NYC Mayor @MikeBloomberg gets taste of his own medicine, but no pizza UPDATE: Sadly, it’s just satire.

**Posted by Phineas

I love it!

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was denied a second slice of pizza today at an Italian eatery in Brooklyn.

The owners of Collegno’s Pizzeria say they refused to serve him more than one piece to protest Bloomberg’s proposed soda ban,which would limit the portions of soda sold in the city.

Bloomberg was having an informal working lunch with city comptroller John Liu at the time and was enraged by the embarrassing prohibition. The owners would not relent, however, and the pair were forced to decamp to another restaurant to finish their meal.

Witnesses say the situation unfolded when as the two were looking over budget documents, they realized they needed more food than originally ordered.

“Hey, could I get another pepperoni over here?” Bloomberg asked owner Antonio Benito.

“I’m sorry sir,” he replied, “we can’t do that. You’ve reached your personal slice limit.”

Hey, Mikey! How does it feel to have someone telling what you can and can’t eat, you pint-sized statist tyrant?

Read the rest, with a language warning: Hizzoner doesn’t like being told “no.”

Makes me want to go to New York, just to give Collegno’s some thank-you business. smiley applause

via The Jawa Report

UPDATE: Just found out it was satire. Darn it. It’s one of those things that just should be true. :)

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

#Benghazi: Obama denied aid to attacked consulate – confirmed?

**Posted by Phineas

US Consulate, Benghazi

“No help”

Last November, in a post about the Benghazi consulate massacre and the question of military relief, I wrote about the question of “cross-border authority” — that is, who has the power to order our military to enter another country without their permission, per force an act of war. Quoting an article at PJM by Matt Bracken, we learned that only the President -Barack Obama- has that authority. Here’s the relevant information, again:

Once the alarm is sent – in this case, from the consulate in Benghazi — dozens of HQs are notified and are in the planning loop in real time, including AFRICOM and EURCOM, both located in Germany. Without waiting for specific orders from Washington, they begin planning and executing rescue operations, including moving personnel, ships, and aircraft forward toward the location of the crisis. However, there is one thing they can’t do without explicit orders from the president: cross an international border on a hostile mission.

That is the clear “red line” in this type of a crisis situation.

No administration wants to stumble into a war because a jet jockey in hot pursuit (or a mixed-up SEAL squad in a rubber boat) strays into hostile territory. Because of this, only the president can give the order for our military to cross a nation’s border without that nation’s permission. For the Osama bin Laden mission, President Obama granted CBA for our forces to enter Pakistani airspace.

On the other side of the CBA coin: in order to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi, all the POTUS has to do is not grant cross-border authority. If he does not, the entire rescue mission (already in progress) must stop in its tracks.

Emphases added.

Today in an article at Fox News, Adam Housely reports that, because of a “communication breakdown” between the White House, State, and the Department of Defense, the military never received permission to enter Libya:

On the night of the Benghazi terror attack, special operations put out multiple calls for all available military and other assets to be moved into position to help — but the State Department and White House never gave the military permission to cross into Libya, sources told Fox News.

The disconnect was one example of what sources described as a communication breakdown that left those on the ground without outside help.

“When you are on the ground, you depend on each other — we’re gonna get through this situation. But when you look up and then nothing outside of the stratosphere is coming to help you or rescue you, that’s a bad feeling,” one source said.

Multiple sources spoke to Fox News about what they described as a lack of action in Benghazi on Sept. 11 last year, when four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed.

Read the whole thing. It describes a lack of contingency planning, largely centered on Hillary Clinton’s State Department, and surely they (and she) bear a lot of blame for the lack of proper security at Benghazi and the failure to recognize the dangers in that part of Libya. Four Americans died because of it. The Diplomad, a former Foreign Service Officer with direct experience of Clinton, has often described how she seemed utterly uninterested in the job, thus this failure seems all too plausible.

But, if Bracken is right, at the moment of crisis itself, responsibility for a rescue operation that night was not Clinton’s. Nor was it Defense Secretary Panetta’s, nor that of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nor of anyone else… except President Barack Obama, who, like the dog in “Silver Blaze,” did nothing. The Fox article itself, relying on unnamed albeit multiple sources, looks almost like an effort to either shift the blame to someone no longer there, Clinton, or disperse blame by showing how everyone screwed up, so no one person is responsible.

And yet, when we read:

Sources said that shortly after the attack began around 9:40 p.m., special forces put out the calls for assets to be moved into position.

“What that does is that enacts … every asset, every element to respond and it becomes a global priority,” one source said. “I would tell you that was given and the only reason it was given is because of special operations pack.”

However, the source said, “Assets did not move.”

The key question regarding a rescue effort remains: Who had “cross-border authority” and, if it wasn’t given, why?

Unlike Bob Owens, I’m not ready to say that Obama himself denied a rescue operation is “confirmed,” particularly when sources are unnamed, but it’s awfully plausible if Bracken is right about the president’s sole authority to grant CBA, and if we imagine a diffident Obama, who loves to campaign but hates to govern, voting present by simply not making a decision.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) will be holding hearings next week at which whistle-blowers with direct information about what happened at Benghazi and with our reaction are expected to testify. Maybe then we’ll finally get an answer about why the most powerful military in human history couldn’t couldn’t come to the rescue.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

In Depth: The vile nature of militant #prochoice “feminism” – as described by one of their own

Got the below comment from someone calling themselves “Carla Clark” in the early a.m. hours today and wanted to share it with you.  Apparently Ms. Clark was highly upset at a post I wrote last week accurately and bluntly describing the shameful, bloody, pro-abortion legacies of our pro-choice President and his lapdog feminists, and she wanted to let me know just how stupidly wrong I was.   Ironically, her hateful, bigoted, callous remarks are a validation of everything I wrote.  It’s a shame she and other militant pro-aborts just like her are too hopelessly mindless to see that.  Bless her heart.

I would guesstimate that about 75% of the “feminist” movement is this rabidly, militantly, almost violently pro-choice. The rest are like I used to be when I was a liberal and advocated for abortion – I did so only in the abstract not pausing to think about what abortion really involved from moral, physical, emotional, and spiritual perspectives.   Once it hit me, the guilt came on fast and it’s something I still suffer from.  I thank God for making me see the light, because me being “on the other side” of this argument at one time in my life gave me the insight to know how to combat the various “rationales” thrown out there by so-called “women’s health advocates” like Carla.

I read disturbing opinions like Carla’s all the time at “feminist” blogs, on social media, magazines, watch them on TV, etc.  Have written about them here some. So for anyone who believes Carla is the “exception” the rule when it comes to militant pro-abortion “feminists” and their appalling cold-blooded nature when it comes to the unborn, and when it comes to women (and men) who dare to stray from self-righteous feminist dogma, let me warn you. She’s not an “exception.”  She is the norm.

But enough of my commentary. Below is Carla, unedited, unplugged, unhinged. The only thing I added was the bolded emphasis.   I urge people to pray for “women” like this who do a great disservice to young, impressionable women everywhere with this type of me-first, selfish, cruel, immoral behavior.  Carla and many other pro-aborts of her kind have a lot of blood on their hands.  Let’s pray for them that they one day wake up and see the light.  If not for their collective sake, then for the sakes of the millions of future unborn babies who deserve the same chance at life you, I, and the Carlas of the world were given.


Author : Carla Clark / Time Stamp: 5:29 AM ET 5/2/2013

“Hmm, it seems to me that someone who wants to kill women with the second deadliest known condition for women, WORLDWIDE, is the cold-hearted, bloody, murderer.

You are missing SEVERAL facts in your post, ‘sweetheart’. Not surprising, however. How many times have YOU investigated the lethal effects of childbirth and pregnancy, moron? I assure you, ANY woman who dies from abortion, has at least TEN MORE women dying from pregnancy and childbirth complications, EVERY FUCKING DAY. Coward.

Obama didn’t sign the “Partial Birth Abortion (it’s a MADE UP term, anti, which is why you’d have to put it into scare quotes)” act, because he, unlike certain other individuals, knows that there was already legislation to protect infants born alive. Besides, like the disgusting piece of excrement you are, you’ve just proven how WORTHLESS women’s lives are to you, but, of course, when it comes to your own, you’d be begging to have it saved. Late-term abortions are ONLY done for life-threatening and health reasons. You want to know HOW I know? Because I live in Canada, a country where there IS no legal restriction to abortion, but is medically regulated like any OTHER medical procedure. Abortion rates are comparable to rates of abortion in countries where it is ILLEGAL, the biggest difference? FEWER WOMEN DIE. Again, simply proving how this is NOT about saving lives.

The only Christian person is someone who is NOT a misogynist, blaming women for BIOLOGICAL ACCIDENTS, while completely ignoring any failing of a MAN’S biology. Jesus was not a misogynist, after all. The only CHRISTIAN person is someone who realizes that the biblical God has killed more fetuses than any living human in history. The only CHRISTIAN person is someone who doesn’t pick and choose parts of the bible they LIKE, then ignores all the rest. After all, Jesus said he didn’t come to wipe away all that came before, he said he came to FULFILL the promises that came before. Also, any passage involving a spontaneous or induced miscarriage, refers to people who ARE Pro-Abortion, meaning anti-choicers, like yourself. Besides, those passages only considered women and children PROPERTY of men, and women were simply considered more valuable property. Jesus does not like an idolator. And YOUR ilk are FETAL idolators. Obama saying God Bless You to Pro-Lifers would be a travesty of God’s Word.

Murder is a SPECIFIC term. It means unlawful killing with malice aforethought. Abortion is not illegal, it is not killing, it is not done with malice and it is not done with forethought. Just because we can’t currently charge YOU with murder, doesn’t mean we couldn’t, if Pro-’Life’ activism became illegal. You DO kill women, through pre-eclampsia, untreated cancers, etc. You DO do it with malice, because only women are treated as non-persons with no rights. And you DO do it with forethought, because you KNOW what effect your policies will have on women. You just refuse to acknowledge it, because then you would realize you are the TRUE murderers. Also, most Pro-Lifers I’ve met support illegal wars and the death penalty, and both sanctioned by the state, yet, somehow, you oppose state sanctioned abortion? Hypocrites. Besides that, do you think NO fetuses die during war? Or is it just that this is NOT about saving lives, but forcing women to be your livestock?

MORE women regret continuing their pregnancies than having an abortion. The same reason that women are afraid to come out about their regrets for giving birth, is the SAME reason they may feel regret over having had an abortion. Antis stigmatizing, shaming and marginalizing women who don’t want to become their livestock. There is a medically documented condition known as Post Partum Depression. There is NONE for abortion. Wanna know why? Because women who typically report feeling regret for an abortion are those who were COERCED into abortion (meaning it was ANTI not PRO-choicers), preexisting circumstances, harassment, shaming and stigmatization from antis, and/or a medical condition that is associated with PREGNANCY, not the actual abortion. WHOOPS.

Have your heads gone all splodey from the logic, yet? No? Here’s some MORE for ya.

The right to bodily autonomy applies to ALL people, not just men. If you want to give the right to exist at all costs (otherwise, it’s just an arbitrary distinction on YOUR part) to a fetus, a right that NO ONE ELSE HAS, you must give a right to exist at all costs to rapists, even during rape, you must give a right to exist at all costs to a person on death row, even during the commission of his crime, otherwise you’re just hypocrites and misogynists.

FINALLY, Kermit Gosnell was killing actual INFANTS, meaning those who had completely exited the woman’s body. Carhart, however? NO. Kermit Gosnell was JUST AS ANTI-CHOICE as YOU. If Planned Parenthood was the one that restricted access to contraception, abortion (health care), etc, and/or limited poor and immigrant women’s access to safe abortion, then, yes, they would have failed in their DUTY. However, last I checked, it was ANTI-choicers doing that, therefore, that DUTY fell to them. MORE proof that you people don’t care about saving lives OR women.

PS: I notice that most of the people agreeing with you on here, are men. As a woman, I am the only Pro-Choicer commenting on your blog. I think that means Anti-Choice women are the ones brainwashed into believing they are merely livestock. Pro-Choice women are the only ones with an independent thought. SO unsurprising.”