The Traitor Anwar al Awlaki is dead. This is war, not a police matter.


**Posted by Phineas

"I say again, the infidels will never find me! Wait. What's that noise?"

And, we sincerely hope, he is in a place decorated in fire and brimstone.

I’ve waited most of the day to post the good news, because it’s happened many times over the years since 9/11 that we’ve announced a major kill, only to have the target show up in another video thumbing his nose at us. But now it’s confirmed: we nailed the traitor Anwar al Awlaki:

Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born Islamic militant cleric who became a prominent figure in al-Qaida’s most active branch, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits to carry out attacks in the United States, was killed Friday in the mountains of Yemen, American and Yemeni officials said.

The Yemeni government and Defense Ministry announced al-Awlaki’s death, but gave no details. A senior U.S. official said American intelligence supports the claim that he had been killed. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

Yemeni security officials and local tribal leaders said the was killed in an airstrike on his convoy that they believed was carried out by the Americans. They said pilotless drones had been seen over the area in previous days.

And we didn’t just get Awlaki; this same strike also took out another traitorous dirtbag, Samir Khan, the editor of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s (AQAP) online magazine, “Inspire.” Khan also had regularly threatened the lives Dr. Rusty Shackleford and  his family. Shackleford is the main Jawa at The Jawa Report, an important counter-jihad blog that’s done invaluable work against Al Qaeda’s online presence,  so this news is doubly sweet.  Replacing these two won’t be easy for Al Qaeda; as men born in America, they had a unique ability to communicate jihadist thinking to radicalized Muslims in the West who might not speak Arabic well enough to understand the garbage spewed by the likes of Zawahiri and bin Laden.

Naturally, this set off caterwauling among Leftists and hardcore libertarians (and jihadist sympathizers) about the targeted killing of American citizens, denying them due process in a court of law. I can understand the argument and I have a reasoned, thoughtful reply:

Boo-freaking-hoo! Cry me a river!

Forget the whining from CAIR, they’re nothing but tools of the Muslim Brotherhood. But leftists like the ACLU and Ron Paul-worshipping libertarians need to pull their heads out of their collective rears and realize one thing: this is war, not a police matter. Traitors like Awlaki, Khan, and al Qaeda mouthpiece Adam Gadahn chose to side with those who make war on their (former) country. Awlaki in particular was described as having operational control over AQAP’s foreign strikes. He was involved in the attempted bombing of a Northwest flight over Detroit; he was at least the spiritual mentor to Major Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter; and he may have had an operational role in 9-11, itself. And who knows what else he was planning?

To quote what I’ve been told is the First Rule of Texas Common Law:

“He needed killing.”

And so did Samir Khan, and so does Gadahn, and so does everyone who takes up arms for Al Qaeda. I’m very much a Jacksonian about this: they are traitors and they are trying to destroy my country. They want to kill my people. They need killing.

Again: this is war, not a police matter.

If traitors who join the jihad against us want to surrender, fine: we’ll give them a fair trial, hopefully followed by a hanging. But, if we spot them going about their merry jihadi way, then…

“Gentlemen, you may fire when ready.”

And, to the group that tracked Anwar al-Awlaki and took him and Khan out, good work!

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Hollyweirdo Watch: Eva Longoria describes Obama’s opposition as “dangerous extremists”


I hope that by reading/watching actress Eva Longoria’s Tuesday comments to late night TV talk show host Jimmy Kimmel that the stupid doesn’t rub off on me.  Scott Whitlock at Newsbusters has the transcript (you can also watch video clips of Longoria’s remarks at that same link):

12:26am EDT

EVA LONGORIA: But you know what, it’s a special privilege to meet our commander in chief.

JIMMY KIMMEL: Sure, yeah.

LONGORIA: And, you know, I’m a big Obama supporter no matter what he’s been through. He’s been beaten up the past couple of years.

KIMMEL: Did you tell him that?


KIMMEL:  And was he receptive?

LONGORIA: Well, he’s been very receptive for me, because I’m a big advocate for Latino issues. And, so, he’s been a big listener and he’s done a lot of coalitions and a lot of round tables regarding what we want changed and-

KIMMEL: When you say he’s a big listener, you’re making fun of his ears?

LONGORIA No! No! You know, he keeps getting beat up lately because there’s such an extremist movement happening and it’s a very dangerous- For me, it’s very dangerous because it’s not the character of America. It’s really under attack. And he’s been governing in, like, a state of emergency since the time he went into office so we haven’t really seen him do what he can do.

Yeah – opposition to our Dear Leader is just sooo dangerous, Ms. Longoria.   Totally against what America’s all about. Yep.  Of course, I’m sure you (along with your left wing colleague Morgan Freeman) didn’t feel that way when you and your fellow Hollywood blowhards viscerally opposed President Bush, right? Of course not.   Since it was your side doing all the opposing and stuff.  And this motley crew of militant left wing haters/fanatics/extremists who routinely compared Presdient Bush to Hitler and wished for his arrest and/or death? I suppose that was more along the lines of the type of “patriotism” Hollywood types like you view as more like “the American way.”

And I won’t even START on all the things Barack Obama HAS done, contra to Longoria’s ridiculous assertion that “we haven’t really seen him do what he can do.” WTH?!

Seriously, Hollywood is getting more and more repulsive (not to mention more creepily fascistic) by the day.  So few sane folks in that crowd, outside of “Chuck” star Adam S. Baldwin and a few others.  Props to the few on the Hollywood right who are not afraid to be loud and proud about where they stand.  They are in a distinct minority and have earned our support.

Tolerant liberal columnists: We should be able to discriminate on the basis of weight


I wish I could say I was kidding with that headline, but I’m not. With speculation about a potential Gov. Chris Christie Presidential bid running rampant, two prominent ‘inclusive’ liberal columnists took it upon themselves over the last couple of days to argue that it’s ok to discriminate against a candidate … as long as it’s on the basis of their weight. Ironicially, another prominent liberal columnist came to Christie’s defense. Of Michael Kinsley’s and Eugene Robinson’s respective diatribes, Jonathain Chait writes:

Eugene Robinson writes today in the Washington Post that Christie’s weight inhibits his ability to serve as president. Michael Kinsley, writing in Bloomberg View, goes farther, calling it an outright disqualification. Neither of these (generally excellent) columnists offers much beyond overclass social bias.

Robinson argues that Christie is too fat to perform his job optimally, citing one episode of Christie being hospitalized for asthma. If that were true, you’d see it in his tenure as governor. But Robinson doesn’t argue that Christie failed to tackle his gubernatorial duties with sufficient vigor. How could you argue that? Like him or not, Christie has undoubtedly enjoyed overwhelming success in moving through his agenda and carrying out a taxing regimen of browbeating and insulting skeptical New Jersey-ites.

Robinson edges toward what I suspect is the deeper belief at work, urging Christie to follow the example of others who have lost weight. The premise here is that weight is a marker of personal discipline, and anybody who’s fat must simply be too lazy to take care of themselves.


Kinsley more explicitly casts Christie’s weight as a moral failing, arguing, “a presidential candidate should be judged on behavior and character, not just on policies.” It’s pretty jarring to see somebody openly make the case that being fat is a sign of poor character. It certainly helps make Campos’s case that there’s a moral panic afoot.

He calls Christie’s weight “a too-perfect symbol of our country at the moment, with appetites out of control and discipline near zilch.” (I don’t agree that this is the problem right now, but never mind.) He goes on to concede that Christie has in fact reduced the budget deficit, which seems hard to deny. Doesn’t this blow that argument out of the water, then? Kinsley concludes, strangely:

“[Christie] certainly makes all the right noises about fiscal discipline and seems to have done well so far as governor of New Jersey. Perhaps Christie is the one to help us get our national appetites under control. But it would help if he got his own under control first.”

But why would it help? Why does his weight matter at all? The only real reasoning I see here is that American elites view obesity with disgust, and they’re repulsed at the notion that a very fat guy could rise to a position of symbolic leadership. It’s not a very attractive sentiment.


I wonder if Robinson believes that overweight members of Congress should resign?   How about the handicapped (should FDR have been disqualified?)? And what about people who have a smoking problem like, say oh – President Barack Obama?  NRO’s Greg Pollowitz quips:

So President Obama’s smoking is a legitimate issue? Then the president needs to prove, with an independent nicotine test, that he’s cigarette free, no? And under Robinson’s logic, should we not test the president for cocaine as well? If smoking is a legitimate issue, then the president’s admitted past hard drug use should be as well. Maybe monthly drug testing? Cocaine use “exacerbates everything.”

I’m being sarcastic above.

And as long as we’re talking about “moral failings” being a disqualifier I wonder if Kinsley was a big defender of Bubba Clinton during the various SexGates that happened before and after he became POTUS?  How about during any of the other various left wing sex scandals that have hit over the last couple of decades?  There really aren’t many more – if any – greater moral failings in my book than cheating on your spouse (and/or neglecting your children)

Just how far would either of them go with their respective arguments about “moral failings” and “physical disclipline”? I suspect not very, because assuming the GOP wins the Presidency next year, four years from then there will be Democrats lining up to defeat the GOP President, and those contenders just  might not square up into the “fit” bubbles in which Robinson and Kinsley both currently reside.   And God help if ANY of them were ever criticized on the basis of their respective weights.   Can you imagine the outcry?

Of course – to borrow an oft-repeated classic quote , “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Or, in this case, it depends on the meaning of “fit.”  To liberal elites like Eugene Robinson and Michael Kinsley, being physically unfit (read: obese) should disqualify you from the Oval Office … provided you’re a Republican.  In my humble little opinion, though, I think being philosophically unfit (read: Socialistic) should be a disqualfier.  But unlike Robinson and Kinsley, I believe it should be decided at the ballot box by voters, not by smug pundits who live in glass houses and ivory towers.  But that’s just me …