immoral

With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.

For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.

In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.

(Column continues below)

Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?

What does it mean?

If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?

I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?

Are we talking about creating a police state here?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69601

A lawmaker in Colorado who challenged the authors of SB200, a new law that bans discrimination based on the "perception" of gender, during House debate says it was written to give a wide open door to anyone who wants to banish Christian beliefs or the Bible.

"This is so loaded. It's written in an open-ended fashion that anybody can take just about any part of it and grow it into a huge monstrosity," state Rep. Kevin Lundberg told WND today. "It was written with intentional [vagueness]."

He spoke with WND after a news conference at which a number of groups and organizations announced plans to challenge the law. Among those promising to dispute the new limitations on speech and actions was Liberty Counsel, which is reviewing the situation now in preparation for a legal challenge.

"Section 8 of Senate Bill 200 is a wide open door for any judge to censor anything that condemns homosexuality, including Scripture," Lundberg said at the news conference. Section 8 is headlined, "Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden."

Joy Johnson

A Democratic Party official and her husband are facing charges in connection with alleged satanic rituals involving the kidnap, rape and starvation of another couple in North Carolina.

Joy Johnson, 30, a vice-chairwoman of the Durham County Democratic Party and vice chairwoman of the Young Democrats, made an appearance in court yesterday after she and her spouse, Joseph Craig, were arrested Friday.

Craig, 25, is charged with second-degree rape, second-degree kidnapping and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon for an incident in January and another in May. Johnson is charged with two counts of aiding and abetting.

According to published and broadcast reports, prosecutors said a man and a woman met Craig through a shared interest in Satan worship, although the couple never consented to any physical abuse.

Joseph Craig

Craig allegedly shackled his victims to beds, kept them in dog cages and starved them inside his home. Police say he beat the man with a cane and a cord, and raped the woman.