By Jim Brown
OneNewsNow.com
January 18, 2007
An attempt by Democrats to push through ethics reform legislation that some warn would label churches and other non-profits as "grass roots lobbying firms" has been temporarily stalled.
Hear This Report
Wednesday night a vote on the controversial grassroots lobbying bill SB-1 was delayed after Democrats came nine votes short of the 60 they needed to end debate and vote on the measure. The bill could come up again for a vote either Thursday or Friday. A companion piece of legislation is expected to be introduced in the House next week.
American Center for Law and Justice Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow has mounted a campaign against the legislation, arguing it would restrict the work of Christian TV and radio ministries and pro-family groups. He remains hopeful an amendment stripping the grassroots prohibitions will pass.
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Click here for related stories! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Congress preparing to criminalize critics?
Congress preparing to criminalize critics?
Senate bill would 'create most expansive
intrusion on First Amendment rights ever'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The Senate is considering legislation that would regulate grassroots communications, with penalties for critics of Congress.
"In what sounds like a comedy sketch from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, but isn't, the U. S. Senate would impose criminal penalties, even jail time, on grassroots causes and citizens who criticize Congress," says Richard A. Viguerie, chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com
Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress, as lobbyists are required.
"Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever," Viguerie said.
For the first time in history, he stated, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.
"The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers," Viguerie said.
The Senate passed an amendment on the bill Jan. 9 to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone "knowingly and willingly fails to file or report."
Viguerie said the legislation regulates small, legitimate nonprofits, bloggers, and individuals, but creates loopholes for corporations, unions, and large membership organizations that would be able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, yet not report.
"Congress is trying to blame the grassroots, which are American citizens engaging in their First Amendment rights, for Washington's internal corruption problems," he said.
Christian leader James Dobson -- along with Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer and Don Wildmon -- spoke out about the provision on a recent "Focus on the Family" radio broadcast.
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Senate bill would 'create most expansive
intrusion on First Amendment rights ever'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The Senate is considering legislation that would regulate grassroots communications, with penalties for critics of Congress.
"In what sounds like a comedy sketch from Jon Stewart's Daily Show, but isn't, the U. S. Senate would impose criminal penalties, even jail time, on grassroots causes and citizens who criticize Congress," says Richard A. Viguerie, chairman of GrassrootsFreedom.com
Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress, as lobbyists are required.
"Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever," Viguerie said.
For the first time in history, he stated, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.
"The bill would require reporting of 'paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,' but defines 'paid' merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers," Viguerie said.
The Senate passed an amendment on the bill Jan. 9 to create criminal penalties, including up to one year in jail, if someone "knowingly and willingly fails to file or report."
Viguerie said the legislation regulates small, legitimate nonprofits, bloggers, and individuals, but creates loopholes for corporations, unions, and large membership organizations that would be able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, yet not report.
"Congress is trying to blame the grassroots, which are American citizens engaging in their First Amendment rights, for Washington's internal corruption problems," he said.
Christian leader James Dobson -- along with Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer and Don Wildmon -- spoke out about the provision on a recent "Focus on the Family" radio broadcast.
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Muslim group threatens boycott of Northwest Airlines
By Niraj Warikoo
Detroit Free Press
DETROIT — A group of Detroit residents is threatening to lead a boycott of Northwest Airlines over what they say is a pattern of profiling against Muslim passengers.
Imam Hassan Al-Qazwini, head of the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Mich., was in a group of about 40 pilgrims who were prevented from boarding a connecting flight in Germany to Detroit on Jan. 7 while returning from a trip to holy cities in Saudi Arabia. The Muslim group, most of whom are Lebanese-American Shiites, held a news conference Tuesday at the Dearborn mosque to describe what they say happened to them. They called for Northwest to apologize, compensate them, and discipline the employees they said profiled them.
"Otherwise," Al-Qazwini said, "if Northwest will not do that, then probably we have to call all Muslim organizations to encourage Muslims from not flying on Northwest."
With tens of thousands of Muslim customers, Northwest could be hurt financially by such a boycott, Al-Qazwini suggested, adding that "I hope Northwest will be wiser."
But Northwest officials defended their actions Tuesday, repeating that the 40 or so pilgrims were unable to board because they weren't at the gate in time.
"They showed up at the gate late," said Dean Breest, a spokesman for Northwest Airlines. "All customers need to be on time."
Northwest Airlines requires passengers to check in for international flights at least 60 minutes prior to departure and to be on board the aircraft at least 30 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time, according to a statement it issued.
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Detroit Free Press
DETROIT — A group of Detroit residents is threatening to lead a boycott of Northwest Airlines over what they say is a pattern of profiling against Muslim passengers.
Imam Hassan Al-Qazwini, head of the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Mich., was in a group of about 40 pilgrims who were prevented from boarding a connecting flight in Germany to Detroit on Jan. 7 while returning from a trip to holy cities in Saudi Arabia. The Muslim group, most of whom are Lebanese-American Shiites, held a news conference Tuesday at the Dearborn mosque to describe what they say happened to them. They called for Northwest to apologize, compensate them, and discipline the employees they said profiled them.
"Otherwise," Al-Qazwini said, "if Northwest will not do that, then probably we have to call all Muslim organizations to encourage Muslims from not flying on Northwest."
With tens of thousands of Muslim customers, Northwest could be hurt financially by such a boycott, Al-Qazwini suggested, adding that "I hope Northwest will be wiser."
But Northwest officials defended their actions Tuesday, repeating that the 40 or so pilgrims were unable to board because they weren't at the gate in time.
"They showed up at the gate late," said Dean Breest, a spokesman for Northwest Airlines. "All customers need to be on time."
Northwest Airlines requires passengers to check in for international flights at least 60 minutes prior to departure and to be on board the aircraft at least 30 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time, according to a statement it issued.
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
3,000 Christians added daily in China
3,000 Christians added daily in China
Faithful undefeated by beatings, arrests, confiscations and destruction of churches
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Worship services are being broken up by baton-wielding police officers, participants arrested, Bibles confiscated and Christian church buildings demolished. But still, an estimated 3,000 people every day come to a knowledge of Jesus Christ in China.
The report comes from Voice of the Martyrs, a U.S.-based Christian group that works specifically to help those members of the persecuted Christian church worldwide.
The most recent arrests happened just a few days ago, when a house church meeting in Henan province was broken up and 11 people arrested, the organization said.
"Police from Yongfeng township police station in Xiuwu county, Henan province, raided a Christian meeting in a home in Chencun village. Eleven Christians were arrested, two were released the next day and nine remain in jail," the report said.
"Police broke in and proclaimed the gathering a cultic and illegal activity," the report said.
Legal and financial help is being provided to those people during their detention.
However, VOM said that a more than 50-year campaign to eradicate Christianity from China has left that nation with the equivalent of a new mega-church being added each day.
"Chairman Mao Zedong declared the Peoples Republic of China in 1949 and quickly sought to purge society of anything religious, causing China's people to endure great hardship ever since," a VOM analysis of the nation said. "Mao's Great Leap Forward in the late '50s and the Cultural Revolution in the '60s and '70s left millions of his countrymen dead or victimized.
"Today, with its policies of forced abortion and sterilization, China's human rights record is one of the worst in the world. Authorities reportedly sell the organs of executed prisoners to meet the demand for transplants. It system of 're-education through labor' detains hundreds of thousands each year in work camps without even a court hearing. China's 'strike-hard' policy, presented as a crackdown on criminals, is hardest on Christians, putting more believers in prison or under detention than in any other country. The confiscation of church property and Bibles continues – even Bibles officially printed by the government," the report said.
"Yet the church grows: an estimated 3,000 Chinese come to Christ each day. China's house church movement, which comprises approximately 90 percent of China's Christians, endures unimaginable persecution, yet stands on its commitment to preach the gospel no matter the cost."
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Faithful undefeated by beatings, arrests, confiscations and destruction of churches
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Worship services are being broken up by baton-wielding police officers, participants arrested, Bibles confiscated and Christian church buildings demolished. But still, an estimated 3,000 people every day come to a knowledge of Jesus Christ in China.
The report comes from Voice of the Martyrs, a U.S.-based Christian group that works specifically to help those members of the persecuted Christian church worldwide.
The most recent arrests happened just a few days ago, when a house church meeting in Henan province was broken up and 11 people arrested, the organization said.
"Police from Yongfeng township police station in Xiuwu county, Henan province, raided a Christian meeting in a home in Chencun village. Eleven Christians were arrested, two were released the next day and nine remain in jail," the report said.
"Police broke in and proclaimed the gathering a cultic and illegal activity," the report said.
Legal and financial help is being provided to those people during their detention.
However, VOM said that a more than 50-year campaign to eradicate Christianity from China has left that nation with the equivalent of a new mega-church being added each day.
"Chairman Mao Zedong declared the Peoples Republic of China in 1949 and quickly sought to purge society of anything religious, causing China's people to endure great hardship ever since," a VOM analysis of the nation said. "Mao's Great Leap Forward in the late '50s and the Cultural Revolution in the '60s and '70s left millions of his countrymen dead or victimized.
"Today, with its policies of forced abortion and sterilization, China's human rights record is one of the worst in the world. Authorities reportedly sell the organs of executed prisoners to meet the demand for transplants. It system of 're-education through labor' detains hundreds of thousands each year in work camps without even a court hearing. China's 'strike-hard' policy, presented as a crackdown on criminals, is hardest on Christians, putting more believers in prison or under detention than in any other country. The confiscation of church property and Bibles continues – even Bibles officially printed by the government," the report said.
"Yet the church grows: an estimated 3,000 Chinese come to Christ each day. China's house church movement, which comprises approximately 90 percent of China's Christians, endures unimaginable persecution, yet stands on its commitment to preach the gospel no matter the cost."
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Pelosi Turns Up Heat On Global Warming
Jan 18, 2007 11:34 am US/Central
Pelosi Turns Up Heat On Global Warming
Speaker Ignoring House Traditions To Force Legislative Action On Climate Change
(AP) WASHINGTON House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, intent on putting global warming atop the Democratic agenda, is shaking up traditional committee fiefdoms dominated by some of Congress' oldest and most powerful members.
She's moving to create a special committee to recommend legislation for cutting greenhouse gases, most likely to be chaired by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a Democratic leadership aide said Wednesday.
Markey has advocated raising mileage standards for cars, trucks and SUVs and is one of the House's biggest critics of oil companies and U.S. automakers,
Pelosi has discussed the proposal with at least two Democratic committee chairmen: fellow Californian Henry Waxman of Oversight and Government Reform, and West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall, who heads the Natural Resources panel. Pelosi intends to announce the move this week, said the leadership aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because not all of the details have been worked out.
The move, to some degree, would sidestep two of the House's most powerful Democratic committee bosses, in shaping what's expected to be at least a yearlong debate on global warming:
# Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell of Michigan, a defender of the auto industry and at 80 the longest serving member of the House.
# New York Rep. Charles Rangel, who as the 76-year-old chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, would have to clear any tax on carbon-based fuels like coal, oil or natural gas, which have been blamed for warming the atmosphere. A chief advocate of such a tax is former Democratic Vice President Al Gore.
Rahall said he had spoken with Pelosi about the idea of a new select committee. Rahall's panel oversees energy development on public lands, including coal, oil and natural gas as well as cleaner, non-carbon sources such as geothermal and windmills.
"I've been assured that no legislative jurisdiction would be taken away from any committee," Rahall said. "No legislative responsibility would be shifted from any committee."
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Pelosi Turns Up Heat On Global Warming
Speaker Ignoring House Traditions To Force Legislative Action On Climate Change
(AP) WASHINGTON House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, intent on putting global warming atop the Democratic agenda, is shaking up traditional committee fiefdoms dominated by some of Congress' oldest and most powerful members.
She's moving to create a special committee to recommend legislation for cutting greenhouse gases, most likely to be chaired by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a Democratic leadership aide said Wednesday.
Markey has advocated raising mileage standards for cars, trucks and SUVs and is one of the House's biggest critics of oil companies and U.S. automakers,
Pelosi has discussed the proposal with at least two Democratic committee chairmen: fellow Californian Henry Waxman of Oversight and Government Reform, and West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall, who heads the Natural Resources panel. Pelosi intends to announce the move this week, said the leadership aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because not all of the details have been worked out.
The move, to some degree, would sidestep two of the House's most powerful Democratic committee bosses, in shaping what's expected to be at least a yearlong debate on global warming:
# Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell of Michigan, a defender of the auto industry and at 80 the longest serving member of the House.
# New York Rep. Charles Rangel, who as the 76-year-old chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, would have to clear any tax on carbon-based fuels like coal, oil or natural gas, which have been blamed for warming the atmosphere. A chief advocate of such a tax is former Democratic Vice President Al Gore.
Rahall said he had spoken with Pelosi about the idea of a new select committee. Rahall's panel oversees energy development on public lands, including coal, oil and natural gas as well as cleaner, non-carbon sources such as geothermal and windmills.
"I've been assured that no legislative jurisdiction would be taken away from any committee," Rahall said. "No legislative responsibility would be shifted from any committee."
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Iraqi PM: 400 Shiite Fighters Detained
Jan 18, 8:38 AM (ET)
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said 400 fighters from a key backer of the Shiite-led government have been arrested, and a government spokesman said Thursday the U.S. is not giving Iraqi security forces enough money for training and equipment. Al-Maliki's claim sought to address doubts about his willingness to take on the Shiite militiamen, especially the Mahdi army that is loyal to his key supporter, the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Many of the militiamen are believed responsible for much of the sectarian violence in Baghdad in the past year.
In Baghdad on Thursday, bombers and gunmen killed at least 19 more people in a series of morning attacks as the capital faces a surge in violence ahead of a planned U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown.
The Italian daily Corriere della Sera reported that al-Maliki was deeply critical of President Bush during a briefing with a small group of reporters.
"The situation would be much better if the United States had immediately sent our security forces more adequate weapons and equipment. If they had committed themselves more and with greater speed we would have had a lot fewer deaths among Iraqi civilians and American soldiers," the newspaper quoted al-Maliki as saying.
However, the premier stopped short of openly criticizing Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to join the estimated 130,000 already there.
"We have to see how the situation in the field will go," he said. "We cannot rule out that the situation will drastically improve, allowing U.S. troops to leave the country in great numbers in three to six months."
The newspaper quoted the embattled Iraqi leader as saying Bush had capitulated to domestic pressure when he criticized the hanging of former leader Saddam Hussein. Al-Maliki further struck back at comments by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that suggested he was in a weak position and on borrowed time.
He said such remarks were giving aid and comfort to militants fighting to drive out U.S. troops and unseat his government.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the Iraqi military budget this year is $8 billion, but it needs more for proper training, recruiting and equipment.
"We feel Iraqi needs for equipment (are) more than that money," he said, speaking in English. "We are expecting also assistance and help from the multinational forces in order to have proper training and manning as well as arming the Iraqi force."
Al-Dabbagh also said coalition troops could start withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year as more security control is handed over to the Iraqis.
"We can say in 2007 the Iraqis will have more control on the troops, and the decision will be Iraqi, and this will entitle (us) to reduce the multinational force," he said.
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said 400 fighters from a key backer of the Shiite-led government have been arrested, and a government spokesman said Thursday the U.S. is not giving Iraqi security forces enough money for training and equipment. Al-Maliki's claim sought to address doubts about his willingness to take on the Shiite militiamen, especially the Mahdi army that is loyal to his key supporter, the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Many of the militiamen are believed responsible for much of the sectarian violence in Baghdad in the past year.
In Baghdad on Thursday, bombers and gunmen killed at least 19 more people in a series of morning attacks as the capital faces a surge in violence ahead of a planned U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown.
The Italian daily Corriere della Sera reported that al-Maliki was deeply critical of President Bush during a briefing with a small group of reporters.
"The situation would be much better if the United States had immediately sent our security forces more adequate weapons and equipment. If they had committed themselves more and with greater speed we would have had a lot fewer deaths among Iraqi civilians and American soldiers," the newspaper quoted al-Maliki as saying.
However, the premier stopped short of openly criticizing Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to join the estimated 130,000 already there.
"We have to see how the situation in the field will go," he said. "We cannot rule out that the situation will drastically improve, allowing U.S. troops to leave the country in great numbers in three to six months."
The newspaper quoted the embattled Iraqi leader as saying Bush had capitulated to domestic pressure when he criticized the hanging of former leader Saddam Hussein. Al-Maliki further struck back at comments by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that suggested he was in a weak position and on borrowed time.
He said such remarks were giving aid and comfort to militants fighting to drive out U.S. troops and unseat his government.
Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the Iraqi military budget this year is $8 billion, but it needs more for proper training, recruiting and equipment.
"We feel Iraqi needs for equipment (are) more than that money," he said, speaking in English. "We are expecting also assistance and help from the multinational forces in order to have proper training and manning as well as arming the Iraqi force."
Al-Dabbagh also said coalition troops could start withdrawing from Iraq by the end of the year as more security control is handed over to the Iraqis.
"We can say in 2007 the Iraqis will have more control on the troops, and the decision will be Iraqi, and this will entitle (us) to reduce the multinational force," he said.
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Democrat chairman flips on Iraq policy: Recommended troop surge, then opposed when Bush proposed it
Inside the Beltway
By John McCaslin
January 18, 2007
Tough month
On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason.
"In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "
"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."
Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.
Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.
"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.
The chairman's "double-talk" did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant "hypocrisy" undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
By John McCaslin
January 18, 2007
Tough month
On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason.
"In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "
"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."
Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.
Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.
"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.
The chairman's "double-talk" did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant "hypocrisy" undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Gates, Commanders Ready Buildup in Gulf
Jan 18, 10:51 AM (ET)
By ROBERT BURNS
MANAMA, Bahrain (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with senior U.S. and coalition naval commanders Thursday to plan operations in the Persian Gulf, including the arrival next month of another U.S. aircraft carrier and more Patriot missiles meant in part as a warning to Iran. This tiny state in the northern Gulf is headquarters to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet and Central Command's naval staff.
Gates also flew to nearby Qatar for a private meeting and lunch with that nation's leader, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. Later he was visiting an air base that hosts a high-tech war room that is the nerve center of all U.S. and coalition air operations throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. Under ground rules imposed by U.S. officials, reporters traveling with Gates were prohibited from identifying the base or the country in which it is located.
In Bahrain, a British Royal Navy officer who is the No. 2 commander for coalition naval forces in the Central Command area of responsibility told reporters that the exact role and missions of the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis, which is due to arrive in the Gulf area next month, have not yet been worked out.
British Commodore Keith Winstanley said the Stennis deployment should not be seen entirely as a move aimed at Iran, but he added, "I'm sure there's a message there for Iran."
He said Iranian naval operations have not changed in any significant way since President Bush announced last week that he was sending a second carrier to the Gulf, and Winstanley said at-sea contacts with the Iranian navy have been "extremely cordial."
Earlier, Gates spoke of possibly sending more troops to Afghanistan, where there are now about 24,000 U.S. troops. But the question is how many more can be contributed at a time when Bush is ramping up U.S. firepower in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.
Gates said that he wants to ensure that gains made against extremism in Afghanistan since the U.S. invaded to topple the Taliban regime in October 2001 are not lost as the Taliban re-emerges.
"I think it is important that we not let this success here in Afghanistan slip away from us and that we keep the initiative," he told reporters at Bagram Air Base, the main U.S. military air hub in Afghanistan. "There's no reason to sit back and let the Taliban regroup."
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
By ROBERT BURNS
MANAMA, Bahrain (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates met with senior U.S. and coalition naval commanders Thursday to plan operations in the Persian Gulf, including the arrival next month of another U.S. aircraft carrier and more Patriot missiles meant in part as a warning to Iran. This tiny state in the northern Gulf is headquarters to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet and Central Command's naval staff.
Gates also flew to nearby Qatar for a private meeting and lunch with that nation's leader, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. Later he was visiting an air base that hosts a high-tech war room that is the nerve center of all U.S. and coalition air operations throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. Under ground rules imposed by U.S. officials, reporters traveling with Gates were prohibited from identifying the base or the country in which it is located.
In Bahrain, a British Royal Navy officer who is the No. 2 commander for coalition naval forces in the Central Command area of responsibility told reporters that the exact role and missions of the aircraft carrier USS John Stennis, which is due to arrive in the Gulf area next month, have not yet been worked out.
British Commodore Keith Winstanley said the Stennis deployment should not be seen entirely as a move aimed at Iran, but he added, "I'm sure there's a message there for Iran."
He said Iranian naval operations have not changed in any significant way since President Bush announced last week that he was sending a second carrier to the Gulf, and Winstanley said at-sea contacts with the Iranian navy have been "extremely cordial."
Earlier, Gates spoke of possibly sending more troops to Afghanistan, where there are now about 24,000 U.S. troops. But the question is how many more can be contributed at a time when Bush is ramping up U.S. firepower in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.
Gates said that he wants to ensure that gains made against extremism in Afghanistan since the U.S. invaded to topple the Taliban regime in October 2001 are not lost as the Taliban re-emerges.
"I think it is important that we not let this success here in Afghanistan slip away from us and that we keep the initiative," he told reporters at Bagram Air Base, the main U.S. military air hub in Afghanistan. "There's no reason to sit back and let the Taliban regroup."
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Congress in no hurry for border fence
Congress in no hurry for border fence
The Associated Press
A law to erect hundreds of miles of fence on the U.S.-Mexico border is on the books and money to start it has been OK'd, but Republicans are nervous that now that they've lost control of Congress, they'll never see it built.
The law passed last year says Congress, now in control of Democrats who generally oppose the fence, doesn't have to release money to build it until lawmakers approve how the fence will be built.
Based on the comments of some Democrats, there's no rush to make that happen.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, House Homeland Security Committee chairman, said he wants to see a plan for securing the northern and southern borders from the Department of Homeland Security and hold a hearing on those plans instead of focusing only on fence construction and funding.
"My preference is to delay the construction of a fence until we have a plan," said Thompson, D-Ga.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said this week Democrats still want to secure the border but want "the best possible way to do it."
Hoyer voted against the fence last year, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Thompson and 128 other Democrats in the House. In the Senate, 26 Democrats voted for the fence law, including Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who chairs the Appropriations Committee. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada voted against the fence.
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
The Associated Press
A law to erect hundreds of miles of fence on the U.S.-Mexico border is on the books and money to start it has been OK'd, but Republicans are nervous that now that they've lost control of Congress, they'll never see it built.
The law passed last year says Congress, now in control of Democrats who generally oppose the fence, doesn't have to release money to build it until lawmakers approve how the fence will be built.
Based on the comments of some Democrats, there's no rush to make that happen.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, House Homeland Security Committee chairman, said he wants to see a plan for securing the northern and southern borders from the Department of Homeland Security and hold a hearing on those plans instead of focusing only on fence construction and funding.
"My preference is to delay the construction of a fence until we have a plan," said Thompson, D-Ga.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said this week Democrats still want to secure the border but want "the best possible way to do it."
Hoyer voted against the fence last year, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Thompson and 128 other Democrats in the House. In the Senate, 26 Democrats voted for the fence law, including Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who chairs the Appropriations Committee. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada voted against the fence.
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
7 Texas border mayors say no to fence
7 Texas border mayors' message on the wall: No
Capitol Hill policymakers told fence would harm trade and relations
By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — Texas border mayors carried a clear message Wednesday to federal policymakers: Walling off the United States from Mexico is a costly, foolish idea that will harm commerce, travel and foreign relations.
The seven mayors, representing cities that stretch from El Paso to Brownsville, raced from meeting to meeting on Capitol Hill, urging Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and lawmakers to abandon Congress' mandate to build 700 miles of fence and instead rely on other border security measures.
"It's a united front: No to the wall," said Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas. "It's just money misspent."
Call for sensors, lights
Instead of fencing off more than 300 miles of the Texas-Mexico border, the mayors recommended that Chertoff and Congress improve border security by using technology such as motion detection sensors and lighting as a "virtual" fence, or by adding more Border Patrol manpower.
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Capitol Hill policymakers told fence would harm trade and relations
By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — Texas border mayors carried a clear message Wednesday to federal policymakers: Walling off the United States from Mexico is a costly, foolish idea that will harm commerce, travel and foreign relations.
The seven mayors, representing cities that stretch from El Paso to Brownsville, raced from meeting to meeting on Capitol Hill, urging Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and lawmakers to abandon Congress' mandate to build 700 miles of fence and instead rely on other border security measures.
"It's a united front: No to the wall," said Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas. "It's just money misspent."
Call for sensors, lights
Instead of fencing off more than 300 miles of the Texas-Mexico border, the mayors recommended that Chertoff and Congress improve border security by using technology such as motion detection sensors and lighting as a "virtual" fence, or by adding more Border Patrol manpower.
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Special counsel sought for imprisoned border agents
Special counsel sought for imprisoned border agents
Head of union wants probe of case against 'innocent men doing their job'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The head of a union representing most Border Patrol agents is calling on President Bush and Congress to appoint a special counsel to investigate the case of agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who began prison sentences yesterday for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler.
TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents 60 percent of the nation's agents, called the convictions an outrage.
"This case involves two innocent men doing their job, trying to secure our borders," he told WND. "They were defending themselves against an armed drug smuggler, and yet they end up in prison. How is that possible?"
On Tuesday, federal Judge Kathleen Cardone of El Paso, Texas, denied Ramos' and Compean's contention they were not a flight risk and rejected their motion to stay out of prison on bond while they appeal their case to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Bonner told WND the agents' imprisonment will have a detrimental effect on the willingness of Border Patrol agents to go out and enforce immigration laws.
"The Bush administration is sending a message to all law enforcement officers," Bonner told WND, "that it is to be 'hands off the border, leave it wide open, don't you dare do your jobs or you too will end up in federal prison.' "After this travesty of justice," he continued, "why would any Border Patrol agent stick their neck out trying to apprehend a Mexican drug smuggler, especially when you realize that you could be the one who ends up behind bars?"
The Bush administration continues to argue on background that Ramos and Compean lied to Border Patrol officials and covered up evidence, asserting the Mexican drug smuggler was not armed and had attempted to surrender peacefully.
Bonner disagrees, arguing there were "only three people who saw what happened on the other side of that levee – Agent Ramos, Agent Compean, and the Mexican drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila."
"The agents testified that the drug smuggler did not have his hands up, that he was running away, and that he pointed an object at them that they believed to be a gun. So, the agents opened fire," Bonner said. "Essentially, what the White House is saying is that they believe the word of a drug smuggler over the word of two sworn federal agents."
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Head of union wants probe of case against 'innocent men doing their job'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The head of a union representing most Border Patrol agents is calling on President Bush and Congress to appoint a special counsel to investigate the case of agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who began prison sentences yesterday for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler.
TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents 60 percent of the nation's agents, called the convictions an outrage.
"This case involves two innocent men doing their job, trying to secure our borders," he told WND. "They were defending themselves against an armed drug smuggler, and yet they end up in prison. How is that possible?"
On Tuesday, federal Judge Kathleen Cardone of El Paso, Texas, denied Ramos' and Compean's contention they were not a flight risk and rejected their motion to stay out of prison on bond while they appeal their case to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Bonner told WND the agents' imprisonment will have a detrimental effect on the willingness of Border Patrol agents to go out and enforce immigration laws.
"The Bush administration is sending a message to all law enforcement officers," Bonner told WND, "that it is to be 'hands off the border, leave it wide open, don't you dare do your jobs or you too will end up in federal prison.' "After this travesty of justice," he continued, "why would any Border Patrol agent stick their neck out trying to apprehend a Mexican drug smuggler, especially when you realize that you could be the one who ends up behind bars?"
The Bush administration continues to argue on background that Ramos and Compean lied to Border Patrol officials and covered up evidence, asserting the Mexican drug smuggler was not armed and had attempted to surrender peacefully.
Bonner disagrees, arguing there were "only three people who saw what happened on the other side of that levee – Agent Ramos, Agent Compean, and the Mexican drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila."
"The agents testified that the drug smuggler did not have his hands up, that he was running away, and that he pointed an object at them that they believed to be a gun. So, the agents opened fire," Bonner said. "Essentially, what the White House is saying is that they believe the word of a drug smuggler over the word of two sworn federal agents."
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Israel urges silence on U.S. weapons to Palestinians
Israel urges silence on U.S. weapons to Palestinians
Defense officials fear American arms, equipment will be used to attack Jewish state
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
TEL AVIV – Israeli leaders are pressuring senior officials in the Israeli Defense Forces to put aside reservations regarding U.S. plans to train, finance and arm militias associated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party, WND has learned.
The senior IDF officials fear some of the American aid, weapons and equipment slated to be provided to the Palestinians will be used to attack the Jewish state, according to defense sources.
The Israeli army officials have petitioned to make their objections public in conversations with American and European diplomats, defense sources said.
"We are being pressured from the (Israeli) political echelon not to interfere with American plans to provide weapons and equipment to Fatah," said a senior IDF source. "The concerns are that the weapons and equipment will be shared with elements of Fatah that regularly attack Israeli troops and plan attacks against Israeli civilians."
"We've been told this (American aid) is a decision for the prime minister and minister of Defense and that our public objections are inappropriate," the IDF source told WND.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week told reporters the U.S. is working with Fatah to create a unified Palestinian security force, which she said would combine Fatah factions and afford more control over the distribution of American aid and weapons.
The Bush administration reportedly will grant $86.4 million to strengthen the Fatah forces, including Force 17, Abbas' security detail, which also serves as de facto police units in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Defense officials fear American arms, equipment will be used to attack Jewish state
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 18, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
TEL AVIV – Israeli leaders are pressuring senior officials in the Israeli Defense Forces to put aside reservations regarding U.S. plans to train, finance and arm militias associated with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party, WND has learned.
The senior IDF officials fear some of the American aid, weapons and equipment slated to be provided to the Palestinians will be used to attack the Jewish state, according to defense sources.
The Israeli army officials have petitioned to make their objections public in conversations with American and European diplomats, defense sources said.
"We are being pressured from the (Israeli) political echelon not to interfere with American plans to provide weapons and equipment to Fatah," said a senior IDF source. "The concerns are that the weapons and equipment will be shared with elements of Fatah that regularly attack Israeli troops and plan attacks against Israeli civilians."
"We've been told this (American aid) is a decision for the prime minister and minister of Defense and that our public objections are inappropriate," the IDF source told WND.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week told reporters the U.S. is working with Fatah to create a unified Palestinian security force, which she said would combine Fatah factions and afford more control over the distribution of American aid and weapons.
The Bush administration reportedly will grant $86.4 million to strengthen the Fatah forces, including Force 17, Abbas' security detail, which also serves as de facto police units in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Perspectives: A Christian Response to Death Penalty Issues
By Rev. Mark Creech
OneNewsNow.com
January 18, 2007
In a day when crime is largely blamed on Freudian and secularist concepts of evil, the biblical doctrine of retribution has fallen on hard times. Yet God has ordained it that when humanity chooses, for whatever reason, to violate His law, a just penalty must be exacted.
Within the next three weeks, North Carolina is scheduled to execute three death-row inmates on three successive Fridays. According to Associated Press: "Scheduling three deaths so close together irks execution opponents who plan to keep pushing during the coming legislative session for a death penalty moratorium. Perhaps three executions so close together will at least help them teach more people about the flaws in the state's judicial system, they said." [1]
Despite the fact that death-row inmates receive super due process of law that accounts for an average of 12 years of appeals, and that there exists no solid evidence of even one innocent nationwide being executed in over a hundred years, moratorium proponents, who are largely anti-death penalty advocates, have gained enough momentum in the Tar Heel State to cause Speaker Jim Black to establish a House Select Committee on Capital Punishment. That Committee held a public hearing two weeks ago; and out of 15 speakers who testified, only two -- one of which was me -- spoke against the proposed moratorium.
Certainly the most striking moment of the public hearing was when Shirley Burns spoke. Burns currently has a son on death-row scheduled for execution in North Carolina on January 26. She informed lawmakers she had lived on both sides of the issue of capital punishment. Not only did she have a son scheduled for execution within a matter of days, but eight months earlier another one of her sons had been murdered. Her situation was definitely and most unfortunately unique and garnered the sympathy of what was almost exclusively an anti-death penalty audience, except maybe for some of the lawmakers present.
Burns was also obviously very displeased with my remarks, which had preceded hers, characterizing them in this fashion: "I listen to the minister as he talked, but it seems to be an idea of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth -- How can I as a Christian ask for another person's life? I believe the Word of God when it says, 'Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.' I also believe when it says, 'Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.'" The end of her speech was met with considerable applause.
Although Burns' circumstances warrant understanding and pity, her position on the death penalty is neither Christian nor compassionate.
The primary purpose of the death-penalty is not revenge. It is retribution. In On Capital Punishment, William H. Baker notes: "Retribution is properly a satisfaction or, according to the ancient figure of justice and her scales, a restoration of a disturbed equilibrium. As such it is a proper, legitimate and moral concept. Scripture makes a clear line of distinction between this doctrine and feelings of personal hatred by forbidding such feelings and the actions to which they would lead. Capital punishment as a form of retribution is a dictate of the moral nature, which demands that there should be a just portion between the offense and the penalty." [2]
In fact, Jesus' quote in Matthew 5:38 of the Hebrew lex talinois, which is found in Exodus 21:23-25, was a statement of proper retribution by civil authorities. Its intention was to protect offenders from excessive penalties that didn't fit the crime. Unfortunately, however, some in Christ's day were using it as a justification for personal retaliation. In other words, when Christ spoke of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," He wasn't repudiating government's responsibility to maintain order, but correcting an illegitimate use of the text and advocating the way His followers should personally respond to offenses.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia properly makes this distinction when in God's Justice and Ours, he writes: "The death penalty is undoubtedly wrong unless one accords to the state a scope of moral action that goes beyond what is permitted to the individual. In my view, the major impetus behind the modern aversion to the death penalty is the equation of private morality with governmental morality." [3]
In a day when crime is largely blamed on Freudian and secularist concepts of evil, the biblical doctrine of retribution has fallen on hard times. Yet God has ordained it that when humanity chooses, for whatever reason, to violate His law, a just penalty must be exacted. A holy and just God requires that a broken order in the Universe be restored. Thus, Christ's death for the sinner was based on the need for retributive justice to satisfy the legal demands of God's law, which says: "[T]he wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). In fact, without the substitutionary death of Christ on the Cross there could be no forgiveness or compassion from God.
According to Christian thought, no one has the right for any reason to harbor malice, anger or bitterness toward someone on a personal level -- personal vengeance is denied. This is what Christ was preaching in Matthew 5:38-45 and what Paul advocated when he wrote: "Recompense to no man evil for evil -- avenge not yourselves, but rather give place to wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" (Romans 12:17, 19). Still Christ affirmed retributive justice by His own death on the Cross and Paul said the government bears the sword as "the minister of God" for good and is an "avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil" (Romans 13:4).
For compassion and its proper application on both a personal and social level to be genuinely experienced, an understanding of the biblical doctrine of retributive justice is an absolute necessity. For instance, no person can ever experience soul salvation until he or she realizes their offense to God in the violations of His law and that such actions are deserving of eternal retribution. God has demonstrated His compassion in that the requirements of retribution are met in Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. He died and suffered in one's place. Personal peace comes only through this understanding. Moreover, social peace comes only when compassion is directed toward the victims of crime and not its perpetrators. Retribution is the primary purpose of law and not the rehabilitation of the criminal or deterrence to criminal acts. Only when this is realized can the public be properly protected by the government and society's tranquility maintained.
While anti-death penalty proponents from the faith community like Shirley Burns push for abolition and a moratorium on capital punishment in North Carolina, calling for citizens to forgive, they seem to forget that the persons with the greatest reason to forgive cannot because they've been murdered. Moreover, family members like Janice Hunter, whose 27-year-old daughter, Adrien, was brutally stabbed to death by serial killer Nathaniel White, can easily identify with her statement: "I have to go to the cemetery to see my daughter. Nathaniel White' s mother goes to jail to see him and I don't think it's fair." [4] Indeed it isn't right in either the first or the latter circumstances and that's why God's Word in Genesis 9:6 declares to governments of all eras: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
OneNewsNow.com
January 18, 2007
In a day when crime is largely blamed on Freudian and secularist concepts of evil, the biblical doctrine of retribution has fallen on hard times. Yet God has ordained it that when humanity chooses, for whatever reason, to violate His law, a just penalty must be exacted.
Within the next three weeks, North Carolina is scheduled to execute three death-row inmates on three successive Fridays. According to Associated Press: "Scheduling three deaths so close together irks execution opponents who plan to keep pushing during the coming legislative session for a death penalty moratorium. Perhaps three executions so close together will at least help them teach more people about the flaws in the state's judicial system, they said." [1]
Despite the fact that death-row inmates receive super due process of law that accounts for an average of 12 years of appeals, and that there exists no solid evidence of even one innocent nationwide being executed in over a hundred years, moratorium proponents, who are largely anti-death penalty advocates, have gained enough momentum in the Tar Heel State to cause Speaker Jim Black to establish a House Select Committee on Capital Punishment. That Committee held a public hearing two weeks ago; and out of 15 speakers who testified, only two -- one of which was me -- spoke against the proposed moratorium.
Certainly the most striking moment of the public hearing was when Shirley Burns spoke. Burns currently has a son on death-row scheduled for execution in North Carolina on January 26. She informed lawmakers she had lived on both sides of the issue of capital punishment. Not only did she have a son scheduled for execution within a matter of days, but eight months earlier another one of her sons had been murdered. Her situation was definitely and most unfortunately unique and garnered the sympathy of what was almost exclusively an anti-death penalty audience, except maybe for some of the lawmakers present.
Burns was also obviously very displeased with my remarks, which had preceded hers, characterizing them in this fashion: "I listen to the minister as he talked, but it seems to be an idea of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth -- How can I as a Christian ask for another person's life? I believe the Word of God when it says, 'Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.' I also believe when it says, 'Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.'" The end of her speech was met with considerable applause.
Although Burns' circumstances warrant understanding and pity, her position on the death penalty is neither Christian nor compassionate.
The primary purpose of the death-penalty is not revenge. It is retribution. In On Capital Punishment, William H. Baker notes: "Retribution is properly a satisfaction or, according to the ancient figure of justice and her scales, a restoration of a disturbed equilibrium. As such it is a proper, legitimate and moral concept. Scripture makes a clear line of distinction between this doctrine and feelings of personal hatred by forbidding such feelings and the actions to which they would lead. Capital punishment as a form of retribution is a dictate of the moral nature, which demands that there should be a just portion between the offense and the penalty." [2]
In fact, Jesus' quote in Matthew 5:38 of the Hebrew lex talinois, which is found in Exodus 21:23-25, was a statement of proper retribution by civil authorities. Its intention was to protect offenders from excessive penalties that didn't fit the crime. Unfortunately, however, some in Christ's day were using it as a justification for personal retaliation. In other words, when Christ spoke of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," He wasn't repudiating government's responsibility to maintain order, but correcting an illegitimate use of the text and advocating the way His followers should personally respond to offenses.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia properly makes this distinction when in God's Justice and Ours, he writes: "The death penalty is undoubtedly wrong unless one accords to the state a scope of moral action that goes beyond what is permitted to the individual. In my view, the major impetus behind the modern aversion to the death penalty is the equation of private morality with governmental morality." [3]
In a day when crime is largely blamed on Freudian and secularist concepts of evil, the biblical doctrine of retribution has fallen on hard times. Yet God has ordained it that when humanity chooses, for whatever reason, to violate His law, a just penalty must be exacted. A holy and just God requires that a broken order in the Universe be restored. Thus, Christ's death for the sinner was based on the need for retributive justice to satisfy the legal demands of God's law, which says: "[T]he wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). In fact, without the substitutionary death of Christ on the Cross there could be no forgiveness or compassion from God.
According to Christian thought, no one has the right for any reason to harbor malice, anger or bitterness toward someone on a personal level -- personal vengeance is denied. This is what Christ was preaching in Matthew 5:38-45 and what Paul advocated when he wrote: "Recompense to no man evil for evil -- avenge not yourselves, but rather give place to wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" (Romans 12:17, 19). Still Christ affirmed retributive justice by His own death on the Cross and Paul said the government bears the sword as "the minister of God" for good and is an "avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil" (Romans 13:4).
For compassion and its proper application on both a personal and social level to be genuinely experienced, an understanding of the biblical doctrine of retributive justice is an absolute necessity. For instance, no person can ever experience soul salvation until he or she realizes their offense to God in the violations of His law and that such actions are deserving of eternal retribution. God has demonstrated His compassion in that the requirements of retribution are met in Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. He died and suffered in one's place. Personal peace comes only through this understanding. Moreover, social peace comes only when compassion is directed toward the victims of crime and not its perpetrators. Retribution is the primary purpose of law and not the rehabilitation of the criminal or deterrence to criminal acts. Only when this is realized can the public be properly protected by the government and society's tranquility maintained.
While anti-death penalty proponents from the faith community like Shirley Burns push for abolition and a moratorium on capital punishment in North Carolina, calling for citizens to forgive, they seem to forget that the persons with the greatest reason to forgive cannot because they've been murdered. Moreover, family members like Janice Hunter, whose 27-year-old daughter, Adrien, was brutally stabbed to death by serial killer Nathaniel White, can easily identify with her statement: "I have to go to the cemetery to see my daughter. Nathaniel White' s mother goes to jail to see him and I don't think it's fair." [4] Indeed it isn't right in either the first or the latter circumstances and that's why God's Word in Genesis 9:6 declares to governments of all eras: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
Click here for the full story! (may need to disable pop-up blocker)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
