From David Isaac over at Shmuel Katz Blog:

A little over a month after former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s fall, Ayman Anwar Mitri, a Coptic Christian, was beaten by Islamists inside his apartment, which they had torched.

“When they were beating me, they kept saying: ‘We won’t leave any Christians in this country,’” Mr. Mitri recalled to The Wall Street Journal.

Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom, recently wrote: “Since [late February], a heightened campaign of violence is being directed against Egypt’s Copts and is presaging a mass exodus from the country…”

All of you out there who support the Palestinian “right of return” – what of the Coptic “right to stay”? The Copts are the original Egyptians – Egypt has been their land since before recorded history began…and yet not a peep out of anyone for the fate of these poor people, now soon to be subjected to an Islamo-fascist, Moslem Brotherhood government. They are being persecuted for no other reason than the fact they are Christian – and far from offering any justification for attacks the Copts have, if anything, been entirely too supine in face of Moslem bigotry. Where are the demands for action?

Ah, but it doesn’t fit the narrative – which is that Moslems are just misunderstood and are, at any rate, far more tolerant than those mean, old Christians ever were. All of that being pure, unadulterated BS…a lie first created centuries ago when the original liberals in the 18th century wanted a handy club to beat Christianity with…and so they made up a story about enlightened, tolerant Islam.

What I really want to know is how long we Christians are supposed to just sit there and take it – how long will my brothers and sisters in Christ have to be sacrificed before we are allowed to stand up and oppose Islamism? What is the number of deaths, rapes and other outrages before we reach a number which justifies us striking back?

Rather disturbing report over at NRO – first off, the Susan B. Anthony List has created a pro-life pledge for potential GOP candidates:

Only nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;

Select pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health & Human Services, and the Department of Justice;

Advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;

Advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.

And then NRO notes Romney has refused it – and given the following explanation as to why:

“Governor Romney pledged in the last campaign that he would be a pro-life president and of course he pledges it today,” Romney spokesman Andrea Saul told National Review Online in a statement. “However, this well intentioned effort has some potentially unforeseen consequences and he does not feel he could in good conscience sign it. Gov. Romney has been a strong supporter of the SBA List in the past and he looks forward to continue working with them to promote a culture of life.”…

…Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul e-mails NRO the details about the unintended consequences Romney is concerned about: “This pledge would require cutting off funding to thousands of healthcare facilities, including VA hospitals, that currently receive funding . It would also place severe restrictions on federal appointments to a broad variety of agencies.”

First off, if you are performing abortions you are not a “health care facility” – and if a determination to butcher children is so ingrained in an organization, then taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be going there, no matter what else they do. Secondly, if you are a pro-life President – as Romney claims he would be – then appointing a pro-abort to a position in which abortion is relevant would be a negation of “pro-life President”. I hate to say it, but it appears that all Romney wants to do is gain pro-life support without having to do all that tiresome, pro-life policy which would only crimp his style…after all, there might be some pro-abortion fanatic that Romney owes a favor to and what better way to reward such a person than to make them, say, head of the National Institutes of Health?

You either are or your are not pro-life – if you are pro-life, then the thought that an action of yours might in any way, shape or form advance the cause of abortion is a horror. Any pro-life person would eagerly sign such a pledge as this – and no one is forcing Romney to do so, but if you want to be pro-life it requires more than just a bit of lip service. Hopefully Romney will re-consider and do the right thing.

You just gotta love this guy:

http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1

I do have my doubts that Christie has the understanding of the need for revolutionary change in the United States. That our problem is not just mis-management (though that is a huge problem) but the very system, itself. The combine of Big Government and Big Corporation all dominated by a liberal Ruling Class and entirely devoted to self-perpetuation – that is our problem. We have to dismantle it – break it down and allow the American people to live free. But, my goodness, Christie does have guts – I don’t know of any politician, even Ronald Reagan, who ever had so much willingness to completely speak his mind…and tell the truth, even when it can come across as brutal (it isn’t, really: it is actually quite nice…it is just that we are so used to going along with lies that truth seems out of place).

If he wants to get in for 2012, now is the time…

From CNBC:

When it comes to measuring the combination of unemployment and inflation, it doesn’t get much more miserable than this…

…The (misery) index, first compiled during the soaring inflation days of the 1970s by economist Arthur Okun, is registering a nausea-inducing 12.7—9.1 percent for unemployment and 3.6 percent for annualized inflation—a number not seen since 1983. The index has been above 10 since November 2009 and had been under double-digits from June 1993 through May 2008…

Clearly the MSM is still following the Obama line – thus it is still a “recovery”, even though none of us can see such a thing. Also, the report still goes on to say that things are sure to improve over the next year even though all signs are pointing to at least a serious slow down if not a full blown recession. The truth does have to come out, but we can rely on the MSM to let it out in as small amount as possible, and always with some bit of positive for Obama to bask in.

But the plain fact of the matter is that things are pretty miserable and are getting more so all the time…we need a complete change. We need an end to the fiat-money, usury-based economy. An economy of hard work, thrift and careful investment is what we need – we’ll never get rich quick, but we’ll be prosperous and secure in our prosperity. And we won’t get anything like that as long as Obama is in charge.

2012 really can’t get here fast enough…

Outrageous bit of news from WSBTV 2:

Mexico and 10 other countries have filed amicus briefs in a lawsuit that asks a judge to declare Georgia’s new immigration law unconstitutional and to block it from being enforced.

The lawsuit was filed two weeks ago by civil liberties groups.

Besides Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru filed amicus briefs on Wednesday in support of the plaintiffs…

Georgia’s law is similar to Arizona’s immigration statute – and thus is pretty much just a re-statement of a nearly 80 year old Federal law regarding the requirement of immigrants to carry documentation on them at all time. This, naturally, has upset the usual liberal suspects in the United States – who are now being joined by foreign nations in attempting to subvert American sovereignty and democracy. I have the cure for this – though we won’t be able to do it until we replace Obama. The solution is to make State and local expenditures on illegal immigrants recoverable at law from the country of origin.

Here’s how it would work. The States and localities have to pay out pretty large sums of money to providing housing, clothing, food, medical care, education, incarceration, etc in support of the population of illegal immigrants. What we do is enact a law inviting the States and localities to sue in federal court for damages. States and localities would have to identify the nationality of the people they are expending funds on and then, once a year, file a claim (as it were) to recover the costs. If a federal court rules that the persons in question are, indeed, illegally in the United States and that the State and local government expended X amount of dollars on them, then the country of origin is assessed the amount expended on average, per person. So, if California has 2 million illegal immigrants from Mexico and they cost, on average, $1,000.00 per person last year, California would be awarded $2,000,000,000.00 payable by Mexico – it would be collected in the form of a tariff on Mexican goods until the balance is paid, unless Mexico just wants to pony up the amount in a lump sum.

This measure doesn’t deport anyone. It doesn’t report any particular individual to law enforcement. It doesn’t stop illegals from obtaining medical care. It doesn’t kick a single illegal out of school. It doesn’t differentiate based upon national origin. It provides a revenue stream for State and local governments so it will not be fought by them (just watch the “sanctuary cities” line up for it). Most importantly, it forces the countries of origin for the illegals to pay the freight for having them in the United States. It is an absolutely fair and easily executable law – and it will rapidly curb illegal immigration in to the United States because the nations currently sending illegals here to work and send money back home will lose their easy money…and have a huge hit on their export trade to the United States.

I’d like to hear of an objection anyone can make to this. To me, it is the most merciful and just way to deal with the thorny issue. Remember what illegal immigration is all about – money. For the poor illegals, themselves, it is to make money…but it is also a big money maker for the hopelessly corrupt nations which provide the bulk of our illegals. This measure would simply take that money back – it’ll eliminate the profitable trade in illegal labor and thus make it something much less likely to happen. The trouble is, of course, that we’ll never get something like this past Obama…but he may be gone on January 20th, 2013.

If you haven’t been paying attention to this scandal, you should. Bob Owens over at Pajamas Media has an excellent run-down of the issue:

…On December 14, 2010, a special unit of the U.S. Border Patrol came across a group of heavily armed suspects near Rio Rico, Arizona. The Border Patrol team identified themselves as law enforcement officers, at which point the armed men open fire. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was hit in the pelvis by a single bullet and died the next morning. One of the suspects was captured, and two AK-pattern semiautomatic rifles recovered at the scene were identified by serial number as weapons that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) — acting in concert with and with the blessing of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) — allowed weapons smugglers to purchase at U.S. gun shops. The weapons were just two of more than 2,000 firearms that ATF supervisors and the highest levels of DOJ management allowed to be “walked” across the border to narco-terrorist drug cartels in Mexico, in a scandal that promises to be more damning and deadly than Iran-Contra.

The ATF named their operation Fast and Furious, but it will go down in history by its more descriptive title: “Gunwalker.”…

The official story is that the plan was that the weapons would be traceable when used for a crime. I have some doubts about that. Naturally, most of the crimes would be committed in Mexico and the people committing the crimes would be low-level foot soldiers for the cartels. In other words, being able to identify which weapon did which crime would be pointless – we couldn’t prosecute and even if the Mexicans could, all they’d catch are the troops, not the leaders. My guess is that while the “trace” thing was in there, a more likely explanation is either to be found in rank corruption (someone bought by the cartels to provide a means of arms) or a back door way to justify gun control (and I do recall the allegations by the Mexicans and the Administration that the cartel’s guns were coming from American gun dealers).

No matter how you slice it, this is about the most stupid and criminal action a government can take. To provide weapons to criminals – for whatever reason – is to be guilty of accessory to murder. The Mexican drug cartels are the most brutal and inhuman criminal gangs imaginable. Al Qaeda is a collection of pansies compared to these beasts. They are murdering not just people who cross them, but just in order to intimidate anyone who might at some point even think about crossing them. Men, women and children are being butchered – and raped, beaten and robbed, in to the bargain. The proper answer to the drug lords is to send special forces out to kill them…not work out come cockamamie plan to provide them traceable arms.

This scandal is still in its infancy and, naturally, the Obama Administration is refusing to cooperate fully with the investigation. We can rely upon it that Holder’s “Justice” Department won’t make a move unless compelled to do so…and that means further hearings and more publicity for this horrid scandal. We really can’t let this one go; there is something very dirty going on here.

From The Hill:

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday said the Obama administration failed to answer all his questions about the U.S. mission in Libya and raised the possibility that the House would move to cut off funding for the operation.

In response to demands from the House, the administration released a 32-page report arguing that the Libya mission does not need congressional authorization because the U.S. military engagement there doesn’t amount to “hostilities.”

Boehner said that explanation doesn’t fly with him…

Got that right – the explanation is that even though we’ve got military forces engaged, we’re not at war because it is hard for the Libyans to hit us doesn’t come across as a valid argument. You can bet your bottom dollar that if President McCain had done this then Senator Obama wouldn’t buy it. Only the most egregious of partisans could possibly swallow the Presidential sophistry on Libya.

I am still in favor of intervening in Libya provided we go for victory – I see no evidence that we are, but I am willing to give Preisdent Obama more time. Perhaps there are back-stage things going on which are moving us towards success. Time will tell on that, but Obama clearly doesn’t have an endless amount of it. While it would be a bad thing to cut off funds for the effort, it would be worse to continue the effort indefinitely – with no goal; no pursuit of victory. Better to bug out than just meander along pointlessly.

It is to be hoped that Obama will bring Congress in to his confidence and let the leaders know fully what the goal is and then have a vote on the floor of Congress to decide if it will be done. If Obama does approach Boehner and explains carefully what we are doing and asks for a vote, I have no doubt that Beohner’s response would be that of a patriot – to secure authorization for a victorious campaign. But it is up to Obama – and if he doesn’t move swiftly, then things will go entirely out of his hands and he’ll find a bi-partisan Congressional majority lining up against further actions in Libya.

Jay Cost lays it out:

…The president can visit as many green companies as he likes. His team can put out as many strategy videos as it likes. It can organize its ground game in Virginia all day and all night. None of this is going to change the fundamentals of this upcoming election, which are:

1. The economy is substantially weaker for Obama than for other previous presidents who won reelection.

2. The deficit is now substantially higher than before.

3. His major domestic reform–Obamacare–is substantially more unpopular.

4. The American people are substantially more pessimistic.

That’s the state of the nation at this point. Nothing the Obama campaign can do at this point will affect any of these fundamentals–the hope is that its efforts will alter the public’s perceptions of these fundamentals, but it won’t. If we’ve learned anything in the last 50 years of the modern campaign, it’s that the billion dollar efforts of campaign technocrats, who now dominate our politics, cannot convince people that the sun rises in the west…

Which is all very true – and there is not much Obama can do to alter any of these fundamentals, nor much chance that events will correct one or more of them. Obama is pretty much in the fix he’s going to be in all through 2012. And so his plan it to raise a billion dollars, smear the GOP and hope that he can sucker people in to narrowly re-electing him (quite honestly, Obama and Co will take the narrowest of electoral college victories if that is all that can be done…the whole effort will be at securing 270 electoral votes). Cost, in his article, goes on to assert that if the fundamentals don’t change, Obama will lose – normally, I’d agree with that, but 2012 may be different.

I remember the 2002 California gubernatorial contest when the Democrats were carrying an unpopular governor who had a lousy economy as his record…and yet the Democrats managed to win. If ever there was an election the GOP should have won in a walk-over, it was the 2002 California election. What finally decided the contest was not the Democrat’s record, but the fact that the Democrats demonized the GOP candidate so savagely that they dispirited the GOP base while at the same time so turning Independents off that they stayed home. Democrat ground game plus voter registration advantage did the rest. To be sure, that governor – Gray Davis – was subsequently booted via recall, but for the Democrats the lesson was learned – just be as nasty as you can. Facts, logic and basic decency don’t matter…if you’ve got an unpopular incumbent who can’t run on his record, then just throw a political hand grenade and hope that out of the wreckage your man will come out on top. This, from what I can perceive, is the Obama re-election strategy.

The joker in the deck for Obama is the TEA Party movement – which despises him and lives for the day when he is defeated. He has to divide and/or otherwise deflate that movement. I don’t know if he can do it – if he can’t, then it won’t matter: if the economy is still bad and the TEA Party is still on fire, then Obama’s job in 2013 will be memoir writing. But Obama will try – and the entirety of the Ruling Class will be going to bat for him, including at least some of the Republican part of it (even if only in the form of snidely attacking a TEA Party-backed GOP nominee). For the Ruling Class the 2012 election isn’t about Obama – it is about ensuring that no one acceptable to the TEA Party becomes President. They fear that such a person will actually attack the system which causes our problems…thus throwing the Ruling Class out of their place at the trough.

I don’t know how 2012 will come out – I hope for the sake of the United States that Obama is defeated and, furthermore, that liberalism suffers a crushing loss nationally. I believe we can do this – but only if we fight very, very hard. Complete dedication of effort will be required – plus a unity between the center and right which has never been seen before. It is ok to attack GOPers – especially if they get off the Constitutional ranch – but always remember who we’re really fighting…save your hottest fire for Obama and the liberals. As for me, I’m happy and geared up and ready to go…

They just never give up – from JS Online:

One day after the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of collective-bargaining legislation that potentially affects thousands of public-sector employees, a coalition of unions filed suit in federal court seeking to block it.

The Wisconsin State AFL-CIO on Wednesday joined a number of other unions seeking to halt Gov. Scott Walker’s controversial collective bargaining legislation…

…The case was assigned to Federal Judge William M. Conley. Conley is an appointee of President Barack Obama…

That last bit is important – elections have consequences; keep that in mind the next time the GOP nominee isn’t perfect. They are likely to get, at the least, a friendly hearing from the judge…though the outcome remains to be seen, and it is highly likely that if it goes all the way, the Supreme Court will uphold the law.

Outside of that, let this be an object lesson for us – never let the guard down, never stop fighting. They don’t. They just keep going – the only thing which can finally stop them is if they are utterly defeated at the polls. We have to beat them so badly that they simply lack the ability to interfere in any meaningful way – it isn’t good enough, in the end, for us to just beat Obama and take back the Senate…in the long run there has to be a solid conservative/libertarian majority in Congress…and this means the combination of liberals and RINOs has to be at 39 or less in the Senate. A tall order, but it is the only way we’ll finally be rid of liberalism. And only then will we no longer have groups willing to destroy America just to advance their own special interest.