Saturday, June 28, 2008


A couple of days back, there was a Congressional hearing in which William Delahunt, D-MA (MA-10), interrogated David Addington, Chief of Staff and Former Counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney, on the subject of waterboarding by the CIA of Al Qaeda POW's. At some point during the hearing, Mr. Addington said that he could not go into details since "Al Qaeda may watch this thing."

This was Congressman William Delahunt's reply:

"Right, well..., I'm sure they are watching and I... I'm glad they... finally have a chance to... to see you, Mr. Addington."

A leftist would not be a leftist if he wasn't lying. Faced with the beginning of the outrage following his scandalous remark - I HOPE it's just the beginning - Delahunt's defense was:

Delahunt said he was just trying to express that he was glad to see Addington. Delahunt said he recalls saying "I," not "they," during the testimony – though the video, broadcast on C-SPAN, shows he was talking about Al Qaeda.

Right. He claims now that he was just saying that HE (Delahunt) was glad to see Addington. Hey, why don't you judge for yourself? Closely watch the following video, broadcast on C-SPAN. It comes near the end:

You Big, Fat, F*cking LIAR. You said you were glad that THEY, Al-Qaeda, had a chance to see Addington. Fox reports that Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said that Delahunt was "inciting Al Qaeda to violence," and suggested Delahunt should guard Addington’s family "until the war on terror is over." Delahunt's response was that King has "a good sense of humor" but "under no circumstances" was he implying during the hearing that Al Qaeda may target Addington. Oh yeah a$$hole? Well, watch that video again - especially the smirk on that traitor's visage when he faces Cheney's Chief of Staff with the prospect of an AQ visit. The very last sentence by Mr. Addington is "I'm sure you're pleased." Addington knew very well what Delahunt was implying.

Thanks a lot to CDR Salamander and RedState for blowing this thing wide open. RedState:

"If you do not call your Congressman today and demand the House of Representatives, at the very *least*, censure Congressman Delahunt, well damn us all. We have no right to carry on our fight. The number is 202-224-3121 and Congressman Delahunt's email address is

And some intrepid reporter should ask Mr. Obama what he thinks of this. After all, Mr. Delahunt was one of Mr. Obama's early supporters and is now an Obama superdelegate. Of course, you can ask Barack Obama yourself at (866) 675-2008.

When you call your Congressman, you should make sure he knows an apology from Mr. Delahunt will not suffice. Delahunt clearly is lying about and denying his statement. "I'm sorry" would just be more of the same."

Here's another Delahunt pic, taken at the occasion of a "deal" he closed with Chavez in November 2005 to "provide the poor in Massachusetts with cheap heating oil." The guy certainly knows how to choose his friends.

You just remember. William Delahunt is an Obama Superdelegate.


Friday, June 27, 2008


Three renowned Belgian scientists, Bram Van Den Bergh, a doctoral student in marketing, Siegfried Dewitte, an associate Professor of marketing, and Luk Warlop, a Professor of Marketing, all three of them from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculty of Business and Economics, conducted ground-breaking research into bikinis and sexual stimuli, concluding that said items make men more prone to seek instant gratification, leading to blown diets, budgets and bank accounts. The study, published in the Journal of Consumer Research, describes how men alternately fondled T-shirts and lingerie (be it without ladies in them). After touching bras, men valued the future less and the present more, according to Mr. Van Den Bergh. Watching ads with hordes of women in bikinis had the same effect.

An article in the June 2008 issue of the Journal of Consumer Research, titled "Bikinis Instigate Generalized Impatience in Intertemporal Choice", describes it as follows:

Neuroscientific studies demonstrate that erotic stimuli activate the reward circuitry processing monetary and drug rewards. Theoretically, a general reward system may give rise to nonspecific effects: exposure to “hot stimuli” from one domain may thus affect decisions in a different domain. We show that exposure to sexy cues leads to more impatience in intertemporal choice between monetary rewards. Highlighting the role of a general reward circuitry, we demonstrate that individuals with a sensitive reward system are more susceptible to the effect of sex cues, that the effect generalizes to nonmonetary rewards, and that satiation attenuates the effect.

I understand the balls of it, but what I think the scientists are trying to say is that if you put girls or women in bikinis on ads, it will help sell the stuff. Who would have THUNK it??????????????????? What an amazing discovery!!!!!!! These days, science knows no bounds anymore!