Archive for November 24th, 2009

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

OK, check this out:

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral’s mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

So a terrorist gets a bloody lip during his capture and now the elite Navy SEALS are going to be prosecuted.

Unbelievable.

We stand beside you, Navy SEALS. We stand beside you, U.S. Military. Thank you for protecting us. If a terrorist needs a bloody lip (or worse) in order to protect us and other innocent people, then by all means, give the terrorist a bloody lip (or worse). The terrorist gave up his rights when he wagged a war of terror on innocent people. You folks in the military are our heroes. Please never forget that.

The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that “Objective Amber” planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and “they had been tracking this guy for some time.”

The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.

Apparently too sensitive. Another case of out of control political correctness. Our enemies must be very proud of what we have become.

Original Link.

Obama’s Regulatory Czar: Censor Hannity, Right-Wing Rumors

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

Censorship of dissenting viewpoints is one of the first steps any want-to-be dictator takes as he seizes power.

TEL AVIV – Websites should be obliged to remove “false rumors” while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such “rumors,” argued Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory czar.

In his recently released book, “On Rumors,” Sunstein specifically cited as a primary example of “absurd” and “hateful” remarks, reports by “right-wing websites” alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers.

He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for “attacking” Obama regarding the president’s “alleged associations.”

Ayers became a name in last year’s presidential campaign when it was disclosed the radical worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers’ apartment.

As WND reported, Obama and Ayers sat together on the board of a Chicago nonprofit, the Woods Fund. Ayers also was a founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where Obama was appointed as its first chairman in 1995.

Ayers reportedly was involved in hiring Obama for the CAC – a job the future president later touted as qualifying him to run for public office.

WND columnist Jack Cashill has produced a series of persuasive arguments that it was Ayers who ghostwrote Obama’s award-winning autobiography “Dreams from My Father.”

However, such reports were characterized by Sunstein as “absurd” charges for which corrective measures can be taken.

Sunstein’s book – reviewed by WND – was released in September, after he was already installed as the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

“In the era of the Internet, it has become easy to spread false or misleading rumors about almost anyone,” Sunstein writes.

“Some right-wing websites liked to make absurd and hateful remarks about the alleged relationship between Barack Obama and the former radical Bill Ayers; one of the websites’ goals was undoubtedly to attract more viewers,” he writes.

Sunstein continues: “On the Internet as well as on talk radio, altruistic propagators are easy to find; they play an especially large role in the political domain. When Sean Hannity, the television talk show host, attacked Barack Obama because of his alleged associations, one of his goals might have been to promote values and causes that he cherishes.”

Sunstein presents multiple new measures he argues can be used to stop the spread of “rumors.”

He contends “freedom usually works, but in some contexts, it is an incomplete corrective.”

Sunstein proposes the imposition of a “chilling effect” on “damaging rumors” – or the use of strong “corrective” measures to deter future rumormongers.

For websites, Sunstein suggests a “right to notice and take down” in which “those who run websites would be obliged to take down falsehoods upon notice.”

Sunstein also argues for the “right to demand a retraction after a clear demonstration that a statement is both false and damaging.” But he does not explain which agency would determine whether any statement is false and damaging.

Sunstein further pushes for “deterrence” through making libel lawsuits easier to bring.

Sunstein drafted ‘New Deal Fairness Doctrine’

Sunstein’s proposals outlined in his book “On Rumors” were not the first of his writings to recommend regulating talk radio or the news media.

WND previously reported Sunstein drew up a “First Amendment New Deal” – a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would include the establishment of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure “diversity of view” on the airwaves.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the U.S. to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

Sunstein’s radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution,” received no news media attention and scant scrutiny until the WND report.

In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the “Fairness Doctrine,” the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed “equitable and balanced.”

Sunstein introduces what he terms his “First Amendment New Deal” to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.

His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that “purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.”

Sunstein wrote it is “worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well.”

He proposes “compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view.”

The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.

“It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the ‘freedom of speech,'” he writes.

Sunstein compares the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation of the government stepping in to end segregation.

Writes Sunstein: “The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation.”

Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the Fairness Doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, “stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues.”

He continues: “In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that ‘the freedom of speech’ is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard.”

In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts’ unwillingness to “require something like a Fairness Doctrine” to be a result of “the judiciary’s lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority.”

He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.

“Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned,” Sunstein writes.

But, he says, “at the very least, regulative ‘fairness doctrines’ would raise no real doubts” constitutionally.

Original Link.

Civilian Court Trials Seem Like ‘Empty Gesture’

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

The lawyer for the five defendants who will be tried in New York says his clients will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy. Attorney Scott Fenstermaker told Associated Press recently the men would not deny their role in the September 11, 2001, attacks but “would explain what happened and why they did it” as well as “their assessment of American foreign policy.” (See related article)

Robert Alt, deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, wonders why the Justice Department is trying some but not all of the Guantanamo Bay terrorists in civilian courts.

“They don’t even seem to have a justification for why it is we’re trying some of them — ‘It adheres to the rule of law,’ [they say]. Well, it also adheres to the rule of law to try them before military commissions,” Alt contends. “It’s fully consistent with the laws of war.”

According to the Heritage spokesman, explanations as to why the trial is taking place in a civilian court imply the action is merely a formality. “[I]ndeed, some of the statements that they’ve made, they’ve said that they’ll get the guilty conviction, they’re confident of that. And there were suggestions by [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid and others that if they don’t, that they can still hold them as enemy combatants and wouldn’t release them,” he states. “Well, that sounds like they’ve already come to the conclusion in the case.”

Original Link.

“What Is Your Motivation?” by Todd Strandberg

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

There is little doubt that our church fathers had the right motivation for faith. All of them except the apostle John died a martyr’s death. Paul suffered endlessly for the sake of the gospel. He provided this short list of his troubles in 2 Corinthians: “Of the Jews five times received I forty [stripes] save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep” (2 Corinthians 11: 24-25).

Danish philosopher and theologian Soren Kierkegaard once famously said, “The biggest problem with Christians today is that no one wants to kill them anymore.” Someone living in a Muslim country might disagree, but the statement holds true for us believers who live in the Western world. Kierkegaard also argued that Christianity has been made so completely devoid of character that there is really nothing to persecute.

Most people are involved in Christian service because they love Christ and want to glorify Him. However, monetary gain, praise, or recognition motivates some Christian workers. Others do it because they feel empty and want to bring fulfillment into their lives. Some people create their own blogs or websites because it makes them feel important and needed.

My work with Rapture Ready has taught me to be very discerning about what motivates people. I’ve had some folks help with the site for a time, but then I eventually learned that their motivation was not Christ-centered. Here are three examples of faulty motivation from RR and one from another site:

I once had a gentlemen help put together information for our “Timeline” section. He did this for at least two years. One day I received a note from someone who told this gentleman was telling his gay buddies that he helped operate a Christian website. Of course, he was promptly informed that we had a major incompatibility problem.

We briefly had someone helping Mat Buff on Rapture Ready Radio. A gentleman named Jimmy was the co-host of the weekly live broadcast. Mat soon noticed that Jimmy wasn’t into prophecy, and he preferred to handle issues from a secular viewpoint. After we let him go, Jimmy sent me profanity-laced emails claiming he partly owned RR as his intellectual property. Because we were still in the testing phase of the web radio program, I never saved the segments that involved him.

In April of 2007, we had a major split on our message board. The need for the reorganization was triggered by our head admin saying she was not a believer. One of the key mods stepped up and claimed that the members of our board were her personal property. Because she had worked to build up the board, she claimed ownership over these people. We gave her everything she wanted because we knew a web venture founded on this mindset would only end in disaster, and it did. The members didn’t agree with her, because the vast majority of them came back to RR.

I once found a website that was loaded with all sorts of good Christian information. One day, I noticed a statement by the site’s owner, who said he was closing down his domain. This web venture was hosted by a service that provided free space. Apparently, the ads in the margin weren’t generating enough money, so the company decided it needed to start charge members a small fee. The guy running the website didn’t want to pay any money to keep his ministry going. I just couldn’t believe that five bucks a month was too much of a hurdle for him to continue.

One of the questions I often hear about the time ahead of the rapture is: “Will Christians have to endure some form of persecution or economic calamity?” I tend to believe that there will not be any major trial before the Lord takes us home, but that we may see a brief period of hardship.

I’ve often wondered what would happen to the Christian web community if the winds of change turned, making it difficult to maintain a site. If the laws of the land said it was illegal to present the true gospel message, I am sure the vast majority of domains would disappear. The same thing would happen if the economy turned south. We’ve already made plans to help ensure that RR survives any type of adversity.

There is no great cost for being an end-time watcher, so I encourage everyone reading this article to ask yourself: What is my motivation? I would hope that most of you can list several things you’ve done for the kingdom of God in the past year. The key to good motivation is whether you would be willing to do it again in a hostile environment.

My hope is that the rapture snatches us away before the world gets more evil. The day may come when your faith is tested, and you may need to draw upon your foundation of faith to endure until the blessed hope.

“Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book” (Revelation 22:7).

— Todd

Original Link.

FYI:
Missi and I own our domain and have never received any outside financial support for our ministry. It is a sizable financial investment (at least for our budget it is), but it is worth every penny of it.

Ex-Soldier in U.K. Faces Jail for Turning Gun into Police After Finding it on His Property

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

Here is a perfect example of how gun laws, like the type Democrats would like us to be subjected to and already in force in the U.K., prosecute the innocent, while doing nothing to control criminals. Common sense is out the window and law-abiding people are prosecuted.

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for “doing his duty”.

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year’s imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: “I didn’t think for one moment I would be arrested.

“I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets.”

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.

In his statement, he said: “I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.

“I didn’t know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

“At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall.”

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke’s garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.

He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included “reporting found firearms”.

Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: “Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?”

To which, Mr Garnett replied: “No, I don’t believe so.”

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a “strict liability” charge – therefore Mr Clarke’s allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.

He said: “This is a very small case with a very big principle.

“You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.

“Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?”

Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: “This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

“The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant.”

Original Link.

“Obama the Racist?” By Kevin Jackson

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

Racial Discrimination: any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Notice that according the U.N.’s definition, racism is not just white on black, as many in this country would have us believe, but is ANYTIME a person is denied equality based on race, no matter what color they are.

The question was recently posed to me, “Do you think Obama is a racist?” I answered, “Obama is the best kind of racist to whites, but the worst kind of racist to blacks.” My questioner was perplexed.

I began by explaining that Obama’s racism against whites is upfront, in-your-face racism, which he discussed in his book Dreams from My Father:

I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.

I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.

Obama learned this racist ideology during his formative years from his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a self-admitted communist and sexual deviant, and most certainly a racist — the kind that blacks say cannot exist.

As Robin of Berkeley suggested in an article in American Thinker, “Davis blamed racism and capitalism for all of the problems in society and instructed young Barry, ‘Don’t fully trust white people,’ and ‘Black people have a reason to hate.'”

In Obama’s defense, his book was written prior to his emergence onto the scene in 2004. Perhaps he had formulated new ideas on whites, and had stopped “nursing that pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against [my] mother’s race”? Or not.

After the tutelage of Davis, Obama’s next-biggest “non-influence,” as it were, came in his twenty-plus-year association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama sold his racism to whites during his presidential campaign, saying that he didn’t really listen to the hate-speech wrongfully labeled “sermons” at his so-called church. This was a “church” that practiced Cone’s Black Liberation Theology,-a “theology” in which if the word “black” were replaced with “white,” the “church” would have undoubtedly been considered a haven for the Aryan Brotherhood. The Acton Institute reports:

The echoes of Cone’s theology bleed through the now infamous, anti-Hilary excerpt by Rev. Wright. Clinton is among the oppressing class (“rich white people”) and is incapable of understanding oppression (“ain’t never been called a n-gg-r”) but Jesus knows what it was like because he was “a poor black man” oppressed by “rich white people.” While Black Liberation Theology is not mainstream in most black churches, many pastors in Wright’s generation are burdened by Cone’s categories which laid the foundation for many to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of the perpetual “victim.”

Obama claimed that he didn’t pay attention to Wright’s rants. As Obama said, “I missed a lot of Sundays.” Liberal whites gave him yet another pass.

Post-election Obama continued to flaunt his racism in the face of whites by loading his team with black racists. His first appointment was a noted Black Nationalist, Van Jones, to the post of Green Jobs Czar. Appointing a Black Nationalist to this position by Obama would be like Bill Clinton appointing a Klansman to a similar position. At least with the latter appointment, the Left might have feigned outrage.

John Bracey sketches his interpretation of Black Nationalism: [Published circa 1969.]

First, Black America exists in a state of colonial subordination to White America. Black America is a colony. It is and has always been subjected to political, economic, social, and cultural exploitation by White America. These circumstances define Black America’s “underdevelopment” as a nation. Political decisions are made by whites outside the black community; no black bourgeoisie with any meaningful economic power has been allowed to develop, and the major vehicles for cultural expression such as schools, radio, television, and the printed media are under white control.

One would think that with BET and The WB, and the all-black radio stations that you can find in any major city, that there is no longer a need for Black Nationalists like Van Jones, or even a Black Nationalist movement in general. However, no sooner was Van Jones appointed than we were treated to the racist stylings of Mark Lloyd, his most famous quip being, “…white people need to relinquish their power to others.” Others being “non-whites.”

As for Obama’s racism against blacks, you don’t have to be a genius to understand it. However, it is easier to understand if you are not a product of government schools. Obama’s racism against blacks is much more subtle, though exponentially more insidious.

Obama actually believes he helps blacks through his policies, when in fact the outcome devastates them. A good example is education.

Blacks recognize almost universally that education is the key to escaping the cycle of poverty and other ills plaguing the black community.

Obama’s first racist act as president was to remove the voucher program that Bush had established in D.C., a program that Democrats vote against overwhelmingly. This program was producing proven positive results, but it was eliminated — and black children in D.C. were relegated to socialized schools in crime and drug-infested neighborhoods. Simply put, why give black children the choice to opt out of the indoctrination?

Here is how one Liberal organization interpreted Obama’s actions:

Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have expressed their clear opposition to voucher subsidies for religious and other private schools and their support for a strong public school system. This is a sharp contrast to the Bush administration, which lobbied relentlessly for vouchers, imposed a voucher scheme on the District of Columbia and even held a last-minute conference to push for a government bail-out of financially troubled inner-city Catholic schools.

Obama thinks so highly of the public schools in D.C. (and Chicago) that he put his children in private school.

There are many other examples of these train-wreck policies of Liberals, and particularly with this administration — an administration that had poor blacks believing that Obama was Santa Claus. As with most policies implemented by Liberals, the real trickle-down impact ends up costing blacks more, making them that much more dependent on the government…the endgame orchestrated by then-Senator and racist Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson, when he commented in 1957:

These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.

The first black president’s policies marginalize blacks. It is the cruelest sort of racism, as it robs blacks of hope instead of inspiring it. Blacks were left with the hope that Obama would redistribute money from creators of wealth to those who would gladly take something for nothing.

The president, voted for by overwhelming numbers of blacks and guilty whites, has likely been the most destructive force in racial politics since his fellow racist Democrat Bull Connor. And what Obama seeks for blacks — socialism, or the leveling of the playing field — has not benefited blacks anywhere on the planet.

On blacks’ ancestral continent, there is not one country that provides a beacon of hope. Africa is where one would think Obama could prove that his policies would work for blacks. Yet in Africa today, there are wars and rumors of wars. The outcome depends only on the “cide” you are on…infanticide, homicide, fratricide, or genocide. Dictators are pillaging the countries they should be serving, and the African people have nothing to show for it but abject poverty and oppression.

In Euro-socialist countries with representative black populations like France, Sweden, and others with representative black populations, there are no black leaders now or emerging. The fact is that the place where black people thrive best is the United States of America. America boasts more multi-millionaire black athletes, entertainers, business moguls, and so on than any country in the world — all due to capitalism.

Here’s the wrap:

Is Obama a racist? Of course he is! But as I say about racists, most just need to see what the other side is like. Obama knows conservatism only anecdotally, as he has never had a conservative friend. He understands only one side — the racist radical side. This is why sanity appears to be radical to him, why patriots are persecuted and achievers neutered.

A true conservative would never befriend a person like Obama. Obama needs to be surrounded by sycophants and suckups, or radical leaders he can admire. My hope is that Obama will actually get to know a few conservatives, black and white. Then maybe, just maybe, he will understand how he is both the best and worst kind of racist.

Kevin Jackson is author of the Amazon Best Seller, The BIG Black Lie, as well as his blog theblacksphere.net, and appears regularly on The Glenn Beck Show on Fox News Channel.

Original Link.