Marcus Luttrell, the Navy Seal who survived the ordeal that was the subject of his book and subsequent movie, “Lone Survivor,” went back to the war a year after that event to fight in Ramadi as a member of Seal Team 5. He wrote a book about that experience too, titled, “Service – A Navy Seal At War,” published in 2012.
From page 74 – [Read more…]
This film documents the socialist conquest of America. Whether Obama is the son of Frank Marshall Davis or not, the history of the totalitarian movement they both dedicated their lives to is an on-going American tragedy that must be seen, must become known, by all Americans.
I’m ashamed to be called ‘newsman’
by Joseph Farah
After watching the press reaction and “questions” following Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s breathtaking news conference yesterday, I have to tell you I’m embarrassed to call myself a newsman.
If someone asks me what I do for a living, maybe I’ll identify myself as an Internet entrepreneur.
Or maybe I’ll say I’m a “writer.”
Or maybe a publisher or businessman.
I never thought it would come to this. Being a newsman was all I ever wanted to be as far back as I can remember. It’s really all I’ve ever done through adulthood. It’s all I really know and love.
But I don’t ever want to be associated with that pack of jackals from Phoenix who jumped all over Arpaio and his investigator, Mike Zullo, for courageously presenting overwhelming evidence – I would even use the term “proof” – that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent and that the state of Hawaii is not only a willing accomplice in this scandal but perpetrating an even bigger one as a virtual factory for phony documents giving noncitizens instant citizenship with a stroke of the pen.
Some 50,000 people across the globe watched the live presentation on WND TV. If you didn’t get a chance to see it unfold, I urge you to take the time to review on demand, at your convenience.
In another era, with another occupant of the White House – someone like Nixon or Reagan or Bush – such an event would have been carried live by ABC, NBC and CBS. The New York Times would have had a half-dozen reporters on the scene. CNN, FOX and CSPAN would have carried coverage and offer instant analysis and debate over the issues raised.
But that’s no longer the America in which we live.
Today, without the Internet, we live in a 100 percent controlled media environment. There are more sacred cows than edible ones. The watchdogs are now lapdogs. The “reporters” are propagandists for the political establishment and the status quo.
I watch in horror as my chosen profession collectively disgraces itself.
Can our nation even survive without a free and independent and inquisitive, watchdog press?
Thomas Jefferson said, “Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.”
Are we “safe” in America today?
On the other hand, Vladimir Lenin said, “When one makes a Revolution, one cannot mark time; one must always go forward – or go back. He who now talks about the ‘freedom of the press’ goes backward, and halts our headlong course towards Socialism.”
Is that where we’re headed in America today – forward to socialism and tyranny?
I feel sympathy for Arpaio and Zullo for the abuse they have endured. I understand it well, because I’ve experienced it firsthand for the last four years in my own commitment to the pursuit of truth regarding Obama’s life story.
The easiest choice to make is to go along with the conventional wisdom, not ask the hard questions, not relentlessly pursue truth. Kudos to Arpaio and Zullo, who didn’t take the easy way out like those clowns in the local Phoenix media and all those in the national media who just ignored what the only law-enforcement investigation of Obama’s birth certificate found.
I may not want to associate myself with the media anymore out of sheer humiliation. But I promise you one thing: I’m not going to stop being a real journalist. I’m not going to stop doing what I’ve been doing for 35 years. I’m not going to stop supporting intrepid, independent renegades like the WND team who make me believe there’s still hope for redeeming the media.
The veiled threats against the Comedy Central show’s creators should be taken very seriously. Islamists seek to replace the rule of law with that of commanding right and forbidding wrong.
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali
‘South Park” is hilarious, right? Not any more.
Last week, Zachary Adam Chesser—a 20-year-old Muslim convert who now goes by the name Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee—posted a warning on the Web site RevolutionMuslim.com following the 200th episode of the show on Comedy Central. The episode, which trotted out many celebrities the show has previously satirized, also “featured” the Prophet Muhammad: He was heard once from within a U-Haul truck and a second time from inside a bear costume.
For this apparent blasphemy, Mr. Amrikee warned that co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone “will probably end up” like Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh, readers will remember, was the Dutch filmmaker who was brutally murdered in 2004 on the streets of Amsterdam. He was killed for producing “Submission,” a film that criticized the subordinate role of women in Islam, with me.
There has been some debate about whether Mr. Stone and Mr. Parker should view the Web posting as a direct threat. Here’s Mr. Amrikee’s perspective: “It’s not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome,” he told Foxnews.com. “They’re going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It’s just the reality.” He’s also published the home and office addresses of Messrs. Stone and Parker, as well as images of Van Gogh’s body.
According to First Amendment experts, technically speaking this posting does not constitute a threat. And general opinion seems to be that even if this posting was intended as a threat, Mr. Amrikee and his ilk are merely fringe extremists who are disgruntled with U.S. foreign policy; their “outrage” merits little attention.
This raises the question: How much harm can an Islamist fringe group do in a free society? The answer is a lot.
Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim first thought to have been a minor character in radical circles, killed Theo van Gogh. Only during the investigation did it emerge that he was the ringleader of the Hofstad Group, a terrorist organization that was being monitored by the Dutch Secret Service.
The story was very similar in the case of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The cartoons, drawn by Kurt Westergaard, were published in September 2005 to little notice but exploded five months later into an international drama complete with riots and flag-burnings. The man behind this campaign of outrage was an Egyptian-born radical imam named Ahmed Abu-Laban.
Prior to this conflagration, Mr. Abu-Laban was seen as a marginal figure. Yet his campaign ended up costing Denmark businesses an estimated $170 million in the spring of 2006. And this doesn’t include the cost of rebuilding destroyed property and protecting the cartoonists.
So how worried should the creators of “South Park” be about the “marginal figures” who now threaten them? Very. In essence, Mr. Amrikee’s posting is an informal fatwa. Here’s how it works:
There is a basic principle in Islamic scripture—unknown to most not-so-observant Muslims and most non-Muslims—called “commanding right and forbidding wrong.” It obligates Muslim males to police behavior seen to be wrong and personally deal out the appropriate punishment as stated in scripture. In its mildest form, devout people give friendly advice to abstain from wrongdoing. Less mild is the practice whereby Afghan men feel empowered to beat women who are not veiled.
By publicizing the supposed sins of Messrs. Stone and Parker, Mr. Amrikee undoubtedly believes he is fulfilling his duty to command right and forbid wrong. His message is not just an opinion. It will appeal to like-minded individuals who, even though they are a minority, are a large and random enough group to carry out the divine punishment. The best illustration of this was demonstrated by the Somali man who broke into Mr. Westergaard’s home in January carrying an axe and a knife.
Any Muslim, male or female, who knows about the “offense” may decide to perform the duty of killing those who insult the prophet. So what can be done to help Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone?
The first step is for them to consult with experts on how to stay safe. Even though living with protection, as I do now in Washington, D.C., curtails some of your freedom, it is better than risking the worst.
Much depends on how far the U.S. government is prepared to contribute to their protection. According to the Danish government, protecting Mr. Westergaard costs the taxpayers $3.9 million, excluding technical operating equipment. That’s a tall order at a time of intense fiscal pressure.
One way of reducing the cost is to organize a solidarity campaign. The entertainment business, especially Hollywood, is one of the wealthiest and most powerful industries in the world. Following the example of Jon Stewart, who used the first segment of his April 22 show to defend “South Park,” producers, actors, writers, musicians and other entertainers could lead such an effort.
Another idea is to do stories of Muhammad where his image is shown as much as possible. These stories do not have to be negative or insulting, they just need to spread the risk. The aim is to confront hypersensitive Muslims with more targets than they can possibly contend with.
Another important advantage of such a campaign is to accustom Muslims to the kind of treatment that the followers of other religions have long been used to. After the “South Park” episode in question there was no threatening response from Buddhists, Christians and Jews—to say nothing of Tom Cruise and Barbra Streisand fans—all of whom had far more reason to be offended than Muslims.
Islamists seek to replace the rule of law with that of commanding right and forbidding wrong. With over a billion and a half people calling Muhammad their moral guide, it is imperative that we examine the consequences of his guidance, starting with the notion that those who depict his image or criticize his teachings should be punished.
In “South Park,” this tyrannical rule is cleverly needled when Tom Cruise asks the question: How come Muhammad is the only celebrity protected from ridicule? Now we know why.
“4- Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America:
The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.”
An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America (English translation begins on page 15.)
In Colorado, employees who refuse to adhere to policies announced by senior management get shown the door.
The Elbert County Planning Commission, however, made up of people appointed by the BOCC and who serve at the pleasure of the BOCC are hell bent to regulate land owners in Elbert County using the Master Plan, contrary to the expressed intent of the BOCC and contrary to the expression of the voters on November 4th who chose against pro-regulatory Democrats.
Planning Commission members Grant Thayer, Richard Carlson, Paul Crisan, David Hoos, Mike Kelley, Anthony Osborn, and Lisa Shipman and their complicit facilitator Richard L. Miller, Director – Community & Development Services, should all be shown the door. These planning commission members should NOT be re-appointed to the planning commission by the new BOCC in January. And in so far as Mr. Miller has facilitated their insubordination, he should also be excused from the county payroll.
The majority of Elbert County citizens who do not favor regulatory planning deserve a planning commission and a planning department that respects their majority view. This insidious and incessant leftist push back against the majority of Elbert County voters through regulatory planning should be unequivocally shut down.
The voters at large gave their consent to be governed in county matters by electing commissioners to the BOCC. Those elected commissioners are expected to represent the majority of voters who elected them. A minority of voters, however, have taken over the planning commission and imposed their minority view that the master plan is regulatory in Elbert County. This is the same minority who lost at the polls last November 4th. Planning commissioners and the planning department have aided and abetted this minority in the takeover. This minority of voters and their enablers do not represent anything close to a majority view on regulatory planning, yet, they parse every bit of official language from every related subject into the assumption that regulatory planning already exists, in order to create the false impression that the majority desires it when it fact the majority does not. And after doing so, they applaud themselves.
The majority of voters are unaware of the charade of the planning commission and don’t even know their rights are being swept out from underneath them by a minority of pro-regulation leftists. Meanwhile these leftist experts at judicial and bureaucratic manipulation, who can’t win at the ballot box, work tirelessly to control your private property in Elbert County. They think that because they care so much about what you do with your property, that their caring confers upon them the right to order you to dispose of your property in the manner they dictate.
Go to any planning commission meeting. Watch these usurpers toy with your rights. Watch them laugh out loud and congratulate themselves after a particularly onerous session. Watch them wield the power of dictatorship.
If our next BOCC does not put a stop to this farce in January and appoint planning commissioners who respect the historical advisory nature of the master plan, and who respect the wishes of the majority of Elbert County voters for a non-regulatory master plan, then the majority of voters should vote them out of office at the first opportunity to do so.
Listen to the applause in the link above. Listen to this dictatorial bunch ride roughshod over the 5th Amendment and your property rights. Listen to them take your rights with impunity. Listen to them publicly insult the BOCC members who appointed them to the planning commission. Then do something about it dammit. This is an important battle folks. Don’t let them steal our rights.
After losing his election bid for commissioner of district 3 in Elbert County, Mr. Thomasson persists in the delusion that he represents the voice of the people and that the people’s voice says, “regulatory planning.” That’s not the people’s voice Mr. Thomasson, that’s a little voice that only you and a few of your special friends can hear.
Mr. Thomasson is part of a special minority of Elbert County citizens who share a phone tree. They don’t need to persuade the voting public because their specialness is so special, they only need to convince themselves! When the call goes out to the phone tree, the minions come marching in to pretend that they represent you and me. Sorry, they don’t, and neither does Mr. Thomasson.
Abe21 is again in high dudgeon, rationalizing away the majority voice of the voting public. Their ad hominem machine has gone into overdrive to cover yours truly with as much mud as they can sling just shy of outright defamation. Oh dopey me, I thought the election was actually over! I thought there was a point to this voting thing! Apparently I am marooned with this whacky notion that our votes meant something.
Well, the Voters, the real ones who Mr. Thomasson’s phone tree friends do not represent, heard him loud and clear when he promised a regulatory master plan, and their vote went overwhelmingly against him.
One can only hope that this fact will eventually break through Mr. Thomasson’s denial, and that he will finally realize that the majority of Elbert County citizens said “no thanks” to his ideas. Yes, there’s always hope.
Democrats Sward and Thomasson were told very explicitly last week by almost 3-1 majorities that the citizens of Elbert County DO NOT WANT THEM REPRESENTING US!!!
Hey Abe21, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.
Who controls Abe21? The Democrats.
Who sued the BOCC over Spring Valley Vistas? John Dorman.
Who do not represent the citizens of Elbert County? The Democrats.
Who did not elect the current BOCC and in no way could be considered their “constituents?” The Democrats.
Who are not elected by the citizens of Elbert County to represent them in any matter? The Planning Commission.
Who are elected by the citizens of Elbert County to shield them from the government takings of arbitrary master planning? The BOCC.
Less than 1% of the citizens of Elbert County are behind the movement to make the Master Plan regulatory. They do not represent the “community’s voice” in this matter.
(click to enlarge)
Planning Director Richard Miller came before the Board to confirm that the Elbert County Master Plan is an advisory document pursuant to C.R.S. 30-28-106(3)(f). Richard also stated that in April 2007, the Governor signed House Bill 07-1246 into law which modified the above statute and states in part the “Master Plan of Counties or Regions shall be an advisory document to guide land use development decisions; however, the plan or any part thereof may be made binding by inclusion in the counties subdivision, zoning, planning development or any other similar land use regulations after satisfying the notice of due process and the hearing requirements for a quasi-judicial process.” Under HB 07-1246, the Board of County Commissioners may decide to make a portion of the Master Plan or all of it, binding by inclusion into the zoning and subdivision regulations. Any amendments to the regulations must be accomplished by the public hearing process before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.
Since the Community & Development Services Office, Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners have viewed the Master Plan as an advisory document, Richard recommended that the Community & Development Services Office should move forward with the public hearing process to remove any reference to the Master Plan in the County’s regulations.
The Board approved the recommendation and move forward with a public hearing.
Summarized History for Bill Number HB07-1246
04/12/2007 Signed by the Speaker of the House
04/16/2007 Signed by the President of the Senate
04/16/2007 Sent to the Governor
04/25/2007 Governor Action – Signed
Excerpt: THE MASTER PLAN OF A MUNICIPALITY SHALL BE AN ADVISORY DOCUMENT TO GUIDE LAND DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS; HOWEVER, THE PLAN OR ANY PART THEREOF MAY BE MADE BINDING BY INCLUSION IN THE MUNICIPALITY’S ADOPTED SUBDIVISION, ZONING, PLATTING, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR OTHER SIMILAR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AFTER SATISFYING NOTICE, DUE PROCESS, AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS FOR LEGISLATIVE OR QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCESSES AS APPROPRIATE.
Elbert County’s Master Plan is already referenced in zoning, subdivision and 1041 regulations, prior to the enactment of this legislation. This is why the BOCC is trying to remove references to the Master Plan from county regulations. Elbert County has always had an advisory Master Plan, and unless references to the Master Plan are removed from county regulations, the Master Plan may be held to be regulatory by default, as it was in the SVV case.
Note that the new law also contains notice, due process and hearing requirements. The Master Plan has never been noticed and heard in the county under the terms that it would become a regulatory document. This fact would appear to present a due process problem to the assumption that the plan is already regulatory.
To remove all doubt, I support 100% the current commissioners’ intent to firmly establish the Master Plan as advisory by removing all references to it from county regulations.
I condemn with extreme prejudice the planning commissions’ attempts to make the Master Plan regulatory over all property holders in the county without holding an election on the question.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT REPRESENT THE PEOPLE. I HOPE THE NEW BOCC CLEANS HOUSE OF THE LOT OF THEM.
Did you read the above?
Here’s the problem. What Mr. Thomasson described isn’t democracy. The room contained a self-selected group of people who were 99% in favor of regulatory planning. The planning commission members were in favor of regulatory planning. They brought letters from their friends who were in favor of regulatory planning. Mr. Miller from county planning had switched his recommendation to also favor regulatory planning. To be generous, from all those sources there may have been 200 votes in favor of regulatory planning.
Those 200 non-representative people were busy determining (amidst applause, self-congratulations and jokes) a county policy about regulatory planning that will have the authority of governing law over all of the land owners in Elbert County. They had a good ol’ time manipulating a system that most people in the county don’t even know exists.
Not one of those people in the room were elected to represent the people they were, effectively, governing. That is not democracy. No way. No how. Not even close.
Before they can reasonably connect the word “democracy” to “regulatory planning” in Elbert County, Mr. Thomasson and friends will need to put it to a vote of all the people.
Acting like thugs and courting sympathetic judges does not earn them the right to claim democracy.
Issue: Advisory vs. Regulatory Master Plan
(42 Megs, please right click and download to your computer for listening. Sorry about the file size. It is a very clear recording and with headphones you can hear pretty much everyone in the hall. The meeting lasted approximately 45 minutes.)
Of particular interest was the closing discussion about continuation of the issue. This planning commission has no intention of forwarding a recommendation to the current BOCC for an executive decision.
This planning commission and every member of the audience who spoke, often to applause, and excluding myself, favor a regulatory master plan. The audience contained many SVV activists. Listen to the audio. This is not democracy. This is not a vote of the people. These people don’t care about legalities. They will have their regulations one way or another. This is mobocracy.
Both of these documents are dated August 28th. All of the detailed changes to existing regulations in both documents are identical.
The recommendations section, however, has been reversed in the revised version. There is no indication in the revised document that it now contains a reversal of opinion.
Mr. Miller’s revised recommendation would perpetuate Elbert County’s exposure to the spurious conclusions of Judge Holmes in the SVV case.
The BOCC should act with all due prejudice in this matter as soon as possible, and Mr. Miller’s subversion of his original recommendation should not be tolerated. Mr. Miller is quite wrong in characterizing the “advisory” nature of the master plan as a matter of “desire.” This is a matter of law, a matter of a long-standing precedent course of dealing, and a matter of rectifying an act of judicial hubris.
Mr. Miller’s new-found position that a resolution of the advisory nature of the master plan, if “desired” (by whom?), should be left to a complete re-write of all county regulations, is completely disingenuous. He knows full well that Elbert County can’t even get a rewrite to the master plan done, let alone a complete revamp of county regulations. The BOCC should put a stop to Mr. Miller’s hubris too.
If Elbert County citizens want a regulatory master plan they should vote on the question. Judge Holmes and Mr. Miller should not be deciding this matter between themselves.
(click to enlarge)
(click to enlarge)