Girl testifies stepfather’s punishment made her fear she would die

This combination of photos released by the Delaware State Police shows Georgetown pediatrician Melvin Morse, 48, left, and his wife, Pauline Morse, 40.
This combination of photos released by the Delaware State Police shows Georgetown pediatrician Melvin Morse, 48, left, and his wife, Pauline Morse, 40.    AP Photo: Delaware State Police

Melvin Morse was arrested in 2012 after his stepdaughter, then 11, told authorities she had been waterboarded on four occasions.

Continue reading

Army Removes Bible Reference from Scopes

Scope

Commentary By Gordon King

I just had to add my two cents to this issue.  The U.S. Army has found inscriptions of Bible verse passages etched into the lenses of some rifle scopes.  Which I think is awesome.  However, the government doesn’t seem to agree with me.  All soldiers have been told to turn in their scopes so that the inscriptions could be removed.  This is what is wrong with our government.  Removing God from everything it can get it’s’ hands on.  This is the problem with the world.  Removing God, pushing him away, taking him out of our lives!  The United States will pay a price for this.  Evil is increasing daily, just read my blog and others as well.  God will not allow this to continue unpunished.  We are so close to the return of Christ.  We cannot change the course of the world, but, we can change the lives of people by leading them to the salvation of Jesus Christ!  Amen

Vendor etched inscriptions into serial numbers

By Todd Starnes

SOURCE

The U.S. Army is directing troops to remove a Bible inscription that a vendor etched into the serial numbers of weapon scopes, Fox News has learned.

Soldiers at Fort Wainwright in Alaska told Fox News they received a directive to turn in their scopes so the Bible references could be removed.

army1

The scopes were made by Trijicon and referenced New Testament passages in John 8:12 and Second Corinthians 4:6. The verses appeared at the end of the scope serial numbers – “JN8:12” and “2COR4:6.”

“The biblical verse (JN8:12) must be removed utilizing a Dremel type tool and then painted black,” read instructions on how to remedy the matter.

After the letters and numbers were scrapped off, soldiers were directed to use apply black paint to ensure the verses were totally covered.

“The vendor etched those inscriptions on scopes without the Army’s approval,” Army spokesman Matthew Bourke told Fox in a written statement. “Consequently, the modified scopes did not meet the requirement under which the contract was executed.”

Bourke said the vendor agreed to remove all Bible references on future deliveries.

“Some of these scopes had already been fielded,” Bourke explained. “Corrective measures were taken to remove inscriptions during the RESET/PRESET process in order to avoid a disruption in combat operations.”

A similar issue came to light during a 2010 investigation by ABC News. At the time the Army and Marine Corps said they were unaware of the biblical markings.army2

Trijicon did not return phone calls seeking comment. A company spokesman told ABC News in 2010 that the inscriptions had always been on the sights and there was nothing wrong or illegal with including them.

The company told ABC they believed the issue had been raised by a group that is “not Christian.”

One of the Fort Wainwright soldiers who received the order to remove the inscription told Fox News that hardly anyone was aware of the religious reference.

“It blows my mind,” the solider said. “It doesn’t help the Army do its mission to take off a biblical reference.”

The soldier, who is a Christian, said he had to comply so “someone doesn’t get offended.”

“We have classes on equal opportunity – things that are clearly irrelevant to our mission – which is to kill the enemy.”

.

top of page ^

Saudi court orders criminal to be surgically paralyzed

Amnesty International: ‘Remove these terrible punishments from the law’

(Reuters) Amnesty International has condemned a reported Saudi Arabian court ruling that a young man should be paralyzed as punishment for a crime he committed 10 years ago which resulted in the victim being confined to a wheelchair.

The London-based human rights group said Ali al-Khawaher, 24, was reported to have spent 10 years in jail waiting to be paralyzed surgically unless his family pays one million Saudi riyals ($270,000) to the victim.

The Saudi Gazette newspaper reported last week that Khawaher had stabbed a childhood friend in the spine during a dispute a decade ago, paralyzing him from the waist down.

Obama signs ‘end to free speech’

Legal advocate says bill criminalizes 1st Amendment activity

free-speech

In a terse online statement, the White House has confirmed that Barack Obama has signed into law an update of restrictions around the White House, the vice president’s resident and other locations – a move critics say signals the “end to free speech.”

The White House said yesterday Obama “signed into law: H.R. 347, the ‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,’ which makes it a federal crime to enter or remain knowingly in any restricted area of the White House, the vice president’s official residence, or their respective grounds without lawful authority.”

The critics say there’s more to the bill than that.

John Whitehead, president of the the Rutherford Institute, explained the plan came about as a knee-jerk reaction to a crazed assailant’s attack on U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., a year ago.

“The bill’s language is so overly broad as to put an end to free speech, political protest and the right to peaceably assembly in all areas where government officials happen to be present,” he wrote.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said it was something he could not support.

“Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway,” he said. “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.

“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity – even if that activity is annoying to those government officials – violates our rights,” he said.

The bill states, “Whoever knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so; knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of government business or official functions; knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished.”

Significantly, though, the definition of “restricted buildings” is anywhere someone protected by the Secret Service “will be temporarily visiting.”

“A person eating in a diner while a presidential candidate is trying to score political points with the locals could be arrested if government agents determine that he is acting ‘disorderly.’ Mind you, depending on who’s making the assessment, anything can be considered disorderly, including someone exercising his right to free speech by muttering to himself about a government official. And if that person happens to have a pocketknife or nail clippers in his possession (or any other innocuous item that could be interpreted by the police as ‘dangerous’), he could face up to 10 years in prison,” Whitehead warned.

“Given that the Secret Service not only protects the president but all past sitting presidents, members of Congress, foreign dignitaries, presidential candidates, and anyone who the president determines needs protection, anywhere these officials happen to be becomes a zone where the First Amendment is effectively off-limits,” he said.

At the Examiner, Philadelphia columnist Tim McCown concluded: “Defenders and apologists for mainly Democrats and Obama supporters claim this act is completely innocent and all of us who believe differently have drunk Ron Paul’s Kool-Aid again. But a post on George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley’s blog page notes that the imprecise language, just as in the NDAA, creates risks and can most definitely be seen as a threat to our First Amendment right to Free Speech, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom to Petition our government. None of that is very comforting in light of the Patriot Act and surveillance of and wire tapping of Americans.”

He continued, “Tonight you no longer need to be a conspiracy theorist to have real questions about whether we are becoming a police state.”

On Paul’s website was this: “Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.”

Whitehead noted that members of Congress, feeling the wrath of Americans pummeled by rising fuel prices, a tanking economy and unpopular war efforts, “Have been working hard to keep their unhappy constituents at a distance – avoiding town-hall meetings, making minimal public appearances while at home in their districts, only appearing at events in controlled settings where they’re the only ones talking, and if they must interact with constituents, doing so via telephone town meetings or impromptu visits to local businesses where the chances of being accosted by angry voters are greatly minimized.

“While the Trespass Bill may have started out with the best of intentions, it has ended up as the government’s declaration of zero tolerance for individuals exercising their First Amendment rights,” he said.

“If these types of laws had been in effect during the Civil Rights movement, there would have been no march on Washington. Martin Luther King Jr. and his fellow activists would have been rendered criminals. And King’s call for ‘militant nonviolent resistance’ would have been silenced by police in riot gear,” he said.

He also criticized so-called “First Amendment zones” or areas.

“Free speech zones have become commonplace at political rallies and the national conventions of both major political parties,” he said. “One of the most infamous free speech zones was erected at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Not so much a zone of free expression as a cage, it was a space enclosed by chain link fences, Jersey walls, and razor wire. Judge Douglas Woodlock, who toured the free speech cage before the convention, noted, ‘One cannot conceive of other elements put in place to make a space more of an affront to the idea of free expression than the designated demonstration zone.’

“Bubble zones and free speech zones, in essence, destroy the very purpose of the First Amendment, which assures us of the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances,” he said.

.