Mark Steyn:

Nathaniel, you quote that Cairo cleric, Dr. Khaled Said, sneering that U.S. aid to Egypt is a form of jizya, the tax Islam levies upon infidels:

We consider this aid to be jizya, not regular aid. . . .They pay so that we will let them be.

He’s not the first to suggest this. From page 165 of my book America Alone, published in 2006:

But the Muslim world has effortlessly extended the concept of jizya worldwide. If you’re on the receiving end, it’s possible to see the American, European and Israeli subsidies of the Palestinian Authority as a form of jizya. Or even the billions of dollars Washington has lavished on Egypt, to such little effect (other than Mohammed Atta coming through the window).

We’re losing this War.

Dhimmitude: It’s What’s For Dinner.

—Chef Barack Hussein Obama

-In my post yesterday, Poove And Marriage, I decided not to address the arguments before the Supreme Court on California’s Proposition 8 until I had listened to and read the analysis of people I respect, like Mark Levin and Ed Whelan, and had spent sufficent time in contemplation of the issues involved.

I believe Mark Levin is right in his opinion that this is not a matter that concerns the Federal Government and, therefore, the SCOTUS should vacate the decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court Of Appeals and of the U.S. District Court [ie: all of the decisions made by the courts of the Federal government].

The national government is not allowed to interfere in such matters as marriage and abortion; they are are not among the enumerated powers granted by The Constitution. As Mr. Levin emphatically stated on his radio show last night: ‘No federal jurisdiction – period’.

Marriage is not mentioned directly or indirectly in The Constitution, therefore, the Tenth Amendments rules in this case.

The Tenth:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is matter for the Several States and/or the people who reside in those States.

And within each state, the people decide whether or not it is an issue for their state government to concern itself with; they do so through their State Constitution.

If the SCOTUS takes any action other than the one mentioned by Mark Levin, then they will have overstepped their authority under The Constitution and, therefore, I believe, the Several States will be under no obligation to obey the decision. It is imperative that the States begin resisting the Tyranny of the national government [they have begun to do this on other issues, thankfully]. For sixty-plus years we have been subjected to abuses and usurpations courtesy of the Federal Courts. They must be resisted with just as much determination as we resist the Executive and the Congress.

-Throughout the history of the ‘gay marriage’ laws, judicial decisions, and ballot questions, the Full Faith And Credit Clause of The Constitution has been frequently mentioned by the pro side.

Article IV, Section 1 reads, in full:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

A quick reading of this clause could easily lead one to think that a ‘gay marriage’ allowed and performed in one state [say, Massachusetts] would have to be accepted and respected by the government of another state.

As Mark Levin points out, this is not how the Clause has been interpreted. From the SCOTUS Opinion, delivered for the Court by Justice Stone, in Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission [306 U.S. 493 (1939)][emphasis mine]:

It has often been recognized by this Court that there are some limitations upon the extent to which a state may be required by the full faith and credit clause to enforce even the judgment of another state in contravention of its own statutes or policy. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265 , 8 S.Ct. 1370; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657 , 13 S.Ct. 224; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335 , 23 S.Ct. 558; Milwaukee County v. White Co., supra, page 273 et seq., 56 S.Ct. page 232 et seq.; see, also, Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186 , 20 S.Ct. 873; Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386 , 30 S.Ct. 292, 25 L.R.A.,N.S., 1292; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611 , 35 S.Ct. 718; cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16 , 38 S.Ct. 416. And in the case of statutes, the extra- state effect of which Congress has not prescribed, as it may under the constitutional provision, we think the conclusion is unavoidable that the full faith and credit clause does not require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of the state of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events.

…

Full faith and credit does not here enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.

To require a state to recognize and be compelled to enforce the laws of other states would allow one state [say, Massachusetts again, or New York] to pass laws that are binding on the whole country. This would destroy the federalism enshrined in The Constitution, which decrees that the Several States shall act as a check and provide a balance to the national government. Further, it would violate Article IV, Section 4, the relevant part which reads:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…

To have a republican form of government, the people under it must be able to determine what said government is allowed to do though their Constitutions and, through their elected representatives, be able to determine what laws they will live under.

-Ed Whelan makes a very good point:

Proposition 8 defines an inherent element of what marriage has forever been in California. It no more “bans” “same-sex marriage” than a proper definition of a circle bans square circles. Rather, under Proposition 8, the concept of “same-sex marriage,” like that of a square circle, is an oxymoron, a self-contradiction, an absurdity—just as it has always been under California’s marriage statutes and, until very recently, everywhere for as long as marriage has existed.

The advocates of ‘gay marriage’ want us to turn away from our direct view of the world and look at it through a funhouse mirror.

Or, if I wanted to be a bit crude, I could say: the morons want us to believe in an oxymoron.

-Over at Bench Memos, Hadley Arkes offers this spot-on analysis and conjecture:

…The question is whether one form of marriage is in principle preferable to any other. Marriage finds its coherence as a framework of legal commitment to envelop the begetting and nurturing of children. It is built on the natural complementarity of men and women; that purpose marks the reason that there will always be . . . men and women, because of reproduction, or begetting. If marriage is detached from that central function, and those anchoring facts, what ground of principle would confine it to a relation between two people? What of those people who say that their loves are not confined to a coupling, but woven into an ensemble of three or four, or more?

There was a moment critically missed, then, when Justice Scalia invited Charles Cooper, arguing for traditional marriage, to draw out some of the “concrete” and worrisome results that could spring from these changes with regard to children. To venture an answer here is to make a prediction or conjecture. But there was no need for predictions and conjectures: By some estimates there are about 500,000 “polyamorous” households in the country. The day after the Court installs same-sex marriage, we are virtually certain to see in court one or more of these people, insisting that their loves be honored with the name of “marriage.” They too will seek the “equal protection of the laws.”…

Bet the house on it. You know the Left will continue to be relentless in their mission to destroy American Society. Polyamory is most likely to be next and then, I think, pedophilia in stages.

Methinks Mr. Arkes’s predictions will end up being as prophetic as Justice Scalia’s in Lawrence v. Texas back in 2003:

…State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.”

And they have been. And the pace will not slacken.

UPDATE at 1951…

-The Right Scoop was kind enough to transcribe part of what Mark Levin said on his radio show last night.  A highlight:

‘So Mark, what should the court do?’

In my humble opinion, the court should strike down the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, and through it the district court’s decision in San Francisco. And the court should say:

‘We have no business in this case. The people of California voted, they passed Proposition 8 to amend their constitution. Maybe in ten years they’ll pass another proposition to reverse course. But there’s no federal constitutional violation here. This is not the same as segregation and racism. This is not a matter of equal protection.’

Please do take the time to click here and hear the audio.

-TRS also has what Senator Ted Cruz said on the matter here.

-Jeff Goldstein weighs in over at his place.  A highlight:

In states that voted to recognize same-sex unions as marriage, those unions should be recognized as marriage — despite my belief that the voters of those states made the wrong decision from the standpoint of what they’ve opened themselves up to by way of future legal challenge.  But states that don’t wish to re-organize the composition of thousands of years of traditional marriage merely to grant homosexuals leave to assume a label that voters of those states don’t wish to surrender (going under the valid assertion that what has never been marriage is not suddenly marriage simply because some interested group wishes it to be so) should not be compelled to do so by 5 or 6 citizens in robes.

Part of the beauty of the federalist system is that states can hold different corporate views, and that American citizens are free either to convince voters of their state to adopt a different position, or else  to move between states to find those states that better match one’s own beliefs.

The voters of California followed the proper procedure and made their wishes known.  You may disagree with their wishes, and disagree with the policy. But how you get there matters.

Rewriting the Constitution at will, or reworking the role of Justices to bring about social change, is anathema to a representative republic.  And those who support such activism — regardless of where they stand on the policy issues — can lay no claim to being either classically liberal or constitutionalists.

Indeed, how you get there, whether you follow the approved procedure, matters an awful lot.  For, if you usurp the procedure, if you get to an end by any means necessary, you delegitimize the whole system.  And then you have rule by whim or, as it is more commonly called: Tyranny.

Concering the arguments and discussion before the SCOTUS yesterday on the Defense Of Marriage Act [DMOA], once again I decided not to address the arguments before the Supreme Court until I had listened to and read the analysis of people I respect and had spent sufficent time in contemplation of the issues involved.

My conclusions are pretty much in sync with Mark Levin’s, so much of what follows, in part, mimics the remarks he made on his radio show last night…

-Here is the Act in it’s entirety:

One Hundred Fourth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSIONBegun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the `Defense of Marriage Act’.

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

  (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

  `No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.’.

  (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item:

`1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.’.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

  (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’

  `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any  ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’.

  (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

`7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’.’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Section 2 affirms the understanding of the Full Faith And Credit Clause that I wrote about yesterday in my post: SCOTUS, Prop. 8, The Full Faith And Credit Clause. I would just add this Section merely re-enforces the Clause.

-Section 3 is the one that really sticks in the craw of the Left [and some on the Right who misunderstand it's meaning and purpose].

As Mark Levin said, the national government has the right to ‘police itself’, to set policy for how it will approach situations that come before it, to be able to craft a set of standards in processing the data it needs to process so it can conduct it’s daily business, to determine how benefits will be distributed.

With this law, the national government is not telling the state how to regulate and define marriage. If you look at statutes, be they state, national, etc. you will notice chapters of the law often begin with a section of definitions of what certain words will mean in the context of the covered chapter or chapters [Ex: 'For the purposes of this statute, x shall mean....'] — this is all DOMA does.
How is any of this violating state sovereignty? How is this violating Federalism? DOMA does not touch state law.

Ed Whelan writes:

The fact that DOMA defines marriage and spouse for purposes of provisions of federal law does not mean that it regulates marriage and intrudes on state authority over marriage. For anyone confused on this point, consider this:

Property law, like marriage, is a matter within state authority. The federal government provides a tax deduction for mortgage interest on a taxpayer’s primary residence. Suppose the state of Massachusetts were to redefine “residence” to include an automobile. Would the federal government be obligated to give federal taxpayers in Massachusetts a deduction for the interest on their car loan? Or could the federal government, without intruding on state authority over property law, define residence for purposes of federal law to exclude automobiles?

Surprisingly for a Federal statute, this Section is written is pretty clear and direct language.

And, of course, because DOMA is merely a law, and not a Constitutional provision, the Congress can repeal or amend it at any time, relatively easily.

The Courts should not be involved in this issue at all. It is a matter for the Sovereign People to decide through their elected Representatives in the Congress. This issue does not rise to the level of Constitutionality.

-More from Ed Whelan, quoting Justice Alito:

…I also liked this line of questioning from Justice Alito, which he posed to Paul Clement (pp. 76-77), then later (p. 99), in slightly different fashion, to plaintiff’s lawyer [BOB: the transcript may be found here (PDF)]:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, Congress could have achieved exactly what it achieved under Section 3 by excising the term “married” from the United States Code and replacing it with something more neutral. It could have said “certified domestic units,” and then defined this in exactly the way that Section 3 — exactly the way DOMA defines “marriage.”

Would that make a difference? In that instance, the Federal Government wouldn’t be purporting to say who is married and who is not married; it would be saying who is entitled to various Federal benefits and burdens based on a Federal definition.

What this shows, of course, is that Congress’s use of the word marriage for purposes of provisions of federal law, when it could have used, to identical effect, the term certified domestic units, shouldn’t confuse anyone into thinking that Congress is intruding on state regulation of marriage.

Marriage is clearly, has historically been, a matter for the Several States to regulate, but the national government needs to be able to set it’s own policies and standards so that it may carry-out it’s duties and obligations under it’s enumerated powers.

-As for the whole issue of whether the state at any level should be involved in Marriage: obviously that is not one of the issues before the SCOTUS right now — although a number of people would like it to be. I hope to address this in a future post, but the research required is extensive and, perhaps, the contemplation of said research will take some time.

UPDATE at 1921: Corrected error in the coding of the text for DOMA.  Apologies for the missing language.

This is very, very disturbing, but, frankly, I really can’t say I’m surprised that the Left is planning on attempting this. After all, the Leftist always thinks like a Tyrant…

From The Washington Examiner, Paul Bedard reporting, we learn [tip of the fedora to Jeff Goldstein]:

Supporters of the 380 sheriffs in 15 states who so far have vowed to defy new state and federal gun control laws claim that legislation is starting to pop up around the nation to fire any state elected or appointed law enforcement official who doesn’t obey federal orders.

The first effort emerged in Texas. Legislation proposed by Dallas Democratic Rep. Yvonne Davis would remove any sheriff or law enforcement officer who refuses to enforce state or federal laws.

What’s more, it would remove any elected or appointed law enforcement officer for simply stating or signing any document stating that they will not obey federal orders.

A gun lobbyist told Secrets, “Beware because once something like this is introduced in one state, it will be followed very quickly in several other states.”

Brazen.

Jeff comments:

…sheriffs are elected officials. Removing them would be to void the will of the electorate — something the Democrats have already shown a willingness to do in passing legislation against the will of their constituencies in the first place. This is merely an attempt to reinforce their ability to do just that by taking away any recourse of the people to fight it.

This is clearly an attempt to overthrow state constitutions and we call that an insurrection.

All sheriffs must join together and fight this usurpation [see also this attempt to extort sheriffs]. And we must support them in any way we can.

Perhaps, it’s time to call out the militia*?

More from Jeff:

So let me suggest this: should such laws pass, I think we’ll begin seeing the removal from office of many of the Democrats before their terms are up — and not by recall elections, but rather by public outcry and the reintroduction of tar and feathers as an historical homage to our heritage as a once free people in a representative republic.

We had better do something to see that these traitors, these Tyrants, are removed from office immediately.

BTW: I’ll buy the tar.

UPDATE at 1849…

Over in Jeff’s Comment section, Squid writes:

A gun lobbyist told Secrets, “Beware, because once something like this is introduced in one state, it will be followed very quickly in several other states.”

In the lobbyist’s statement, “something like this” is legislation aimed at removing locally elected officials from their offices.  But if you replace “this” with “locally elected officials refusing to acknowledge the unlawful acts of the statists,” you’ll see quite clearly why there’s such a push by those statists on this issue.  Because once something like that takes off in one state, it will be followed very quickly.

If people start getting the idea that they can and should live their lives without regard to Utopian policies created in distant capitals, there’s no telling where it’ll all end.  Better nip it in the bud.

Hey Bolshes!  This bud’s for you.

______________________________________
* To distinguish it from the organized militia,
perhaps we should call ourselves the ‘Outlaw Militia’?

Jeff Goldstein is dead solid perfect:

Rick Moran is wrong:  we TEA Party-types aren’t running out of people to purge.  Our problem, as constitutionalists, is that we continue to pretend (or perhaps hope is a better term) that the Big Tent the establishment GOP pushes in any way benefits us.  It doesn’t.  All it does is invite the statists into our ranks, where they cross the aisle to work with Democrats, passing legislation we don’t want in “our” name.

Free yourselves.  We may go down as a result, but at least we’ll share no culpability for the wreckage.  And at the end of the day, that’s something, at least.

Yes.

Those who rose up against King George certainly hoped that large numbers of their fellow Americans would join their cause, but they never thought about compromising their beliefs in order to win over those Colonists.

As it turned out, historians estimate that only about one-third of Americans supported Independence, while the other two-thirds were about evenly split between those who were against the break with Britain and those who just didn’t care ['low information colonists'?].

Perhaps the number of people supporting our fight to restore our freedoms and liberties [which is all The Founders wished to do in the 1770's] is less this time than a third of the citizens of The United States.  Perhaps, as it dawns on more and more people that the Left In America is overthrowing The Republic, more of our fellow citizens will join our cause.  I don’t really care because I don’t think it matters.

What matters, what’s really important, is that we few, we blessed few, keeping fighting those who are waging war on everything America stands for because it is the right thing to do.

We are the good guys, the white hats.  We are the warriors for freedom and liberty, the defenders of tradition, morality, and Free Will — all that is good and decent and honest and true.

Since we represent what is Right, our numbers don’t matter.  Our cause is just.  We are on the side of the Timeless Truth.

And being people who have embraced Good, we have an obligation, a sacred duty, to wage this War, no matter what the odds of our success are, on Tyranny and Tyrants and those who sustain and assist and support the them.  We cannot turn away from our responsibility and still consider ourselves honorable men and women.

Much of the planet has decided to embrace the darkness, with the result that the world has been turned upside down and we are now considered criminals, our beliefs marked as illegitimate and illicit.

In other words: we are now Outlaws in our own land.

We should embrace the epithet ‘Outlaw’ and ride onward to our destiny, prepared, if necessary, to die with our boots on.

Resistentiam Tyrannis nunc.
Resistentiam Tyrannis saecula.
OUTLAWS!

Resistance to Tyranny now.
Resistance to Tyranny forever.
OUTLAWS!

[The Committee, as always, welcomes your suggestions — just e-mail us]
_________________

Pippa Middleton…

Sara Sampaio…

Petra So…

Please click on the image above to see full-size.

Rebecca DiPietro…

Charlbi Dean Kriek…

Unknown…

Rebecca Schwartz…

Please click on the image above to see full-size.

Maryna Linchuk…

Tiffani Amber…

Bryoni Kate…

Dalia Dayze…

Please click on the image above to see full-size.

Monika Gaba…

Still not sated?
Well, Chef Reaganite is
serving some hot Latin Cuisine
and
Gator Doug, as always, has
some good old American vittles.

J O D I E   G A S S O N . . .

Please click on the image above to see full-size.

Please click on the image above to see full-size.

Who said this today:

It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling us back … for blacks to be back in the back of the bus … for women to be back in the kitchen … for immigrants to be back on their side of the border.

If you answered ‘The “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright’, you’re wrong!

It was the pastor, Reverend Dr. Luis Leon, who conducted the services at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington D.C. that Barack and Michelle Obama attended today.

If I weren’t so justifiably jaded, I would be shocked by this, but, these days, this is par for the Obama course.

Disgusting.  They seek to stain everything they touch.

Be not afraid.

—John Paul The Great

Since last the middle of last week, America’s Favorite Gonzo Reporter, Stacy McCain, has been reporting on the run-off primary race between former South Carolina Governor and Mountain Man Mark Sandford and Curtis Bostic.

From his latest report of last Eveninghttp://theothermccain.com/2013/03/31/bostic-campaign/trackback/:

The fact that the 1st District runoff will occur on the Tuesday after Easter adds an extra element of uncertainty to the outcome, because many people will be on vacation, which will likely mean an even lower turnout. Slightly more than 50,000 cast ballots in the March 19 GOP primary, about 20,000 of them for Mark Sanford and 7,000 for Curtis Bostic. Exactly how many of the 33,000 who voted for the 14 other candidates will show up Tuesday and — who they will vote for — is a mystery….

Stacy has made no secret of his, shall we say, enthusiastic support of Mr. Bostic, but, as long-time readers of The Other McCain know, in his straight reporting, he maintains a his ‘Just The Facts, M’am’ style and clearly lets you know when he is offering opinion or doing a full-on cheer lead. So, no matter who you support, you can count on his reporting to be as accurate as such on-the-ground, in-the-moment reporting can be.

Here are the reports that he has filed so far over at TOM, some of which link to the ones he has filed for The American Spectator:

• March 30: Will Folks: ‘My Sacred Honor Requires Me to Endorse DCCC Fundraising Poster Boy’
• March 30: #SC01 UPDATE: Mark Sanford Cites His Vote for DOMA in Local TV Roundtable
• March 29: South Carolina Debate Aftermath
• March 28: Greetings from Charleston! Debate Between Bostic and Sanford 7 p.m. ET UPDATE: BOSTIC WINS DEBATE
• March 27: Headin’ to South Cackalacky!
• March 27: Can the Shoe Leather Fund Send Me to South Carolina? O, Ye of Little Faith!
• March 26: South Carolina ‘Cash Money’ Loyalty
• March 25: #TrustCurtis @Bostic4Congress Campaign Has Eight Days to Stop Sanford in S.C.
• March 20: S.C. Primary: Will Tea Party Rally Behind Curtis Bostic Against Mark Sanford?

Also, check out the coverage at Viral Read, where Stacy was recently named Sam Gatlin, er, Editor-In-Chief.

Damn fine job, Stacy, per usual.

From CBS Cleveland and the AP, we learn [tip of the fedora to the Drudge Report]:

Witnesses say the 25-year-old man accused of walking into an Ohio church and fatally shooting his father after an Easter service Sunday was yelling about God and Allah after the killing. Police say Reshad Riddle walked into the Hiawatha Church of God in Christ in Ashtabula and killed his father, 52-year-old Richard Riddle, with a single shot from a handgun Sunday afternoon.

…

[Associate Pastor Sean] Adams said Reshad Riddle then continued into the church, still holding the gun, and yelled that the killing was “the will of Allah. This is the will of God.” Reshad Riddle was quickly subdued by officers, who arrived just moments after the shooting. They say he has been mostly cooperative.

The Jihadists usually are, which is why it seems to me that this was, indeed, an act of Jihad In America.

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

—Matthew, 2:16-18

In Florida and Pennsylvania recently, we got a fleeting, but crystal clear glimpse into how the servants of The Culture Of Death think…

From The Weekly Standard, John McCormack reporting, we learn [tip of the fedora to Mark Levin][worth quoting at length]:

Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.

Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

"We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, "What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”

"I do not have that information," Snow replied. "I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”

Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

“I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?” asked Oliva.

"That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that," Snow said. "I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”

Later another representative asked Snow, “What objection could you possibly have to obligate a doctor to transport a child born alive to a hospital where it seems to me they would be most likely to be able to survive?”

Snow said Planned Parenthood was concerned about "those situations where it is in a rural health care setting, the hospital is 45 minutes or an hour away, that’s the closest trauma center or emergency room. You know there’s just some logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about.”

At the trial of late-term abortion ‘doctor’ Kermit Gosnell we recently learned [tip of the fedora to Darleen Click]:

Medical assistant Adrienne Moton admitted Tuesday that she had cut the necks of at least 10 babies after they were delivered, as Gosnell had instructed her. Gosnell and another employee regularly "snipped" the spines "to ensure fetal demise," she said.

Moton sobbed as she recalled taking a cellphone photograph of one baby because he was bigger than any she had seen aborted before. She measured the fetus at nearly 30 weeks, and thought he could have survived, given his size and pinkish color. Gosnell later joked that the baby was so big he could have walked to the bus stop, she said.

…

Jurors saw Moton’s photograph of the boy called "Baby A" on a large screen in the courtroom, which took on a bizarre look Tuesday as witnesses testified near a hospital bed with stirrups and other aging obstetric equipment. Denied the chance to bring jurors to the shuttered inner-city clinic, prosecutors are instead recreating a patient room in court.

The mother of "Baby A" testified later in the day, describing a painful three-day abortion process that started at Gosnell’s other clinic in Delaware. She was 17, had an infant daughter and was told by Gosnell she was 24 weeks pregnant – the legal limit in Pennsylvania, but not in neighboring Delaware, where abortions are banned after 20 weeks.

The woman said she given abortion drugs in Delaware and sent home each of the first two days, then was directed to the West Philadelphia clinic the third day to have the fetus expelled. She was in severe pain by then, pain that only worsened the following week, she said.

Her aunt had taken her to the clinic and paid the $1,300 fee, and they had not told her mother.

"I never felt pain like that, ever," the woman said. "I couldn’t talk to anybody and tell anybody."

But the teen ended up being hospitalized for two weeks with a large abscess and a blood clot near her heart. Prosecutors say she is one of countless patients injured during botched abortions or unsanitary conditions.

Moton, 35, had lived with Gosnell’s family during high school because of problems at home, then went to work for him years later. She earned about $10 an hour – off the books – to administer drugs, perform ultrasounds, help with abortions and dispose of fetal remains from 2005 to 2008.

She once had to kill a baby delivered in a toilet, cutting its neck with scissors, she said. Asked if she knew that was wrong, she said, "At first I didn’t."

…

Moton has pleaded guilty to third-degree murder, which carries a 20- to 40-year term, as well as conspiracy and other charges. She has been in prison since early 2011, when Philadelphia prosecutors arrested Gosnell, his third wife, Pearl, and eight other employees. Most of them have pleaded guilty and are expected to testify.

Over at CNS News, Michael Chapman filed a report on this testimony and evidence that contains more gruesome details and some very disturbing pictures [tip of the fedora to Mark Levin]. Though it will be quite upsetting, I strongly urge you to follow the link to this report because the horror must be seen – we must never turn our eyes from the Truth Of Evil.

How fitting that on the weekend when Jews celebrate the liberation of their ancestors from slavery and Christians celebrate the death and Resurrection of The Christ, we have presented to us the unadulterated and naked faces of Leftist Thought and Leftist Action. We have placed before our eyes and ears the unadorned and disrobed Nihilism of those who control all of the institutions of America and The West.

The images before us are of shriveled souls drenched in blood and reeking of death standing over the carnage of a modern Massacre Of The Innocents.

If only for this reason, we cannot make any deals or compromises with the Left. At their core, Leftists are death mongers who want to make the world one, big Atrocity Exhibition.

To those on the Right who still believe the people on the Left are decent, well-meaning people who happen to be wrong philosophically, I say: Wake up, dammit! Open your eyes and see the hideous blackness at the core of their souls; smell the foul stench of their breath as they speak their deceptions; hear the cries of those they have tortured and murdered.

All who subscribe to Leftism: you have made common cause with the Gosnells and Snows of this world. Those two are merely taking you precious Leftism to it’s logical ends. They are merely the leading high priests of The Culture Of Death; the rest of you are parishioners of their Church Of Evil. You are worshipers of misery and death. You are Anti-Life. You are servants of Evil.

From The London Daily Mail, Valerie Elliott reporting, we learn [tip of the fedora to the Sipsey Street Irregulars via Deetz via Ladd Ehlinger]:

They were Britain’s ‘secret army’, courageous volunteers prepared to sacrifice their lives to fight against a Nazi invasion of the UK.

Issued with top-secret orders, their role has remained unsung for decades. But now the undercover resistance units Churchill planned to activate in the event of a German invasion during the Second World War are at last to be honoured.

The Royal British Legion has agreed to officially recognise the 4,000 volunteers who once formed the secret guerrilla cells created to resist the Nazis. And for the first time, former members are to parade with other veterans at this year’s Remembrance Day ceremonies at the Cenotaph.

If wartime church bells rang to warn of enemy invasion, the orders for the Auxiliary Unit volunteers were to disappear without telling anyone and to report to hidden bases in the countryside.

Each was issued with sealed orders giving a list of potential collaborators, some as senior as county chief constables, who might have to be executed if there was a risk of them helping the Germans.

Most of the volunteers worked in the countryside and were chosen for their knowledge of the local area and ability to use a weapon.

Trained at Coleshill, in Oxfordshire, they operated in tight groups and their role was to disrupt and destroy the enemy’s supply chain, kill collaborators and take out strategic targets. Unable to tell anyone about their activities, they disguised their real mission by pretending to belong to the Home Guard.

Tom Sykes, of the Coleshill Auxiliary Research Team, which has campaigned for the men to be honoured, is delighted by the RBL’s decision. ‘Many of these veterans were in reserved occupations and could not join the regular Forces,’ he said. ‘But when the call came, they did not hesitate to join what would have been a suicide mission to confront the enemy.

‘They were taught cutting-edge guerrilla warfare and even used Thompson sub-machine guns before they were given to the British Army.

‘But they were sworn to secrecy and sadly suffered taunts and were sent white feathers by people who thought they were cowards for not fighting.

‘Thankfully, the invasion never came and many who joined feel they did not contribute. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I’m sure the majority would agree….’

They’re heroes and deserve the thanks of the people of Great Britain…and of America because, if the Nazis had invaded, these brave lads would have helped to bog down the Hun and given us more breathing room to mount our counter-offensives.

Perhaps those of us who are fighting to restore our freedoms and liberties, who are trying to save The American Republic from the ravaging forces of the Left In America, should be doing more research into these Auxilary Units — for historical purposes only, of course.

FYI: Check out the British Resistance Archive.

Kathy is dead-on with this observation over at Taki Magazine:

Call it a hazard of big-city living: I’ve automatically assumed every guy I’ve met over the course of the last twenty years was homosexual, then I worked my way backwards as evidence of his straightness piled up. (Say, spontaneous, repeated expressions of appreciation for Monica Bellucci, Motörhead, or both.)

Can you blame me? Consider the allegedly straight dudes you see on the subway, at the office, and at the coffee shop, sometimes with wives and even offspring in tow. Add up all the man-purses, the too-visible hair “product,” the pretentious eyewear, the borderline anorexia, the Tintin hairdos, the finicky food fetishes, and the little dogs in adorable outfits. (The Marquess of Queensbury was accidentally ahead of his time.)

We started mocking this personal style as “metrosexual” almost twenty years ago, but that word was always problematic. The “metro” prefix is utterly apt; it’s the “sexual” part that’s off. These nominal heteros are consciously or subconsciously mimicking gay twinks, and those fellows usually want to get laid. Their fragile straight counterparts, in contrast, don’t look like they could manage it, or even want to.

…

…the term “beta male” is the most popular pejorative. Since it’s fresher and more accurate than “metrosexual,” I’ll be using that phrase henceforth, along with that unfairly neglected anachronism “faggotry.” It’s ideal for my purposes because it doesn’t necessarily mean “gay” so much as “gay-ish.” So I’m trying to bring that word back. Call it artisanal invective.

Both sound good to me.

The Feminization Of The Western Male proceeds apace, but I think we can take heart in the fact that, when the things collapse, the beta males won’t survive too long. The legions of real men will survive and flourish — karma will bring balance through the boomerang.

Until then, try to ignore the effete little bastards as much as you can — although it’s hard to ignore the pussies in power — and soldier-on.

SIDENOTE: We threw around the terms ‘fag’ and ‘faggot’ back in the 1970′s to mean exactly what Kathy states: someone who was acting like a homo [a term we used for the kids we thought were actually Peter-Pumpers].

The word ‘fag’ was also used as a friendly, half-kidding put-down, as in telling a friend: ‘Stop acting like such a fag’.

Hell, I got called a fag sometimes because I wore a fake leather brown trench coat at all times in high school and read Russian novels.

I will follow in Kathy’s footsteps and do my part to bring the word ‘fag’ and it’s variations back from PC detention, to restore them to their rightful place in Western Society.

If she and I succeed, it will be wicked pissah.

NOTE TO KATHY: While it’s evident that I have a great appreciation for Miss Bellucci, I’m not a Motorhead fan — do Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Bad Company, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and Deep Purple count?

Unlike many others on the Right who ‘still believe the people on the Left are decent, well-meaning people who happen to be wrong philosophically‘ and refuse, therefore, to confront the Truth about the evil designs of the Left In America, Jeff Goldstein wears no blinders and refuses to sweeten his words, because he knows this is a time for speaking plainly and forthrightly:

It’s out in the open now. There’s no longer any real pretense of objectivity. Each time the progressive media “report” favorably on something they characterize like this (fairly or not) — and no switch comes down to sting their hands — they grow ever more emboldened. In the Oval Office they know they have someone who believes the very same things as they do, someone steeped in the very same academic indoctrination, someone who was taught to hate the country he now leads. Just like they were taught to hate it — and to self hate — convinced that to do so was liberating, the mark of having been truly educated, of seeing beyond the patriotic mythology into the cold black soul of a racist country whose successes came at the expense others it had dominated. And they are protected as a result of that ideological kinship. Free to express that hatred. They are on the side of power — unbridled power that has revealed itself to them in ways subtle and direct. They are the ones they’ve been waiting for, they were told. And it invigorates them. It gives them a sense of purpose and momentum. Because through the heart of every leftist runs the blood of totalitarianism, of confirmation bias, of rank bigotry and a mob’s lust for violence, for punishment, for blood, for inflicting suffering on those who dare oppose their designs. It’s who they are. It’s what they do.

Indeed — it’s their core, their root.

All Leftists want to tear down all existing institutions and build ones they have conceived in the sterile laboratories of their minds on the rubble or, in the case of the lesser ones [the un-Illuminated apparatchiks], they want to hollow-out those institutions and build new substructures inside.

They despise Life as it is. They are Anti-Life. They are Nihilists ['they were taught to hate it — and
to self hate'] and, therefore, believe they are not restrained by any Morals or codes. Everything is permissible to the Leftist.

More from Jeff:

The frightening truth that so many are pretending not to see is that we’ve seen this kind of scapegoating before elsewhere in the world. By design. Intended to bring about a desired end. Here, today, the narrative from the neo-Stalinist progressives is that constitutionalists are racial supremacists and paranoid freaks; the Founding Fathers are their false idols; and the founding documents are their fetish. Religion is both their opiate and their cocaine, the thing that simultaneously dulls them into an intellectual stupor and turns them into evangelical zealots bent on demanding obeisance. Taken together, this toxic blend of hateful ignorance makes these slack-jawed clingers to their guns and their religion exceedingly dangerous to “sensible” people who want to live in a “community” wherein “common sense” laws — not the hoary edicts of dead white patriarchal slave owners — hold sway. Rational, cultured, intellectual people want to live in a land that looks forward, to progress, not backward, to a time of tri-cornered hats and oppression of the Other.

This is the propaganda war being launched against you, against me, against we, the people. Or at least, one prong of that war. Because it goes beyond the mere normalizing of a video game playing out a fantasy based (at least partially) around that narrative. It is a “truth” they must construct, then peddle, then reinforce. To demonize the constitutionalists is to demonize the Constitution. And to demonize the Constitution is to ready us for its obviation.

The Left’s efforts to demonize us are part of their strategy to delegitimize our way of thinking. They want all of us to view the world through their funhouse mirror [they’ve declared us Outlaws…well…we
might as well start living-up to the role, eh?].

We cannot compromise with the Nihilists because it means dealing away our Morality — making a deal with The Devil, as it were.

Every single thing they stand for — EVERY. SINGLE. THING. — is the exact opposite of what we hold dear.

SIDENOTE: A number of commentators from the Right badly misinterpreted Jeff’s remarks and made, well, fools of themselves in the Comments section of his post. He replies to them here.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

—2 Timothy, 4:3-4

In a piece published over at The American Spectator today, George Neumayr makes a set of predictions that will one day get him labeled a prophet [emphasis mine]:

The end point of liberalism is a coercive secular state in which the religious have no meaningful rights. American church leaders are kidding themselves if they think the gay-marriage juggernaut is going to stop at civil marriage. It won’t. It will quickly travel past court houses to churches, demanding that all religions bless gay marriages.

…

In America, this pressure will take the form of “discriminatory” churches losing government grants, permits, and participation in programs. It will be the death of religious freedom by a thousand little cuts here and there: canceled speeches of religious figures at state universities, lost HHS grants, the refusal of city governments to recognize churches that don’t permit gay marriages, “hate crime” legislation that extends to opposition to gay marriage, and so on. All of this will have the effect of pressuring churches into blessing gay marriages. A law forcing priests and ministers to preside at gay marriages won’t need to be passed; the invisible law of indirect governmental pressure will do the trick.

Why shouldn’t this happen? After all, this is the Leftist approach that has worked so well in other areas, such as commerce. They are relentless, their thirsts unquenchable.

However, Mr. Neumayr commits an error when he claims that ‘the invisible law of indirect governmental pressure’ will be as far as the Left goes and he further predicts:

The goal of the gay-marriage juggernaut is to make Christians [BOB: I would have included Jews here, as well] pariahs, as irrelevant to public life as racists. It doesn’t have to pass a Denmark-style law to force churches to conduct gay marriages; it can achieve the same end through punitive political correctness.

The Left never excepts anything but total victory, so they will not be content to stop after the thousand cuts are delivered.

As we’ve seen, the Leftist Playbook divides their process of submission to their Will To Power into three stages:

1) Take control of the Narrative on an issue via such actions as convincing enough people that the definitions of certain words [such as 'marriage'] have ‘evolved’ from their real meaning. In other words [pun intended]: distort and confuse and sow doubt in the beliefs of the people. Create Chaos in the target area.

2) Begin exerting societal pressure to shame/guilt organizations and individuals into accepting the premises of the particular Narrative. At the same time governmental pressure must be applied around the edges by passing laws and issuing regulations that force institutions and groups to have to make a decision whether or not to engage in a myriad of small battles — overload their circuits, inflict, in Mr. Neumayr’s words, ‘death…by a thousand little cuts here and there’.

3) Go in for the kill, the final step of forcing submission: utilizing all branches of government at all levels, start legislating and regulating. A large number of people will quietly submit at this point because they have been mentally prepared — reconditioned — to accept the conclusion of this particular Narrative — in their heart-of-hearts they will believe in the goodness of their enslavement. A smaller number will submit because of the fear of shunning by Society at large — deep down they know better, but they are weak souls. An even smaller group will continue to resist, but they will not be powerful enough to prevent their Society as a whole from submitting to the Leftist Will, from dying just a little bit more.

This is what our future holds in so many areas.

If you have any doubt that the current leaders of the Left In America lack the Will to persevere in this task, Mr. Neumayr dispels said doubt in three paragraphs:

During last year’s campaign, Obama said that religions will remain free to determine their own “sacraments.” Shouldn’t that go without saying? The very fact that Obama made such a declaration should scare people. Whenever a pol says “I won’t do [fill in the
blank],” it usually means that very activity is on his mind. While he can’t determine the sacraments for religions, Obama will try and marginalize those religions that don’t determine the sacraments in a manner he considers “nondiscriminatory.”

Obama’s “respect” for these religions is on par with his respect for the policies of the Boy Scouts. “I think that my attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life,” said Obama when calling on the Boy Scouts to accept gay scoutmasters. Notice Obama’s phrase: every institution and walk of life. Surely in time that will include churches.

But for now, Obama thinks the religious should feel grateful to him that he is not busting down church doors and forcibly injecting them with contraceptives or requiring them to preside at gay weddings. That in his mind is the sum total of religious freedom. And yet even that little space can be crowded in on through laws that allow government to reward secularized religions and shun traditional ones.

We often decry Obama as a Narcissist — and he one of the raging variety — but so are all Leftists. They all believe they have The Secret Knowledge, THE ANSWER, that will lead, in the future, to bringing about Heaven On Earth. Anyone who believes that they have such insight is, as Gerhart Niemeyer remarks:

…claiming a foreknowledge that can only be that of a Being above and beyond time, [and they] cast themselves in a role not befitting the human situation. —The Communist Mind

A Side Thought: In those words of his, Obama reminds one of Henry VIII right before he looted the churches of England [Valerie Jarrett = Thomas Cromwell?...should Lady Michbeth be more worried about her neck???].

A Final Thought: This issue — the subjugation of Christianity and Judaism and other religions [except the cult known as Islam] — means a lot to the Left because the destruction of the spiritual community, our shared understanding of transcendent truth, our belief in an agreed-upon set of Absolute Truths, will leave a spiritual hole that they intend to fill with their rose-colored vision of a future Heaven On Earth. To put it simply: the Left In America wants to murder God and replace him with a Politburo of Illuminated Ones. They do not believe that God is present in everyone, but, rather, that everyone present is a god.

From The Washington Examiner, Paul Bedard reporting, we learn [tip of the fedora to Mark Levin]:

Tens of thousands of health care professionals, union workers and community activists hired as "navigators" to help Americans choose Obamacare options starting Oct. 1 could earn $20 an hour or more, according to new regulations issued Wednesday.

The 63-page rule covering navigators, drawn up by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, also said the government will provide free translators for those not fluent in English — no matter what their native language is.

…

It is still not clear how many navigators will be required. California, however, provides a hint. It wants 21,000.

That could be an expensive proposition. The proposed rules, now open for public comment, suggest an estimated pay of $20-$48 an hour.

…

The rules allow navigators to come from the ranks of unions, health providers and community action groups such as ACORN and Planned Parenthood. They are required to provide unbiased advice. [BOB:Yeah...I'm sure they will.]

From The Declaration Of Independence, The Founding Fathers reporting, we learn:

—He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance

Check.

The time is coming for us to make a decision.

One of the reasons I visit Jeff Goldstein’s Protein Wisdom every day, and would encourage you to, is because of the commentators, who are a thoughtful, insightful, and entertaining bunch. Case in point…

Yesterday, Jeff published a post about the IMF’s call for The United States to impose a five hundred billion dollar carbon tax on the people of America.

The IMF believes our energy products are ‘underpriced’ and, thus, unfair to the rest of the world because our selfishness ‘is “accelerating the depletion of natural resources” and contributing to climate change’.

[Jeff, of course, was having none of the pablum they were puking.  I encourage you to click here and read his full response.]

PW commentator SBP responded:

I’d like to see the U.S. adopt an automatic boilerplate amendment process that would insert the language “but first you will blow us” in anything emanating from the UN, IMF, etc.

Man, I like the cut of his jib.

So, do spend some time over at Protein Wisdom where you will not only enjoy the wit and wisdom of Jeff Goldstein, who is a modern day Madison/Hamilton, but, also, the same from his crew of Outlaws [just ignore the baby-talking yellow foot fungus — you'll know who I'm taking about once you get there].

WARNING: This post contains think so convoluted and perverse that, if you find yourself thinking it an acceptable way to act, you should immediately seek help at a poison control center or hit yourself repeatedly upside your head with a 2×4.

Jeff Goldstein captures, I think, exactly how the Left In America is approaching and how it will approach the confiscation of our firearms.

Commenting on the loose language in Harry Reid’s gun control bill, which would allow for the AG to set-up a gun registry, he writes:

Dealing with the new breed of national Democrat — those who have spent their lives basting in New Left dogma, and who have fallen-in lockstep behind the progressive agenda being pushed by this Administration — requires constant vigilance. That they were discovered here watering down language to open the way for the beginnings of a national gun registry means only that, should they now be defeated in their plan by strong arguments and sunlight, they’ll merely try again later, in some other way, using some other bill or some other crisis to reach their ends.

That is, if the full-frontal approach doesn’t work, they’ll return to the incremental approach — and with respect to their gun control aims, the contours to that approach are already quite clear: empower the AG to expand the parameters for what is included in a background check, wherein a partisan agent is given the power to determine what group or groups of people come to constitute a potential danger; cross-reference ObamaCare, with its governmental access to health and prescription records, with other databases, using medical professionals and (they hope) mental health professionals to create the conditions under which they can argue for “sensible” prohibitions on firearms ownership; use Democratic majorities in various states to drive draconian gun control measures through the state legislatures on a party-line vote, then see which of those state laws stand up to court challenges and which do not; use agencies such as the CDC to lend an air of scientific and medical emergency to the “gun violence” “epidemic” — as if gun violence is contagious in any way other than through some strained sociological metaphor — then demand action to combat the crisis or “epidemic” (regardless of what the crime statistics show).

We are living in a time when our government is looking for ways to usurp our rights, pressuring them from every angle, waiting for us to “compromise” if only to make them relent.

This is the method described in the pages of the Leftist Playbook.

They don’t need no stinkin’ violent Revolution! No, no.

The Left In America decided in the 1970′s and 1980′s [please see: Stanley Kurtz's Radical-In-Chief*] to become a cancer and invade the American Body Politic from within, first striking at certain organs and then, from those bases, metastasizing.

One of their main tactics [and one that has been successful over and over and over again] is the one Jeff describes above.

In that same post, he also issues a necessary reminder:

Make no mistake: We are not fighting a party that disagrees with us on certain policy issues; we are fighting an ideology that has as its purpose the deconstruction of the Constitution, and with it, a clear path to remake society in its image through pure assertion of unchecked power, marshaling regulation, taxation, price controls, and the re-defining of core foundational ideas made permanent by activist courts as a way to fundamentally transform the US.

Dead solid perfect.

Copy and paste that paragraph of Jeff’s, print it, and hang it somewhere you’ll see it every single Goddamn day to remind you of just what the Enemy is up to.

SIDENOTE: It is my belief that the national government is so riddled with the Leftist Cancer that it is beyond hope of saving and that our last and best hope is to be found in several of the Several States.

UPDATE at 1931…

In another post today, Jeff captures how the Left In America plays the Useful Idiots of the GOP:

…[John] McCain has become something of a barometer on these types of issue:  if he agrees to “compromise,” you can be certain it is on that particular point that the Democrats are most hoping to win — McCain being one of the most steadfast of the purely political animals on the GOP side, and as such, an easy target for ideologues who have pushed a national narrative of a desire for compromise.  In  particular, if by “compromising” on one point while voting against several others, McCain believes he’ll receive plaudits from the non-whacko birds in the major leftwing media for being one of the “reasonable” kind of Republicans, that’s what he’ll do.   Or, to put this another way, the progressives know which Republicans will sell out their base for some backslaps and pottage, so they maneuver their legislative desires to target those figures — and then they set up their strategy to coax the dupes toward accepting what it is they really wanted all along.

Yeah…perhaps McCain in more of a Dupe than a Useful Idiot, like Cryin’ John Boehner.

_______________________________________
* It is not simply a book about how Obama became a
Radical Leftist and conducted himself in the 1980′s and
1990′s. It is also a history of the Left In America since
the late 1960′s.

A voice from the past to give us strength to face the present and future in these dark and foreboding times…

Ronald Wilson Reagan, from a speech given on his birthday in 1977 to CPAC [tip of the fedora to Mark Levin]:

I have always been puzzled by the inability of some political and media types to understand exactly what is meant by adherence to political principle. All too often in the press and the television evening news it is treated as a call for "ideological purity." Whatever ideology may mean — and it seems to mean a variety of things, depending upon who is using it — it always conjures up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. We have to recognize that in this country "ideology" is a scare word. And for good reason. Marxist-Leninism is, to give but one example, an ideology. All the facts of the real world have to be fitted to the Procrustean bed of Marx and Lenin. If the facts don’t happen to fit the ideology, the facts are chopped off and discarded.

I consider this to be the complete opposite to principled conservatism. If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.

When a conservative states that the free market is the best mechanism ever devised by the mind of man to meet material needs, he is merely stating what a careful examination of the real world has told him is the truth.

When a conservative says that totalitarian Communism is an absolute enemy of human freedom he is not theorizing — he is reporting the ugly reality captured so unforgettably in the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain.

When a conservative says that busing does not work, he is not appealing to some theory of education — he is merely reporting what he has seen down at the local school.

When a conservative quotes Jefferson that government that is closest to the people is best, it is because he knows that Jefferson risked his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to make certain that what he and his fellow patriots learned from experience was not crushed by an ideology of empire.

Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way — this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.

The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations — found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow.

One thing that must be made clear in post-Watergate is this: The American new conservative majority we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: "Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for." That is not "ideological purity." It is simply what built this country and kept it great.

Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left or right — those who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives.

Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology. Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change.

Goddamn, I miss the man.

The Smartest Man In The World™* and America’s Number One Skeet Shooter™* has revealed himself to be a total f-ing idiot once again…

From The Weekly Standard, Daniel Halper reporting, we learn [tip of the fedora to the Drudge Report][emphasis mine]:

At a fundraiser last night in San Francisco, President Barack Obama said that the Newtown killer gunned down 20 children using a "fully automatic weapon." From the official transcript, provided by the White House:

Now, over the next couple of months, we’ve got a couple of issues: gun control. (Applause.) I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.

According to the prosecutor, Stephen J. Sedensky III, the killer, Adam Lanza, "killed all 26 victims inside Sandy Hook Elementary School with a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle before taking his own life with a Glock 10 mm handgun. He says Lanza had another loaded handgun with him inside the school as well as three, 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster," ABC previously reported.

Each of the guns used is a semi-automatic weapon, and not one is an automatic weapon.

Well…hey…cut the Nancy-Boy some slack: he hasn’t spent much time at his desk lately or getting briefings. Priorities, don’t you know.

_
* The Smartest Man In The World™ and America’s Number One
Skeet Shooter™ are trademarks owned by Organizing For America™
and BHO-Douchebags LLC, 666 Baal Lane, Utopia, Ameritopia.