THE FRIEND OF MY FRIEND

My mother told me once: "People will judge you by the company you keep." She meant if I hang out with losers, people would consider me a loser. Or if I fly in clouds with the fast movers, I'd be considered a fast mover and shaker too.

The same goes for international alliances. Sometimes political alliances are made up of pretty stinky parties. Which brings us to the topic above.

Who is this muslim brotherhood that is neck-deep in all the uprisings in the middle east - Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Libya? News flash - the Libyan rebel forces include Al Qaeda troops.

We blew up a couple hundred million dollars' worth of cruise missiles to help the Libyan rebel forces. Our men and women are at risk hourly in that conflict. Fighting on the same side as the Al Qaeda troops.

What do we know of the fighters in Libya? We know that they are being helped by Al Qaeda. So I wonder: is it just true that the friend of my friend is my friend, which makes Al Qaeda our ally in this conflict, or is it also true that the friend of my enemy is my enemy - which means we should switch sides and bomb the crap out of rebel forces, in hopes of killing a few Al Qaeda?

Your Ostrich Killer, who can never be accused of 20/20 hindsight, said from the very first day that our involvement was not based on adequate knowledge of just who we were helping. I guess the proof of that is becoming more obvious. We are fighting on the same side as Al Qaeda.

I understand that Wal Mart is now selling snowballs from hell. I saw a flock of pigs flying over the house yesterday. And I lived to see a President violate the Constitution by sending US forces to fight in a conflict that had no national security overtones, without first gaining the consent of Congress.

If Clinton can get impeached by lying about getting a BJ, what should happen to a President who knowingly and willfully sends American Forces into harm's way without Constitutionally required Congressional approval?

WHY DEVOUT MUSLIMS ARE SO GRUMPY

You've noticed it. They blow up airplanes. The kill thousands. They wage wars on themselves, and aspire to wage wars on the rest of us.

They are a truly grumpy group of people.

And now I know why. Yes, your Ostrich Killer will share that truth with you, my faithful readers, and the rest of the known universe.

First, a quote from none other than Benjamin Franklin: "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

Knowing that, can you figure out the rest? Yes? Okay, but I have to explain for those others who aren't as bright as my average readers. So here goes:

The Koran forbids beer or any other alcohol. No exceptions. None.

Now, according to various authorities, there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, most of whom either cannot read or are allowed to read ONLY the Koran. Not all of them are devout (meaning not all of them deny themselves a beer now and then,) but many of them are. It is from this devout (non-beer drinking) group that we get the terrorists, the homicide bombers, the ranting lunatics who are always looking for someone else to kill. Clearly, they are not happy people. They are downright grumpy. And what can usually cheer up even the most grumpy of grumps? A chilled liter of beer, or two. It works for me. It works for you. It works for everyone else I know. Why not the followers of Islam?

So your Ostrich Killer has a new recipe for peace in the middle east: millions and millions of cans of beer, dropped out of high-flying airplanes into major cities and other densely populated islamic areas throughout the world.

Yes, one could call this foreign policy the Buy Them a Beer initiative.

Some of you are thinking "This is stupid. It can't be that simple."

Wrong-O! Reflect a moment on history. What civilizations invented numbers? Massive architecture? Huge libraries of knowledge? Yes, that's right: Arabs, mostly Egyptians. Egyptologists tell us that the going rate for a lowly pyramid laborer, back in the days of the Pharaohs, was a gallon of beer a day. Hell, no wonder those pyramids got built! Makes one wonder whether these laborers were really slaves after all. Maybe they just liked beer and volunteered, having little else more interesting to do.

But then along came Mohammed, and the Koran, and the "No Beer and No Fun" rules.

And the world of Islam instantly stopped innovating and inventing, and became stuck in the Bronze age and grew ever more grumpy. And they've been that way ever since. Doubt this? Point to ONE innovation benefiting mankind from followers of Islam in the last 1500 years.

The Beer Initiative. Think it over, then write your congress people. Email the white house. Set up a beer stand outside your local mosque, if you can find one.

THE CUBANIZATION OF EGYPT

Sorry for the invention of that word above, o Faithful Readers. Let your friendly Ostrich Killer define it for you, especially if you're less than, say, 65 years of age: 'Cubanization' refers to what happened in Pre-Castro Cuba, during the time Castro was staging a revolt. In the US during that time, we didn't know what to do: Castro seemed to be a popular revolutionary who offered some promise of a freer Cuba, although we also knew he had 'leftist' leanings. So as a country, our leaders elected the Ostrich approach to dealing with him: we stuck our collective heads in the sand and pretended all was well.

Of course history shows us that it wasn't.

History also shows us that we knew it wouldn't be.

But doing something would have been difficult, so we put our most optimistic faces on and applauded.

Just like we're doing in Egypt.

The outcome is very likely to be an Iran-like Islamic state that hates Western culture and thinks of us as enemies. That may very well spell the end of Israel's peaceful co-existence with Egypt, and will almost surely result in Egypt openly running arms and other supplies into Gaza so that the idiots living there can resume rocketing and otherwise provoking Israel.

So now you know what recent history hints may be the outcome.

Do you think that Barack Hussein Obama knows this? Two possible answers: Yes, he knows, in which case he is on the wrong side. Or No, he is unaware, which makes him ignorant and / or stupid.

You choose.

A SUCCESSFUL MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN NUKE PROGRAM?

The evidence is mounting that there has been a successful military strike on the Iranian nuclear program, setting it back perhaps two years. There are three things especially interesting about this strike: first, no one has stepped up to claim they carried it out. Secondly, Iran has not officially acknowledged it nor pointed its finger at any nation. Lastly, no one was killed or injured by the strike.

Sounds incredible, right? I had the same reaction. Then I read this news story.

A big ATTABOY to whoever is responsible for it. But it's only a couple years, at most. So better keep other options open. Nothing is permanent. Still - ATTABOY!

THE MAIN CASE AGAINST AN AIRBUS TANKER FOR THE U.S.

This one is so easy that it has to escape both the Pentagon and the GAO. It comes down to Who Can You Trust in a time of global crisis. Can we trust Europe, where Airbus is a government-subsidized welfare program, not to embargo parts and other support to Airbus tankers used to help the U.S. fight a war that the Europeans don't like?

Did France let us overfly their territory when we struck Libya?

The answers to both questions is "No."

Imagine a scenario where we have to fight an ally of Russia. We start to fight, Russia says to Europe that they'll shut off their oil pipeline if they provide any support at all, including parts for Airbus tankers and other European-built weapons. What do you think Europe would choose to do? No gas, no heat, no hot water for a whole continent . . .

There are any number of other scenarios that you, o reader of this blog, can imagine for yourselves. Many.

Really, this is a no-brainer. Why not buy Boeing tankers? Better aircraft, made here, supported here by red-blooded Americans.

THE BRISTOL PALIN DWTS PHENOM

Most of you probably don't care what happens on DWTS (Dancing With The Stars.) But for those of you who do care, allow your Ostrich Killer a few lines to philosophize.

Bristol Palin - Sarah's daughter - is no dancer. Oh, she'd be fine in a social setting dancing the latest steps, or in even more formal settings doing ballroom dancing. But professionally? No. And this is no insult. I'm sure even her most ardent fans would agree, as would she and her mother.

So why is she in the finals? Well, it's not because the judges gave her high marks. Week in, week out she reliably pulled down the lowest scores from the judges. But the call-in voters have saved her every time.

This proves that DWTS is not actually a dancing talent competition, something I believe I mentioned in an earlier blog entry about a year ago. No, DWST has a talent component, but the viewers can, and in Bristol's case did, make it a popularity contest.

That's unfortunate. It's good for ratings, of course, which the show is REALLY about, but it doesn't do the reputation of televised dance competitions much good.

Tonight Bristol has an opportunity to do something spectacular and brilliantly sportsmanlike: resign from the competition. Here's what she might say as she and her partner take the floor for their first dance tonight:

"I want to thank all the viewers who have voted for me over the weeks. It is both humbling and wonderful to have experienced all that I have experienced since coming on DWTS. But everyone knows I am not a skilled dancer, and this is a dance competition. So with my thanks and gratitude to all of you, and the staff of this show, and the judges who so patiently gave me advice through the weeks, I resign this competition. When my partner and I have finished our dance, we will retire to the competitor's lounge to await the outcome of the final dances and voting. I urge all my fans and everyone else who plans to vote to vote for the most skilled dancer. The name of this show is, after all, Dancing With The Stars. Thank you all."

MORE AIRPORT SCREENING TECHNOLOGY SUGGESTIONS

So the TSA admits that the peep-show scanners and in-your-pants and bras feel-ups can only detect stuff on the outside of our bodies - in fact, they moan and wring their hands about this obvious shortcoming.

Your Ostrich Killer suggests this is not an insurmountable problem. Here are some suggestions, all of which I'm sure our Dept of Homeland Harassment has on their table for consideration:

1. Full body x-rays complete w/ lots of radiation exposure.

2. Cavity sniffers - devices that are forced into all body cavities to do video tours and 'sample' the air in there. Tip to TSA inspectors: don't get confused about which sniffer goes in which cavity. Tip to virgins: if you travel, it won't be long before you won't be able to prove you've been a good girl.

3. In the name of 'safety,' elimination of all public air travel. Only bureaucrats and military would be able to fly. The rest of us would have to travel on the surface. (Note: their current intrusive searches are taking us in this direction already.)

4. Gastric lavage - otherwise called 'stomach pumping' - to see what, if any, potential toxins or explosives may have been ingested very recently.

5. Spectroscopic analysis of your toe jam to see if it is, in fact, toe jam or if it's C-4.

6. Those streaks in your underwear? Spectroscopic analysis . . .

7. Air travel uniforms - specific uniforms that must be worn by all travelers, that will react with visible color changes wherever suspicious chemicals or vapors touch it. Check in for your flight, adjourn to a changing room, get into your travel uniform in much the same way that a surgeon gets into his / her greens.

8. Need I say 'barefoot' from check in to baggage claim?

9. Genetic profiling - if apparently middle eastern, be EXCLUDED from 'random' scrutiny so that no charge of islamic profiling can be levied.

10. Chemical testing of bodily discharges to determine whether on not you're peeing or crapping anything incriminating. Note to future TSA employees: if you're looking for a s___ty job, this one is right up your alley.

TSA PEEP SHOWS AND BODY FEEL-UPS GOOD FOR BUSINESS

Yes, your Ostrich Killer guy has probably lost his marbles by thinking these feel-ups and peep shows are good for business, but I predict they are: good for AMTRAK, good for bus lines. Look for a resurrection in the snoring rate of manufacture of long-range touring / travel buses (Greyhound and Trailways), good for any business that provides other ways of getting to places in the Lower 48.

But what about international travel? There are ships . . .

Saw: a picture on Drudge a day or so ago, of a nun being felt up. Caption? "The Terrorists Have Won."

Learned: once you get in line to go through the pre-screening, you are not allowed BY LAW to change your mind. You must go through the pre-screening. Otherwise, like that fellow John Tyner who recorded his refusal to allow feel-up searching, the long arm of the TSA will reach out and prosecute you and fine you a few tens of thousands of dollars. So submit, you sheeple!

Decided: I like road trips and other surface travel more than being forced to show off the goodies.

WIKILEAKS - A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FOUNDER

1. Where the hell does anyone, much less some Australian brain-dead convicted hacker and college dropout dweeb named Julian Assange - whose picture is in every newspaper - get 400,000 classified documents?

2. Why is he still alive? Same question for those who leaked the documents to him.

Oh, don't act so shocked. The same questions have already occurred to you. And think a little deeper than the surface, obvious implications of those questions. Yeah, those two questions raise a whole lot of other questions. And, for you conspiracy theorists, intriguing possibilities.

And now a question for our Pentagon and our government in general: how in hell do you expect to get ANY informant help in any future conflict? There is going to be a blood bath of dead informants in both Iraq and Afghanistan from these leaked documents. Future candidate informants are going to ask us why should he / she risk his / her life when we have shown time and again that we are impotent to protect them or even our own classified documents. Would you trust us?

THE CASE AGAINST COMPROMISE

There are many reasons, in our daily lives, to make compromises. You can think of dozens for yourself, so your ostrich killer will skip pointing out the obvious. Instead, let's move to the political arena.

In the United States, we have a two-party system. This isn't by law, it's by default. The two parties differ widely in their views and principles. Your ostrich killer is about to make an argument that one party has a winning strategy in getting their agenda emplaced. That strategy is sometimes called 'incrementalism.'

Here's how it works: Party A wants radical legislation to, say, raise taxes dramatically. This is just an example, so please don't think I'm being specific here. Party B, though, wants no new taxes. Rancorous debate, name calling, and political extortion follow. Members of Party B, not wanting to be called names, and wishing to be reasonable, offers a counter proposal that raises taxes, but not as much. More name calling, more race or religion or class baiting goes on while Party A sticks to their original demands. Party B decides to offer a slightly better tax hike, but still far short of what Party A wants. Party A generously agrees, in the name of 'bipartisanship.' Taxes are raised an increment of what Party A originally called for.

Fast forward to a future legislative session. Party A renews its original demands. Party B goes through the same 'be reasonable and bipartisan and willing to compromise' hand-wringing soul searching, and finally agrees to raise taxes another increment.

Fast forward . . . Eventually Party A gets what it wanted in the first place, because Party B compromised enough times that they finally had nothing left to compromise about. So, in effect, Party A never actually compromised, they just stretched out their timeline to allow for incrementalism to work. And it always will, if one party sticks to its principles and the other is willing to compromise theirs.

Message to conservatives: If you recognize the above situation, you understand why we now have an entitlement mentality society, and a regime running the country the way Marx would if he were alive. So you (we) have a duty: reverse this incrementalism. Be the party of no compromise. That could cause legislative paralysis, which is something conservatives and most people prefer.

JetBlue AIRWAYS - A HAZARD TO YOUR HEALTH

Your Ostrich Killer will now ask the question you haven't seen asked by the mainstream media: How is it that JetBlue, the employer of that flight attendant Steven Slater who quit his job by sliding down the emergency slide off an airliner, let a bleeding and unbandaged HIV- positive person work the cabin as a flight attendant?

This individual came in contact w/ hundreds of people daily. Did any of those people know he was both homosexual and HIV-positive? Would they have flown on that flight if they knew?

It takes less than a drop of HIV-infected blood to transfer AIDS to another, through any break in their skin or even any moist membranes, such as the eye. That flight attendant was bleeding before he ever got onto the aircraft, and did not bandage his wound. Surely Jet Blue wouldn't let such a person work in close contact w/ hundreds of unknowing innocents every day, would they? - - Uh, wait. They did. Not even the flight crew or cabin attendants insisted he bandage the wound. Had they been informed that he was HIV positive?

One wonders how far over we must bend for the PC crowd to put it to us. Must we even grab our ankles? Unknowingly risk our own health in order not to offend HIV carriers? It might be different if we knew the risks we were taking. But Jet Blue didn't tell anyone that I know about. I guess they feel that such risks are acceptable. Of course, if they believed that strongly, wouldn't they let us know ahead of time? And isn't it our decision to make as to what risks we're willing to take? Maybe we're just too stupid to make a rational decision about the risks. That must be it.

You can be sure that your Ostrich Killer will NOT be flying Jet Blue. I wonder how they will spin this. On second thought, they won't have to. The mainstream media isn't even raising the question.

SIGNS I'D LOVE TO SEE (Pt. 1)

Outside a Mexican restaurant: "Food: 100% Mexican Style. Staff: 100% American Citizen."

Outside a Mexican restaurant, 2: "English spoken here. Only."

Panhandler at busy intersection: "Victim of the Obamanomics. Looking for honest work. Please take a copy of my resume and references."

Outside Congress: "Restricted membership. License to steal required."

Have some ideas of signs you'd like to see? Send them along.

DREAM POLITICAL CANDIDATE INTERVIEW QUESTION AND ANSWERS

"Mister Candidate, you've repeatedly spoken about your conservative values. You are in a tight race. What special measures are you planning to take to garner more of the traditional liberal voting population, such as blacks and latinos?"

"None. Blacks typically vote over ninety percent for democrats, no matter who they are or what they stand for or what experience they may have or the quality of the conservative opposition. So a dollar of my campaign money spent trying to attract their vote is a dollar wasted. I take a similar position with regard to the latino vote."

"You will make no special effort at all? Isn't that conceding all those votes to your opposition?"

"Look, there is no color or ethnic or religious description of an American, and for good reason: that category includes everyone who is a citizen of this country. To make a special effort to romance votes from this or that sub-group of Americans would be racist, or otherwise discriminatory in that one group or another is receiving special consideration or promises of special favors. My appeal is to all Americans capable of casting a vote. I don't give a damn about skin color or what their ancestors ate. If they are American citizens, my positions on the issues will appeal to them - irrespective of any other factors. Let my opponent make special promises. His party is good at that. Unfortunately, they aren't so good at keeping them. Even the most simple research will bear this out; however, it seems my opponent's constituency is either unwilling or incapable of dispassionate research, or even objective rational thought."

"The latino vote is a little more complicated, sir -"

"Not really. In the latino heritage community in this country, there are either Americans or non-Americans. I don't give a damn about the opinions of non-Americans, those here on legitimate visas or illegally. They cannot legally vote. Of course, my opponent's party will spend vast sums doing what it can to find ways for people in this country illegally to vote for them illegally. We all know this. But I reject that I, or my party, should in some sly way court the illegal vote. My position on illegals is that they are criminals and should be captured, punished, and then deported on tramp steamers, penniless, to the southernmost tip of whatever country they came from. So a message to illegals, latino or any other - I'm not your friend."

THE MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO

In the name of islam, the world trade center was destroyed and three thousand people killed.

To the glorification of mohammed and in the name of islam, a mosque will be erected in its place.

A symbol of victory, a symbol of dominance, a symbol of the superiority of islam.

You citizens of Manhattan - you've got work to do. Start with your city leadership.

Remember: if your attackers kill your people in the name of their religion, you are in a religious war whether you want to be or not.

SURPRISE JUDICIAL RULING ROCKS CALIFORNIA

Dateline, California: In a surprise ruling that rocked California, a homosexual federal judge ruled that California's Prop 8, which states that California will only recognize marriages between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional. "Prop 8 violates the equal treatment under the law provision of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution," he wrote, without explaining how Prop 8 treats homosexual men and women differently from heterosexual men and women.

"It seems to me," said Mr. Harry Stingle of Malin, Oregon, "that the judge got it wrong. In California just like in pretty much any other country on the planet, a man has a right to marry a woman and a woman has a right to marry a man. Queers get the same rights. So maybe someone can explain how Prop 8 treats homosexuals any different, 'cause I don't get it."

Henrietta Polger of Buena Vista, California, wonders how it came to pass that a homosexual judge got assigned to rule on that particular proposition. As she puts it, "I'd love to see the audit trail on that judicial assignment."

Indeed.

SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAW? A PROPOSAL TO THE FEDS

In one of your Ostrich Killer's better moments, an idea flashed through his barnacle-encrusted brain cells: if the Feds can choose not to enforce certain laws (such as immigration law), then why can't I choose not to obey certain laws?

Here's the deal: In exchange for the citizenship not requiring the Feds to enforce, say, the general class of immigration laws, we get to not obey one class of laws. My choice: tax law. I don't want to pay taxes. How about you? Let the wetbacks come. As long as that's the policy, I don't want to pay taxes. Quid pro quo, right? Feds don't enforce one, I don't obey one. Seems fair.

A word about wetbacks: I don't use that pejoratively. In my lexicon, a wetback is a mexican who arrives in this country illegally. Legal immigrants are decidedly NOT wetbacks, they are welcome. So don't accuse me of using ethnic slurs. Thank you.

REALITY TRUMPS FICTION

A couple days ago, when news broke that both Charlie Shumer and Maxine Waters (Democrats in your congress) were being investigated by the House Ethics Committee, your Ostrich Killer thought "Hey, wouldn't it be clever to ask my readers how long they think it would take for someone to squeal that those two were being investigated because they were black?"

Your Ostrich Killer laughed at his own silliness. No one could possibly raise such a stupid objection, he thought. What does skin color have to do with whether or not someone might be guilty of ethical violations? Nothing, that's what. Either they did something questionable, or they didn't. Either way, the investigations would follow the smoking guns to the proper conclusions.

Your Ostrich Killer thought no one would be stupid enough to play the race card.

He was wrong. Read about it at Politico. At least one member of the Congressional Black Caucus has said there's a dual standard being used, one for 'African-Americans' and another for everyone else. I guess he / she means that until they run out of ethics investigations of congressmen of other races, they should leave blacks alone - - oh, wait. No, he / she couldn't possibly mean that, because that would mean using a double standard. He / she wouldn't be for that, would he / she?

The Congressional Black Caucus is by its very nature a racist organization. Its name alone tells us that. Do you see a Congressional White Caucus? Latino Caucus? Irish-American Caucus? Or any other such group? Can you imagine what the race-baiters would make of such organizations?

Once again, the ballet of the absurd is danced by this Congress. Your Ostrich Killer has grave misgivings about the intelligence of an American electorate that could elect so many clowns and functional enemies of our country to high office.

CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS AND TREASON - - AND PENALTIES FOR LEAKS

A collection of treasonous scumbags have conspired to leak tens of thousands of classified documents. That act gives aid and comfort to our enemies. It endangers the lives of American service men and women, diplomats, and intelligence resource - some of whom may not be American, but may be citizens of other countries. Some of those people will end up dead.

It is a felony.

Punishable by death in the time of war.

Are we at war?

Your ostrich killer wants the leakers and the publishers brought up on the strongest charges, including treason, and punished according to the law. If that means death, that's okay with me and a whole bunch of fellow Americans.

My country's security is at stake. Those individuals are enemies of my country. I choose death for them. I don't want to 'reform' or 'rehabilitate' them. I want them gone, if that's legal.

GULF OIL SPILL - THE PERSPECTIVE OF NUMBERS

"Unparalleled disaster" "Environmental catastrophe" "Massive pollution"

You've seen these and other End of Times headlines everywhere in the news covering the gulf oil spill.

Your favorite Ostrich Killer will now, without any comment whatsoever, give you the numbers that pertain. You may draw your own conclusions, as thoughtful people do.

Spill: 200,000,000 gallons (max. Probably less, but let's use the worst case quoted.)

Gulf: 700,000,000,000,000,000 gallons, rounded off.

Doing long division, we get 1 gallon of oil for every 3,500,000,000 gallons of water.

Doing a little more long division, we get 1 drop of oil for every 55,000 GALLONS of water. To do your own long division, assume 16 drops in a cc of oil.

But wait! It gets better! Turns out, about forty percent of that leaked oil was collected on ships. Of the remaining sixty percent, a substantial amount - maybe a third - has evaporated. Much more - another third? - has filled the bellies of oil-eating microbes, untold quadrillions of which roam the Gulf of Mexico feasting on the crude that has seeped naturally from the bottom every day since before the first well was ever dreamt of. Doing a little more math with the above numbers, we come up with only twenty percent of the oil still available to pollute in one way or another. 40,000,000 gallons of the original 200,000,000 gallons. That's a lot, but . . . well, you know.

Doubt this? Do your own research and your own math. I rounded off; you may not wish to. Have fun.

NEWS FLASH: Drudge story headline - "Disappearing Oil: Cleanup crews can't find crude in gulf."

Let's see . . . I have 55,000 gallons of water, in which I'm trying to find twenty percent of 1 DROP of oil . . . I wonder why it's so hard to do?

Duh. And no, that is not an editorial comment.

MEL GIBSON RANTS - SO?

A guy and a gal have a big, name-calling argument over the phone. Unbenownst to the guy, the gal is taping him.

First, that's a felony in most states. But leaving that aside, let's look at the obvious. And the obvious is - drum roll, please - that the conversation was private. There was a hundred percent expectation of privacy by the guy. People say things in private, especially when angry and maybe even a little buzzed, that they would never say in front of a television camera or at a press conference.

So what Mel said was ugly. Who among us has not said an ugly thing in private? Had he said that stuff in public, then there's a story. But in private? C'mon. Get over it, stupid mainstream media. Is there really such a shortage of actual news that this can get your attention?