Posted September 13, 2012 by Washington Free Beacon

A Marine spokesperson at the Pentagon denied reports that U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition in a statement to Fox News Thursday.

Pentagon Lt. Col. Chris Hughes told the outlet: “The ambassador and RSO (Regional Security Officer) have been completely and appropriately engaged with the security situation. No restrictions on weapons or weapons status have been imposed. This information comes from the Det Commander at AMEMB (American Embassy) Cairo.”

The statement came in response to reports that U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition.

Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition,” according to multiple reports on U.S. Marine Corps blogs spotted by Nightwatch. “She neutralized any U.S. military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy.”

Time magazine’s Battleland blog also reported Thursday that “senior U.S. officials late Wednesday declined to discuss in detail the security at either Cairo or Benghazi, so answers may be slow in coming.”

If true, the reports indicate that Patterson shirked her obligation to protect U.S. interests, Nightwatch states.

“She did not defend U.S. sovereign territory and betrayed her oath of office,” the report states. “She neutered the Marines posted to defend the embassy, trusting the Egyptians over the Marines.”

While Marines are typically relied on to defend U.S. territory abroad, such as embassies, these reports indicate that the Obama administration was relying on Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood-backed government to ensure American security, a move observers are questioning as violence in Cairo continues to rage.

Marc Toner, the State Department’s deputy spokesperson, did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon. White House National Security Council spokesperson Tommy Vietor also did not respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. ambassador to any nation ultimately decides whether Marines are authorized to carry ammunition, according to a GOP national security adviser knowledgeable about American embassy protocols.

“In the end, the ambassador of any country has the final call on what to do in a country,” the source said. “The buck stops with you. You make every decision.”

Security procedures are subjective and subject to change depending on locale, the source said.

Each ambassador, in consultation with their Regional Security Officer (RSO), sets the policy regarding the rules of engagement, according to the adviser. The RSO is responsible for coordinating all security measures and reports directly to the ambassador in any given nation.

“A decision or order to set rules of engagement that you can’t carry live ammunition and can’t engage violent crowds climbing over your walls and tearing down your flag stems from direct orders from the Chief of Mission and possibly whoever the Chief of Mission reports to,” the source explained.

Given that the siege of the Cairo embassy unfolded over many hours, the source wondered if new orders pertaining to the rules of engagement were ever issued.

Ambassador Patterson was in Washington D.C. during the attacks, according to reports.

“I cannot believe that over an eight hour period that nobody … in that chain of command did not ask those questions of their superiors,” the source said. “These protestors did not just appear and within 20 minutes climb the wall.”

Several sources familiar with foreign embassies in international hotspots who contacted the Free Beacon said that the U.S. government often adheres to a policy of not permitting security officers and other personnel to carry loaded weapons.

Others indicated that in some instances, embassy personnel were prohibited from carrying weapons on embassy grounds altogether.  (read more)

Posted September 13, 2012 by Christian Post

The Illinois Family Institute is protesting the use of the films  “Brokeback Mountain” and “American Beauty” as materials for a local high school  class.

The Christian group argues that the films that Hinsdale South High School  English teacher Kristin Wimsatt is showing in her senior elective “Film as Lit”  class feature “offensive images” of immoral sexuality and violence.

“Has she, her colleagues, or her department chair discussed whether viewing  and discussing scenes of nudity, masturbation, sodomy, and adultery might  desensitize students to such images or efface natural and good feelings of  modesty? Did they discuss whether the school-sanctioned showing of films that  use egregiously obscene language might undermine school policies that prohibit  the use of such language? It’s both absurd and dishonest to imply that words and  images have no effect on the hearts and minds viewers,” the institute said in a  statement Tuesday.

According to the institute, Wimsatt justifies showing “Brokeback Mountain” – which won three Academy Awards – by saying the primary objective is to evaluate  the film from the perspective of the text as an adaptation. The 2005 film is  adapted from the 1997 short story of the same name by Annie Proulx.

“The sexual element, while provocative, is tasteful. Naturally, we will  discuss the standard literary elements of plot, theme, symbolism, etc., but  again, the primary focus is on how the film holds up to (or surpasses) the  original script,” the teacher says.

“I have often contended that when students consume films of a more graphic  nature in a safe and structured classroom environment, they have an opportunity  to process the content in a more thoughtful way, as opposed to a point in his  life when he is more likely to watch it alone or with friends and not be able to  have mature conversations about it.”

The Illinois Family Institute is calling on its supporters to express their  opposition to the class materials by contacting the school superintendent and  members of the local board of education.

It argues that literature and film teachers can “find ‘reasons’ to justify  selecting virtually any film, play, novel, or essay they want to teach.”

“After all, what text can be found that has no theme, no plot, no  characterization, no dialogue, no setting, no symbols, and no figurative  language?” the group said.

The group’s specific concern regarding “Brokeback Mountain” is that it moves  the audience “non-rationally to embrace a subversive and – dare I say – immoral  sexual ethic,” said IFI Cultural Analyst Laurie Higgins.

“One of the serious problems with this film is that it powerfully depicts a  homosexual relationship as a good thing. It uses the immense persuasive force of  narrative and imagery to depict that which is perverse as good.”

As for “American Beauty,” the 1999 film that won five Academy Awards, the  family institute believes it might cultivate “dark and prurient thoughts in  viewers.”

“Might the sexual imagery be sexually arousing to some of Wimsatt’s students?  Might the depiction of the neighbor reinforce the stereotype of conservatives as  vicious hatemongers? Are subsequent classroom discussions sufficient to mitigate  the damage done by the powerful narrative and images?”

The family institute wants supporters to speak up now to have the teacher  replace the films with ones that will challenge students “intellectually” and  respect the values of all students and parents.

“If we do nothing, the texts chosen by public teachers only get worse.”  (read more)

Posted September 13, 2012 by Christian Post

Terry Jones, a controversial Florida pastor who is known for his  anti-Islam demonstrations, was contacted by the Pentagon on Wednesday and was  asked to stop supporting “Innocence of Muslims,” an anti-Islam film that may have played a role in triggering  recent attacks on American embassies in both Egypt and Libya.

“The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, spoke by  phone this morning with Pastor Terry Jones,” Marine Col. David Lapan, director  of the press office at the U.S. Department of Defense, told USA Today in a  statement on Wednesday. “In the brief call, Gen. Dempsey expressed his concerns  over the nature of the film, the tensions it will inflame and the violence it  will cause. He asked Mr. Jones to consider withdrawing his support for the  film.”

Jones, the senior pastor of Dove Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., is  internationally known for holding public demonstrations against Islam. In 2011,  he burned a copy of the Quran, which sparked riots in the Middle East that  resulted in the deaths of 10 U.N. staffers.

On Wednesday, a press release from Jones on his Stand Up America Now website  said he was asked by the producer of “Innocence of Muslims” to help distribute  the film. He also stated that Muslims don’t take criticism well, and says it  wasn’t his fault they reacted violently to the film.

“The film is not intended to insult the Muslim community, but it is intended  to reveal truths about Muhammad that are possibly not widely known … The  fruits of the religion speak for themselves. For example the recent outbreak of  violence and deaths is not because of the film, it is not because of the  activities that we have done and that we will continue to do,” said Jones.

Jones had made plans to show a trailer for the film on Sept. 11 during an  event he called “International Judge Mohammad Day,” but the 60-year-old pastor  told reporters Wednesday that he was unable to do so because his organization’s  website was hacked, The Miami Herald reports.

Regardless of how involved he has been in promoting the video thus far, Jones  told Dempsey he would “definitely consider” his request to not post the video on  his website. According to the Herald, however, he later told reporters he would  ignore the Pentagon’s requests.

On Sept. 11, protesters in Cairo climbed the U.S. embassy there and tore down  the American flag. Upset Muslims also stormed the U.S. embassy in Benghazi,  Libya, and killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens,  in a firebombing attack.

A statement issued by President Barack  Obama on Wednesday both condemned the attacks and praised Stevens and the  other Americans who were killed for their service.

“I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to  support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our  diplomatic posts around the globe,” said Obama. “While the United States rejects  efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally  oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public  servants.”

Some U.S. officials have said they believe the attack in Libya was planned  for the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. An investigation has  begun.

The White House said Thursday that Obama spoke with Egyptian President  Mohamed Morsi and Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf, in part to reaffirm each  government’s support in protecting diplomatic facilities and personnel.  (read more)

Posted September 13, 2012 by CBN News

New York City’s Board of Health passed a controversial, experimental ban Thursday on the sale of oversized sugary drinks in the Big Apple.

The regulation was proposed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and includes any non-diet soda, sweetened teas, or other caloric beverages served in containers larger than 16 ounces.

It will effect fast-food restaurants, movie and Broadway theaters, workplace cafeterias, and almost anywhere that sells prepared food.

Restaurant and beverage industries have called the plan misguided and accuse the city’s experts of exaggerating the effect sugary drinks have on obesity in America.

Eight board members voted for the ban while only one board member and practicing internist, Dr. Sixto R. Caro, abstained from voting.

“I am still skeptical. This is not comprehensive enough,” Caro said.

Critics and even some New Yorkers argue the ban is just more government intrusion.

The sugary drink ban is just one of many of Bloomberg’s ambitious regulations. The mayor was the catalyst for making chain restaurants post calorie counts on their menus and was behind the ban on artificial trans fats served in NYC restaurants.

After Thursday’s vote, Bloomberg’s official Twitter feed tweeted: “NYC’s new sugary drink policy is the single biggest step any gov’t has taken to curb (hash)obesity. It will help save lives.”

They say the proposal strikes at a leading cause of obesity simply by giving people a built-in reason to stop overeating.

For someone who drinks a soda a day that could potentially amount to 14,600 calories a year, enough to add about four pounds of fat to a person’s body.

The ban would not apply to lower-calorie drinks, such as water or diet soda, or to alcoholic beverages or drinks that are more than half milk or 70 percent, unsweetened juice. It also doesn’t cover beverages sold in supermarkets or most convenience stores.

Thursday’s vote is unlikely to be the final word on the proposal.

A group opposed to the ban, New Yorkers for Beverage Choices, has already gathered more than 250,000 signatures to petition the plan and is considering a lawsuit.

“This is not the end,” Eliot Hoff, a spokesman for the group, said in a written statement.

“We will continue to voice our opposition to this ban and fight for the right of New Yorkers to make their own choices,” he said. “And we will stand with the business owners who will be hurt by these arbitrary limitations.”  (read more)

Posted September 12, 2012 by WND

Congress today was told that the Department of Homeland Security hasn’t identified an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, event as a serious national security threat to the nation’s grid system even though testimony revealed it could making living in the United States “unsustainable” for 70 to 90 percent of the population.

And the few billion dollars it would cost to harden systems against such an occurrence is hardly the tens of billions or hundreds of billions it could cost to repair the damage.

Brandon Wales, director of the DHS Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center, was unable to give a cost breakdown so that Congress would know how much money needs to be provided by the federal government in view of the tremendous costs of such hardening defenses that the private utilities would incur.

He, along with other witnesses from the federal government, testified on the consequences of either a natural or man-made EMP event on the national grid before the House Homeland Committee’s Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies.

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz, who is on the House Armed Services Committee, also testified that the military is highly vulnerable to an EMP event, since it relies some 99 percent on the national grid to accomplish its functions.

Franks is sponsor of H.R. 668, known as the Shield Act, which provides authority to protect transformers.

“The potential threat is damage to the transformers” either from a solar storm or the effects of an electromagnetic pulse from a high-altitude nuclear explosion.

The legislation has passed the House of Representatives, but no action is planned at this writing in the U.S. Senate.

At the time the legislation was introduced in February 2011, Franks said that it was vital to secure the high-voltage electrical infrastructure from lethal damage.

“The threat of an electromagnetic pulse weapon represents the single greatest asymmetric capability that could fall into the hands of American enemies,” Franks warned at the time.

“Should a nuclear weapon from a rogue state such as Iran be detonated in Earth’s atmosphere at a sufficient height above the continental United States, the blast of electromagnetic energy could immediately cripple America’s electric power grid.

“Currently, the vast majority of the United States’ infrastructure is unsecured and exposed,” he said.

Franks said that an EMP blast could disable “so large a swath of American technology that between 70 percent to 90 percent of the United States’ population could become unsustainable.”

Franks also referred to the prospect that some of the most intense solar storms are expected to hit Earth by next year, according to scientists of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Academy of Sciences.

Natural EMP events happen during solar storms, which are predicted to reach their 11-year cyclical peak during 2013.

He said that the United States may have no more than 30 minutes to know the accuracy of where an intense solar storm could strike or what the severity of that storm will be, even though satellites do give some 24 hours of warning that such a storm is heading toward Earth. And then, only one in three times such a storm may be severe.

The problem for industry, Franks acknowledged, is not knowing whether to go to the expense of shutting down the national grid system – an action that would have to be taken since the system hasn’t been hardened sufficiently to handle either an intense solar storm and certainly not the pulse effect of a much worse high altitude nuclear explosion.

Franks said, however, that private industry has provided no evidence that the national grid would not be subjected to a catastrophic EMP event.

Rep. Dan Lungren, chairman of the subcommittee, acknowledged that the private utilities are beholden to their shareholders and rate payers and should have concerns about their capital investments. For that reason, Lungren then wondered why the local utilities aren’t taking more seriously the effects of an EMP event.

Franks said that there is a certain “push-back” by the private utilities in that they don’t find the threat to be all that serious.

For the most part, the utilities have taken some action to harden against a lightning strike which doesn’t have the intensity of a pulse either from an intense solar storm or a high altitude nuclear explosion.

“The potential liability is off the charts,” Franks warned.

The Arizona congressman pointed out that despite the military’s efforts to harden its systems, it still may be unprepared for an intense EMP event. The military for the most part has begun hardening its systems but, on the civilian side, it is unprepared.

In saying that the civilian side is unprepared for such an event, Franks confirmed that the military is 99 percent dependent on civilian sources of electricity, making the military ultimately vulnerable.

“The military is in a no-win situation,” he said, “since the military doesn’t have a say in hardening the civilian grid. It could be done at minimal cost” compared to overall government spending.

“Worst case scenario is so bad,” Franks said, “that we must prevent it at all costs.”

Michael Aimone who is the director of Business Enterprise Integration in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, told the subcommittee that the Defense Department similarly is concerned about the military dependency on the civilian grid and is experimenting with “mini-grids” that can kick into action should the main grid collapse.

These mini-grids would work critical operations without an interruption, so long as there is fuel to run the generators. He added that his job is to locate that source of fuel to be used by these mini-grids should the national grid be affected by an EMP event.

Joseph McClellan, director of the Office of Electric Reliability in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, sounded similar warnings of private utility unpreparedness to handle a catastrophic EMP event, saying that the effects would be widespread on the national grid system.

He pointed out that the FERC is charged with developing reliability standards, but only industry can identify and implement those standards. He added that the federal government lacks authority to impose mandatory requirements on the private utilities to harden their grid systems.

In his prepared testimony, McClellan said that the FERC is considering actions to address national security threats to the reliability of the U.S. transmission and power system from an EMP “which undergirds our government and economy and helps ensure the health and welfare of our citizens.”

He pointed out that the commission’s jurisdiction is limited to the “bulk power system” under the Federal Power Act and excludes local distribution facilities.

The FPA also excludes all of Alaska and Hawaii, as well as any federal facilities located in these states.

In addition, it excludes all local distribution facilities, including those facilities connected to the defense infrastructure.

He added that his authority excludes some transmission, including virtually all of the grid facilities in certain large cities such as New York.

This has the effect, McClelland said, of “precluding commission action to mitigate cyber or other national security threats to reliability that involve such facilities and major population areas.”

McClelland made it clear that the challenge will be in getting local electrical distribution facilities to take the threat of an EMP seriously and put up the capital investment.  (read more)

Posted September 11, 2012 by Life Site News

Defenders of marriage have long said if the institution is redefined beyond one man and one woman, there is no clear end to the new combinations that could be considered “marriage.” A growing body of evidence shows the popular culture, led by Hollywood elites, do not intend to stop with same-sex unions.

Nick Cassavetes, the director of the romantic film The Notebook, told reporters at the debut of his new film that incest is no different than allowing same-sex weddings.

“Love who you want, isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want,” he said.

“If you’re not having kids, who gives a damn?” the son of legendary director John Cassavetes and actress Gena Rowlands asked in an interview with The Wrap while premiering his new film, Yellow, which features an incestuous affair between a brother and sister. “If it’s your brother or sister it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.”

Meanwhile, a celebrity gossip rag has become the latest publication to support polygamy and polyandry.

In a column entitled “Three Shouldn’t be a Crowd,” the digital tabloid The Frisky stated, “Polygamy and polyamory get a bad rap.”

Carrie Nelson wrote, “Opening marriages and expanding what makes a marriage…may well end up saving relationships and the institution as a whole.”

“Believe me, I’m not some undercover agent trying to bring down the institution of marriage from within. If anything, I feel so strongly about marriage equality including polygamy because I love marriage,” Nelson said.

The call for broadening the number of people in a marriage has intensified since a judge in Sao Paolo, Brazil, registered a three-person “stable union” last month.

The decision led UK Guardian writer Jean Hannah Edelstein to ask, “If three, or four, or 17 people want to marry each other simultaneously and equally, why should they not be granted the same status as two people who want to become a legal family?” Banning such an arrangement would be “a bit illiberal,” she said.

The publicity does not surprise Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom. He told NPR in May that if marriage is “about adults and not the kids that flow from procreative relationships, then from a policy standpoint you have to ask the question, then why can’t three or more adults be just as loving and committed to each other?”  (read more)

Posted September 12, 2012 by The Blaze

In the wake of the tragedy in Libya, where U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed by a frenzied mob over an anti-Islam movie, an MSNBC panel took the time Wednesday to discuss who should be held accountable.

One of their suggestions?  Anti-Islam Pastor Terry Jones, who has burned the Koran in the past and promoted the film that allegedly sparked the most recent wave of violence.

Panelist Mike Barnicle explained:

Given this supposed “minister’s” role in last year’s riots in Afghanistan, where people died, and given his apparent or his alleged role in this film, where, not yet nailed down, but at least one American, perhaps the American ambassador is dead, it might be time for the Department of Justice to start viewing his role as an accessory before or after the fact.

In response, fellow panelist Donny Deutsch responded: “I was thinking the same thing, yeah.”

Which leaves many asking why the government should treat those who mock Christianity and Islam differently–  is it just because of the threat of violent retaliation?

PolicyMic commented: “Barnicle’s contempt for the First Amendment is astounding…”

Apparently we must “constantly check ourselves, lest we become ‘an accessory before or after the fact’ to murders committed by zealots who violently demand that they never be offended by anyone, anywhere,” the author concludes sarcastically.  (read more)

Posted September 12, 2012 by  CNS News

More than 50 Lukoil gas stations in New Jersey and Pennsylvania jacked up prices to more than $8 a gallon Wednesday to protest what they say are unfair pricing practices by Lukoil North America that leave them at a competitive disadvantage.

Dozens of Lukoil franchise owners also gathered to protest at a station in this central New Jersey town where the posted prices were an eye-popping $8.99 a gallon.

The owners and the New Jersey Gasoline, Convenience, Automotive Association said the one-day protest was aimed at raising consumer awareness about the challenges facing Lukoil dealers and getting the company to respond to dealer grievances.

Station owners said Lukoil charges them more for gasoline than other companies charge their franchisees, forcing them to pass that increase onto consumers. It is not uncommon, they said, to see a competitor selling gas to the public for considerably less than what they’re paying Lukoil per gallon.

“My price on invoices is what my competitors are selling on this street,” said Khalid Zackria, owner of the South Plainfield station where the dealers assembled. “That’s why it’s hard for me to survive.”

Sal Risalvato, executive director of the gas station association, said Lukoil charges 7 cents more per gallon than other companies and that owners might pay more on top of that depending on where their station is located.

Lukoil North America issued a statement defending its pricing practices, which it said comply with state law, and accused the gas station association of encouraging “public misstatements and ill-conceived actions.” It said it does not comment on its competitors’ prices.

Lukoil is Russia’s second-largest oil producer. The first Lukoil-branded service stations in the U.S. opened in 2003 and today the company has more than 500 in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Many of the franchisees entered into agreements with other companies that were bought by Lukoil.

The gas station association said the high prices were meant to get the attention of customers so they know the price pressures they are facing.

Gas stations taking part in the protest handed out fliers to customers explaining why they are struggling to keep their prices down and put up banners asking customers to contact Lukoil. One car pulled into the Lukoil station around the time of the protest; its driver circled the pumps and left.

Roger Verma, who co-owns four Lukoil stations and three Exxon stations, said he pays 18 to 20 cents more per gallon to buy gas from Lukoil than from Exxon.

“Me, as a consumer myself, won’t go to Lukoil,” Verma said. “How can I expect my customers to?”

Steve Hamparsumian, who owns a Lukoil in Bloomingdale, said his gas station was acquired by Lukoil about six years ago. Since then he said he has lost 50 percent of his business. He said his rent has tripled in that time.

“We have to pay considerably higher prices for anyone else,” Hamparsumian said. “Not only are we selling less, our customers have to pay higher prices.”

Risalvato said Lukoil and other companies engage in zone pricing, or varying prices based on the competition in local marketplaces. He said Lukoil is an “egregious offender” when it comes to zone pricing, further adding to the higher price it charges owners for gas.

Lukoil, in its statement, defended zone pricing, saying it’s a “commercially reasonable practice” used by gasoline marketers for many years and fully compliant with state law.

“We deeply regret that the NJGCA, a trade lobbyist, has apparently encouraged public misstatements and ill-conceived actions which harm consumers, rather than engage in constructive dialogue,” the company said.

Tom Kloza, chief analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, which has an office in central New Jersey, said Lukoil and its dealers have had a tenuous relationship over the past few years.  (read more)

Posted on September 11, 2012 by ft.com

Feuding between the US and Israel burst into the open when Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, sharply criticised recent US statements about Iran while the White House said President Barack Obama would not meet Mr Netanyahu in the US this month.

Mr Netanyahu made a stinging attack on Tuesday on Washington’s refusal to establish a “red line” for Iran’s nuclear programme – a point beyond which US military action against Iran would be taken.

Responding to comments by Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, that the US would not set deadlines for negotiations with the Iranian government, the Israeli leader warned that Iran was getting closer and closer to getting a nuclear bomb.  (read more)

Posted on September 11, 2012 by christianpost.com

President Obama’s annual proclamation – Patriot Day and National Day of Service and Remembrance, 2012 – that recognizes the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 was void of any mention of “God” or prayer, but did call for Americans to observe a moment of silence and encouraged them to volunteer by assisting men and women in uniform.

“From volunteering with a faith-based organization, to collecting food and clothing for those in need, to preparing care packages for our men and women in uniform, there are many ways to bring service into our everyday lives – and each of us can do something,” read a portion of his proclamation.

The absence of “God” in the proclamation comes on the heels of the Democratic National Convention fiasco in which “God” and “Jerusalem” were left out of the party’s final draft of their platform, but was amended the following day by a controversial floor voice vote. Tapes of the floor seemed to indicate a majority of delegates voted “no.” A two-thirds majority of voting delegates is required to amend the platform.  (read more)