Faith, Any Faith, Has Now Officially Become Hate Speech

At All The Right Snark, "Finally! SCOTUS Gives the Left a Group They Can H8!!!"

Ah, yes. In the name of equality Liberalism can finally, openly, and with judicial fiat hate Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus. And they don’t have to feel guilty at all!!

What a coup!

And supporters of homosexual “marriage” took to the Twitters to share their SCOTUS-approved H8:

“Take that bitches!!!” was the tolerant Left’s response.

In an effort to be able to “live their lives and love their loves” freely, they now have the door kicked wide open to hate those folks who disagree with them and hate them with impunity!!!

Ain’t life grand?!

You see, there’s equality, then there’s equality.

And a First Amendment protection to practice your religion isn’t something that you can do with equal freedom as say two men who want to get married in your church.

Faith, any faith, has now officially become hate speech.

More at the link (via iOWNTHEWORLD).

BONUS: Some mondo sized stupidity and Christian hatred, from Erik "Lumberjack" Loomis, "On Our Knees for America." Because descending to bended knee in prayer is really all about cone jobs for your bestest bungee bunghole jumping homies. WINNING!

Great Neck Synagogue Cancels Pamela Geller Speech

At Atlas Shrugs, "PAMELA GELLER EVENT AT GREAT NECK SYNAGOGUE CANCELLED:"THE SYNAGOGUE IS UNABLE TO BEAR THE BURDEN."

And a news video here, "Pamela Geller cancelled at Great Neck Synagogue in Long Island."

Also, "VIDEO: CBS NEWS ON GREAT NECK SYNAGOGUE CANCELLATION OF PAMELA GELLER TALK."

Plus, "CREATIVE ZIONIST COALITION STATEMENT ON GREAT NECK SYNAGOGUE GELLER TALK CANCELLATION."

And at the Jewish Press, "Gagged at Great Neck: Geller's Talk Cancelled, L.I. Shul, Sun. School Kids Threatened:

Geller was dismayed that her talk was shut down, but once her opponents were willing to put the safety of Jewish Sunday School children at risk, or simply to persuade the parents that there was a risk to their children, she understood her talk would be cancelled.

They threatened the children. Way to go progs! Hard to beat that for utter authoritarian thuggery!

How the Tories Are Screwing the Pooch — And Screwing Britain

From Melanie Phillips, at London's Daily Mail, "Why failing to stand up for marriage is the reason Tories are always in crisis":

The Tories are in ferment. Plots against David Cameron appear to be seeding like dandelion spores. Rebellion looms in the division lobbies.

The list of Mr Cameron's apparent crimes lengthens by the day.

The threatened triple-dip depression. Gay marriage. Labour's lead in the opinion polls. And the fact that the Prime Minister looks like a loser.

To which one might marvel at just what a shower these Tories are.

For they have behaved mutinously towards every one of their leaders since they toppled Mrs Thatcher in 1990.

The reason for this never-ending uproar surely lies deeper, however, than indiscipline among power-crazed MPs or the deficiencies of individual leaders.

Indeed, it explains why the Tories just can't seem to produce a leader they do support.
It is that conservatism itself is in crisis.

With some honourable exceptions, today's Tories don't appear to know what conservatism is for and what it is against.

In the last century, they all knew they had to defend Britain against socialism.
But when the Berlin Wall fell and Labour started speaking the language of market economics, the Tories seemed to conclude that their fox had been shot.

Fiasco

They could not have been more wrong. The attempt by the Left to undermine and topple Western society had merely shifted from political revolution to social and cultural issues.

And at the very centre of that systematic onslaught lay the intention to destroy the unique importance of the married family and replace it by a lifestyle free-for-all.
Not understanding the full significance of what was happening, the Tories made a total mess of the issue in the 'back to basics' fiasco under John Major, and then staged a full retreat under a barrage of attacks from the Left....

For at the heart of the decades-long onslaught by the Left against the core tenets of Western society lies the doctrine of 'non-judgmentalism', under which it has become forbidden to suggest that anyone's lifestyle is more socially desirable than any other.
Worse still, those whose behaviour lies outside conventional social norms are deemed to be 'victims' and their demands have been relabelled 'rights'.

So views that mothers and fathers are better for children than lone parents or step-parents, or that deliberately having babies outside marriage is selfish and irresponsible, have became unsayable.

The fundamental need children have for their own mother and father has simply been trumped by the selfish desires of adults.

Breakdown

To mask this abandonment of children, their core need was redefined as being 'lifted out of poverty' - which merely made their mothers ever more dependent on state benefits, and thus promoted sexual anarchy even further.

The result has been an unmitigated disaster. In some areas, several generations of family disintegration have resulted in a total breakdown in parenting, so that children are becoming horrifyingly incapable of even basic functions.

According to the Government's adviser on problem families, Louise Casey, some three-year-olds are unable to walk because they are habitually parked in their buggies in front of the TV.

And Russell Hobby, general secretary of the National Association of Headteachers, has spoken of children who, when they come to school, can only grunt as they haven't been taught to speak; and who may also still be in nappies at the age of five.

Ms Casey laments that no official initiatives seem to get through to such families. Of course not - because the one thing that is needed above all, to remove the perverse incentives that have destroyed marriage in such areas, is the one policy that will never be enacted.

The real reason the Tories won't properly address this is not just the inane social nihilism of Nick Clegg. It is surely because the Tory leadership itself has such a shallow and reductive view of marriage - including among its supposed cheerleaders.

Look at the reasons they give for supporting marriage - that it promotes stability, unselfishness and self-sacrifice. That was the substance of Michael Gove's paean of praise for the institution yesterday, as he made the case for extending it to gays.

RTWT at that top link.

And also, "DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Gay marriage and a split no one wanted."

5 Ways Liberalism Destroys Virtue

Well, as always, I like to say "progressivism," but see John Hawkins, at Right Wing News:

The more completely a person, group, or organization embraces liberalism, the less virtuous it becomes. It’s almost like a mental sickness in that respect. People or groups who are lightly infected can soldier on without having it eat them alive. However, the deeper the sickness goes, the more it changes them. Eventually the liberal disease inside of people can grow so much that it warps their morals, their religious beliefs, and their way of thinking until they can no longer tell right and wrong. This destruction of virtue is a natural consequence of the fundamental beliefs that go along with liberalism.

And that reminds me: "The Left's Celebration of Nihilism," and some of those real life examples.

The Left's Celebration of Nihilism

One of the biggest, longest knee-slappers of the progressive idiots at Lawyers, Gun and Money, and elsewhere, is their supposed superior "knowledge" of nihilism. The dolt "Malaclypse" especially loves to hammer the point about how "the dumb Donalde" doesn't even know what nihilism means! Doh! The problem? Well, the idiots themselves don't actually know what it means, can't describe or explain it, and only object to the term because it must apparently hit close to home, or something.

Anyway, I'm getting a kick out of Lawrence Auster's discussion of the topic, at View From the Right, "BENEATH LIBERALS’ SELF-CELEBRATION, THE DESPAIR OF NIHILISM." It's a response to comments, so click the link for the whole context, but this part is good:

...Mr. Hechtman makes a good point. But I should have made clear that when I speak of liberals’ despair, I do not mean that they are consciously, literally in despair. Of course, on the level of their conscious experience, they are full of themselves and their “wonderful” existence. They are soaring in an afflatus of triumph. They are in a state of ecstatic disbelief that Tony Blair’s pledge fifteen years ago to “sweep away those forces of conservatism” has come true, so fast and so thoroughly.

But just beneath their surface joy, there is ever-increasing disturbance. How do we know this? Consider the fact that the more power liberals enjoy over society, and the more conservatives surrender to the liberal agenda (e.g. on the issue of homosexuals in the military), the angrier the liberals become, the fuller of fear and loathing of conservatives they become, the more they feel that conservatives threaten them, and the more they want to silence, suppress, and punish conservatives.

What explains this ever-growing turbulence and hatred in the souls of liberals, at the very moment of their world-historic triumph? It is the fact that their entire existence is based on rebellion against the order of being, or, more simply, against God. As a result, the more power and fulfillment they have, the more they are divided from the order of being, and the more the tension within them grows. Therefore they feel increasingly threatened by—and are compulsively driven to crush—any remaining sign of the Truth which they have apparently defeated. In their minds, it is conservatives that symbolize belief in the hated God and the hated order of being. So it is conservatives (or rather the fantasy demonized image they have of conservatives) that the liberals must destroy.

If this explanation sounds implausible to you, ask yourself why, if liberals are so happy and victorious, they are becoming more fearful, hate-filled, and tyrannical, instead of enjoying and relaxing in their triumph?

Back at the post it goes on like that, and then Auster replies to one more commenter:

Also, to avoid misunderstanding, when I speak of nihilism, I do not use it in the conventional, incorrect sense of “not believing in anything.” There is no human being who does not believe in anything. If “not believing in anything” is the definition of nihilism, then there is no such thing as nihilism. No. Nihilism is the denial of objective moral truth. Our contemporary nihilists believe in and enjoy all kinds of things, but they don’t believe that there’s any objective moral truth backing up the things they believe in.

I'll bet good money that freak leftist B.J. Keefe would blow this off as some "Greater Wingnuttia" hysteria. See, for example:

I was not typing "Blargh" in response to your effort to twist the definition of nihilism to fit your own preconceived notions. It was in response to everything else.

Oh, and don't miss the rest of the commentary at Auster's.

BONUS: When called out in the past on the "meaning" of nihilism, I almost always link to the definition at Dictionary.com, especially "1. a complete denial of all established authority and institutions" and "3. a revolutionary doctrine of destruction for its own sake..." And some real life examples here.

EXTRA: "Navigating Past Nihilism."

Anti-Elite Protester Trenton Oldfield Stops Oxford and Cambridge University Boat Race

This is unreal, truly.

At London's Daily Mail, "Chaos at the Boat Race: Event stopped because of SWIMMER in the Thames... then Oxford's broken blade gives Cambridge victory."

And the guy was himself wealthy and educated at elite institutions, which tells you how deranged are the world's social activists. See Australia's Herald Sun, "Aussie ‘class warrior' who derailed Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race is a privately-educated ‘toff'."

And see Melanie Phillips, "A Boat Race rebel without a clue and the politics of narcissism":

His website entry should surely have been entitled ‘anti-elitism leads to imbecility’. Equating the excellence and superiority of Oxford and Cambridge with tyranny is not just stupid, but positively odious when one considers real tyranny in countries such as Syria or North Korea.

In any event, elitism is merely another way of saying that some achievements are considered superior to others. The great question is which achievements should be given priority.

Those like Oldfield who practise class war believe no achievements should be afforded superior status. To the Oldfields of this world, the great crime committed by Oxford and Cambridge is simply to be excellent.

Read it all at the link.

Atheists Rally at the National Mall in Washington D.C.

At Washington Post, "Atheists rally on National Mall in show of political force."

And Reason Magazine declaims any organizational affiliations:

Reason.tv headed down to the National Mall for the Reason Rally (no affiliation!) in Washington, DC. The March 24 event was billed as the "largest gathering of the secular movement in world history" and drew a several thousand-strong crowd of damp, enthusiastic unbelievers (and a few protesting believers) to the National Mall.

John Cole on Republicans

I'm keeping my promise to bone up a bit on the budget negotiations. The Wall Street Journal, for example, endorses Bill Clinton's recent suggestion to cut corporate tax rates in exchange for an elimination of business loopholes. That might get a deal in the near term, and later the administration and Congress could work toward a more substantial reform of the tax code. See: "A Debt-Limit Breakout." But as I was surfing around I clicked on John Cole's Balloon Juice, where we have a long post with this conclusion:

And anyone who still calls themselves a Republican is just an asshole. Really, you’ve had ample time to figure out your party is run by maniacs. If you’re still sticking around because the “Democrats are worse” or you think the party can turn it around or because you fancy yourself a small “c” conservative or you are a glibertarian or because you hate taxes or you think Dennis Kucinich is weird (he is), you’re just an asshole. And incredibly stupid.

Wow. A whole post on Republcans as "hostage takers" just to conclude with a nasty jab at Republicans as "assholes."

Takes one to know one, I guess.

ROBAMA!! President Uses Autopen to Sign Patriot Act Extension

Glenn Reynolds disapproves (as does Jonathan Turley at the clip).

And see NYT, "Making Legislative History, With Nod From Obama and Stroke of an Autopen":

WASHINGTON — Generations of children learned the basics of the American legislative process from a “Schoolhouse Rock” cartoon, in which “Bill” sings, “If he signs me, then I’ll be a law.”

But now, apparently for the first time in United States history, a bill has been signed into law by autopen, at the direction of President Obama, who is in Europe on a weeklong trip.

Congress on Thursday passed legislation extending the Patriot Act for four years. With the existing terror-fighting authorities set to expire at midnight Thursday, the White House concluded that a mechanical signature would have to do.

With that, Mr. Obama turned the autopen, a machine that reproduces signatures and is ubiquitous in government and business for routine transactions — letters, photos, promotional materials — into the ultimate stand-in.

He and his lawyers also found a way around a routine but costly tradition, in which White House staff members fly, unsigned legislation in hand, to wherever the president happens to be.

That tradition dates back decades.

Well, ROBAMA wouldn't want to preserve tradition, especially something traditional dealing with the Constitution. No surprise here at all.

BONUS FAIL: Asshat No More Mr. Nice Guy cries foul, but comes up short anyway. That said, Xeni Jardin concludes with the appropriate skepticism.

Progressives Claim Credit in Osama Bin Laden Killing

Little Miss Attila snarks:

A lot of the people celebrating this victory would have impeached Bush for doing the same thing; some of them didn’t even want us to collect some of the intel that helped us accomplish this.

And Michelle's got it, "All About Obama: Who’s politicizing bin Laden kill?":

Leftists are swarming Twitter to chastise any conservatives who dare give any credit to President Bush for his resolve and role in leading the post-9/11 counterrorism/national security response to the worst attack on American soil.

Meanwhile, Democrat hacks are burning the midnight oil making this All About Obama.

Steve Benen's first update appeared after he Googled around a bit, and found: "On March 13, 2002, George W. Bush said of bin Laden, 'I truly am not that concerned about him'."

The Obama White House acted and that is good. But the killing of Osama should be a victory for America and Americans. Politics is never far behind, but the left's sheer dishonesty in claiming credit on this --- after nearly ten years of the most intense demonization of GWOT hawks --- is no doubt digging deep for some news depths of progressive depravity.

Image via Markos "American Taliban" Moulitsas' Daily Kos.

'Antiwar' Protesters Call for Revolution in U.S. — Nationwide ANSWER Rallies Ignored by Mainstream Media Organizations

This isn't news to me, although I'm glad that a growing number of bloggers and citizen journalists are paying attention. The Los Angeles ANSWER organizers held their annual march in Hollywood on Saturday, March 19th. I had my taxes done that day and missed it, but veteran protest photographer Ringo was on the scene, and he reports: "Anti-War Demonstration, Hollywood, CA - March 19th, 2011." I've been focused lately on Israel and the rising tide of global anti-Semitism, and recall the ANSWER folks are at the forefront of the campaign for a new Jewish Holocaust. Naturally, the "push-the-Jews-to-the-sea" crowd was well represented in Hollywood. I'll have more on this in continuing coverage here. Meanwhile, Rebel Pundit has an excellent report from the event in Chicago on March 19th: "Exclusive: Chicago Media Covers Up Socialist Revolution Extravaganza!!" (also at Breitbart and Memeorandum).

After arriving at the protest, we began to notice a trend in the message of the day. The message was transitioning back and fourth between ‘Anti-War, and ending the occupation of Iraq’, to a ‘blatantly obvious and proud Communist/Socialist revolutionary’ message. Threats of taking to the streets, with directives to become ungovernable and to mimic the revolutions spreading across the Middle East and North Africa were prominent in the speeches, most of which were given by radical left wing socialist activists and organizers.

There was clearly no intent on anyone’s behalf at the rally to cover up their radical views. However, in each case of the local mainstream media coverage, (CBS 2 News, NBC 5 News and ABC 7 News) it appears there may have been a deliberate intent to conceal this prominent message, that was delivered loud and clear by the protesters and speakers, or perhaps they decided to just simply ignore it, hoping it wouldn’t be noticed. In ABC 7 Eyewitness News’s coverage, they didn’t even mention the words; socialist, communist, or revolution once. However our footage reveals this was a prominent and consistent theme present during the entire march, and to no one’s surprise, considering the radical ties of those who organized it.

Rebel Pundit argues for a media cover-up of the revolutionary agenda, but that's pretty much standard operating procedure. Some of the first days of the Wisconsin budget protests saw the exact same comparisons between the U.S. and the Middle East (Mubarak), although it was mostly bloggers that brought the news to the wider audience. Last year's pro-immigration march in Phoenix was dominated by communists calling for revolution and the destruction of nation-state borders. I specifically highlighted mainstream coverage of the march at the Arizona Republic and the Los Angeles Times. They treated the event, with dishonest reports and photos of children protesters, etc., as a "civil rights" march. Meanwhile, we've got leftists who continue to insist that revolutionary agitation --- not to mention the left's global anti-Israel campaign of annihilation --- is "imaginary" and the product of a "persecution" complex. It's thus all around us, the lies and subterfuge relentlessly grinding away at the basic fabric of society, warping young minds with anti-American, pro-Holocaust propaganda. Add on top of this the growing black bloc movement of anarchist violence, which despite the "anarchist" label is really about state destruction to prepare for the communist takeover, and folks can get a pretty good picture of the current revolutionary agenda on today's progressive left. Also reporting: Another Black Conservative, The Blast, Left Coast Rebel, and Weasel Zippers.

'Abortion is Black Genocide'

At PuffHo, "Obama Featured On Chicago Anti-Abortion Billboards Targeting Black South Siders."

Also, at Jill Stanek's, "Breaking: New “abortion is black genocide” Chicago billboard to feature Obama." And Moral Outcry, "New Billboard Campaign against Abortion Features President Obama."

RELATED: At That's Abortion, "Life Always Rebuttal to Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar":

U.S. Progressives Endorse Anarchist Violence at London Budget Protests

More excellent coverage of the violent demonstrations in London, from the Daily Mail, "200 arrested as anarchists fight police after 500,000-strong anti-cuts march... and cover Trafalgar Sqaure in graffit." It's a pretty pathetic sight all around. Conservatives have alternated between bemusement and outrage, but radicals on the U.S. progressive left are offering throaty endorsements of the mayhem. According Steve Hynd at Newshoggers:

Exactly this kind of protest is what the US needs to [sic] - aimed bi-partisanly at the corporate-serving conservatives and neoliberals who can find endless money for endless warfare, but none for nation building at home.

And No More Mister Nice Blog hesitates to endorse the violence, but ends up doing it any way:

I don't want to see it happen in England or in any other country. But what I do want to see happen -- a real reckoning for the worst abusers in the global financial system, accompanied by "shared sacrifice" that's actually shared, all the way to the top -- apparently will never happen through peaceful means.

Commenting at the post, CUND Gulag, a regular fixture of the demonic progressive fever swamps, offers an endorsement:

Maybe if we had some of this in NYC, Connecticut, Palm Beach, Rodeo Drive, Dallas, Houston, etc., some of the wealthy will realize that all of the security on the planet can't protect them if there are enough of us angry out there. I love Ghandi, and have followed his principles for over 30 years. The same 30 years that have seen our countries steepest decline. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, like beating my head against the wall, I'm willing to try beating someone else's head up against that wall.

And from a commenter at AMERICAblog:

The only way we, the ordinary people, will get a decent chance at a decent life again is by rising up against our oppressors: The powerful, wealthy, neo-feudal authoritarians.

And from Sarah Jones, in a lengthy economic analysis at Politicus USA, "London Protests Echo Wisconsin Anger At Conservative Class Warfare":

I have yet to meet an honest conservative accountant who would not stress revenue as a crucial part of any balanced budget. And so the question really becomes why are conservatives so averse to doing the one thing they know will help the economy? If conservatives were serious about deficit reduction, they would raise revenue by taxing corporations while making careful budgetary cuts. The worldview of the modern day conservative is that everyone should fend for themselves, except for corporations and the uber wealthy, who are entitled to tax breaks and bailouts. This is not an honest ideology; and therefore, the debate is not about conservative financial approaches versus liberal. If we allow ourselves to have a debate over the deficit or over public sector employees “deserving” their pay, we are being manipulated.

And from the comments there:

The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of further enriching the wealthy few at the expense of everyone else is made even clearer by the protests in London. It looks like there are various rebellions going on around the world against that kind of ideology. The uprisings in Middle Eastern countries, while more bloody and violent against dictators who have been in power for decades, are a pushback against tyranny. Although this country and Great Britain are not nearly at that point, we are seeing threats to rights we have enjoyed and taken for granted for a long time. The common enemy is fascism, which is disguised as patriotism here and in Great Britain. As far as I am concerned, the Republican Party in this country has forfeited its credibility with the unabashed power grabbing of both the House of Representatives and these Republican governors. In their pursuit of power at any cost, they seem bent on alienating almost all American constituents. People like Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and others are their foot soldiers in selling the kind of propaganda that induces Americans to vote against their own interests and look at other Americans as the enemy. The potential GOP candidates are a bunch of court jesters who are trying to outdo each other in mouthing the kind of lunacy that will get their base to vote for them, and who will willingly carry out the destructive agenda of the Koch brothers and their ilk. That’s why they are trying to dismantle any institution that stands between them and their efforts to reduce us to serfdom.

The comparison to Wisconsin is telling. So far progressives at home have resorted to thuggery, threats and intimidation, but frustration is building, obviously, and all it takes is one spark to set off a larger conflagration of violent unrest. Dan Riehl sees it coming:

We're not that far away from the freeloaders and Marxists taking to the streets in numbers like this in America.

And John Hinderaker issues a warning:

The first duty of any government is to maintain order. Peaceful demonstrations are fine, but mob rule is incompatible with civilization. Any government that cannot maintain order deserves to fall, and will. Napoleon had his faults--well, to be blunt, he was crazy as a loon--but he had the right prescription for dealing with mobs: a whiff of grapeshot.

RELATED: Telegraph UK has the rogue roster: "TUC march: The militants behind the violence":

A ragtag army of anarchists, squatters, student militants, environmental activists and radical academics planned the spin-off protests that led to violence during Saturday's march against cuts.

Coming to America.

The Controversy Over 'Miral'

I'm hoping to head up to the Landmark tonight, in West Los Angeles, to catch "Miral," the new pro-Palestinian film from director Julian Schnabel. I'm skeptical of the review at the Los Angeles Times, which quotes Schnabel in defense of his movie:

Using the touch-points of 1967's Six Day War and 1987's intifada, when teenage Miral is galvanized into action by the sight of Israeli bulldozers razing Palestinian homes, Schnabel paints a convincing picture of displacement and life under occupation. Without undue emphasis, he and cinematographer Eric Gautier use the parched landscape — they filmed in Jerusalem — and its checkpoints to eloquent effect.

The film works best in its depictions of everyday negotiations, as when Miral's cousin begins dating a Jew (played by the director's daughter, Stella Schnabel).

"Miral" doesn't aim to present every point of view, only that of its characters. There's nothing "anti-Israel," as some have claimed, about its earnest, if simplistic call for compassion and peace. One of the strongest scenes involves a would-be act of terrorism by a Palestinian and unequivocally identifies with the intended victims. And Miral's journey leads her back to her gentle father (Alexander Siddig) and to Mama Hind, voices of patience, moderation and love.

Right.

Moderation and love. I doubt it, but I'll have more after I see the film.

Schnabel's full interview is at Boston Globe, "Schnabel describes 'Miral' using fine brush strokes."

Meanwhile, from Solomonia, "An Open Letter to Harvey Weinstein":

On the same day that a family of five were being murdered in their home in Israel, Harvey Weinstein ran a self-congratulatory promotional piece for his company’s terrorist propaganda flick, Miral. The photos stand out. The fat smirking face of Harvey Weinstein contrasted with the sleeping baby, the smiling little boys and the earnest couple who were their parents. They are all dead, and a Harvey Weinstein lives on to smirk another day. So it is with perpetrators and victims. The innocent children and the fat ugly men who profit from trafficking in the narrative of their killers.

Harvey Weinstein denounces Peter King and urges him to go watch Miral. But perhaps it is Harvey Weinstein who should drive to a small town lost in the Samarian Mountains and retrace the steps of the murderers in the name of the nationalistic mythology that movies like Miral glamorize. To fit himself through the living room window where the two terrorists entered, moving quietly in the dark, not seeing the six year old boy sleeping peacefully on the couch. That six year old boy who survived because like so many other little boys during the Holocaust, the men who were coming to murder him went right past him without seeing him. The six year old boy who was being orphaned around the same time that Harvey Weinstein and his PR people were conferring on a final draft for their Miral puff piece.

More at the link above, and also, "Elder of Ziyon: Miral, the Posters."

More on this later ...

Obama is Awesome!

"I don't care!"

Hey, cool and awesome, like JBW!!

Violent Clashes in Egypt — VIDEO

I'll have more theoretical analysis later.

Meanwhile, The Other McCain updates: "Crisis in Cairo Continues: Egyptians Ignore Obama, Resort to Violence." And at The Lede, "Latest Updates on Day 9 of Egypt Protests."

And don't miss this, at Israel Matzav, "Mark Levin interviews Caroline Glick on Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood." Also, a general blog roundup at Reaganite Republican, "Perusing the Conservative Blogosphere..."

State Lawmakers Pushing Aggressive Campaigns to Limit Abortions

This is what freaks out the utterly demonic pro-choicers, and I couldn't be more pleased.

At NYT, "Conservative Lawmakers in Dozens of States, Energized by Midterm Electoral Gains, Are Working Aggressively to Limit Abortions."

And don't miss Michelle's essay, "The Philadelphia Horror: How Mass Murder Gets a Pass" (via Memeorandum):

The mainstream news reports about Philadelphia’s serial baby-killer Kermit Gosnell and his abortion clinic death squad only scratch the surface of his barbaric enterprise. You must, must, must read the entire, graphic, 281-page grand jury report (embedded after my column below) to fully fathom the systematic execution of hundreds of (not just seven) healthy, living, breathing, squirming, viable babies — along with an untold number of mothers who may have lost their lives in his sick, grimy chamber of horrors as well. It is explicit. It is enraging. It will haunt you.

Ask yourself why you are not hearing about which root causes and whose rhetoric are to blame for this four-decades-long massacre — just the tip of a blood-soaked iceberg defended by the predators of Planned Parenthood. You know the answer: If it doesn’t help the Left criminalize conservatism, it’s not worth discussing.

Also, The Other McCain has a great post and roundup, "Feminism Is to Honest Debate What Kermit Gosnell Is to Humanitarianism."

RELATED: "Kermit Gosnell, Phila. Abortion Doctor, Seems Confused by Murder Charges, Shocked by No Bail."

The Founding Fathers Would Have Hated Liberals Progressives

I reported on this earlier: "The Lies of Bill Maher — And the Epic Struggle Between Good and Evil in the Aftermath of Tucson, 1/8/11."

Now here's John Hawkins, "The Founding Fathers Would Have Hated Liberals":

You gotta love it. I've been harping to John about how he calls these folks "liberals." They're not. The founders were liberals, actually, "classical liberals," to be precise. And what best way to illustrate how un-liberal the progressives are is to take a look at Sadly No!'s recent attack on none other than John Hawkins, "There Will Be No Apologies Here Either":

The irony to which Hawkins is referring is that CNN apologized for the use of the word “crosshairs.” “Ha, wussies,” Hawkins harumphs:

Just for the record, we here at Right Wing News don’t apologize for using the word “crosshairs.” Other words we don’t apologize for include job killing, kneecapping, firepower, shotgun, cut, campaign, brass knuckles, slaughter, eviscerate, obliterate, fire, snipe, carve, kill, reload, targeting, gut, bombed, terminate, axe, attack, and of course, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious murder-go-round. We also don’t apologize for calling CNN an embarrassing bunch of weenies who should man up, try to develop some testicular fortitude, and stop acting like such a bunch of little girls.

And, just for the record, we here at Sadly, No! don’t apologize for using the word whale, leviathan, behemoth, hippo, big fat candyass and, of course, mother-fricking ginormous. We also don’t apologize for calling Hawkins an embarrassing mound of man-boobed lard who should back away from the fried food buffet, lace up some tennis shoes, and take a run around the block, particularly so that he could become aware that almost any “bunch of little girls” could outrun him in heels and without breaking a sweat .

Indeed, irony does seem to be made out of ice cream.

Check the Sadly No! freaks for the full post.

And to repeat, they're not "liberals."

RELATED: "Progressives Are Communists (If You Didn't Know)."

On Hannity's, Sarah Palin Speaks Out Against Left-Wing Hate and Lies

Nice Deb has the commentary, "Video: Hannity Interviews Sarah Palin."

And I'll just add that it's a great interview. Sarah Palin has been exhibiting tremendous leadership and poise over this past week or so. She's an immensely needed voice of moral clarity, and especially so in these difficult times of progressive un-reality.

RELATED:

* "CNN Poll: Majority Says Palin's 'Crosshairs Map' Not to Blame in Arizona Shooting — 49 Percent Say 'Harsh Rhetoric' Not a Factor."

* "Dana Loesch Gets Death Threats in Wake of Arizona Shooting."

* "United States Flag at Half-Mast at Sunset on MLK Day in Laguna Beach."

* "'Heated Rhetoric' Not to Blame in Arizona Shooting, Poll Finds."

ALSO: There's lots of commentary at Memeorandum. I'll link Nate Silver, who's amusing if not fully competent at political analysis.

Sarah Palin is Right About 'Blood Libel' — UPDATE!! Jonah Goldberg Walks Back 'Very Modest Objection' to Palin's Use of 'Blood Libel'

From Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, at WSJ, "Judaism Rejects the Idea of Collective Responsibility for Murder":

Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.

The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel ....

Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Indeed, the belief that the concept of blood libel applies only to Jews is itself a form of reverse discrimination that should be dismissed.

Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).

How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.

To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral.

Great piece.

RTWT at the link.

RELATED: The Knoxville Metro Pulse is libeling Instapundit, "Is Glenn Reynolds Getting Sarah Palin in Trouble?":

... Reynolds is no stranger to overheated rhetoric himself. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, he famously called anti-war skeptics "objectively pro-Saddam." (And of course, if you're looking for rhetoric that did help lead to a whole lot of violence, all of the war-drum beating that people like Reynolds did in late 2002 and early 2003 is a fine example.)

All the war-drum beating that "people like Reynolds did" led to a "whole lot of violence"?

Well, there's some more collective guilt for you. Asshats. "Rhetoric" isn't to blame for the violence last weekend, or in 2003. See, "Tucson and the Failure of the Political Class" (via Glenn).

UPDATE: Here's Goldberg, "‘Blood Libel’ and Beyond" (via Memeorandum):

As for the “blood libel” flap, I’ve decided to ratchet down my already very modest objection to the term. While I still think it would have been better had she not used the phrase, so much of the criticism of it is in bad faith. Her intent was honorable and her point was right. Moreover, she’s hardly the first person to use the term outside the bounds of discussions of anti-Semitism. She wasn’t even talking about “the blood libel” but warning against the creation of “a blood libel,” which is exactly what Krugman, Olberman & Co. were doing. The “controversy” was a red herring and little more.

And this just isn't going away. At Politico, "Some Say 'Blood Libel' Signaled Base":

Sarah Palin’s use of the charged term “blood libel” may not have been an accidental blunder, but a deliberate “‘dog whistle” appeal to her evangelical Christian supporters for whom the expression has meaning, commentators and others are saying.

Taegan Goddard, founder of nonpartisan news site Political Wire, floated the idea after the release of Palin’s video remarks Wednesday, writing that “… while it’s not entirely clear what Palin intended, it’s possible she was trying to use dog whistle politics to speak to her religious base who often feel they’re an oppressed minority.”

Commentators have adopted the phrase “dog whistle” to describe Palin’s use of certain words and ideas that will be immediately heard and understood by conservative Christians, but often will not be picked up on by the broader public.

Evangelicals relate to the phrase “blood libel” because they view themselves as a religiously persecuted minority - much like the Jews.

Well, I love the smell of desperation in the morning ... or the evening, be that as it may. The left's "dog whistle" is simply a dishonest ideological construction to facilitate racist smears when there is no real racism in the first place. In this case, I'm not quite sure what utility Palin would have in dog whistling: She is embattled. Before folks in Tucson even knew what happened the progressive-left erupted with despicable allegations of Palin's complicity to murder. It doesn't get more sick than that, and as Goldberg's walk-back indicates, some in the conservative Jewish community may be realizing that criticisms of Palin only work to embolden those who aren't their friends. It's pretty straightforward actually. Progressives are the new anti-Semites, and the right's pushback against Palin is having an enabling effect on the far-left. I wouldn't be surprised if Charles Krauthammer updated some of his remarks in the near future. He certainly agreed Palin was libeled. He simply suggested that she'd have been better off remaining above the fray.