Austin Kasso confesses to robbery threat

That didn’t take long.

Austin Kasso robbery threat confession

Austin Kasso posted robbery threats (here, here, and here) against Memories Pizza, then deleted them when confronted and denied everything, then claimed he was hacked, then threatened to sue (here, here, and here).

After a day of frantic activity, he has finally admitted the obvious. Austin Kasso threatened to rob Memories Pizza, he threatened to sue when the public noticed, and he regrets nothing.

Text message transcript with Austin Kasso

Austin Kasso reached out via text message this morning, after I called him and he hung up on me. Here’s the transcript.

11:36 Kasso: Who the fuck do you think you are calling me? Mind your own business
11:39 Me: Hi, Mr. Kasso. Did you post that robbery threat on the Memories Pizza GoFundMe page?
11:40 Kasso: What does it matter to you? Do you support those freaks?
11:41 Kasso: What does it matter to you? Do you support those freaks?
11:43 Me: It’s a straightforward question, Mr. Kasso. Did you post this?
11:43 Me:
Screen shot of robbery threat
11:44 Kasso: And who the fuck are you?
11:44 Kasso: Why should I answer your question?
11:45 Me: I’m a concerned citizen who thinks one of two things probably happened.
11:45 Me: 1) You posted that threat; or
2) Someone impersonated you.
11:46 Me: If it’s the latter, I’d like to help you find the guilty party & stop him/her.
11:46 Me: If it’s the former, I suggest you retract the threat & apologize.
11:48 Me: That would be much easier and less messy than involving law enforcement authorities in Lafayette, wouldn’t you agree?
11:48 Kasso: Don’t be concerned, and I deleted the post anyway. I would never apologize for threatening a bigot.
11:48 Me: So it was your post. Duly noted.
11:49 Kasso: Its none of your business so how about you get the fuck off my nuts.
11:50 Kasso: And I didnt say I posted it, just said I wouldnt apologize to a bigot.
11:50 Kasso: I also said I deleted it, so fuck off
11:51 Me: Only the person who posted it can delete it.
11:53 Kasso: If someone hacked my account and posted it I can still delete it u idiot
11:58 Me: Ah. So you’re going with the “I was hacked” defense?
11:59 Kasso: Go suck a dick
12:05 Me: Have a pleasant afternoon, Mr. Kasso. I hope you find the hacker.

Mozilla reaps the whirlwind?

After the new Mozilla CEO, Brendan Eich, was forced out last week over his $1000 donation in 2008 to a group protecting marriage agains erosion by same sex “marriage,” users of the Mozilla’s web browser Firefox reacted in outrage by removing it from their computers and web-enabled devices. The firestorm of anger at Mozilla that kicked off late last week kept burning through the weekend, according to the organization’s own stats. Here are the feedback trends for the last 90 days, with “sad” comments in red and “happy” comments in green:

Mozilla customer comments in the last 90 days

Here’s a closer look at the last seven days:

Mozilla customer comments in the last 7 days

If this user revolt maintains momentum through this week, Mozilla may face a serious drop in its share of the very competitive web browser and e-mail market. I truly hope the backlash against Soviet-like mob action continues long enough to permanently cripple Mozilla. Corporate boards need to learn that caving in to a virtual lynch mob carries too high a price to bear.

So far, Mozilla’s strategy seems to be to hunker down and hope the firestorm fizzles. Don’t let it happen. Uninstall Mozilla products and let them know why.

I did.

Yes, yes, it’s those damned social cons who ruined everything

Ace has decided to dump on us social conservatives again:

I’m sick of pretending I don’t think it’s weird that people are still wigging out over the idea that some people are attracted to the same sex, and are still pushing some sort of “political” agenda about this, like we need a governmental fix to discourage homosexuality.

Homosexual attraction may or may not be genetic (and thus unavoidable). Actual homosexual conduct is avoidable. Its harmful public health consequences are well-documented. Open homosexual conduct’s corrosion of a society founded on the nuclear heterosexual family is also well-documented.

Further, government has a rational basis for encouraging childbirth, as maintaining the population of contributing members of society allows that society to continue (duh). Since it’s well-documented that children raised by married monogamous heterosexuals turn out better/healthier/more productive/more peaceable than children raised in other environments, government has a rational basis for encouraging monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, and whateversexuals will put their naughty bits where they want to. Government can’t stamp that out, nor should it try (there are too many more important tasks for it to accomplish, tasks which it currently neglects). But at a minimum, government should refrain from subsidizing, celebrating, or normalizing such socially corrosive conduct.

If you choose to warp this argument into “teh creepy Jesus peoplez want to round up teh gayz!!!1!” … well, I can’t stop you. I can sure as hell ridicule your intellectual foolishness, though.

The American electorate appears determined to join the Free Shit Army™, while preening in the mirror over its collective refusal to recognize corrosive conduct for what it is. So be it. Spendthrifts will eventually run out of money, and libertines will eventually reap the whirlwind of chaos. We social conservatives will be here to rebuild once reality’s finished pimp-slapping some basic sense back into y’all.

Let it burn.

Predictions for gays in the military

Here’s what’s coming next.
Watch for a *cough* *cough* totally unforseeable constitutional challenge to Section 2(e) of the bill, which states:

No Private Cause of Action – Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to create a private cause of action.

Once that section’s excised with surgical precision by a sympathetic lefty judge (Vaughn Walker to the lavender courtesy phone, please!) … Katie bar the door.
The gay activists in uniform will then sue to be allowed to marry, notwithstanding Section 2(d) of this bill, which states:

Benefits – Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” and referred to as the “Defense of Marriage Act”).

Once 2(d) is gone & a few suitable test couples get hitched, retire, & file for marriage-related benefits in the civilian world, guess what’ll be next on the chopping block?
After that inconvenient law is out of the gay activists’ way (phone call for Judge Walker on line 3) they’ll demand more than “tolerance.” They’ll demand financial benefits & federal protection for gay “marriage,” state laws be damned. Why? They can’t cite national security, because effective national defense matters not one whit to these activists. No, they’ll simply cite the full faith and credit clause found in Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution:

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.

Game over. It’ll be “Sit down, shut up, & hand over those wallets, you hateful bigoted Christianist breeders.”
This. Is. Their. Goal.

U.S. military weakened by gay activists

With the passage of today’s lame duck bill, it would appear the ban on open homosexuals in the U.S. military will soon be repealed. Not long from now, it will be official military policy to endorse and celebrate homosexual behavior.
I find it interesting that none of the homosexual activists pushing this agenda of social engineering and the destruction of marriage have bothered to address what happens if things go horribly wrong, as many have predicted. If open homosexuals end up being a net burden on the military’s ability to accomplish its mission (that is, to kill our enemies and break their stuff), then how do we undo this?

Audio: Bob Frantz on the Gay Games

Oh, joy. The City of Cleveland just won the competition to host the 2014 Gay Games. Here’s the relevant audio from the first two hours of last night’s Bob Frantz Show:

Hour 1


Hour 2

I don’t see the point in creating a homosexualized version of the Olympics. If someone’s an Olympic caliber athlete, they can compete in the Olympics. Their sexual tastes have nothing to do with it.
Who wants to crow about winning some event at a politicized athletic gathering that has no qualification standards whatsoever? For goodness’ sake, the Gay Games are “not oriented to victory” … whatever that means.
Every time I think Cleveland has sunk to a new low in punch-line-worthiness, the city breaks out a shovel and digs some more.

Amending the Constitution is an inherently federalist process

Sarah Palin’s comments opposing gay “marriage” in a recent interview:

Allah over at Hot Air worries about the federalism implications of a federal marriage amendment:

Normally I’d call this another reason for the base to love her, but the implications for federalism make me wonder how reaction will shake out. Althouse, who’s been pretty high on her (but isn’t a member of the base, needless to say), finds it “genuinely dismaying.” I find it more perplexing than anything else given that she’s on record recently as supporting a federalist approach to abortion. I can understand the opposite position, of banning abortion at the federal level via amendment (as Huckabee wants to do) but letting the states handle marriage on grounds that the dire moral imperative in protecting innocent life should trump normal conservative inclinations towards state rights, but what’s the argument for Palin’s vice versa? Is it simply a question of identifying which issue federal judges are more likely to tinker with at this point and taking that issue out of their hands before they can act? McCain shares that concern — but thinks that any amendment can and should come after a problematic ruling, not before.

Allah needn’t worry. Amending the Constitution is an inherently federalist process (emphasis mine):

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

U.S. Constitution, Article V

Through their legislatures, the states get the last word on any proposed amendment, and the citizens of the states have a helluva lot of influence over state legislators. If a federally-introduced amendment does not have the support of the vast majority of the citizenry, it will not be ratified.

More fallout from the Folsom Street Fair

As I’ve noted before, the photographs and documentation of what went on in San Francisco at the 2007 Folsom Street Fair are not safe for work. The effects of the sex festival continue to ripple outward.

  • Fellow Christians, before we complain about the horror of it all, we need to look in the mirror and rediscover our moral courage.
  • 400,000 people showed up, yet the mainstream media failed to cover the activities. Kelly Boggs asks and answers the obvious question.
  • Even the European gay press called it a “public orgy.” Why won’t we do the same?
  • What do you think of when you hear the words “gay pride”? Frank Pastore has an answer.
  • Apparently the people engaging in public sex at the Folsom Street Fair were actually capable of being offended … but only by by a web site address.
  • Hey, c’mon down to Folsom Street and bring your kids! No, really.
  • Miller Beer’s sponsorship of the Folsom Street Fair boomerangs on Milwaukee.

Why the jihadis hate us: Exhibit A

I give you this year’s Folsom Street Fair, held in San Francisco and sponsored by the Miller Brewing Company. Be warned … clicking the image below will take you to a citizen photojournalist’s site that documents the blatant and unrestrained sex acts that took place in public and in full view of children and on-duty uniformed police. This is not safe for work, and frankly not safe for a full stomach:
Folsom Street Fair
While our troops go in harm’s way to advance America’s security and bring liberty to millions, these homegrown fringe nuts engage in public sexual bacchanals on the streets of San Francisco and hand our sworn enemies a precious P.R. gift. Is it any wonder that jihadist savages draw new recruits with propaganda that says only shari’a law can prevent flamboyant drag queens and aggressive leather fetishists from running rampant on their own streets? “This is what America stands for”, say Ayman Zawahiri and Muqtada al-Sadr and Hassan Nasrallah. Their recruits need only see photographs like these for words like “liberty” and “freedom” to sound like synonyms for “license” and “debauchery.”
I worry that we Americans have lost our collective moral spine. The Folsom Street Fair should make us hang our heads in shame. Can we no longer see the difference between right and wrong? If events like these continue they will end up causing more attacks on all of us. Don’t the Folsom Street crazies understand that the jihadis would kill them all if given the chance?
Hat tip: Michelle Malkin. I’m done drinking Miller Genuine Draft. Pass me some Thirsty Dog.


Palomino! Palomino!

They really do want to destroy marriage

Until last week, most same-sex “marriage” advocates have tried to downplay their objectives by claiming that they only want to extend the benefits of marriage to “committed, loving same-sex couples.” But now they’ve finally discarded that fig leaf.
A new lefty activist group called announces that they don’t just want government support for gay “marriage”; they want to officially place multiple sex partner relationships on the same level as heterosexual monogamous marriage:

The struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families. To that end, we advocate:

  • Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families — regardless of kinship or conjugal status.
  • Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance.

Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people — whatever their sexual and gender identities — do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example:

  • Single parent households
  • Senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers (think Golden Girls)
  • Blended and extended families
  • Children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents
  • Adult children living with and caring for their parents
  • Senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives
  • Close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers
  • Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner

Did you catch that last one? “More than one conjugal partner.” For years conservatives have warned Americans that this is what the radical homosexual activists have been after, and now they’ve finally admitted it.

We advocate the expansion of existing legal statuses, social services and benefits to support the needs of all our households.
We call on colleagues working in various social justice movements and campaigns to read the full-text of our statement “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision,” and to join us in our call for government support of all our households.

They really do want to eliminate real marriage, and this isn’t some tiny splinter group. These folks have some major liberal names in their corner.
Smokescreens like this are going to disappear. Now you know what the real stakes are. Don’t say you weren’t warned.
Hat tip: Ohio Conservative
Update: Is this next?
Update 2: At least one gay rights activist sees the danger in’s blunt honesty. Too little, too late. (Hat tip: Matt Hill Comer)
Meanwhile, Good As You bobs and weaves. How long until the major gay activist groups line up behind this manifesto? I give it 3 years, tops.

2010 census should ask for sexual orientation

I’m curious to find out just how many gays and lesbians there really are in America. The gay rights movement often touts the 10% number (or more), and their opposition claims that the number’s closer to 2% (or less). I know it takes time to get the federal government to do anything, so why not start a discussion on using the nonpartisan U.S. Census Bureau to directly ask the question in 2010? I suggest something like:

“How many people in this household
consider themselves to be gay, lesbian,
bisexual, transgendered, or queer?”

We’ll be much better equipped to make sound public policy if we know how large this segment of the population truly is. We’d also have better figures on their household income, childlessness, and other important statistics. It can’t hurt.
What do you think?

More coverage:

Turnabout offends prickly homosexuals

College Republicans at the University of Central Oklahoma plan on celebrating a Straight Pride Week:

“The general gist is that if you are a straight student on campus be proud, be loud, this is your time to shine,” said college Republican Kyle Houts.
The group has posted fliers on campus that read, “we’re here, we’re conservative, we’re out.”
Members of the Gay Alliance for Tolerance and Equality say they consider the College Republican’s celebration an attack on gay and lesbian students.
“What is there to say about it, ‘I’m proud, and I’m straight and I guess white,’ I don’t know?” said GATE member Jennifer Rodriguez. “I think they definitely are being discriminatory because there’s probably a lot of gay Republicans out there.”

How very intolerant and non-diverse of you, Ms. Rodriguez.
Hat tip: Backcountry Conservative

UPDATE: BuckeyePundit mirrors my own sentiments nicely, and The Open End calls for College Republicans at Ohio State to follow the Oklahoma group’s example.