Obama has been rightly --if all too infrequently-- criticized for his capricious use of drones, which has resulted in thousands of non-combatant casualties --including many more children than died at Sandy Hook.   (If "blow-back" has any validity, it is in situations like that.)   Do you not think the terrorists have already figured out that being surrounded by civilians offers them some measure of immunity?   If that impedes our willingness to bomb them, does that mean we have surrendered to terrorism, or preserved our humanity?   As to ideology, it is Obama's drone policy up till now that has had an ideological basis:  no troublesome captives to deal with, and damn the collateral damage.  If your contention that drone-bombing is "the only element of his counterterrorism strategy that has bred success" similarly implies that the primary criterion of success is the death of a terrorist then how, precisely, do you parse the cost?  Up until now, Obama was willing to dispel the moral murkiness of of such questions with a flash and a bang.  Are you?

This is one reason I tend to think less in terms of parties and more in terms of a "governing class".

He likes drone-bombing.  That's gotta count for something, no?

Oh, and he's an excellent gun salesman.

FWIW, I have also posted something Sudan-related on Ricochet:  http://ricochet.com/member-feed/Akio-It-is-finished

What a bass-ackwards, jingoistic question.  There is nothing in the US Constitution that says the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.  I have no doubt that the Church will come under increasing attacks from secular authorities, for that is the nature of the world, and what the Gospel tells us to expect.  But the Church here, there, or somewhere, will endure.  As to the United States of America:  know that nothing is ever left of the kingdoms of this world but their dust.  And her eventual decline has much the same source as the anti-religious drift of her public institutions.   Can, rather, America survive the loss of her religious foundations?  The answer:  no.

FWIW, the piece neglects to mention his several quiet years as a missionary in Taiwan.  The citation is for his posthumous CMO and thus is limited in what it can say;  but --being peripherally involved in his Cause-- I can assure you his motives were much broader and deeper than a willingness to "sacrifice his life in the cause of freedom". 

Cleveland's got other things to worry about apart from kidnappers:  http://www.inquisitr.com/649668/cleveland-volcano-eruption/

But, still, a freakin' hand-grenade!  With a two-kiloton yield!  How cool is that?!  I mean, apart from the whole no-way-in-Hades-you-could-run-away-from-it-in-time aspect.

That requirement is lifted if the candidate dies as a result of "odium fidei", i.e. martyrdom.

By the way, I like Psuedo's observation about the Regensburg Address.   That "minor rioting throughout the Muslim world" resulted in several Christian deaths --such are the standards one has to adopt for describing the Islam of the streets. 

I think an elaborate --but tasteful, mind you-- tramp-stamp would be perfect.

[Comment related to redacted material from original post]

Getting pissy about US foreign policy is not blow-back, it's ideology. Wanting vengeance because someone you care about wound up as collateral damage in an assassination ordered by a president who even Congress won't hold accountable for his capricious drone-bombings: that's blow-back.

When I lived in Hong Kong years ago, it was not uncommon for elderly people --raised in an earlier time with different, ah, standards of personal hygiene-- to squat just about anywhere during their morning constitutional.  Repelled at the time, I had no idea it was such a healthy, eco-friendly practice.  Following the lead of these Manhattan progressives, I'm convinced the broader adoption of such would do much to restore an old-school, informal ambiance to our soulless urban centers --I'm all about nostalgia-- not to mention make more efficient use of parking spaces. 

Might a barrel-liner solve the problem, retaining the aesthetics while making the gun safe to shoot?

The Dzhokhar?  That's his name?  A honest-to-goodness comic-book psychopath.   You can't make this stuff up.

I had lunch today (don't ask) with two people who were practically drooling, so eager was their hope --thinly disguised as 'analysis'-- that it was some domestic (read:  right-wing) terrorist.

I wanna get out in front of the pack --Eat my dust, Chris Matthews!-- and blame Sarah Palin.