agent. Besides, isn’t it mostly women who give other women the pat-down?

NY Slimes: Maybe right wing bloggers are partly responsible for Norway attacks


MediaAbsofreakinlutely shameless (via Patterico).

I’m not even going to quote anything other than the headline. The article is crammed full of baseless insinuations about prominent bloggers/writers here in the US (and a few in Europe) whose primary focus is to preach about the dangers of Islam, and the NYT is desperate to try and milk the “Christian right winger did it!!” tactic for all its worth – simply because the Norway terrorist referenced quotes from some of those writers in his “manifesto.” There’s one throw-away quote from an “expert” in the NYT piece about how these writers shouldn’t be blamed, but otherwise the entire article makes it clear: Yes, they should be.

And not only that, the last few paragraphs play the “they all do it” card, too. Hate to say it but … Toldjah So. Again.

Oh, and about that headline. Here’s how it reads (bolded emphasis added by me):

Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S.

Can’t these professional “journalists” ever get it right? It’s not “anti-Muslim” – it’s “anti-Islam.” Not all Muslims are Islamists. In fact, some of the most noteable speakers against Islam are Muslims themselves, some of who have received death threats, had to go into hiding, because they dared to criticize Islam. And as I’ve said before, I believe some who claim to be Islamic who really believe Islam is a “religion of peace” are not really full-fledged Islamists, because it’s very clear throughout the Koran that Islam is anything but.

BTW, the NYT wasn’t the only major media outlet to try and implicate right wing bloggers and writers in the Norway terrorist attacks. As Mark Steyn notes here, Canada’s Globe and Mail jumped right on board, mentioning him and other National Review writers as well as popular anti-Islamofascism writers and commentators.

Just when you think the left wing media (and their liberal allies at blogs, on opinion pages, and on news commentary programs) can’t outdo themselves they do so all over again. Here’s how their “logic” works: Violent passages in the Koran can’t in any way be to blamed for frequent Islamic acts of terrorism around the globe, but right wing bloggers who preach against the dangers of passively sitting back and hoping the threat will go away can partly be blamed when lone fruitcakes reference them in their “manifestos.”

If the left were any more predictable, it’d be a joke. These people are absolutely shameless.

Related/Update – 6:42 PM: Pam Gellar aka “Atlas Shrugs” responds to the NYT hit piece.  Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer will be responding as well. (via my co-blogger)

Is Obama trying to create a crisis?


**Posted by Phineas

And if so, why? According to Jennifer Rubin, Boehner, McConnell, and Reid agreed on the framework for a deal over the weekend: a short-term debt increase with cuts larger than that increase, followed by a committee to find further cuts before any additional debt increase was considered. Reid then went to Obama for approval, and Obama humiliated the head of his party’s caucus in the Senate, the Majority Leader, and rejected the deal:

If this is accurate the president is playing with fire. By halting a bipartisan deal he imperils the country’s finances and can rightly be accused of putting partisanship above all else. The ONLY reason to reject a short-term, two-step deal embraced by both the House and Senate is to avoid another approval-killing face-off for President Obama before the election. Next to pulling troops out of Afghanistan to fit the election calendar, this is the most irresponsible and shameful move of his presidency.

I wonder. At first I thought this was some mad Cloward-Piven-like plan to create a crisis that would leave the people seeing no other solution than greater government control over the economy through higher taxes and regulation (i.e., “soft” Socialism), but that would make no sense. Even President Narcissus has to see that the vast majority of the people want the debt controlled, want a balanced budget amendment, want a smaller federal government, and don’t want significantly higher taxes — in other words, they want those things that are anathema to a Leftist. So, should a crisis hit, he and his party are likely to take as much or even more of the blame than the Republicans, who are acting more in concert with the will of the electorate and have at least tried to deal with the problem, something Obama and the Democrats have failed to do.

Maybe Rubin is right? Is The One taking this to the (supposed) brink because he’s desperate to push the next vote on the debt limit to after the election? So desperate that he’s willing to alienate his own caucus, which is itself in fear of 2012?

According to Rubin in a later article, the House and Senate are back to crafting separate plans. Not surprisingly, but tellingly and in the face of President Pouty-Face’s demands that his bluff not be called, Harry Reid’s contains no new taxes. We may actually be witnessing the national legislature begin to do the function for which it exists, which is to put the nation’s finances in order — with or without cooperation from the White House.

And if that happens and a bipartisan bill is sent to the Oval Office, Obama either signs it, lets it pass without his signature after ten days, or vetoes it and takes full ownership of whatever train wreck occurs. That surely wouldn’t help his reelection chances, which makes me think he will sign whatever they send up.

The threat to create a crisis is itself a bluff.

LINKS: Ed Morrissey thinks Reid went to Obama in the hope of splitting Republican Senators from their House colleagues and ended up with a split in his own party, instead.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)