Obama Was Plotting Benghazi Cover Story Before Last Two Americans Were Dead

Via Noisy Room:

Obligatory Blog Post on Michele Bachmann's 8-Minutes-Plus Congressional Retirement Video

Look, I love Michele Bachmann. She was my candidate for the Republican nomination in 2012. But this retirement clip is a bit much. She could have had as much to say in a couple of minutes. And frankly, the long spin on her congressional accomplishments highlights something of the lack thereof. Her most important impact has been as a media star, and she might have done better in the primaries had she avoided her Human Papilloma Virus gaffe of September 2011. I will say though, I think she's wise not to leave public life altogether. She's a powerful voice of dissent and we need as many of those as we can get.

Ed Morrissey has more, "Video: Michele Bachmann retires."

BONUS: Get a kick out of WaPo's report, which is basically a DLTDHYOTWO screed against the Minnesota Republican, "Rep. Bachmann will not run for reelection in 2014."

Africa's Economic Boom

An excellent piece, from Shantayanan Devarajan and Wolfgang Fengler, at Foreign Affairs, "Why the Pessimists and the Optimists Are Both Right":

Talk to experts, academics, or businesspeople about the economies of sub-Saharan Africa and you are likely to hear one of two narratives. The first is optimistic: Africa’s moment is just around the corner, or has already arrived. Reasons for hope abound. Despite the global economic crisis, the region’s GDP has grown rapidly, averaging almost five percent a year since 2000, and is expected to rise even faster in the years ahead. Many countries, not just the resource-rich ones, have participated in the boom: indeed, 20 states in sub-Saharan Africa that do not produce oil managed average GDP growth rates of four percent or higher between 1998 and 2008. Meanwhile, the region has begun attracting serious amounts of private capital; at $50 billion a year, such flows now exceed foreign aid.

At the same time, poverty is declining. Since 1996, the average poverty rate in sub-Saharan African countries has fallen by about one percentage point a year, and between 2005 and 2008, the portion of Africans in the region living on less than $1.25 a day fell for the first time, from 52 percent to 48 percent. If the region’s stable countries continue growing at the average rates they have enjoyed for the last decade, most of them will reach a per capita gross national income of $1,000 by 2025, which the World Bank classifies as “middle income.” The region has also made great strides in education and health care. Between 2000 and 2008, secondary school enrollment increased by nearly 50 percent, and over the past decade, life expectancy has increased by about ten percent.

The second narrative is more pessimistic. It casts doubt on the durability of Africa’s growth and notes the depressing persistence of its economic troubles. Like the first view, this one is also justified by compelling evidence. For one thing, Africa’s recent growth has largely followed rising commodity prices, and commodities make up the overwhelming share of its exports -- never a stable prospect. Indeed, the pessimists argue that Africa is simply riding a commodities wave that is bound to crest and fall and that the region has not yet made the kind of fundamental economic changes that would protect it when the downturn arrives. The manufacturing sector in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, currently accounts for the same small share of overall GDP that it did in the 1970s. What’s more, despite the overall decline in poverty, some rapidly growing countries, such as Burkina Faso, Mozambique, and Tanzania, have barely managed to reduce their poverty rates. And although most of Africa’s civil wars have ended, political instability remains widespread: in the past year alone, Guinea-Bissau and Mali suffered coups d’état, renewed violence rocked the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, and fighting flared on the border between South Sudan and Sudan. At present, about a third of sub-Saharan African countries are in the throes of violent conflict.

More mundane problems also take a heavy toll. Much of Africa suffers from rampant corruption, and most of its infrastructure is in poor condition. Many governments struggle to provide basic services: teachers in Tanzania’s public primary schools are absent 23 percent of the time, and government-employed doctors in Senegal spend an average of only 39 minutes a day seeing patients. Such deficiencies will become only more pronounced as Africa’s population booms.

And then there’s the fact that African countries, especially those that are rich in resources, often fall prey to what the economist Daron Acemoglu and the political scientist James Robinson have termed “extractive institutions”: policies and practices that are designed to capture the wealth and resources of a society for the benefit of a small but politically powerful elite. One result is staggering inequality, the effects of which are often masked by positive growth statistics.

What should one make of all the contradictory evidence? At first glance, these two narratives seem irreconcilable. It turns out, however, that both are right, or at least reflect aspects of a more complex reality, which neither fully captures. The skeptics focus so much on the region’s commodity exports that they fail to grasp the extent to which its recent growth is a result of economic reforms (many of which were necessitated by the misguided policies of the past). The optimists, meanwhile, underestimate the degree to which the region’s remaining problems -- such as sclerotic institutions, low levels of education, and substandard health care -- reflect government failures that will be very difficult to overcome because they are deeply rooted in political conflict.

However, even if both narratives are reductive, the optimists’ view of Africa’s future is ultimately closer to the mark and more likely to be borne out by developments in the coming decades. Africa will continue to face daunting obstacles on its ongoing path to prosperity, especially when it comes to improving its human capital: the education, skills, and health of its population. But the success of recent reforms and the increased openness of its societies, fueled in part by new information and communications technologies, give Africa a good chance of enjoying sustained growth and poverty reduction in the decades to come.

Continue reading.

The authors argue that the continent is leapfrogging some stages of technological progress, going right to the cellular era --- "the so-called mobile revolution" --- bypassing a long, plodding period of telecommunications development.

Postal Service On its Last Legs

I was just talking about this yesterday during my lectures on the federal bureaucracy, at the Los Angeles Times, "Postal Service is on its last legs, with little help in sight":

WASHINGTON — With a wide grin and a quick step, letter carrier Kenny Clark brings more than the day's mail to the people on his route in suburban Maryland.

Clark, 49, greets nearly everyone he sees by name. He puts packages under eaves on overcast days to keep them dry, reminds people to retrieve keys they might have left in keyholes, and shouts a quick "You OK?" at the doors of seniors.

"He's a neighborhood icon — him and his truck," said Amy Dick, who lives on Clark's route.

But his future, and that of the U.S. Postal Service, is in doubt. The Postal Service lost $1.9 billion between January and March, and $15.9 billion last year. The 238-year-old institution loses $25 million each day, and has reached its borrowing limit with the federal Treasury. Daily mail delivery could be threatened within a year, officials say.

Americans increasingly go online to write letters, pay bills and read magazines, and mail volume has fallen by a quarter since 2006, according to the Government Accountability Office. The decline is expected to continue.

Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe has reduced staff, consolidated mail facilities and lowered express delivery standards in an effort to cut spending. But the savings have not been enough to match the drop in revenue.

"We are in real trouble, and we need comprehensive postal reform yesterday," Mickey Barnett, chairman of the Postal Service Board of Governors, told a congressional committee last month.

The Postal Service is a government corporation, which means it is organized like a business yet subject to congressional oversight. Consequently, reform is difficult, said Mike Schuyler, a fellow at the Washington-based Tax Foundation who has studied postal issues for nearly two decades.

"The Postal Service has far too little flexibility when it needs to adjust, and it's really in handcuffs because of all the requirements Congress puts on it," Schuyler said.

Postal officials recently tried to end Saturday letter delivery, which could have saved $2 billion per year, but Congress blocked it. A legislative proposal to replace doorstep delivery with curbside delivery, which would save $4.5 billion, failed last year. A plan to close thousands of rural post offices was abandoned after postal officials deemed the closures would "upset Congress a great deal," Barnett said.

More problems mentioned at the link, like "pre-funding" of pensions for postal workers. Yeah. That oughta work.

Irvine Devastated After 5 Teenagers Killed in High-Speed Crash

I gave my son a special hug as he left the apartment this morning. Kids were to wear white to school out of respect.

Now it's on the front-page of this morning's Los Angeles Times, "Friends mourn 5 Irvine teens killed in violent crash." Also, "Speed a factor in Newport Beach crash that killed five, police say."

Lakewood Honors Fallen Veterans on Memorial Day

From yesterday's Long Beach Press Telegram, "Memorial Day: Lakewood honors fallen veterans":

LAKEWOOD -- For many Americans, Memorial Day is a break from work, a day marked by barbecues and special sales.

Veterans, their families and others who gathered at Del Valle Park on Monday for Lakewood's annual Memorial Day ceremony see it differently, as a time to honor those who served their country and gave their lives so it may yet fulfill its promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Los Angeles County Department of Military and Veterans Affairs Chief Deputy Director Stephanie A. Stone noted a somber set of numbers from the last 100 years in her keynote address: more than 100,000 dead in World War I, 400,000 in World War II, 36,000 in the Korean War, 58,000 in Vietnam and 6,000 in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"This day is reserved for the men and women who were part of our lives," Stone said.

"The fathers and the mothers, the sisters and the brothers, the sons and the daughters who lived in our town, went to our schools, played with our children and prayed in our churches."

Lakewood Mayor Steve Croft suggested in his own remarks that the gratitude of the crowd should continue past the day's ceremony.

As a decade of war comes to an end, Croft said, the nation must support, encourage and nurture hundreds of thousands of veterans who need help restarting their lives.

"The challenges facing veterans today range from unemployment to homelessness, to mental, emotional and physical impacts that must be addressed," said Croft.

The mayor noted that many of Lakewood's earliest homebuyers in the 1950s were veterans who fought in World War II, and in a spirit of volunteerism, some founded the Lakewood Youth Sports program and did other work to build the city into what it is today.

"It's our turn now," Croft said, urging citizens to do what they can to ensure that veterans have access to education, jobs and other services so they may transition from war.

Too Much Money? Not With the Democrats in Sacramento There's Not

Governor Brown's purportedly holding out against the legislature's demands for even higher taxes, which the idiot Democrats covet for the further expansion of big government in the once-Golden State. But since state coffers are showing an unexpected surge in revenue, perhaps he'll be able to hold off the money grubbing leftists for now.

We'll see.

For now, here's the New York Times' report, "California Faces a New Quandary, Too Much Money":

LOS ANGELES — After years of grueling battles over state budget deficits and spending cuts, California has a new challenge on its hands: too much money. An unexpected surplus is fueling an argument over how the state should respond to its turn of good fortune.

The amount is a matter of debate, but by any measure significant: between $1.2 billion, projected by Gov. Jerry Brown, and $4.4 billion, the estimate of the Legislature’s independent financial analyst. The surplus comes barely three years after the state was facing a deficit of close to $60 billion.

At first glance, the situation should be welcome news in a state overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats, who have spent much of their time slashing programs they support. After last November’s elections, the party has two-thirds majorities in the Assembly and the Senate, relegating Republicans almost completely to the sidelines.

Instead, the surplus has set off a debate about the durability of new revenues, and whether the money should be used to reverse some of the spending cuts or set aside to guard against the inevitable next economic downturn.

At least seven other states — among them Connecticut, Utah and Wisconsin — have reported budget surpluses in recent weeks, setting the stage for legislative battles that, if not as wrenching as the ones over cuts, promise to be no less pitched. Lawmakers are debating whether the new money should be used to restore programs cut during the recession, finance tax cuts or put into a rainy-day fund for future needs.

The debate reflects uncertainty about whether the revenue is a one-time event, a result of state taxes on wealthy residents selling off investments at the end of last year to avoid increased costs as the Bush-era federal tax cuts expired. But it also illustrates philosophical differences about the role of government, about spending versus taxes and about the need, as Mr. Brown argued, to learn lessons from a decade in which many states saw the bottom fall out from their revenue collections.

“We’re seeing a change in conversation in state legislatures this year,” said Todd Haggerty, a policy analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures. “They’re not talking about how to close a budget gap anymore, which is a welcome relief after years of that during and after the Great Recession. Rather, states are having conversations about how to allocate increased revenues.”

Nowhere does that battle promise to play out with more force and intricacy than in California, the state that underwent perhaps the most severe retrenchments in the country.

Mr. Brown, a Democrat who has always had a fiscally conservative streak, is leading the don’t-pop-any-Champagne-corks brigade, saying that he would oppose significant increases in new spending and that the money should go into a rainy-day fund. His administration put out the lower $1.2 billion estimate.

“A good deal of the surge of revenues that we have seen since the beginning of the year is the result of higher-income individuals being able to realize some of their gains at the end of 2012,” said H. D. Palmer, the director of external affairs for the California Department of Finance. “We don’t believe it is prudent to budget on the capital gains. It wasn’t that long ago when we had the same experience during the dot-com boom. We don’t want to see that movie again.”

The idiot Democrats don't care about any of that. When you've got money coming in by the surplus, the left starts rummaging through is long buried list of "overdue" spending priorities. On this issue, I hope the governor wins.

Continue reading.

BONUS: At the Los Angeles Times, "California Assembly, Senate outline divergent budget plans."

#FreeKate — Kaitlyn Hunt is the Next Rosa Parks!

Hey, just hold back and let these idiots work themselves up into a frenzy of child molestation abominations. It's the new civil rights movement!

Via Jeanette Victoria on Twitter:

Right. I can just see Rosa Parks at the back of the bus fingering a 14-year-old.

Free at last!

Seriously, this is the caliber of "progressive" thinking on the left. We've got idiots like this in high office, so it's not very funny when you think about it.

BONUS: At Viral Read, "‘Beat Her Ass!’ Beach Fight Video Purports to Show Kaitlyn Hunt."

Pat Condell: 'Islam is a Religion of Violence and Terror...'

Via Sheik Yer'mami, "Pat Condell: We need an anti Muslim backlash":

China Hacks U.S. Missile Defense Computer Systems

Missile defense, and weapons systems computers, and...

It's not good.

At the Washington Post, "Confidential report lists U.S. weapons system designs compromised by Chinese cyberspies":

Designs for many of the nation’s most sensitive advanced weapons systems have been compromised by Chinese hackers, according to a report prepared for the Pentagon and to officials from government and the defense industry.

Among more than two dozen major weapons systems whose designs were breached were programs critical to U.S. missile defenses and combat aircraft and ships, according to a previously undisclosed section of a confidential report prepared for Pentagon leaders by the Defense Science Board.

Experts warn that the electronic intrusions gave China access to advanced technology that could accelerate the development of its weapons systems and weaken the U.S. military advantage in a future conflict.

The Defense Science Board, a senior advisory group made up of government and civilian experts, did not accuse the Chinese of stealing the designs. But senior military and industry officials with knowledge of the breaches said the vast majority were part of a widening Chinese campaign of espionage against U.S. defense contractors and government agencies.

The significance and extent of the targets help explain why the Obama administration has escalated its warnings to the Chinese government to stop what Washington sees as rampant cyber­theft.

In January, the advisory panel warned in the public version of its report that the Pentagon is unprepared to counter a full-scale cyber-conflict. The list of compromised weapons designs is contained in a confidential version, and it was provided to The Washington Post.

Some of the weapons form the backbone of the Pentagon’s regional missile defense for Asia, Europe and the Persian Gulf. The designs included those for the advanced Patriot missile system, known as PAC-3; an Army system for shooting down ballistic missiles, known as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD; and the Navy’s Aegis ballistic-missile defense system.

Also identified in the report are vital combat aircraft and ships, including the F/A-18 fighter jet, the V-22 Osprey, the Black Hawk helicopter and the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship, which is designed to patrol waters close to shore.

Also on the list is the most expensive weapons system ever built — the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is on track to cost about $1.4 trillion. The 2007 hack of that project was reported previously.

Also, at Foreign Policy, "DOD says don't worry about hackers accessing key U.S. weapons designs."

Well, it feels like we're back in the Cold War.

But no worries, the Obama administration has everything under control!

So-Called Leftist 'Hawks' Cower From Intervention in Syria

An interesting piece at WaPo, "Liberal hawks were vocal on involvement in Iraq but have been quiet on Syria":

The advocates for intervention argue that there are strong moral, geopolitical and national security reasons to intervene and that although there is no good option in Syria, doing nothing is the worst option of all. They’d like to see the destruction of Assad’s aircraft, heavy weapons and assets on the ground and have called for the creation of no-fly zones and the arming of rebels, as well as a naval blockade to prevent Syria from exporting oil. They also believe American firepower could create havens in rebel-controlled territory, giving a moderate opposition the chance to govern and to weaken extremists while easing the burden of refugees, and preventing further sectarian spillover into neighboring states.

They worry that Obama is sending the message to dictators that brutality will go unchecked and that he is ceding the battlefield to the United States’ more strategic enemies, including Iran. The advocates worry that Obama’s blurring of red lines over the use of chemical weapons weakened American credibility and moral authority and reduced any chance for a diplomatic solution.

Those who oppose armed intervention fear that U.S. involvement in Syria would only worsen the situation and fuel the kind of sectarian fury that was unleashed in Iraq.

They also believe that the administration has been wise to avoid ownership of the problem if it is not willing to make a long-term nation-building commitment.

The few prominent liberal hawks have taken their case to high-profile platforms. Bill Keller, a former editor of the New York Times, recently acknowledged his wariness but added that “in Syria, I fear prudence has become fatalism, and our caution has been the father of missed opportunities, diminished credibility and enlarged tragedy.” He was immediately attacked with echoes of the “Bush’s Useful Idiots” critique. Leon Wieseltier has incessantly demanded action from his perch at the New Republic. And Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former top State Department official who is president of the New America Foundation, has been consistently outspoken in favor of intervention.

Slaughter said she wants to hear more from the intellectuals who joined her in urging intervention in Kosovo, Rwanda and, most recently, Libya. “The place to look, I think, is not 10 years ago [in Iraq], it’s Libya,” she said. “Where’s the Libya coalition?” She blamed the Obama administration inaction in Syria for creating a climate of “despairing futility” that rendered her former allies moot.

Well, there's actually quite a few voices on the left pushing for intervention, although things might have been more propitious at an earlier stage of the conflict. At this point you're almost 100 percent certain to leverage Islamists to power there, and considering how the Egyptian revolution's working out, it's hardly attractive to extend the Arab Winter to Damascus.

Interesting, though, it looks like the administration is now pushing to expand the U.S. role in Syria. See the Daily Beast, "Exclusive: Obama Asks Pentagon For Syria No-Fly Zone Plan."

The Press Finally Wakes Up to the Obama Nightmare

From Congresswoman Candice Miller, at the Detroit Free Press (via Memeorandum):

Like many Americans, my initial reaction to recent reports that the Obama administration was aggressively investigating news media organizations (the Associated Press, Fox News & CBS News) involved in leaking sensitive national security information was mixed.

On one hand, this administration has had a troubling tendency to aggressively assert the power of the government into every corner of American life — from the federal takeover of our health care system to the job-killing, over-regulation of our economy. On the other, the target of the leaks investigations was the news media, which has served as the president’s amen chorus for most of that agenda. But like the blind pig and the acorn, news media moguls outraged over the wholesale seizure of reporter phone records (AP), the secret tracking of a journalist’s movements (Fox News) and the suspected hacking of a reporter’s computer (CBS) may be on to something.

At last, a scandal they can believe in.

This is not to minimize the legitimacy of any administration’s desire to protect important national security interests. As vice chairwoman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I am acutely aware of the need to shield vital information about intelligence gathering methods and sources from our enemies. Nor am I in the habit of reflexively condemning every exercise of power by the Obama administration. But the potential criminalization of standard journalistic practices of source development, news-gathering and reporting on issues of undeniable public interest strikes at the heart of what it means to live in a free society.

The case of James Rosen at Fox News is especially troubling...

Continue reading.

Heather Graham Bikini Pics

She's been in the news a couple of times this week. Maybe she's making a comeback.

The babe who shagged me!

At London's Daily Mail, "Nice try boys! Heather Graham steals the show with her amazing bikini body as The Hangover boys wear tiny colourful trunks to the beach in Rio":

Heather Graham may not be one of the main characters in The Hangover Part III, but she was certainly the centre of attention on Tuesday.

The blonde bombshell hit the sand at the famed Ipanema beach in Rio de Janeiro followed by her Hangover cast mates.

Ensuring that all eyes were on her, the 43-year-old donned a revealing bikini that showed off her stunning beach body as her comedic male co-stars matched her in skimpy Speedos.

Five Teenagers Killed in Horrific Memorial Day Crash in Newport Beach

At the Los Angeles Times, "Five Irvine teens killed in fiery Newport Beach car crash."

Four of the five attended my son's school, Irvine High. See, "Two sisters among five teens killed in fiery crash":

The five teenagers killed in a car crash that Orange County officials said was one of the most violent they had ever seen included a pair of high school seniors and two sisters.

Authorities on Tuesday identified the high school students as: Abdulrahman M. Alyahyan, a senior at Irvine’s University High School; Nozad Hamawendi, a junior at Irvine High School; Cecilia Zamora, a junior at Irvine High; and sisters Aurora and Robin Cabrera, a sophomore and a senior, respectively, at Irvine High School.

"There are simply no words to convey the sorrow felt by our staff and our students and our community and nor are there sufficient answers to explain the loss of these vibrant young teenagers," said Terry L. Walker, superintendent of schools in Irvine.

My son knew one of the girls. I'm sure the next couple of weeks will see a number of memorial ceremonies, so I'll be updating.

Facebook Updates Policies on Harmful and Hateful Speech

Here's the statement at Facebook, "Controversial, Harmful and Hateful Speech on Facebook." (At Memeorandum.)

And see the Verge, "Facebook promises to crack down on hate speech after boycott campaign."

My previous comments are here, "Facebook Rape Pages."

At Cannes 2013, Palme d'Or for Lesbian Pedophilia in 'Blue Is the Warmest Color'

From John Hayward, at Breitbart, "More On the Mainstreaming of Pedophilia":

Let's hear some more about this "Blue is the Warmest Color" film...

"Blue Is The Warmest Colour" by Abdellatif Kechiche topped critics polls in trade magazines Screen International and Film Francais among the 20 contenders for the Palme d'Or.

The three-hour-long drama about a 15-year-old girl who falls for a French woman tracks their passionate affair and devastating separation.

Sounds like a great film to catch after spending the afternoon at a "Free Kate" rally. Hopefully they allow a bathroom break while this three-hour saga grinds on. And hopefully the bathrooms will be supervised.

Yes, pedophilia goes mainstream.

And see the Other McCain, "#FreeKate Lies Unravel; Roman Polanski Could Not Be Reached for Comment."

More at the Los Angeles Times, "Cannes 2013: Palme d'Or goes to 'Blue Is the Warmest Color'."

Hollywood Stars Go to War

At the Los Angeles Times, "Movie stars at war."

Also, "A trio of actresses who entertained troops in WWII."

Below: "Carole Landis: A pinup favorite, Landis spent more time visiting with U.S. servicemen than any other actress."

Photo Credit: Wikimedia.

Memorial Day

A fabulous photograph via Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers:

And for some linkage, in no particular order:

* Black Five, "MEMORIAL DAY."

* Fox News, "Americans gather to honor fallen service members on Memorial Day."

* Leif Babin, at WSJ, "A Tradition of Sacrifice, From Yorktown to Ramadi."

* The Los Angeles Times, "CALIFORNIA'S WAR DEAD."

* Walter Russell Mead, "A Day of Dedication."

* Ralph Kinney Bennett, at the American, "Fallen Heroes, Never Forgotten."

* "Sebastian Junger, at the Washington Post, "Sharing the Moral Burden of War."

* Wall Street Journal, "Memorial Day."

Britain's Head in the Sand on Islamic Terrorism — And Ours

From the inimitable Melanie Phillips, at London's Daily Mail, "Until our leaders admit the true nature of Islamic extremism, we will never defeat it."

Ever since the spectre of Islamic terrorism in the West first manifested itself, Britain has had its head stuck firmly in the sand.

After both 9/11 and the 7/7 London transport bombings, the Labour government promised to take measures to defend the country against further such attacks.

It defined the problem, however, merely as terrorism, failing to understand that the real issue was the extremist ideas which led to such violence.

Accordingly, it poured money into Muslim community groups, many of which turned out to be dangerously extreme.

When David Cameron came to power, his Government raised hopes of a more realistic approach when it pledged to counter extremist ideas rather than just violence.
This approach, too, has failed. The Government still has no coherent strategy for countering Islamist radicalisation.

Following last week’s barbaric slaughter of Drummer Rigby on the streets of Woolwich by two Islamic fanatics, the Prime Minister has announced that he will head a new Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Task Force.

And the Home Secretary has said she will look at widening the banning of radical groups preaching hate.

But at the heart of these promises remains a crucial gap. That is the need to define just what kind of extremism we are up against.

The Government has been extraordinarily reluctant to do this — because it refuses to face the blindingly obvious fact that this extremism is religious in nature.

It arises from an interpretation of Islam which takes the words of the Koran literally as a command to kill unbelievers in a jihad, or holy war, in order to impose strict Islamic tenets on the rest of the world.

Of course, millions of Muslims in Britain and elsewhere totally reject this interpretation of their religion.

Most British Muslims want to live peacefully and enjoy the benefits of Western culture. They undoubtedly utterly deplore the notion that the kind of carnage that occurred in Woolwich should take place in Britain.

And let’s not forget that, worldwide, most victims of the jihad are themselves Muslims whom the extremists judge to be polluted by Western ideas.

Nevertheless, this fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran is what is being spouted by hate preachers in Britain and on the internet, and is steadily radicalising thousands of young British Muslims.

Now the Prime Minister says he will crack down on such extremism. Yet after the Woolwich atrocity, he claimed it was ‘a betrayal of Islam’ and that ‘there is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act’.

The London Mayor Boris Johnson went even further, claiming: ‘It is completely wrong to blame this killing on the religion of Islam’ and that the cause was simply the killers’ ‘warped and deluded mindset’.

Yet the video footage of the killers — who had shouted ‘Allahu Akhbar’ when butchering Drummer Rigby — records one of them citing verses in the Koran exhorting the faithful to fight and kill unbelievers, and declaring: ‘We swear by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you.’

Frankly, these comments by the Prime Minister and London Mayor were as absurd as saying the medieval Inquisition, for example, had nothing to do with the Catholic Church, but was just the product of a few warped and deluded individuals.

Well, speaking the truth about Islamic jihad takes courage. And so far British leaders haven't demonstrated they have it. And it's not just Britain. President Obama dismissed the London barbarity as "senseless violence" --- because, you know, if it's "senseless," it's random and not worthy of the outright condemnation that such leftist extremism requires.

More from Ms. Phillips at the link.

Meanwhile, never give into the terror apologists and appeasers, wherever they may be.

British Supermarkets Could Face Sexual Harassment Complaints Over Lads' Mags

Here's the latest in the ayatollah feminists' campaign to ban men's magazines in Britain, at the Guardian UK, "Lose the lads' mags or risk legal action, say lawyers" (via Memeorandum).

As I always say, the more progressives harass and intimidate over babe blogging (and Page 3 girls) the harder I'll be hitting the Rule 5.

From Toby Young, "First they came for the lads' mags… then they came for me" (via Memeorandum):

Today's Guardian contains more proof, if proof were needed, that Harriet Harman's Equality Act poses a direct threat to free speech. It has published a letter from 11 lawyers, including a QC, threatening supermarkets with legal action unless lads' mags are immediately withdrawn from sale. "Displaying these publications in workplaces, and/or requiring staff to handle them in the course of their jobs, may amount to sex discrimination and sexual harassment contrary to the Equality Act 2010," it says. "Similarly, exposing customers to these publications in the process of displaying them is capable of giving rise to breaches of the Equality Act."

The letter is written in support of Lose the Lads' Mags, a campaign that's been launched by UK Feminista and Object, two Left-wing lobby groups with a history of opposing free speech. Indeed, Object was one of four "women's groups" to submit evidence to the Leveson Inquiry and was instrumental in persuading Lord Leveson to recommend that the new press regulator be empowered to investigate third party complaints "from representative women's groups", i.e. groups like UK Feminista and Object. (The basis on which a handful of Left-wing feminists claim to be "representing" half the human race remains unclear, though Leveson appears to have taken that claim at face value.) I blogged about the danger this posed to free speech here.

UK Feminista and Object assert that lads' mags "harm" women – a claim also made by those who want to ban Page 3 like Harriet Harman. In an article in today's Guardian pegged to the lawyers' letter, the founder of UK Femnista describes lads' mags as "deeply harmful" to women. Sophie Bennett, the Campaigns' Officer of Object, spells out in detail what form this "harm" takes:

Lads' mags dehumanise and objectify women, promoting harmful attitudes that underpin discrimination and violence against women and girls. Reducing women to sex objects sends out an incredibly dangerous message that women are constantly sexually available and displaying these publications in everyday spaces normalises this sexism.

Continue reading.

Violence against women in Britain has actually declined at the same time that access to lads' mags has increased. Protecting women isn't why the radical feminists are pushing this. The left wants to suppress speech it disagrees with, and giving people agency over what shops they frequent and what they read goes against the left's program to criminalize thought that deviates from the so-called progressive agenda.

More at Guardian UK, "Supermarkets could face harassment complaints over lads' mags, say lawyers."

IMAGE CREDIT: Laura'Jane Hollyman on Twitter.