Sunday, December 23, 2012

It's Time for Media Control

It's Time for Media Control

By: Derek Hunter / Townhall Columnist
Was there anything about the Sandy Hook massacre the media got right on the day it happened? In their rush to be first, they ignored their obligation to be right. Nearly every detail they disseminated Friday was wrong, even down to the name of the killer. Their desire to sensationalize had them shoving microphones in the faces of children who couldn’t possibly comprehend the events of the day. This was just the latest example of how out of control and dangerous the media has become, and it’s time government did something to protect us.

You’re probably asking yourself, “What about the First Amendment? Freedom of the press means we can’t regulate them, right?” Technically, yes. But since they, en masse, want to ignore the Second Amendment, to claim since it was written in a time of muskets, it is outdated and doesn’t apply to new guns, let’s apply the same to the First.

The First Amendment was written in a time of movable type printing presses and quills, not 24-hour cable news channels and the Internet. Using the media’s logic, the First Amendment doesn’t apply.

I’m not suggesting we should simply outlaw any media outside of print, but if we can limit the Second Amendment however we like, we can do the same to the First.

Congress should impose massive fines on those who get facts wrong. Not newspaper reporters – that’s dealt with a different way. But TV. As liberals love to remind us, broadcasters make their living over “public airwaves.” Conveying false information over them is a violation of the trust placed in those institutions by the public and should be punished.

The media would like to punish innocent gun owners for the actions of a tiny amount of guilty ones, so all media should be regulated because of the actions of a few bad ones.

NBC News, which I’m told was once a respected news organization, deliberately edited the 911 call in the Trayvon Martin case to make George Zimmerman sound racist when he was simply answering the dispatcher’s question. In the same case, the New York Times created a new race of humans – the “white Hispanic” – specifically to sensationalize that case into a racial issue. Although The Times is in print and thus protected, it also published that story on the Internet, which is not. Let’s punish The Times.

Zimmerman is suing NBC News and should win easily. But government could impose a minimum fine of, say, $1 billion for each offense. Doing so would bring about the end of the race to be first and restore the drive to be right. It also would ruin NBC News.

Media regulation could also be used to stop networks from conferring the fame on these the monsters they so desperately seek. They’re dead, but their name lives on in infamy, which is exactly what they want. Mentioning their name could be outlawed too.

All of this, of course, is absurd. The American people never would stand for it. We all exercise our free speech rights on a daily basis, and we’d never sit by and watch government outlaw speech. But many do exactly that with other parts of the First Amendment, particularly the religious freedom clause, and the Second.

No one would tolerate the creation of some sort of “special circumstances” where the Fifth Amendment wouldn’t apply and someone could be forced to testify in a criminal case against themselves – but somehow the Second is fair game.

How many laws did the Sandy Hook monster break in committing these murders? Why did he not respect the gun ban in the school? Because he was crazy. (That’s not to say he was stupid. Stupid and crazy, often used interchangeably, are two entirely different things.) Why aren’t we looking to see what warning signs were ignored by those around him and alert people to be on the lookout for those in others rather than the knee-jerk response of infringing on the rights of innocent Americans?

Liberals have a tradition of vilifying innocent people with the guilt of others. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Democrat FDR had Japanese Americans rounded up and essentially imprisoned for the sin of being Japanese. At its core, that’s what’s happening here.

Rather than focus on why this madman committed this heinous crime so we can prevent similar acts by equally ill people in the future, elected Democrats are ready yet again to impose government into areas the document they swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend expressly forbids. And the media, draped in the protections of that document, stands ready to be their willing accomplice in infringing upon others.

The American people cannot allow any of their rights – even if they choose not to exercise some of them – to be stripped away to appease an emotional mob being manipulated by politicians and fellow travelers in the media simply because unbalanced people abuse theirs. If we do, we might as well just surrender all of them now.

Question John Kerry Long and Hard!

Question John Kerry Long and Hard!

Sen. John Kerry has a long and dubious record in foreign policy.
In the 1970's, he testified against his fellow Vietnam War veterans before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He charged that they were violating the Geneva Conventions every day in Vietnam. Some POWs were outraged at Kerry's disloyal statements. They said they had been tortured by their Communist captors trying to force them to make such untrue statements.

Worse, Kerry went to Paris in 1971. There, he met with North Vietnamese Communists. We need to see all his notes from those meetings. Any negotiation between a private U.S. citizen and a foreign power is illegal. It violates the Logan Act of 1798. Did Kerry demand of the North Vietnamese Communists that they abide by the Geneva Convention? Or is that only a demand he made of his fellow Americans?

We do not charge Kerry with treason in the statements and actions he engaged in then. Treason consists of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. But this country has set a very high bar for conviction for treason--ever since the Burr Treason Trial of 1807. Nonetheless, we do say Kerry's actions and statements then were not those to which America's top diplomat should be

linked. What was he thinking?

In the 1980s, Kerry campaigned for the Nuclear Freeze. The Soviet KGB, we now know, was a major funder and promoter of this disastrous idea. The Freezeniks believed that President Carter's promise to send Pershing and Cruise missiles to our NATO allies in Western Europe should be dishonored.

Freezeniks thought that the only thing we should do in response to aggressive Soviet placement of SS-19 and SS-20 Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) in Eastern Europe was to freeze the West into no response. By freezing in terror, we could morally pressure the Soviets into withdrawing their missiles, the naive Freezeniks argued. Harvard's Polish-born Adam Ulam famously punctured this pink balloon: "An' wot will you doo iff they dun't?"

Ulam's common sense response was followed by President Ronald Reagan. Reagan agreed with the democratically elected Socialist President of France, Francois Mitterrand, that NATO would fall apart if we failed to meet this Soviet thrust. The Cruise and Pershing Missiles went forward. And, in good time, Reagan and Mitterand's policy of peace through strength brought the greatest arms reduction treaty in history and it helped bring down the Iron Curtain.

Has John Kerry learned anything from that experience? We need to know.

Then, there is his appalling joke when President George H.W. Bush was elected. He said the Secret Service has instructions, if anything happens to President Bush--"to shoot Dan Quayle."

He got a lot of yuks from the media on that one.

Question 1: Does Sen. Kerry think assassination of the President and Vice President is funny?

Question 2: If John Q. or Jane Q Public makes a joke about murder of the President and Vice President, they get a visit from the Secret Service; why does a United States Senator like Kerry get away with it?

For these and a host of other reasons, John Kerry should be grilled with tough questions. He has been wrong about every major foreign policy issue since 1972.

Aren't his failures over four decades something his colleagues should worry about?

This column was co-authored by Bob Morrison

Long-range missiles raise new threat in Syria

Analysts worry rebels could turn them on nation's own population 

Missileby Michael Carl / WND

Arabic websites report that Syrian rebels have captured long-range missiles and chemical weapons, weapons that analysts say the rebels intend to turn on the Syrian people, then blame on embattled Syrian President Bashir Assad.

Middle East analyst Theodore Shoebat, son of former PLO terrorist-turned-Middle East analyst and Christian human rights activist Walid Shoebat, says light security at Syrian military installations allowed the rebels to capture a variety of weapons.

“The name of the base is called Al-Hajar al-Aswad military base which was not guarded well. Much of these installations lack security,” Shoebat said. “This shows us the kind of weapons that the rebels could get their hands on. These are not only rockets but chemical weapons and sarin gas,” Shoebat said.

Shoebat says that even though Assad may not use the weapons against Israel, there is no certainty that the rebels won’t.

“The rebels are crazy enough to attack Israel with the weapons, while Assad is not. Netanyahu stated just in July of this year that al-Assad would soon fall, but that he was more worried [about] a collapse of Syria’s current regime, which would leave its chemical weaponry open to the hands of Islamists,” Shoebat said.

Walid Shoebat writes with Theodore Shoebat that based on their analysis of the Arabic websites and other media outlets reporting on the weapons, the rebels may even use the weapons on the Syrian population.

“The rebels have seized chemical weapons, and they are willing to use them on innocent people. According to Russia Today, Syrian rebels have obtained chemical weapons from Libya and are planning on using them on civilians, and then blaming it on Assad,” the Shoebats wrote.

“This is an effort between the Syrian rebels and their allies in Turkey, alongside cooperation with Libyan rebels under Abdel Hakim bel Haj,” the Shoebats wrote.

Theodore Shoebat says one website has video that shows Syrian rebels praying in front of the missile launching trucks. 

He also says a video produced by the Military Committee for the Revolution discusses the weapons and how they were captured. 

These missiles differ from the weapons cited in an October Wall Street Journal story that reported the rebels had acquired short-range, hand-held anti-aircraft weapons.

“Video footage uploaded to the Internet earlier this week appears to show rebels in Aleppo using weapons that military experts and rebels say are heat-seeking, shoulder-fired missiles, the first documented instance in the conflict,” that report said.

“Versions of the weapons – also known as man-portable air defense systems, or Manpads – have been smuggled into the country over the past two months through Turkey and to a lesser extent Lebanon, according to Syrian rebels and those who supply them arms through an operations room coordinated by regional governments,” the report said.

A former Defense Department analyst who asks not to be named confirms the reports.

“Some of the weapons are captured from government depots overtaken by the rebels,” the Defense Department analyst said.

However, the DoD analyst says plenty of weapons are flowing from other sources, including Libya.

“Others, including RPGs, are coming in from the outside, some of which are coming from pilfered bunkers in Libya by jihadists joining the rebels,” the DoD analyst said.

American Enterprise Institute Middle East analyst Michael Rubin says it was inevitable that the rebels would eventually acquire sophisticated, high-powered weaponry.

“As to Assad’s weaponry, eventually it’s going to fall to one group or another. It’s not going to magically disappear just because Obama wishes it would,” Rubin said. “Where there’s a will, there’s a way, and chances are the most radical groups will have the most will.”

Military and Foreign Policy analyst Scott Stewart says the reports of the rebels seizing the weapons are true, but the rebels’ ability to use them is another question.

“It is highly likely that they have seized long range artillery rockets with the large quantities of other munitions they have seized,” Stewart said.

However, Stewart is skeptical of the rebels’ ability.

“The problem is, however, as shown by the recent events in Gaza, that such rockets are very difficult to use in a militarily effective manner without experience, training and a lot of weather radars and other equipment you used to measure the wind, etc. and correctly plot their trajectory to hit your intended target,” Stewart said.

“Artillery rockets can be devastating if they are properly employed, but it is difficult to do so in an ad hoc military structure like the Syrian rebel groups,” Stewart said.

Stewart’s concerns have likely been met because of reports that the rebels have adopted a command structure.

Stewart’s analysis suggests that the rebels’ main impediment to successful deployment and operation of the weapons is a missing command structure.

However, Reuters recently reported that the rebels have established a unified command and as a result, are hoping for more weapons.

“Syrian rebels expect greater military help from Gulf Arab states after they announced a new command structure which aims finally to unite President Bashar al-Assad’s armed opponents, rebel commanders said on Monday,” Reuters said.

“Rebel fighters have made gains across the country in the last month, seizing military bases and taking on Assad’s better-armed forces on the fringes of his powerbase in Damascus,” Reuters reported.

The NRA...our last line of protection could be our school's first line of defense
By: Diane Sori

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
NRA's Wayne LaPierre

We all know what happened that fateful day in Connecticut when 26 innocent people, including 20 precious children, lost their lives at the hand of a monster. And we all know there was plenty of blame that went around, most misguided...the classics being the 'bad gun' did it...but spouted off just the same to turn a day of horror and unspeakable tragedy into nothing but political fodder for this president's agenda to take away the Second Amendment with its right to bear arms.

And least we forget the liberal media in all this, the liberal media who love to demonize, politicize, and blame law abiding gun owners, making them the bad guys as they perpetrate the lefts cry for more gun control laws.

But even with this we know that the NRA took the brunt of all this misguided blame for NO other reason than they are all that stands between 'We the People' and those wanting to disarm rightful gun owners, and for one reason that only Obama's private army of thugs and henchmen will have weapons to keep us in line.

Using a thinly veiled excuse about the killing of children, Obama is moving full force to further make a mockery of our radically change it to reflect his socialistic view of a 'new' America far different than the one we know, love, and honor...and he wants to start that change by disarming the citizenry.

Saying a ban on assault rifles and other types of firearms would curb violence in our schools is just an excuse, because Obama conveniently forgets that our Second Amendment does that quite nicely if Congress would only free-up whatever funds are necessary to put armed police and/or armed and trained civilian volunteers in every school. Obama claims NO money should ever be spared when the safety of our children is concerned...well let him put his money where his mouth is and cut some of his freebie programs to free-up some dollars for our children's safety.

And putting cops in schools is NOT something new nor is it a novel idea, and that is something Obama conveniently chooses to forget. Bill Clinton himself pledged $60 million to put cops in schools when he was president, so if Billy-Boy can do that so can Obama...and he can do it right now with a simple swipe of his in sign an Executive Order that actually does something constructive for a change.

So while Obama and his liberal cronies all love to say that an assault rifle ban will protect our children when all other anti-gun laws have failed to do so, he knows damn well, as do we all, that America's children are vulnerable and basically defenseless when they're on school grounds, because NO ban put in place will ever stop 'bad guys' from getting guns if they're determined to do so. If Obama really cared (which we know he does NOT) there is something he can do NOW to at least start the process of making schools safer for our children...he can start by removing the 'Gun Free School Zone' barriers around our schools, because all these zones do is lay out the welcome mat for every wacko out there to inflict major carnage and death upon our children with little risk of anyone shooting back.

And the very organization that Obama and the press so love to blame whenever gun violence occurs anywhere in our country is the very organization that can help secure our schools better than even the police, because the NRA can place well-trained armed volunteers in our schools as protection full time while the police still have to be called either during or after the fact.

So when the NRA's Wayne LaPierre says, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” he knows what he's talking about because if only one person had had a gun that day at Sandy Hook 'the monster' just might have been stopped before 26 innocent lives were lost.