Sunday, March 10, 2013

Lindsey Graham Urges Colleagues to Support Targeted Killing, Protect Obama From "Libertarians and the Left" Mike Riggs|Feb. 6, 2013 2:28 pm Baby-faced statist and United States Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters today that his colleagues in Congress need to get behind Obama's targeted killing program, and protect the president from "libertarians and the left." Politico reports: “Every member of Congress needs to get on board,” Graham said. “It’s not fair to the president to let him, leave him out there alone quite frankly. He’s getting hit from libertarians and the left. “I think the middle of America understands why you would want a drone program to go after a person like Anwar al-Awlaki,” Graham added. “The process of being targeted I think is legal, quite frankly laborious and should reside in the commander in chief to determine who an enemy combatant is and what kind of force to use.” “If this ever goes to court I guarantee you it will be a slam dunk support of what the administration is doing. I think one of the highlights of President Obama’s first time and the beginning of his second term is the way he’s been able to use drones against terrorists." It's odd that Graham would mention this "going to court," as the leaked DOJ white paper that everybody's talking about explicitly says, "[T]here exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional questions." Oh well! Graham will put his money where his mouth is by introducing a resolution next week commending Obama's murder of a 16-year-old boy.

Lindsey Graham Urges Colleagues to Support Targeted Killing, Protect Obama From "Libertarians and the Left"

Baby-faced statist and United States Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters today that his colleagues in Congress need to get behind Obama's targeted killing program, and protect the president from "libertarians and the left." Politico reports:
“Every member of Congress needs to get on board,” Graham said. “It’s not fair to the president to let him, leave him out there alone quite frankly. He’s getting hit from libertarians and the left.
“I think the middle of America understands why you would want a drone program to go after a person like Anwar al-Awlaki,” Graham added.
“The process of being targeted I think is legal, quite frankly laborious and should reside in the commander in chief to determine who an enemy combatant is and what kind of force to use.”
“If this ever goes to court I guarantee you it will be a slam dunk support of what the administration is doing. I think one of the highlights of President Obama’s first time and the beginning of his second term is the way he’s been able to use drones against terrorists."
It's odd that Graham would mention this "going to court," as the leaked DOJ white paper that everybody's talking about explicitly says, "[T]here exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional questions." Oh well! Graham will put his money where his mouth is by introducing a resolution next week commending Obama's murder of a 16-year-old boy.

U.S. Contractors or Army Providing Training Assistance to Syrian Rebels, Confirms German Newspaper

U.S. Contractors or Army Providing Training Assistance to Syrian Rebels, Confirms German Newspaper

By on March 11, 2013
0
Syrian_rebels_620x350
by Ezra Van Auken
Germany’s weekly “Der Spiegel” wrote on Sunday that Syrian rebels are indeed already receiving direct assistance from American forces, in regards to battling in the Syrian civil war. The media organization said it was unclear whom the Western individuals worked for, whether it was a private contracting company or Army officials. Der Spiegel did say some of them were dressed in army-type uniforms.
According to Britain’s Guardian and Der Spiegel, the training camps are located in Jordan. Reuters detailed, “Some 200 men have already received such training over the past three months and there are plans in the future to provide training for a total 1,200 members of the “Free Syrian Army” in two camps in the south and the east of the country.” Apparently British and French trainers were assisting in the training of “Free Syrian Army” rebels.
Jordanian services are looking to build multiple units, totaling about 10,000 troops for the Syrian war, all of which would be non-extremist individuals – unlike many factions already fighting. “The Jordanian intelligence services want to prevent Salafists (radical Islamists) crossing from their own country into Syria and then returning later to stir up trouble in Jordan itself,” an organizer told Spiegel.
An unknown U.S. Defense Department spokesperson declined to comment on the accusations by European newspapers, unable to verify details. This hasn’t been the only time U.S. and Western governments have been pointed at for assisting the Syrian overthrow. In October of 2012, the New York Times reported that CIA operatives on the Turkish border were helping funnel weapons into Syria and identifying who specific rebel factions were.
The United States is not sending arms directly to the Syrian opposition. Instead, it is providing intelligence and other support for shipments of secondhand light weapons like rifles and grenades into Syria, mainly orchestrated from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Iraq’s national security adviser Faleh al-Fayyad has also said Qatar and Saudi Arabia’s governments have been funding rebels. “These are the same sources that finance al Qaeda,” adding, “In times of crisis, some countries use al Qaeda; some countries make peace with al Qaeda,” implying that extremists are mere tools for larger States to overpower governments like Assad’s.
Image Reference

Lindsey Graham Urges Colleagues to Support Targeted Killing, Protect Obama From "Libertarians and the Left" Mike Riggs|Feb. 6, 2013 2:28 pm Baby-faced statist and United States Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters today that his colleagues in Congress need to get behind Obama's targeted killing program, and protect the president from "libertarians and the left." Politico reports: “Every member of Congress needs to get on board,” Graham said. “It’s not fair to the president to let him, leave him out there alone quite frankly. He’s getting hit from libertarians and the left. “I think the middle of America understands why you would want a drone program to go after a person like Anwar al-Awlaki,” Graham added. “The process of being targeted I think is legal, quite frankly laborious and should reside in the commander in chief to determine who an enemy combatant is and what kind of force to use.” “If this ever goes to court I guarantee you it will be a slam dunk support of what the administration is doing. I think one of the highlights of President Obama’s first time and the beginning of his second term is the way he’s been able to use drones against terrorists." It's odd that Graham would mention this "going to court," as the leaked DOJ white paper that everybody's talking about explicitly says, "[T]here exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional questions." Oh well! Graham will put his money where his mouth is by introducing a resolution next week commending Obama's murder of a 16-year-old boy.

Lindsey Graham Urges Colleagues to Support Targeted Killing, Protect Obama From "Libertarians and the Left"

Baby-faced statist and United States Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told reporters today that his colleagues in Congress need to get behind Obama's targeted killing program, and protect the president from "libertarians and the left." Politico reports:
“Every member of Congress needs to get on board,” Graham said. “It’s not fair to the president to let him, leave him out there alone quite frankly. He’s getting hit from libertarians and the left.
“I think the middle of America understands why you would want a drone program to go after a person like Anwar al-Awlaki,” Graham added.
“The process of being targeted I think is legal, quite frankly laborious and should reside in the commander in chief to determine who an enemy combatant is and what kind of force to use.”
“If this ever goes to court I guarantee you it will be a slam dunk support of what the administration is doing. I think one of the highlights of President Obama’s first time and the beginning of his second term is the way he’s been able to use drones against terrorists."
It's odd that Graham would mention this "going to court," as the leaked DOJ white paper that everybody's talking about explicitly says, "[T]here exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional questions." Oh well! Graham will put his money where his mouth is by introducing a resolution next week commending Obama's murder of a 16-year-old boy.

Republicans denounce NYC terror trial for bin Laden son-in-law

Republicans denounce NYC terror trial for bin Laden son-in-law


Republicans are denouncing the Obama administration’s decision to bring Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law to New York for a civilian trial, arguing he belongs in military custody in Guantanamo Bay.
Slaiman Abu Ghayth pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiring to kill Americans Friday in a brief appearance in New York federal courtroom. The presence of bin Laden’s son-in-law, who serves as a spokesman for al Qaeda, in New York City just blocks from where the World Trade Center towers were demolished — is reigniting a fiery debate over whether terrorists should be tried in civilian court or military commissions.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the decision to try Mr. Ghayth in New York demonstrates “a stubborn refusal” to hold additional terrorists at the Guantanamo Bay facility and could impede intelligence collection.
The intelligence team that located Osama bin Laden, Mr. McConnell said, relied on information gathered through the interrogation of detainees. Right now, the nation’s intelligence community is trying to locate al Qaeda’s new leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and do everything they can to disrupt potential terrorist attacks.
Citing public records, Mr. McConnell also said Mr. Ghayth possesses “valuable knowledge of al Qaeda’s activities within Iran.”
“Our intelligence community and military are laboring to understand the structure, threat and communications methods of al Qaeda affiliates in Yemen, North Africa and the growing threat of Al Nusra front within Syria,” he said. “They deserve the same access to intelligence and methods of defeating the enemy available to the team that found bin Laden.”
White House spokesman Josh Earnest refuted any notion that intelligence gathering had been hampered by the decision to try Mr. Ghayth in New York.
“With all due respect, that’s not the assessment of the intelligence community,” he said, referring more specific questions about the Mr. Ghayth’s interrogations to Justice.
The White House said the intelligence community, as well as the Pentagon, the Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department all agree that prosecuting Mr. Ghayth in civilian court is the best way to protect the country’s national security interests.
“[Civilian courts] have shown that there are, in many ways, a more efficient way for us to deliver justice to those who seek to harm the United States of America,” Mr. Earnest said. “And that is the consensus view of the president’s national security team and of agencies all across the federal government.”
The decision not to send Ghayth to Guantanamo Bay earned high marks from Mr. Obama’s Democratic allies on Capitol Hill, although members of the New York delegation who strenuously objected to trying previous terrorism suspects in Manhattan in the past, were noticeably silent on the issue.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, applauded the decision, saying federal prosecutors have had “tremendous success” in convicting al Qaeda terrorists.
“In contrast, it is not clear whether a conspiracy case against Abu Ghayth could even be sustained in a military commission at Guantanamo Bay,” he said. “Sending another detainee to Guantanamo would have been a serious mistake, and it is clear to me that President Obama and his national security team made the right choice.”
Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, however, is particularly incensed over the Justice Department’s decision to begin civilian proceedings against the suspected terrorist without notifying Congress.
“Rather than issuing doomsday predictions about sequestration, the president should be notifying Congress that he’s planning a U.S. civilian court trial for a terrorist who took credit for 9/11 and is on video threatening to blow up more U.S. buildings and planes,” he said.
Story Continues →

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/8/republicans-denounce-nyc-terror-trial-bin-laden-so/#ixzz2NCUHDWlV
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns

DOJ Memo: Outlaw and Confiscate All Guns

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
February 24, 2013

DOJ memo states: “Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban.”
The National Rifle Association has obtained a Department of Justice memo calling for national gun registration and confiscation. The nine page “cursory summary” on current gun control initiatives was not officially released by the Obama administration.
The DOJ memo (downloadable here as a PDF) states the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation,” according to the NRA, and thinks universal background checks “won’t work without requiring national gun registration.” Obama has yet to publicly support national registration or firearms confiscation, although the memo reveals his administration is moving in that direction.
The memo stands in stark contrast to the administration’s public stance on so-called gun control. White House spokesman Jay Carney said last month that laws proposed by Obama would not “take away a gun from a single law-abiding American.”
The NRA declined to explain how it obtained the document. The memo was written by the acting director of the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice, Greg Ridgeway. It is dated January 4, two weeks before Obama mounted his attack on the Second Amendment following the Sandy Hook massacre. Ridgeway came to the Justice Department from the RAND corporation.
The memo says universal background checks on firearms purchases may help the government push to control and eventually outlaw firearms, but it would lead to an increase in illegally purchased guns.
It pointed out that banning high capacity ammunition clips would be ineffective due to the fact there is a large number of them already in circulation.
A Justice Department official said the memo is an unfinished review of gun violence research and does not represent administration policy.
The DOJ memo arrived a few weeks prior to a letter sent out by the Department of Veterans Affairs. “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition,” the sent to military veterans states. “If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”
“US veterans are receiving letters from the government informing them that they are disabled and not allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. If the veteran does decide to purchase a firearm he will by fined, imprisoned or both,” the Gateway Pundit remarked.
NRA’s Chris Cox talks about the DOJ memo:
California Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein reveals the government agenda — confiscation:
This article was posted: Sunday, February 24, 2013 at 12:20 pm

Shocking email: Dems threaten Colo. sheriffs’ salaries over gun control

Shocking email: Dems threaten Colo. sheriffs’ salaries

Shocking email: Dems threaten Colo. sheriffs’ salaries over gun control

Terry Maketa, Jeff Nohr, Charlie Hess
Sheriff Terry Maketa: “I was absolutely outraged… I made it very clear that I felt it was almost bordering extortion, attempted influence of a public official.”
Photo credit www.denverpost.com
The Colorado gun debate is heating up. Companies are threatening to move, rape victims are ridiculed for testifying in committee hearings that they desire guns for self-protection, and potential victims are instructed to rely on rape whistles and call boxes. Now the state’s sheriffs have entered the fray, expressing support for the Second Amendment, and according to El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, the officers are getting some blowback from the Democratic Party.
In an interview Saturday morning with Jeff Crank on 740 AM KVOR radio, Maketa said 30 Colorado sheriffs went to the state capitol to speak out against restrictive gun control legislation.
Only one sheriff of the 30 present was allowed to speak against the rule-change bill, Maketa told KVOR, adding that typically all those present would have been allowed to speak.
Maketa then referred to an email he’d received Wednesday saying “that the Senate Dem Leadership is very upset with the Sheriffs and their opposition to the gun control bills.”
Sheriffs’ salaries are set by state lawmakers upon the recommendation of a salary commission’s findings, he explained. “But the Dems have been dangling [the salary bill] out there and refusing to follow their own created commissions’ recommendations. They’ve put it off now for two years.”
The Senate Democrats, Maketa told Crank, were “very upset” with his “testimony in opposition on the gun bills. And they are stating that, basically, we should reconsider our position to gain a more favorable light for salary support from the Dems.”
The sheriff said he was “absolutely outraged by that. Number one, the salary bill for elected officials is a mandate of the legislature. Creating gun control is not a mandate, and in this case, there is no factual basis for it. And I made it very clear that I felt it was almost bordering extortion, attempted influence of a public official, but more so that we would be sacrificing our morals and principles in what we know is the right thing to do.”
The email is not being released so it can be preserved as evidence in a likely investigation, according to SpotlightOnCorruption.com.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS

over gun control

Shocking email: Dems threaten Colo. sheriffs’ salaries over gun control

Shocking email: Dems threaten Colo. sheriffs’ salaries over gun control

Terry Maketa, Jeff Nohr, Charlie Hess
Sheriff Terry Maketa: “I was absolutely outraged… I made it very clear that I felt it was almost bordering extortion, attempted influence of a public official.”
Photo credit www.denverpost.com
The Colorado gun debate is heating up. Companies are threatening to move, rape victims are ridiculed for testifying in committee hearings that they desire guns for self-protection, and potential victims are instructed to rely on rape whistles and call boxes. Now the state’s sheriffs have entered the fray, expressing support for the Second Amendment, and according to El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, the officers are getting some blowback from the Democratic Party.
In an interview Saturday morning with Jeff Crank on 740 AM KVOR radio, Maketa said 30 Colorado sheriffs went to the state capitol to speak out against restrictive gun control legislation.
Only one sheriff of the 30 present was allowed to speak against the rule-change bill, Maketa told KVOR, adding that typically all those present would have been allowed to speak.
Maketa then referred to an email he’d received Wednesday saying “that the Senate Dem Leadership is very upset with the Sheriffs and their opposition to the gun control bills.”
Sheriffs’ salaries are set by state lawmakers upon the recommendation of a salary commission’s findings, he explained. “But the Dems have been dangling [the salary bill] out there and refusing to follow their own created commissions’ recommendations. They’ve put it off now for two years.”
The Senate Democrats, Maketa told Crank, were “very upset” with his “testimony in opposition on the gun bills. And they are stating that, basically, we should reconsider our position to gain a more favorable light for salary support from the Dems.”
The sheriff said he was “absolutely outraged by that. Number one, the salary bill for elected officials is a mandate of the legislature. Creating gun control is not a mandate, and in this case, there is no factual basis for it. And I made it very clear that I felt it was almost bordering extortion, attempted influence of a public official, but more so that we would be sacrificing our morals and principles in what we know is the right thing to do.”
The email is not being released so it can be preserved as evidence in a likely investigation, according to SpotlightOnCorruption.com.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS
Most always the confutation over the issue of children and the rapture of the church is wrapped around the scripture: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy” (1 Cor. 7:14).
The Character of God
The very character of God, himself, is at the heart of the issues involved in the question that is raised quite often. “What about children and the rapture? Will they stay on earth, or go to be with Christ?” And, there is nothing of more profound eternal significance than the individual human being’s consideration of God’s character. The all-importance of that consideration is cocooned within the words of Jesus Christ, himself, at the center of whom God’s great character is made manifest for fallen mankind.
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets” (Matt. 16:13-14).
Jesus’ question was straight from the heart of God. Jesus was God come to the earth in the flesh. Therefore, He, of course, knew what the people were saying about Him. He wanted His disciples to consider the question through spiritual eyes and ears, regarding themselves, individually. His follow-up question asked plainly: “He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?” (Matt. 16:15).
The totality of scripture which went before Jesus asked the question, and all scripture that came after He asked the question, encapsulates –attests to—the holy, loving, merciful character of mankind’s Creator. His question is directed not to corporate mankind, however, but to each and every individual who has lived upon earth since He asked it. How each one of us answers that specific question Jesus asked will determine each and every individual’s position in Jesus Christ. The individual answer you and I and every other person give to that specific question Jesus asked will determine where you, I, or any other individual spends eternity. And, make no mistake, each and every person who has or ever will live –and that means from conception onward—will spend eternity in one of two places: either in hell, or in heaven.
The coming into existence of the creature called man, and the fall from walking perfectly with the Creator is a matter for another study. Suffice it to say that a quick perusal of any newspaper or a quick listen to any news story will attest to man’s fallen state. We human beings do not walk a perfect walk. We sin, and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). The fact is that we need redemption –we must have reconciliation with God, our Creator, or we remain lost forever. And, keep in mind, the matter is based not upon a corporate or collective relationship, but upon an individual relationship with God. And, this is where the awesome, loving grace – the very character of the Lord God-- comes into view. God’s Word says,” The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).
We are each fallen. We need God’s grace gift of salvation. It is an individual need. Each of us must come to repentance for the sin into which we were born because of the fall of our father, Adam. God’s holiness requires blood sacrifice for remission of sin (Heb. 9: 22; 10:18). And, this is why God, himself, in the form of His Son Jesus Christ –the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world-- came to die on the cross at Calvary. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16).
About each of us –you, me, and every other person—God’s Word says further: “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (Jn. 3:18). Remember this verse; it is profoundly important to looking at the matter of children and the rapture of the Church.
Belief Essential
Man is born into sin because the first man (Adam) disobeyed or rebelled against his Creator. The human blood line has been, since that time, polluted, contaminated by the horrible thing called sin. Because of Adam’s fall, disease, deterioration, decay, and death entered the world, God’s Word says. God has provided reconciliation with himself for human beings –redemption, through the blood sacrifice of His holy, perfect sacrificial lamb, His Son, Jesus Christ. Now, all can be saved through belief in Jesus as the only way back to God the Creator. Jesus is the way –the only way, truth and life. No one comes to God the Father (the Creator) except through belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, and what He did on the cross at Calvary (read John 14:6). Belief is absolutely essential. This is the sort of faith Jesus spoke to Thomas about, when Thomas doubted that Jesus had resurrected after the crucifixion. When Thomas saw Jesus stand among the disciples, the Lord, having passed through solid matter to be with them, and Jesus bid Thomas to touch His wounds, Thomas believed, and could but mutter, “My Lord, and My God!"
Jesus then said: “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (Jn 20:29). Jesus, with that statement, was, I’m convinced, looking not only at the disciples who were in that room, but down through time to all who would believe in His death, burial, and resurrection for salvation.
So, “belief” is absolutely essential--the kind of belief that saves, in order to be “born again” (John 3: 3) into God’s eternal family.
The Apostle Paul gave the precise formula required by God for the salvation of the individual soul: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:9-10).
This is what is required to assure salvation for the individual soul. This places the person in God’s family through Christ Jesus--i.e, when the individual believes in the way Paul, through divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit, plainly tells us, that person is saved. That is, God no longer looks at the person as fallen, as rebellious, as a sinner, but now looks at the individual through His Son Jesus. God now sees the “believer” through the prism of the shed blood of His precious Son. About that, God’s Word says: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8:1).
It is obvious beyond any rationale to the contrary that this sort of belief –belief that brings one into the very family of God for all of eternity-- must be a belief that requires understanding that Jesus is the way –the ONLY way to such a position in God’s family. And, it is clear, according to God’s Word, that that position is gained through belief in Christ, totally, with no other prescription as antidote to the soul-destroying venom called sin. In other words, each individual’s soul owes his place in God’s family for eternity to what Jesus –alone—has done for that individual.
So, it is the person’s position in Christ –through his or her belief—that God looks at in the matter of whether the individual is “saved.” To come to this “salvation” position, the individual must “believe." There must be a cognitive decision to achieve the position in Christ that saves the individual’s soul. Remember the Scripture: “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (Jn. 3:18).
Position in Jesus Christ
The soul of the individual comes into existence at the moment of conception –the moment the Lord gives that life within the womb. I won’t argue the point. God’s Word says without reservation that life begins at conception. We could go into a study of that truth, but that’s for another time and space. Suffice it to say that God gives the soul at conception, and it becomes more than obvious when studying records of children in the womb. Two examples are Jacob and his twin brother, Esau, struggling within the womb of their mother. Another is the account of John, who would become the baptizer, who recognized the Messiah, Jesus, who was in His mother’s womb when the two women were in the same proximity. Children in the womb are living beings –with God-given souls.
These babies have certain abilities to think, and, in John’s case, certainly, a supernatural understanding about the fact he and his mother were in the presence of God, himself, come to earth in the flesh. However, it is a fact understood by anyone, with any common sense whatever, that a child in the womb, or for the first, formative years of life, are incapable of coming to comprehension of anything like making a decision about where his or her soul will spend eternity. These little ones are sinners every bit as much as any adult human being. The difference is the adult –presuming he or she hasn’t a severe mental incapacitation-- can understand, and make decisions about things like whether to accept Christ for salvation. These are therefore “accountable” for their belief or lack thereof. The child, whose reasoning powers haven’t reached that conceptual level of functioning, are not yet “accountable” for whether they believe to the point of salvation.
The adult whom the Holy Spirit has called to salvation through Jesus Christ is “accountable” for his or her own soul at the point he or she then accepts or rejects. The child is not called to salvation because he or she hasn’t, at that point in his or her young life, achieved through growth the cognitive ability to make such decisions. These are not “accountable.” The child who hasn’t reached the “age of accountability” has a position in Jesus Christ, the same as the adult who has “believed” unto salvation. If the child were to die before becoming responsible for his or her own decision to accept or reject Christ, that child would go directly into the presence of God, for all eternity.
Remember King David. He put off his robes of mourning for his baby when the son died, because David said that the baby couldn’t come to him, but that he, David, would go to the child. The baby was in heaven with God, for all of eternity, where King David would surely go upon his death. We know this is where David would go, because God called him “a man after my own heart.”
So, the position we, as individuals (not collectively) have in Jesus Christ, is the determining factor –the all-important matter—in considering where you or I –or any person will spend eternity. All children before they reach the age of accountability are positioned securely in the Lord Jesus Christ, whose shed blood is the only remission for the soul-destroying thing called sin.
Rapture a Salvation Issue
The rapture of the Church is a salvation issue. These realities –rapture and salvation--are inexorably linked in God’s great economy. This truth is based upon a vast body of scriptural proof text, but is wrapped up by the Apostle Paul in one particular scripture, I think: “For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ…”(1 Thes. 5:9).
Paul, again through divine inspiration, had just gone through the facts surrounding the rapture of believers ( the Church). He used the personal pronouns "we," "us," "your," etc., as opposed to "they," "them," etc., to separate believers from unbelievers. Believers (Christians of the Church Age) were not, Paul said, appointed to wrath, because they were children of the day (the light found in Christ). The unbelievers were children of the night –the sin-blackened darkness of the fallen realm. Paul prophesied that the day of the Lord will begin like a thief-in-the-night experience. The children of the night would be taken by surprise, but the children of the day (believers) would escape the coming wrath of God, which the day of the Lord will bring upon a rebellious world of earth-dwellers.
This escape from God’s wrath will come, Paul said, through salvation, which is in Christ Jesus. The individual’s position in Christ will provide the escape. This is the same escape foretold by Jesus –through John—in Revelation 3: 10: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” (Rev. 3:10).
Children below the age of accountability are individual souls within Christ’s salvation –the salvation that keeps the individual believer out of hell, eternally apart from the Creator –out of the time of God’s wrath, which will come upon the whole world of rebellious earth-dwellers –unbelievers. Again, God does not deal with human beings collectively, or corporately, when it comes to salvation of the soul. He, mercifully, deals with us one on one. Jesus asks each of us: “Who do you say that I am?” Unbelievers are those who, individually, have rejected the Holy Spirit’s call to salvation. Each will be left behind at the time of the rapture. Children, like all of lost mankind, are sinners, but those who haven’t reached the age of being able to understand God’s grace gift are not unbelievers. They are covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. They are, individually, in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
Lamb’s Book of Life
Let us look for a moment at this all-important volume God calls “The Lamb’s Book of Life.” This book is crucial to your and my souls, and to the soul of each and every individual human being who has ever been born –or who has died in the womb, before having a chance to draw a first breath. Here are two relevant scripture passages on that Book.
“He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels” (Rev. 3:5).
“And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life” (Rev. 21:27).
God’s Word is telling us here that there is a volume in which every human being’s name is written at some point. None whose name isn’t written in this book can enter into God’s holy presence for eternity. The word “Life” in the title of this book is "eternal" life. Every human being who has been conceived in the procreation process has his or her name written in the “Lamb’s Book of Life.”But, there is obviously the chance that one’s name can be blotted out of that book, according to Revelation 3:5. Since it is not possible for one to lose his or her salvation once the person has “believed” in the only begotten Son of God, the term “blot out” in Revelation 3:5 needs to be explained. The meaning becomes clear, when thinking on the fact that each and every individual’s name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. The name remains there until the person is shown that he or she is a sinner, and is convicted or called by the Holy Spirit to repent of sin –to “believe” in the Lord Jesus Christ. When the person fully realizes that call, and that Jesus is the ONLY way to reconciliation with God the Father, but refuses or rejects God’s grace gift offer, that name is “blotted out” of the Lamb’s Book of Life. The individual who rejects that grace gift offer of salvation until his or her death will die in sin and spend eternity apart from his or her Creator. That person who has reached the age of accountability for his or her soul will also be left behind, when the Rapture occurs.
The name will be written back in that book when the individual subsequently accepts the Lord Jesus as the Savior of his or her soul. Jesus Christ’s shed blood is the only payment God the Father accepts. But, once a person accepts that free gift from the Lord Jesus, the individual is a member of God’s family –forever.
So, your and my position in Christ is the all-important thing, whether considering going to heaven when we die, or going to heaven at the rapture, when Jesus comes for us to take us to our home, which He, personally, has prepared for each of us, individually. (Read John 14: 1-4.) This is the only collective family gathering that counts in God’s economy, in consideration of the matter of the rapture and Salvation. We will, collectively at the rapture, go home to be in God the Father’s house. Here on earth, our relationship with our earthly parents is tremendously important, of course. But, it is our place in our heavenly family, and in our heavenly home that is absolutely crucial. This is an eternal matter. And, it all relies upon our position in Jesus Christ, not upon our position in our earthly home, or upon the spiritual condition of our parents.
Yes, but what about this?
A number of questions about the rapture and children crop up consistently. I thought it good to look at a couple of them.
Q. Why do you believe children will be taken in the rapture, when God hasn’t intervened for them in wars, and other horrible things that have happened to the children throughout the centuries? Why do you think God will keep them out of the tribulation, when millions have died, and continue to die?
A. These are two different matters entirely. This question involves physical death versus spiritual death (the second death, as the Scripture puts it.) It is the death of the flesh versus the death of the soul of an individual. Sin brought death to the flesh and to the soul (physical and spiritual death), but Christ brings eternal life. That is what I’ve spent the bulk of the article addressing. Wars and other terrible things on earth indeed take physical life –especially, it seems, the lives of innocent children. Unrepented sin takes the soul in death (eternal separation from the soul-giver –God, the Creator). It is comforting to know –according to God’s Word—that all children who have perished over the millennia have gone directly to be with the Lord. Not one single one of them has died in the eternal sense. Again, these are two separate issues –physical death versus spiritual death. The rapture is in the realm of the spiritual or the eternal sphere.
Q. But, won't there be children in the tribulation? Jesus says so in His Olivet Discourse.
A. Yes, the Lord does prophesy there will be children during the time of tribulation. He foretells the following: “And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!” (Matt. 24:19). Notice carefully. Jesus issues a special “woe” for the parents of children in the time of tribulation. But, the Lord specifically gives two ages of children, here: 1) children who are nursing, and 2) children still in the womb. There is absolutely no mention of older children. These children will be those born AFTER the Rapture. And, there will doubtless be millions upon millions born. Sexual debauchery will explode, as the Holy Spirit withdraws from governing the consciences of men and women (read 2 Thess. 2). No doubt, most of these little ones will perish in the horrors of that time. As many as two-thirds of all mankind will die during that period.
Not fair of God, you say? Consider this: Every single child who is born after the rapture will spend eternity with God the Father. None will have reached the age of accountability by the time Jesus Christ brings this decaying, dying world to an end as recorded in Revelation 19:11. For those who are thinking ahead of me, I realize that children who go into the millennium under the age of accountability will have to make the decision to accept Christ for salvation at some point.
As stated in the beginning of the article, God’s very character is at stake in the matter of whether ALL children (below the age of accountability) will go to be with Jesus at the electrifying moment of rapture. What, exactly, is wrapped up in 1 Corinthians 7:14 is a matter for another study. But, this much the overall context of God’s Word, when speaking to salvation matters—plainly, and loudly proclaims. The Bible teaches that the individual’s position in Christ, not his or her position in the physical family here on earth, determines the final disposition of the eternal soul. The rapture is an eternal matter, wrapped up in God’s salvation guarantee. And, it is a guarantee to the individual, not to the corporate –even though the collective will go as the Bride of Christ, the Church.
Every child below the age of accountability –including those in the womb—will go to be with Jesus when He steps out on the clouds of glory and shouts: “Come up here!”

First, we sued the State Department seeking “all videos and photographs” depicting the Benghazi, Libya, Consulate between September 10 and September 13, 2012, the period leading up to, during, and immediately following the deadly attack.

State Complaint 1 - Filed http://www.scribd.com/doc/128442535/State-Complaint-1-Filed

First, we sued the State Department seeking “all videos and photographs” depicting the Benghazi, Libya, Consulate between September 10 and September 13, 2012, the period leading up to, during, and immediately following the deadly attack.

http://signon.org/sign/congress-do-job-voluntarily

http://signon.org/sign/congress-do-job-voluntarily

GOP Rep. introduces amendment defunding Obama's golf trips

GOP Rep. introduces amendment defunding Obama's golf trips

On Tuesday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) introduced an amendment to the continuing resolution bill that would prohibit public funds being used to transport the president to or from a golf course until public White House tours resume, Keith Koffler reported at the White House Dossier.
The administration said Tuesday it was canceling all public tours of the White House starting Mar. 9 due to sequestration.
But Gohmert said it was just part of the administration's strategy to inflict pain on the American people.
The amendment simply states:
"None of the funds made available by a division of this act may be used to transport the president to or from a golf course until public tours of the White House resume."
"Gohmert cited an estimate by Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, that 341 federal employees could have avoided being furloughed had Obama not traveled to Florida for a three-day golf extravaganza," Koffler wrote.
"We could certainly save a few dollars on law enforcement, security, and transport for those frequent golf trips the president likes to take, no?" Erika Johnsen wrote at Hot Air.
In a statement released by his office, Gohmert excoriated the administration for its handling of the sequester.
"Now," Gohmert said, "his administration has released arrested criminal suspects, is threatening to furlough or cut law enforcement, not protect our border, leave our military in harm’s way without adequate support, cut out vaccinations to children, fire teachers they do not even hire, and now pull FAA personnel from 168 airports –all to punish the country. We have never had an American administration intentionally try to do this much damage to American lives as part of a tantrum demanding more money for government. This is a very serious and sad time for America.”
Koffler said the amendment is "unlikely" to be passed into law because GOP lawmakers are moving the bill through the House without amendments and the continuing resolution is "is likely to come to a vote in the House today."
According to ObamaGolfCounter.com, the president has enjoyed 115 rounds of golf since his first day in office.
Gohmert's statement on the floor of the House can be seen here.
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you like this article, you can follow Joe on Twitter @jnewby1956, visit and like his Facebook page, or subscribe to receive email updates when a new article is published.
For hard-hitting conservative commentary, please visit Joe's blog, the Conservative Firing Line. You can also find Joe's articles at Right News Now, Liberty Unyielding and PolitiCollision.

Petition Asks Whether Congress Should Face Treason Charges

Petition Asks Whether Congress Should Face Treason Charges

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
OpEdNews Op Eds
Atomic bombs, drone strikes, cyber warfare; war is constantly evolving, and a new online petition is asking whether our definition of treason is keeping pace. If warfare in the digital age can be targeted at our infrastructure, it begs, could our members of congress be guilty of treason?
From http://www.flickr.com/photos/41284017@N08/8532063119/
by USDAgov

With the effects of sequestration looming, and over a million federal employees at risk of suffering furloughs, one must wonder: why are members of congress not giving up any of their $174,000 salaries? If taxpayers must deal with the hiring freezes, wage freezes, unpaid time off, and cuts to federal programs, surely there's no reason why those same taxpayers should pay almost $100 million a year in congressional salaries. Especial when the congress in question is failing them.
If one considers that the average household income is in the neighborhood of $50,000, and that unemployment is around 8%, congressional salaries quickly become a question of ethics rather than just poor taste. It can't be moral for our legislators to make almost four times the average household income, and over eleven times the income of a minimum wage earner, while millions of Americans who are seeking jobs can't get them, and congress can't do something as simple as pass a budget to get the country back on track.
Sequestration, in theory, was supposed to be so uncomfortable that congress would come to a compromise in order to avoid the otherwise-inevitable automatic spending cuts. Because there was nothing personally at risk for Republicans or Democrats in congress, sequestration has proven to be a complete failure.
The petition at hand has created a new dilemma for Republicans and Democrats to consider, should it prove popular.
<a href="http://ox-d.lanistaconcepts.com/w/1.0/rc?cs=51030f68dd793&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" ><img src="http://ox-d.lanistaconcepts.com/w/1.0/ai?auid=332813&cs=51030f68dd793&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" border="0" alt=""></a>
On the one hand, the petition essentially asks congress members to prove their loyalty to the United States by forgoing their six-figure incomes and tightening their purse strings like the rest of America. On the other hand, congress members can accept a treason conviction for what would be considered a willful attempt to run the country into the ground.
In a way, it's Plato's Republic put into practice. Our congress men and women ought to be taking up positions of leadership because they feel they will benefit our nation. That politicians make so much more than the average American raises significant doubts about their intentions.
It has yet to be seen whether the petition will gather any traction, but it does raise the question of what we're going to do to hold congress accountable. Clearly, self-regulation is not a viable option moving forward.
You can view the petition at http://signon.org/sign/congress-do-job-voluntarily.

Marco Rubio: I’ll Vote To Shut Down The Government Unless Obamacare Is Completely Defunded

Marco Rubio: I’ll Vote To Shut Down The Government Unless Obamacare Is Completely Defunded


During an interview on conservative host Hugh Hewitt’s talk radio program Thursday night, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) joined fellow Tea Party favorites Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) in demanding that a continuing resolution to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year include provisions to defund Obamacare in its entirety.
Over the course of the program, Rubio parroted the usual litany of wild — and widely debunked — conservative hysteria about the dire consequences that Obamcare will have on American businesses and the U.S. health care industry, asserting that he would only vote to avert a government shutdown if Obamcare implementation is halted completely:
HEWITT: Senator Rubio, the continuing resolution is headed your way. How is this stacking up as Act III of the spending drama?
RUBIO: Well first of all, I don’t think anyone is in favor of shutting down the government, but I think that’s where we’re headed ultimately here, unfortunately, if we don’t fix our debt problem… But here’s what I’ve said about this continuing resolution. Senator Cruz from Texas is offering this amendment to defund Obamacare. If that gets onto the bill, in essence, if they get a continuing resolution and we can get a vote on that and pass that onto the bill, I’ll vote for a continuing resolution, even if it’s temporary, because it does something permanent, and that’s defund this health care bill, this Obamacare bill, that is going to be an absolute disaster for the American economy. You’re already starting to feel the outer edges of that… I already am running into businesses that are planning next year on not hiring people or laying some people off so they don’t have to meet these mandates. Others are going to push their employees off of their private plans that they offer and onto these exchanges, driving up the cost for the public. So this is going to be an implementation disaster. It’s going to hurt our economy severely. And we’re not spending enough time talking about that.
Later on, Hewitt asked if Rubio would settle for partially defunding Obamacare — specifically, by repealing a provision levying a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices — in exchange for funding the government. Rubio replied, “I don’t know if that alone would be enough” to secure his vote for the continuing resolution, but that he “certainly would support that amendment.”
Defunding the health reform law would devastate tens of millions of Americans who would no longer receive federal subsidies for purchasing health insurance or have expanded access to public insurance programs such as Medicaid. It would also fly in the face of public opinion, since the majority of Americans believe that implementing Obamacare should be a “top priority” in their state. And contrary to some Republicans’ claims, a government shutdown would be a decidedly bad development for essential government services and the American economy at large.

Tags:

G

EXCLUSIVE! Benghazi GUN-RUNNING & The Russia, China, Iran, Syria PIPELINE

EXCLUSIVE! Benghazi GUN-RUNNING & The Russia, China, Iran, Syria PIPELINE

Russia,China,Iran,Syria,Pipeline,Gun-Running,Benghazi,voter,fraud,Tripoli,embassy,arms,Mommar,Qaddafi,Bashar,Assad,Regime,Assad regime,natural,gas,Iraq,Turkey,Qatar,Israel,rebels,Georgia,Al Qaeda,Terrorist,Terrorism,Barack,Obama,Golan,Heights,CIA
by Chip Jones on November 16, 2012
While the country intellectually “channel surfs” between the Petraeus Sex Scandal, the questions of voter fraud, the imminent resignations of administration officials and the ever present pall of Benghazi, let’s put on the table the yet unexplained but critical geo-political underpinnings of the burgeoning scandal behind Benghazi.
Much like everything in the Middle East, the story behind the story that’s behind the story of our “embassy” in Benghazi is one of global petrochemicals. But before we get there, we need to review a little history of our “embassy” in Benghazi.
First off, it’s not an Embassy.
The USA's Libyan embassy is located in the capital city of Tripoli---not Benghazi. The compound at Benghazi is no more than a CIA facility set-up to arm the ‘rebels’ who ultimately overthrew Moammar Qadaffi. It is important to note, as it turns out, the Libyan ‘rebels’ were substantially Al Qaeda.
After the United States’ successful stint at “leading from behind” in the Libyan campaign, this CIA “gun store” shifted purposes. Now (or at least on Sept. 11), the CIA “gun store” was being used for a similar purpose.
Instead of arming the Libyan rebels, it was repurposed to arm ‘rebels’ in Syria who are opposing the Assad Regime. Given Assad’s jaded history of human rights violations, this, on the surface, has some appeal.
Do not view Syria through rose colored glasses, and from the focal point of a “feel good policy,” but consider the real interest at stake: Syria is the holder of one of the largest natural gas reserves on the planet. As with all large petrochemical reserves, there is a line of folks who would like to get their greedy furnaces wrapped around them.
Enter two factions:
On one side, there is the coalition comprised of Russia, China, Iran and Syria, who intends to harvest the natural gas and build a pipeline to Georgia, freeing the sale of this precious natural gas to the petrochemical guzzling giants of Russia and China.
On the other side is Turkey & Qatar, who are backing the Syrian rebels in an attempt to profit from the sale of that same natural gas via pipeline to the Mediterranean.
And in the most clandestine of ways, Israel is partnering with Turkey, Qatar & the Syrian ‘rebels’ forming the most unholy of unholy alliances. They are throwing their lot in because the devil of the unknown Syrian is better than the devil of the known Iran, who would undoubtedly use the proceeds of this pipeline to complete its nuclear program.
Israel’s role has been confined to simply amassing a troop buildup on the Golan Heights that border Syria. This coupled with a bellicose Turkey on its other border leaves Assad’s Syria strapped militarily, necessitated by facing the two threats on its opposing borders, and leaving them vulnerable to the Syrian rebels who can slowly pick their bones.
What is interesting, but certainly not a coincidence, is that this very plan for the destabilization of Syria was developed at the Brookings Institute, the DC think tank.
Now, let’s “fast forward” to Benghazi and the American role in this geo-political chess game, other than just the Brookings strategy.
It is well known that President Obama’s only true personal friend on the world stage is the Prime Minister of Turkey. So, we need to look carefully at who the direct-link is, arming the Syrian rebels, and that is Turkey.
Does Turkey have advanced-weapon manufacturers? No, of course not. Does Turkey even have a wealthy central government? No.
In steps the Prime Minister of Turkey’s good buddy, President Obama. Paraphrasing and shortening, I assume words of this kind passed between the PM of Turkey & Barack Obama, “Mr. Prime Minister, I happen to have this CIA ‘gun store’ in Benghazi….”
The CIA compound in Benghazi was collecting weapons from Libyan’s, who were once loyal to Qadaffi. The CIA was then rendering the weapons 'as outdated, in disrepair, or inoperable'---thus creating a constant stream of seized-weapons to satisfy NATO, and  shipping the "operable weapons" to Syria via Turkey, through clandestine channels.
Ladies and Gentlemen, here’s the rub. Take a quick guess who the Syrian rebels are?
Those of you who answered: “Al Qaeda,” would be correct. So, what we have here is the second instance where the CIA facility in Benghazi was used to arm Al Qaeda.
And by the textbook definition, the act of arming your enemies is called Treason.