Why Homosexuality Should Nauseate You

From Lisa Grass:

Homosexuality should nauseate you as much as it would nauseate you to see a mother leave her child to die of exposure, or as it would nauseate you to see an elderly woman beaten. If it does not, you should probably be doing a self-assessment. That’s the first step, for many. The next step is to learn pity for those afflicted, even as they claim we nauseate them, and as they claim we have mental illness for believing our Christian Faith, and as they claim we are filled with hatred of people because we hate sin which scourges Jesus on the Cross.

Yeah, it should nauseate you.

Continue reading.

RELATED: "Anti-Marriage Extremist Walter James Casper III and the Unitarian Push for Polyamorous Sexual Licentiousness."

Fighting Obama's Extremist Agenda is Not 'Obstructionism' — It's Patriotism

Liz Cheney debunks the "obstructionism" meme at the clip.

At at WSJ, "Republicans, Get Over the 2012 Loss—and Start Fighting Back":

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it and then hand it to them with the well-taught lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don't do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free."

—Ronald Reagan, March 30, 1961

President Reagan's words, spoken 52 years ago this weekend, still ring true, with one modification. If we don't defend our freedoms now against the onslaught of President Obama's policies, we won't have to wait until our sunset years for American freedom to be a distant memory.

These days Washington careens from crisis to crisis, most of them manufactured. The Obama White House and its allies are engaged in the kind of sky-is-falling melodrama normally reserved for the lives of teenage girls. (As the mother of teenage girls, I speak with authority on this, though the comparison does a disservice to teenagers.) With our attention diverted by each fiscal cliff or sequestration drama, we are at risk of missing the real threats to the republic.

President Obama is the most radical man ever to occupy the Oval Office. The national debt, which he is intent on increasing, has passed $16 trillion. He believes that more government borrowing and spending are the solution to every problem. He seems unaware that the free-enterprise system has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system devised by man.

Perhaps his ignorance of that fact explains his hostility toward the private sector. In one of his autobiographies, the president writes that he felt "like a spy behind enemy lines" during his brief stint working for private industry.

The president has launched a war on Americans' Second Amendment rights. He has launched a war on religious freedom. He has launched a war on fossil fuels. He is working to nationalize one-sixth of the economy with job-killing ObamaCare. He wants to collect a greater portion of every American paycheck, not for the purpose of paying down the national debt but to expand his governing machine. He doesn't believe in creating a bigger pie with more opportunity for all. He believes in greater redistribution of a much smaller pie. If you're unsure of what this America would look like, Google GOOG -1.06% "Cyprus" or "Greece."

The president has so effectively diminished American strength abroad that there is no longer a question of whether this was his intent. He is working to pre-emptively disarm the United States. He advocates slashing our nuclear arsenal even as the North Koreans threaten us and the Iranians close in on their own nuclear weapon. He has turned his back on America's allies around the world and ignored growing threats.

Continue reading.

Yes, Obama's the most radical president ever, but let's not forget that he's backed and enabled by a Democrat Party that is now more radical than ever, pushing a stealth agenda of statist authoritarianism under the happy face of "tolerance" and "fairness."

Fight these people. They are indeed evil.

Anti-Marriage Extremist Walter James Casper III and the Unitarian Push for Polyamorous Sexual Licentiousness

The disgusting Occupy-endorsing, anti-Semitic hate-bagging progressive Walter James Casper III writes:

Marriage law is not primarily about continuing the species or the optimal raising of children, especially to the detriment of any family situation other than the supposed optimal one for raising children. If it were, we would hear all of the results of these studies that say "mommy and daddy in committed marriage is best," and perhaps outlaw more of what is less than optimal... poverty, single parenthood, divorce, ...

Legal marriage can and often does include children, but it isn't -- and shouldn't be -- defined by children or the possibility of creating them. To my knowledge, it never has been -- except of course, as an argument against marriage equality....

I know? How could anyone be this dishonest? Folks can Google the post, titled "We Just Disagree (Marriage Equality)." I won't link the lies, because that's all this guy has --- lies, deceit and the destruction of decency and moral regeneration of family, faith and country. This is progressive radicalism and licentiousness at its most disgusting.

Hatesac is a pathological liar. Marriage is and has always been at base about the union of man and woman for the biological regeneration of society. To brutally rip the centrality of the marriage union from procreation and family is to adopt nothing less than the cultural Marxist ideological program of destruction of decency in the name of state power. Marx and Engels specifically called for the obliteration of the family in furtherance of the Utopian communist state. Walter James "Hatesac" knows all of this. He simply will not acknowledge the truth of the millennium. He's a disgusting, anti-God prick. A hateful degenerate who's out to destroy the moral fiber of the nation.

As David Blankenhorn has written:

Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.

And Hatesac lies about this alleged dearth of "studies that say 'mommy and daddy in committed marriage is best'." Unbelievable dishonesty. Or, it'd be unbelievable for a normal person, but hate-bagging Repsac3 is not a normal person. If he was, if he was honest, he'd cite the wealth of research arguing that indeed kids do best in the biological mom/dad family unit. I just wrote about this the other day, and given Hatesac's obsession with this blog, he certainly knew the truth but choose to lie anyways. See, "Amicus Brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry Demonstrates Children Fare Better With Biological Parents in Traditional 'Opposite Sex' Marriage." And this bullshit about "banning" other situations like "poverty" and "divorce" is just straw man stupidity. Poverty is worsened by current progressive social policies and divorce --- especially "no fault" --- is a product of radical left-wing social disorganization. But liar Hatesac won't discuss these truths. He's just making shit up as he goes along. A truly bad person. Evil incarnate. Seriously, it's people like this who're dragging this country to the depths of perdition. Horrible.

Of course, longtime readers will recall that Walter James "Hatesac" Casper is a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church --- a religious organization that is outside all mainstream denominations, and has been likened to a faith of cultural nihilists and radical collectivists. Gven Hatesac's perverted views on the institution of marriage, it's clear that his Unitarianism is busting out in all of its disgusting, orgiastic licentiousness. See the Washington Post, "Many Unitarians would prefer that their polyamory activists keep quiet":

The joke about Unitarians is that they’re where you go when you don’t know where to go. Theirs is the religion of last resort for the intermarried, the ambivalent, the folks who want a faith community without too many rules. It is perhaps no surprise that the Unitarian Universalist Association is one of the fastest-growing denominations in the country, ballooning 15 percent over the past decade, when other established churches were shrinking. Politically progressive to its core, it draws from the pool of people who might otherwise be “nones” – unaffiliated with any church at all.

But within the ranks of the UUA over the past few years, there has been some quiet unrest concerning a small but activist group that vociferously supports polyamory. That is to say “the practice of loving and relating intimately to more than one other person at a time,” according to a mission statement by Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA). The UUPA “encourages spiritual wholeness regarding polyamory,” including the right of polyamorous people to have their unions blessed by a minister.

UUA headquarters says it has no official position on polyamory. “Official positions are established at general assembly and never has this issue been brought to general assembly,” a spokeswoman says.

But as the issue of same-sex marriage heads to the Supreme Court, many committed Unitarians think the denomination should have a position, which is that polyamory activists should just sit down and be quiet. For one thing, poly activists are seen as undermining the fight for same-sex marriage. The UUA has officially supported same-sex marriage, the spokeswoman says, “since 1979, with tons of resolutions from the general assembly.”

More:

In 2007, a Unitarian congregation in Chestertown, Md., heard a sermon by a poly activist named Kenneth Haslam, arguing that polyamory is the next frontier in the fight for sexual and marriage freedom. “Poly folks are strong believers that each of us should choose our own path in forming our families, forming relationships, and being authentic in our sexuality.”

Right.

That's exactly what the putrid Hatesac argues at his scummy, morally depraved essay, "We Just Disagree (Marriage Equality)." Again, it's too sick to even link. Folks can Google it if they can stomach Hatesac's "cutting-edge" views about how Americans should "choose their own path" on abandoning the historic conception of marriage as the foundation of healthy children and the survival of decency in society.

But this is radical progressivism we're talking about, which seeks the cultural Marxist overthrow of basic goodness and moral clarity in society. The genuine evil here is literally astonishing.

Conflict in Syria Creates New Wave of British Jihadists

Lovely.

At Independent UK:

The bloody uprising against Bashar al-Assad is creating a new wave of jihadists in Britain, with Syria now the main destination for militant Muslims wishing to fight abroad, The Independent has learnt.

Syria has replaced Pakistan and Somalia as the preferred front line where Islamist volunteers can experience immediate combat with relatively little official scrutiny, security agencies said.

The worrying development has been taking place as extremist groups, some with links to al-Qa’ida, have become the dominant force in the uprising against the Damascus regime.

More than 100 British Muslims are believed to have gone to fight in Syria with the numbers continuing to rise. The situation presents a unique problem for Western security and intelligence services. In Syria, unlike Pakistan and Somalia, they have to keep track of jihadists who are being backed by Britain and its allies.

The Syrian rebels are drawing recruits from a variety of national backgrounds in the UK. Only a handful of those who have returned from the fighting there have been arrested and all for a specific offence: their alleged role in the kidnapping of a British freelance photographer, John Cantlie, in Idlib province last summer. Others who have been taking part in the armed struggle against the Assad regime are not deemed to be doing anything illegal.

Mr Cantlie, along with a Dutch colleague, Jeroen Oerlemans, are believed to have been abducted by a group called al-Dawa al-Islamiyya, which encouraged British and other Western volunteers to join the struggle against the Assad regime. The hostages were rescued by moderate fighters.

Abo Mohamad al-Shami, the leader of al-Dawa al-Islamiyya, was executed five weeks later, supposedly by the Farouq Brigade, a unit of the Free Syrian Army, which had become alarmed at the activities of the extremists.

But since then the Islamists, and in particular one group, Jabhat al-Nusra – which proclaims links with al-Qa’ida and has bee prescribed by the US administration as a terrorist group – have grown in size and influence largely due to supplies of money and arms from backers in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other states in the Gulf.

Continue reading.

U.S. Counterterrorism Struggles in Africa

At WSJ, "On Terror's New Front Line, Mistrust Blunts U.S. Strategy":

KUMBOTSO, Nigeria—The shooting clattered on for 30 minutes, residents of this dusty town say, and when it ended, four militants holding a German engineer hostage were dead.

So were the engineer, and four innocent bystanders.

In vast West Africa, a new front-line region in the battle against al Qaeda, Nigeria is America's strategic linchpin, its military one the U.S. counts on to help contain the spread of Islamic militancy. Yet Nigeria has rebuffed American attempts to train that military, whose history of shooting freely has U.S. officials concerned that soldiers here fuel the very militancy they are supposed to counter.

It is just one example of the limits to what is now American policy for policing troubled parts of the world: to rely as much as possible on local partners.

The U.S. and Nigerian authorities don't fully trust each other, limiting cooperation against the threat. And U.S. officials say they are wary of sharing highly sensitive intelligence with the Nigerian government and security services for fear it can't be safeguarded. Nigerian officials concede militants have informants within the government and security forces.

For the U.S., though, cooperation with Nigeria is unavoidable. The country is America's largest African trading partner and fifth-largest oil supplier. Some 30,000 Americans work here. Nigeria has by far the biggest army in a region where al Qaeda has kidnapped scores of Westerners, trained local militants to rig car bombs and waged war across an expanse of Mali the size of Texas. Last month, al Qaeda-linked extremists' attack on a natural-gas plant in faraway Algeria left at least 37 foreigners dead.

In Nigeria, a homegrown Islamic extremist group loosely called Boko Haram has for years attacked churches and schools. The name translates as "Western education is sin."

Now, the sect's followers are joining a broader holy war, led by al Qaeda and financed by kidnappings. On Feb. 16, militants in Nigeria's Muslim north abducted seven mostly European construction workers.

Three days later, gunmen crossed into neighboring Cameroon to kidnap a family of French tourists outside an elephant park. The family appeared in a YouTube video posted this week, its four children squirming on camera, as a spokesman read a message for France, which last month attacked al Qaeda fighters in its former West African colony of Mali.

"We say to the president of France, we are the jihadists who people refer to as Boko Haram," the turban-shrouded man said. "We are fighting the war that he has declared on Islam."

French officials said they were analyzing the video and considering the difficulties in either entrusting Nigerian soldiers to rescue their citizens or staging a rescue raid in a foreign land.

Such kidnappings, like the attack in Algeria, show how extremist groups are leapfrogging borders.

Continue reading.

Glenn Greenwald on Obama's License to Kill Americans

I frankly disagree with much of the analysis here, although Greenwald's moral outrage is always a riot, "Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizens." This part is very good, regardless:

When the New York Times back in April, 2010 first confirmed the existence of Obama's hit list, it made clear just what an extremist power this is, noting: "It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing." The NYT quoted a Bush intelligence official as saying "he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president". When the existence of Obama's hit list was first reported several months earlier by the Washington Post's Dana Priest, she wrote that the "list includes three Americans".

What has made these actions all the more radical is the absolute secrecy with which Obama has draped all of this. Not only is the entire process carried out solely within the Executive branch - with no checks or oversight of any kind - but there is zero transparency and zero accountability. The president's underlings compile their proposed lists of who should be executed, and the president - at a charming weekly event dubbed by White House aides as "Terror Tuesday" - then chooses from "baseball cards" and decrees in total secrecy who should die. The power of accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner are all consolidated in this one man, and those powers are exercised in the dark.

I didn't have time, but I would've loved to post all the progressive hypocrisy on the administration's murderous, unprecedented executive tyranny. As I always say, leftist don't care about liberty. They care about power. We should have long ago seen protests up and down Pennsylvania Avenue, calling for Obama war crimes trials at the Hague. But that only happens when a Republican's in the White House. The moral bankruptcy is just stunning.

Obama's Inaugural Address Wasn't 'Grounded in Language of Founding Fathers,' He Raped Thomas Jefferson for Radical Collectivist Agenda

The idiot Greg Sargent spins the president's disastrous inaugural speech, "An expansive case for progressive governance, grounded in language of Founding Fathers" (via Memeorandum).

No, Obama didn't "ground" his speech in the Founding Fathers. He threw the Founding Fathers to the ground, butt-reamed them, especially Thomas Jefferson, to gratify his monstrous collectivist urges, to push his extremist collectivist agenda that bears absolutely no resemblance to the limited government vision enshrined in both the Declaration and the Constitution.

Here's this from Sargent's piece:

Today, Obama quoted extensively from the Declaration, and declared that it is our challenge to “bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time.” He then went on to make the case for robust government activism in the economy — precisely in order to preserve individual freedom, i.e., the ability to pursue happiness. He linked this to the need for more government investment in infrastructure and education. For rules designed to ensure fair market competition. For maintaining the social safety net (in the form of Social Security and Medicare, achieved by two great Democratic presidents). For the need for a greater push for equal pay for women and full equality for gay Americans (which Obama linked to the struggle for civil rights for African Americans by invoking Martin Luther King).

Obama tempered his communitarian language by claiming it is not incompatible with “skepticism of central authority,” but the clear statement of his governing philosophy, which he insisted is rooted in our founding principles, was unequivocal: “Preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.”

We'll be seeing a lot of commentary on this speech over the next couple of days, but it bears noting that Jefferson's theory of "all men are created equal" is rooted in God-given rights. Obama made only the barest, most perfunctory reference to our Creator. He simply doesn't ground the source of human dignity in a higher power but in the all-enveloping arms of the state. And in making his case, he smacks the Founders to the pavement and abuses their theories in the name of state power. It's perverse and obscene. I don't know this country anymore.

'The intolerant Left claims another scalp...'

Following up on my post yesterday, "The Homosexual Star Chamber Exacts Its Latest Penalty."

Here's Twitchy on Kirsten Powers' comments on the left's merciless attack on Louie Giglio, "Kirsten Powers slams ‘intolerant Left’ for forcing pastor out of inauguration."

For the record, I don't agree with a lot of what Giglio said, but his sermon was basic orthodox Christianity. Who is banned next? The pope?
— kirsten powers (@kirstenpowers10) January 11, 2013

Well, yeah. The left's goal is to eradicate any recognition of religion, and the role of moral values, in public life. It's absolutely totalitarian, the kind of censorship and suppression you'd find in totalitarian societies. Like I said yesterday, they'd execute Giglio if they could. It's frightening the degree of power these extremist minorities have under this regime, but that's why conservatives have to stand a post. We're down to the very survival of liberty in this country.

The Homosexual Star Chamber Exacts Its Latest Penalty

I'm sure if they could they'd have had this guy executed for heresy.

At the New York Times, "Louie Giglio, Inaugural Pastor, Criticized for Antigay Sermon":

WASHINGTON — The pastor whom President Obama has chosen to deliver the benediction at his inauguration this month delivered a sermon in the 1990s in which he called on fellow Christians to fight the “aggressive agenda” of the gay rights movement and advocated “the healing power of Jesus” as “the only way out of a homosexual lifestyle.”

Think Progress, a liberal blog affiliated with the Center for American Progress Action Fund, reported Wednesday afternoon on the sermon delivered by the Rev. Louie Giglio, an Atlanta minister and founder of the Passion Conferences, a group dedicated to uniting college students in worship and prayer.

The speech, “In Search of a Standard — Christian Response to Homosexuality,” can be heard on Discipleship Library, a Christian training Web site.

In it, Mr. Giglio cites Scripture in saying that homosexuality “is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin in the word of God.” He warned against gay rights. “That movement is not a benevolent movement,” he said. “It is a movement to seize by any means necessary the feeling and the mood of the day, to the point where the homosexual lifestyle becomes accepted as a norm in our society.”

Inaugural officials did not respond to a request for comment, and a spokeswoman for Mr. Giglio was not available.

Wayne Besen, founder of Truth Wins Out, which fights antigay sentiment, said: “It is imperative that Giglio clarify his remarks and explain whether he has evolved on gay rights, like so many other faith and political leaders. It would be a shame to select a preacher with backward views on L.G.B.T. people at a moment when the nation is rapidly moving forward on our issues.”

"Backward views." Get that? If you're not down with the extremist, morally bankrupt progressive homosexual agenda, you're "backward."

I dare say this country is going backward straight to hell. And not a single conservative is blogging this story at Memeorandum. You'd think that folks on the right had seen a ghost, and it's the phantom of their own social-conservative past.

My god this country is doomed.

New Fears on Syria's Chemical Weapons

At Independent UK, "Britain and US fear Syrian chemical weapons could fall into the hands of extreme Islamist groups":

The prospect of Syria’s chemical arsenal falling into the hands of extremist Islamists among the rebels fighting the country’s bloody civil war is a matter of mounting concern for the West.

General Sir David Richards, the head of the British military, has raised his worries in Whitehall in recent weeks and there has been a series of meetings over the issue between European and American officials and governments in the region.

The possibility that President Bashar al-Assad may unleash such weapons was one of the key reasons given for the deployment this week of Nato Patriot missiles to the Turkish border.

At the end of last year Barack Obama warned that the use of chemical weapons would mean the Assad regime had crossed a ‘red line’ and must bear the consequences. The regime appeared to have stopped on its tracks in preparing such attacks and defence secretary Leon Panetta stated subsequently that the threat has been reduced.

Although the US and UK governments still hold that a beleaguered regime on its last legs may use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) there is also the clear danger of jihadist fighter getting possession of stockpiles. The Obama administration has prescribed the Al-Nusra Brigade, one of the strongest of the rebel groups and one which declares itself affiliated to al-Qa’ida, as a terrorist organisation.

An SAS team is believed to have attended as observers an exercise carried out by US and Jordanian special forces in preparation for any operation which may have to be undertaken to secure the stockpiles. Defence sources in London stated there are no plans at present to deploy British personnel for such a mission. ( please keep in this paragraph).

There is bound to be public scepticism about claims of the Syrian regime and WMDs after the exposure of similar false reports about Saddam Hussein’s arsenal used by the Bush and Blair administrations to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Western officials insist, however, that there is ample evidence that the Damascus regime has the means to carry out chemical warfare and also evidence, of a more limited nature , that it has a biological warfare programme. One cause of apprehension is that the regime’s command and control for WMDs have been severely damaged by casualties and defections.

More at that top link.

And see "'Chemical weapons were used on Homs': Syria's military police defector tells of nerve gas attack."

Des Moines Register Columnist Wants Mitch McConnell and John Boehner Lynched

I clearly remember, back in the late-1990s, how the murder-by-dragging (lynching) death of James Byrd, in Beaumont, Texas, became a left-wing rallying cry against the purported "Jim Crow" racism the so-called "radical right." So I'll be waiting with bated breath for the progressive fever swamps to rise up in outrage at gun control extremist Donald Kaul's exhortaton that the Republican House Speaker and Senate Minority Leader to be dragged to their deaths. See, "Nation needs a new agenda on guns." After a long rant in which he confesses his "anger" at the Newtown massacre, here's Kaul's conclusion (via Memeorandum):

Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures. None of that is going to happen, of course. But I’ll bet gun sales will rise.

Interesting how Kaul calls for truly "radical" measures after that, which no doubt would be to simply kill all Republicans, kind of like how the Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews in the 1930's and 1940's.

Nice Deb's not kidding when she warns that fascism's coming to America.

It turns out as well that we've got Georgetown University Law Professor Louis Michael Seidman announcing that we should simply ignore the Constitution. It's just getting in the way of the left's totalitarian agenda, "Let's Give Up on the Constitution." Really. William Jacobson responds, "Extra-constitutional power is what they’ve always wanted":

I find myself agreeing more frequently than ever before with Glenn Greenwald, at least on the issue of the willingness and desire of “progressives” to go where even the demonized George W. Bush was not willing to go, and the willingness with which the progressive intelligentsia embraces such ideas in the service of Obama. Or maybe he’s agreeing with me.

Well, yeah. I've been finding myself agreeing with Greenwald too, since he's about the only one on the left who's willing to apply the Constitution to the current regime in power.

Remember my post from this morning, "Keep Fighting in 2013"? Well, folks need to keep fighting not only to preserve their liberty, but the lives. And I write this in all seriousness. We're getting multiple doses of the left's eliminationist rhetoric on a daily basis nowadays. Seriously. It's time to stand a post.

PHOTO CREDIT: "Jasper County Assistant District Attorney Pat Hardy displays the chain allegedly used to drag James Byrd Jr. to his death during a break in the trial of Lawrence Russell Brewer Thursday, Sept. 16, 1999, at the Brazos County Courthouse in Bryan, Texas," via the Beaumont Enterprise.

Laws Are for Little People

From Mark Steyn, at National Review (at Memeorandum):

A week ago on NBC’s Meet the Press, David Gregory brandished on screen a high-capacity magazine. To most media experts, a “high-capacity magazine” means an ad-stuffed double issue of Vanity Fair with the triple-page perfume-scented pullouts. But apparently in America’s gun-nut gun culture of gun-crazed gun kooks, it’s something else entirely, and it was this latter kind that Mr. Gregory produced in order to taunt Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. As the poster child for America’s gun-crazed gun-kook gun culture, Mr. LaPierre would probably have been more scared by the host waving around a headily perfumed Vanity Fair. But that was merely NBC’s first miscalculation. It seems a high-capacity magazine is illegal in the District of Columbia, and the flagrant breach of D.C. gun laws is now under investigation by the police.

It's classic Steyn. More at the link.

And commenting is AoSHQ:

Does Howard Kurtz embrace that understanding of gun laws? Does Glenn Thrush? Do the various other know-nothings in the media -- who know both nothing about law and nothing about guns, but opine with great force and velocity on gun laws -- embrace this conception of gun laws, that gun laws should never target simple possession but only possession during the commission of a crime or possession with intent to commit a crime?

If not -- if they are less the right-wing gun nut than Ted Nugent (and even the Nuge might find this position too "extremist" for his taste -- then they are duty-bound to demand David Gregory's prosecution, as they would demand that any other Citizen Not On Television would be prosecuted.

They are endeavoring to explicitly create a High Caste with greater privileges than the lower castes, and immunities to the laws the lower castes suffer under, and that is a blood anathema to any real American -- and will be treated as such.

Also at Althouse, Ed Driscoll, Jawa Report, and Twitchy.

New SIOA Ads Going Up December 17th

Pamela reports on the latest dhimmi backlash, "NY OBSERVER: QURAN ADS DEBUT IN NY 'PAMELA GELLER IS AT IT AGAIN'." The ads will run with a disclaimer, as noted at the Observer (via Memeorandum):

The MTA’s new disclaimer policy came in September of this year following an incident in which protestor Mona Eltahawy, 45, was filmed spray-painting another AFDI advertisement, which equated Muslims with savages.

The ad stated: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” It added, “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,” in between two Stars of David.

Ms. Eltahawy was arrested, and every single advertisement in the series was defaced by the end of the day—a fact that did not go unnoticed. The MTA addressed the issue of salacious advertising at its monthly board meeting. The MTA had previously tried to amend its advertising guidelines so it could refuse “demeaning” ads, a rule that would prohibit “images or information that demean an individual or group of individuals on account of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation,” but that modification was deemed unconstitutional. With its hands tied, it opted to include a disclaimer on ads that expressed a particular viewpoint on “political, religious or moral issues or related matters.”

“A cost of opening our ad space to a variety of viewpoints on matters of public concern is that we cannot readily close that space to certain advertisements on account of their expression of divisive or even venomous messages,” the MTA’s statement at the time read. “The answer to distasteful and uncivil speech is more, and more civilized, speech.”

Following the September incident, Ms. Geller has been busy crafting new advertisements for her campaign beginning December 17. The new ads will be plastered across at least 50 different locations, the MTA confirmed, the result of an ad buy worth more than $10,000.

“I refuse to abridge my free speech so as to appease savages,” Ms. Geller told The Observer. “Thousands of anti-Israel ads have run across the city and not one has been defaced. My ads, 10 went up in New York City, and they were destroyed in hours. You don’t agree with me, fine, run an ad. I have no problem with other people’s ideas.”

She is prepared, however, for the people who disagree with her to take out their frustration on her ads. This time around, she printed twice as many.

That's quite the comment section Pamela's got going over there. I just find it too perfect that we've got all this controversy over a simple message like Pamela's, but when anti-Israel ads run, there's never a problem. One more anecdotal piece of evidence on the left's free speech jihad. Indeed, "The Animal" attacks Pamela as an "extremist," then exhorts its readers, "you know what to do." That is progressivism for you, perfectly.

Supreme Court to Rule on Gay Marriage

The Wall Street Journal reports, "Supreme Court to Hear Gay-Marriage Cases." (Via Memeorandum.)

Folks can read it all at the links, although I'm not so sure about this part from the article:

Opponents of gay marriage said the Supreme Court's decision would be a chance to put the brakes on lower courts.

"It's the ideological blinders of judges at this point. There is immense cultural pressure to favor same-sex marriage," said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, speaking before Friday's announcement.

The organization's chairman, John Eastman, said Friday after the announcement that the high court's decision to accept the California case was "a strong signal that the court will reverse the lower courts." He said "voters hold the ultimate power over basic policy judgments and their decisions are entitled to respect."

Nah.

The Court has plenty of precedent for striking down Proposition 8. In Romer v. Evans (1996) the Court stuck down Colorado's Amendment 2, passed in 1992, which would have basically excluded homosexuals from special designations as discriminated groups in state and local equal protection laws. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who's still on the Court, wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens, both now retired, as well Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both still on the bench.

We can expect going forward that Kennedy will favor extending equal rights protections for homosexual marriage --- he also wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which struck down Texas' anti-sodomy law --- and he will certainly be joined in a new majority that includes Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, along with Breyer and Ginsburg from the earlier cases.

Homosexual rights groups have enjoyed a string of recent victories and so perhaps history is indeed on their side. I don't think the will of the voters of California should be swept away by a radical cultural extremist majority on the Court, but I expect it to happen, frankly. Anthony Kennedy's basically a progressive on a number of these issues (don't get me going about capital punishment), so folks shouldn't be surprised if the once Golden State's voters get thrown under the bus.

More on this later...

We've Got al Qaeda on the Run Alright ... In Africa, Stronger Than Ever!

Oh yes, al Qaeda has been decimated, war is peace, ignorance is strength and freedom is slavery!

All hail Dear Leader Barack Hussein!

At the Wall Street Journal, "Terror Fight Shifts to Africa: U.S. Considers Seeking Congressional Backing for Operations Against Extremists":

WASHINGTON—Military counterterrorism officials are seeking more capability to pursue extremist groups in Africa and elsewhere that they believe threaten the U.S., and the Obama administration is considering asking Congress to approve expanded authority to do it.

The move, according to administration and congressional officials, would be aimed at allowing U.S. military operations in Mali, Nigeria, Libya and possibly other countries where militants have loose or nonexistent ties to al Qaeda's Pakistan headquarters. Depending on the request, congressional authorization could cover the use of armed drones and special operations teams across a region larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, the officials said.

The idea comes as the U.S. prepares by 2014 to draw down its remaining forces in Afghanistan, which were authorized by Congress in response to the country serving as base for the al Qaeda plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. That authorization has since been applied to pursuing al Qaeda-linked groups as far as Somalia and Yemen, but the threat posed by militants has widened to include other areas and other alliances.

The discussion about seeking new authority underscores the growing U.S. alarm over Islamic extremists in North Africa, where an al Qaeda offshoot has seized control of territory following a coup in Mali to provide the group and its offshoots a working base for operations. The U.S. administration has called the Mali situation a "powder keg" that could destabilize surrounding countries and imperil Western interests.

"The conditions today are vastly different than they were previously," Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa command, said in an interview. "There are now non-al Qaeda-associated groups that present significant threats to the United States." He called the debate over new authorization a "worthy discussion."hreats to the United States." He called the debate over new authorization a "worthy discussion."

Really?

But I thought al Qaeda was "on the run"? "Decimated"? Dear Leader promised us: "Obama Has Touted Al Qaeda’s Demise 32 Times since Benghazi Attack."

Well, it's okay if President Hussein lies on occasion. The great left-forces needed Obama's reelection to complete our fundamental transformation of America. It's all about trade offs, and I trust Brother Barack to do his progressive best to keep pushing for the withering away of the state and the full achievement of communism. Honesty and integrity are bourgeois notions, hopelessly inadequate for the challenges of today's day and age. Besides, the reactionary forces of conservatism and tradition are too stupid to even handle the truth. And, added bonus, if terrorism's really still a problem Dear Leader can claim continued exigencies for his unprecedented expansion of the kill list citizens' elimination program.

It's all working out as planned!

More from Walter Russell Mead, "The War on Terror We Aren’t Fighting Shifts to Africa."

Who Changed the Benghazi Talking Points?

From Sharyl Attkisson at CBS News (via Memeorandum):

Who within the Obama administration deleted mention of "terrorism" and "al-Qaeda" from the CIA's talking points on the deadly Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi?

It isn't the only unanswered question in the wake of the tragedy, but it's proven to be one of the most confounding.

The question was first raised 12 days ago when former CIA Director General David Petraeus told members of Congress that his original talking points cleared for public dissemination included the likely involvement by terrorists and an al-Qaeda affiliate. Petraeus said somebody removed the references before they were used to inform the public.

The Obama administration has declined to directly answer who made the edits. And the nation's top intelligence officials appear either confused or not forthcoming about the journey their own intelligence took.

On Fri. Nov. 16, Petraeus told members of Congress that it wasn't the CIA that changed the talking points.

The White House and the State Department said it wasn't them.

The CIA then told CBS News that the edits were made at a "senior level in the interagency process." Intelligence officials said the references were dropped so as not to tip off al Qaeda as to what the U.S. knew, and to protect sources and methods.

Soon thereafter, another reason was given. A source from the Office of the Director for National Intelligence (ODNI) told CBS News' Margaret Brennan that ODNI made the edits as part of the interagency process because the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public.

On Tuesday, Acting CIA Director Mike Morell provided yet another account. In a meeting with Republican Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., Morell stated that he believed it was the FBI that removed the references. He said the FBI did so "to prevent compromising an ongoing criminal investigation."

"We were surprised by this revelation and the reasoning behind it," wrote the senators in a joint statement Tuesday.

But it was just a matter of hours before there was yet another revision. A CIA official contacted Graham and stated that Morell "misspoke" in the earlier meeting and that it was, in fact, the CIA, not the FBI, that deleted the al Qaeda references. "They were unable to give a reason as to why," stated Graham.

A U.S. intelligence official on Tuesday told CBS News there was "absolutely no intent to misinform." The official says the talking points "were never meant to be definitive and, in fact, noted that the assessment may change. The points clearly reflect the early indications of extremist involvement in a direct result. It wasn't until after they were used in public that analysts reconciled contradictory information about how the assault began."

If Obama and his minions would have just told the truth from the start there'd be no need for all these unending "revisions." But that's what we've come to expect from "the most transparent administration in history."

Image Problem: Cathy McMorris Rodgers Says GOP Needs to Become 'More Modern'

This is interesting.

McMorris Rodgers is making the case for better salesmanship, or "saleswomanship," as the case may be.

At The Hill, "McMorris Rodgers: GOP needs to be more ‘modern’ not ‘moderate’":

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) on Sunday said the GOP didn’t need to adopt “more moderate” positions, but rather needed to become “more modern” by being better inclusive of women and minorities.

“I don't think it's about the Republican Party needing to become more moderate. I really believe it's the Republican Party becoming more modern,” said McMorris Rodgers, during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

More at the link.

Former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, seen at the longer clip at the link, is having none of it. He blusters about how moderate vs. modern is "a distinction without a difference."

Right.

My sense is that McMorris Rodgers is hesitant to sell out conservative values --- she's been a leader on fiscal conservatism in Congress --- and wants to make the case for the better articulation of conservative principles. I don't know if the "modern" argument is the winner, but ether way, adopting "moderate" positions will only strengthen progressivism. This is the left's meme since the election, that the GOP is extremist, although it's just more of the same "Operation Demoralize," only of the post-campaign variety.

Leftists Tout Politically-Driven Intelligence Revisions on Obama's Benghazi Massacre Clusterf-k

It's the Republicans playing politics with Benghazi?

That's all we've been hearing for weeks. President Obama even went so far as to feign outrage that Mitt Romney would even question his administration's account of events. So isn't it something now that WaPo's touting some cooked intelligence reports suggesting that the CIA has found no pre-planning for the assault on the consulate. Glenn Reynolds responds with the headline, "CONVENIENT NEW REVELATIONS: CIA documents supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks."

Yeah, that's convenient alright. Also at Instapundit:

UPDATE: Reader Ed Holston emails: “Sure looks like the CIA documents that supported Susan Rice’s description of Benghazi attacks were revised from and at odds with the CIA’s own sources who were reporting from on the ground in Libya to Langley.” He sends this: CIA report at time of Benghazi attack placed blame on militants, sources say: CIA station chief in Libya reported within 24 hours that there was evidence US consulate attack was not carried  "CIA report at time of Benghazi attack placed blame on militants, sources say":

Right.

That link at the quote takes us to the left-wing Guardian UK:

CIA station chief in Libya reported within 24 hours that there was evidence US consulate attack was not carried out by a mob.

The CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington within 24 hours of last month's deadly attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi that there was evidence it had been carried out by militants, not a spontaneous mob upset about an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad, US officials have said.

It is unclear who, if anyone, saw the cable outside the CIA at that point and how high up in the agency the information went. The Obama administration maintained publicly for a week that the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi that killed US ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was carried out by a mob similar to those that staged less-deadly protests across the Muslim world around the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks on the US.

Those statements have become highly charged political fodder as the presidential election approaches. A Republican-led House committee questioned state department officials for hours about what Republican lawmakers said was lax security at the consulate, given the growth of extremist Islamic militancy in North Africa.

That's an AP report that also appeared at yesterday's USA Today, "Day after Libya attack, CIA found militant links."

So it's not like this news wasn't all over the progressive fever swamps and official Washington. But checking the Memeorandum thread reveals the usual suspects of leftist liars and rogues. Check the link, but you've got socialists like Digby at Hullabaloo and the fanatical homosexual Obama-worshiper Andrew Sullivan touting this as "proof" that Susan Rice wasn't in fact lying to the American people. Well, it's too late now for the morally bankrupt left. Romney's going to crush the president on foreign policy on Monday night, and he'll be especially smart to call out the administration's disgusting deceit and duplicity.

As I said, it's not Republicans playing politics with Benghazi. It's the disgusting progressives who're now freaking out that the American public has caught on to this administration's years-long campaign of lies. Things are very ugly in American politics right now. An ambassador was killed in Libya along with three other Americans and our commander-in-chief dismisses their deaths as sub-optimal.

The reckoning's coming and it's going to be a harsh one. If Gallup is reliable, and I think it is, then Mitt Romney's the election frontrunner at this point. We've got a presidential incumbent underdog looking defeat in the face and the morally bankrupt Democrats will do anything to prop up this impostor's decadence in power.

Unfortunately for Obama, There's Still One More Debate — And Romney Will Be Ready

From Charles Krauthammer, at the Washington Post, "The great gaffe":

“And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the secretary of state, our U.N. ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive.”

— Barack Obama,
second debate, Oct. 16....

The rub for Obama comes, ironically enough, out of Romney’s biggest flub in the debate, the Libya question. That flub kept Romney from winning the evening outright. But Obama’s answer has left him a hostage to fortune. Missed by Romney, missed by the audience, missed by most of the commentariat, it was the biggest gaffe of the entire debate cycle: Substituting unctuousness for argument, Obama declared himself offended by the suggestion that anyone in his administration, including the U.N. ambassador, would “mislead” the country on Libya.

This bluster — unchallenged by Romney — helped Obama slither out of the Libya question unscathed. Unfortunately for Obama, there is one more debate — next week, entirely on foreign policy. The burning issue will be Libya and the scandalous parade of fictions told by this administration to explain away the debacle.

No one misled? His U.N. ambassador went on not one but five morning shows to spin a confection that the sacking of the consulate and the murder of four Americans came from a video-motivated demonstration turned ugly: “People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.”

But there was no gathering. There were no people. There was no fray. It was totally quiet outside the facility until terrorists stormed the compound and killed our ambassador and three others.

The video? A complete irrelevance. It was a coordinated, sophisticated terror attack, encouraged, if anything, by Osama bin Laden’s successor, giving orders from Pakistan to avenge the death of a Libyan jihadist.

Not wishing to admit that we had just been attacked by al-Qaeda affiliates, perhaps answering to the successor of a man on whose grave Obama and the Democrats have been dancing for months, the administration relentlessly advanced the mob/video tale to distract from the truth.

And it wasn’t just his minions who misled the nation. A week after the attack, the president himself, asked by David Letterman about the ambassador’s murder, said it started with a video. False again.

Romney will be ready Monday.

He will be.

See also, "'Not Optimal'."

Image Credit: Via Instapundit.

Malala Yousufzai Airlifted to Britain

It's a good thing. She was as good as dead if she stayed in Pakistan.

At the New York Times, "Schoolgirl Wounded by Taliban Is Airlifted to Britain":

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – The Pakistani schoolgirl who was shot by the Taliban last week for advocating girls’ education has been flown to Britain for emergency specialist care, the Pakistani military said on Monday.

Malala Yousafzai, 14, left an air base in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, where she was being treated for head wounds in a military hospital, on an air ambulance sent from the United Arab Emirates.

In a statement, the military said she would receive immediate treatment for her skull, which was fractured after a bullet passed through her head, as well as “long-term rehabilitation including intensive neuro rehabilitation.”

Malala will be treated at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham in central England, a center which has specialized in the treatment of troops wounded in Afghanistan, Prime Minister David Cameron’s office said in a statement quoted by The Associated Press.

Pakistan said it would pay for her treatment.

A Pakistani military intensive care specialist accompanied her on the flight, which by midmorning Monday had stopped in the United Arab Emirates for refueling en route to Britain.

The mercy flight produced a sigh of relief of sorts among Pakistanis who have kept an anxious national vigil for Ms. Yousafzai since she was shot by a militant gunman last Tuesday as she returned from school in Mingora, the main town in the Swat Valley, in northwestern Pakistan.

The daughter of a schoolmaster, Ms. Yousafzai had become known for her eloquent and impassioned advocacy of education and children’s rights in the face of Taliban threats, which made her a potent symbol of resistance to the militants’ extremist ideology.

Actually, families better keep their kids close. I expect this is the beginning of a new reign of terror. See Der Spiegel, "Schoolgirl Shooting: Pakistanis Fear Resurgent Taliban in Swat Valley."