Fifteen Reasons Why I Voted Republican -by a Proud Republican

Fifteen Reasons Why I Voted Republican

-by a Proud Republican

1. I voted Republican because you can blame problems on poor people
instead of the rich ones who actually run things.

2. I voted Republican because firefighters and teachers are
scum-sucking leaches, but the oil companies raking in record profits
NEED those hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsidies.

3. I voted Republican because I believe companies like my cable TV
provider, insurance company and credit card company could do a better
job running the country than the government, no matter how much they
screw me over.

4. I voted Republican because I don't trust the government, although
I favored the government spying on my health/financial records and
tapping my phone when Bush was in office to keep us safe from 'trrists.

5. I voted Republican because I don't really care whether terrorists,
murderers and drug dealers own guns or not.

6. I voted Republican because I believe climate change doesn't
exist; if I can't see it with my own two eyes, it doesn't exist. Like
gravity.

7. I voted Republican because I hate women having abortions, but
once the baby is born and dies from a preventable illness that' okay.

8. I voted Republican because I believe in laying off workers to
boost profits; then I get to complain about lazy unemployed people.

9. I voted Republican because I understand capitalism. Demand
doesn't increase jobs…ensuring corporations pay no taxes and cutting
healthcare and education does.

10. I voted Republican because I care about the deficit and support
cutting services that I really need. But extra tax cuts for the super
rich that actually caused the deficit should be extended indefinitely.

11. I voted Republican because I believe in never having to solve
any problems in the government because I insist government is the
problem anyway.

12. I voted Republican because I hate activist judges, unless they
are conservative (Yes, corporations should get to spend unlimited money
in elections).

13. I voted Republican because spite and fear is better than hope and change.

14. I voted Republican because I agree that life begins at the moment
of conception and ends at birth, and women are incapable of making
thier own reproductive choices.

15. I voted Republican because B. Hussein Obama is a secret Kenyan
born Muslim negro far left wing extremist liberal socialist with a
dark evil secret agenda to destroy America, take my guns, ammunition
and freedom, and turn them all over to Islamic extremists and
homosexuals who will rob, rape and murder me, my wife, my girlfriends,
and my children, and force the abortion of my unborn children.

The GOP Platform 2012:

Gingrich-Palin or Santorum-Bachmann for President! Or Both!

Drill, Baby Drill!

Bomb Bomb Iran!

Corporations are people, too!

Let the poor get jobs instead of welfare!

Homosexuals can and should choose to become normal!

Send ALL foriegners back to thier own countries permanently!

Born in the USA Only!

-a Proud Republican

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The Men Behind Obama

New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog The Men Behind Obama by Scotty Starnes Who you surround yourself with says a lot about your character... Scotty Starnes | February 25, 2012 at 2:31 PM | Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, Khalid al-Mansour, Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-6Ig Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/the-men-behind-obama/ Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

U.S. Supreme Court Has Ruled on Obama’s Eligibility!!

http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/u-s-supreme-court-has-ruled-on-obamas-eligability/

 

U.S. Supreme Court Has Ruled on Obama's Eligibility!! By Craig Andresen on November 13, 2011 at 5:23 pm

According to the United States Supreme Court, Obama is ineligible to be the President. That's right, you read that correctly. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that Obama is ineligible to serve as President.

It's not that you haven't been paying attention lately and yes, you can be excused for missing the ruling as it came down, not in the last few days but back in 1875.

This is the argument currently being made by the Liberty Legal Foundation.

The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed not 1 but 2 lawsuits, one in Arizona and the other in Tennessee neither of which have one single thing to do with Obama's birth certificate OR challenging whether or not Obama was born in the United States.

There is no need for either in regard to these lawsuits.

At the core of this action is a simple request that Federal courts uphold the Supreme Court ruling. Both lawsuits, and the Liberty Legal Foundation promises there will be more, would render it impossible for the Democratic National Committee to place Obama's name on the 2012 ballot.

Here's the crux of it.

Back in 1875, the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, ruled that:

"Natural Born Citizen" was defined as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

Obama's problem, by his own admission and records of the State Department is this:

Obama's father was not a United States citizen.

Therefore, via Minor v, Happersett and the United States Supreme Court in 1875, Obama is ineligible because, since his father was not a U.S. citizen, Obama is not a natural born citizen.

For a person to run, as his or her party's nominee for President, the party must issue certification that the person named is eligible under the United States Constitution to become President.

Because the Constitution does not specify the definition of "Natural born citizen" it was left to the United States Supreme Court which, in 1875, defined it as a person born in a country of parents who were its citizens and, Obama's father was NOT a U.S. citizen.

Bring this up to your liberal friends and they will laugh at you and call you a right wing nut job for saying Obama is ineligible but the quick and accurate response is clear. YOU are not saying this, and neither is the Liberty Legal Foundation. Obama is ineligible so sayeth the United States Supreme Court and if they care to attempt to label the United States Supreme Court of 1875 as right wing nut jobs…so be it and good luck with that.

If the Democratic Party should certify Obama, in the face of this ruling, they would be acting in a fraudulent manner and according to the actions being brought by the Liberty Legal Foundation, it is the political parties which are solely responsible for that certification and the Liberty Legal Foundation intends to hold BOTH parties accountable.

To be specific, the case of Minor v. Happersett was not intended as to solve the question of Presidential eligibility at all. That case was in regard to a woman's right to vote and while the case itself didn't draw this specific issue into question, the Chief Justice, Morrison Waite, did, in fact address it in the issuing of the Supreme Court's decision.

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."

No doubt, liberals will attempt to cling to this line:

"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents."

Note that the Chief Justice Waite follows that with:

"As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

In this, the Chief Justice, and therefore, the Supreme Court makes clear that the one definition to which there is no doubt is:

"…that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

Indeed, there are 4 cases in which the United States Supreme Court has addressed "Natural Born Citizen.

1) The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

2) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

"Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast."

3) Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

4) United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Clearly, by any of the 4 cases in which the United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue of "Natural Born Citizen" Obama, by the opinions rendered, is not one.

If Obama is not a natural born citizen, he is therefore ineligible to run for or to serve as, the President.

Section 1 of Article 2 of the United States Constitution states:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

As the Constitution offers no definition of "Natural Born Citizen" it falls to the United States Supreme Court and the 4 cases in which the Supreme Court provides such a definition appear above.

Forget the birth certificate or swirling questions as to his place of birth, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear.

Obama is not eligible to serve as President and should his name appear on ballots in 2012, it will appear there fraudulently.

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Smoking ban on private property?

New post on Fellowship of the Minds Smoking ban on private property? by DCG Rocklin Considering Banning Residents From Smoking Outside Their Own Homes CBS News (Sacramento):  A Placer County town is considering a ban on smoking that some say goes way too far.  The Rocklin City Council is considering making it against the law for smokers to smoke anywhere outside on their property. The city council is considering the ban after one home owner complained about smoke coming from their neighbors' backyards saying it caused health problems for their kids.  But before going to the city council, the family first asked their neighbors to stop smoking. One couple agreed, according to their son.  "They felt that there wasn't any reason to put the household in any sort of health risk," Eric Croslin said explaining his parent's position. But some smokers and even some non-smokers saying this ban goes too far.  "So what about people who have children in their home and they don't want to smoke in their home?" asked non-smoker Tamara Davis. "As a smoker, I think that smokers should be considerate," said Rocklin resident and smoker Ryan Malonson. "But on your own property, that's unacceptable…It's not going to pass." It is already against the law for smokers to light up near businesses, parks and playground in California. While I'm not a fan of smoking (my father use to smoke and I have friends that smoke), I'm certainly not a fan of banning activities from your own private property.  Smoke causes health problems for children?  Yes it can.  So can car emissions.  Can I force my neighbor drive an electric vehicle because their auto emissions are harmful? Regulating what people can do on their private property in the guise of "health issues" only gives the government exactly what they want - more control over you and your freedoms (or lack thereof). DCG DCG | February 25, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Categories: Culture War, Health Care | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-cII Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/smoking-ban-on-private-property/ Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Get Rid of the Labels

"If labels inform, then they can be useful. But when they confuse or distort, they're worse than useless. Amid the general dumbing down of educational standards in recent years and the resulting degeneration of public debate, I confess to a disillusionment with the commonly used political labels. Most have become excuses for people to stop thinking."

Get Rid of the Labels
Lawrence W. Reed
January 2001 • Volume: 51 • Issue: 1 •

Lawrence Reed is president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy (www.mackinac.org), a free-market research and educational organization in Midland, Michigan, and chairman of FEE's Board of Trustees.

At least when it comes to political matters, Americans are hung up on labels. Everywhere you turn, somebody is calling somebody else some name­shorthand for what the other person's political philosophy or ideological leanings are perceived to be.

If labels inform, then they can be useful. But when they confuse or distort, they're worse than useless. Amid the general dumbing down of educational standards in recent years and the resulting degeneration of public debate, I confess to a disillusionment with the commonly used political labels. Most have become excuses for people to stop thinking.

Consider the tired, old dichotomy of "liberal" on the one hand versus "conservative" on the other. "Liberal" was once an honorable word to describe those who put "liberty" first. Over the twentieth century in America, it flip-flopped into a term for those who would gladly trade liberty for a mess of pottage from the state. Even that meaning rarely applies to any one person's view on every issue.

"Conservative" is sometimes used to describe one who wants to preserve the status quo, and at other times to describe one who wants to restore a limited role for government (at least in most economic matters), which today is hardly the status quo. The confusion only worsens when the labelers go to work on foreigners. When Mikhail Gorbachev was introducing reforms in the old Soviet Union, the American media called him a "liberal" and his old-line Stalinist opponents "conservative." American conservatives rightly wondered why their label was always attached to the figures the mainstream media could easily demonize, whether foreign communists or homespun, budget-cutting libertarians.

Quite often somebody attaches an adjective to an already-confusing label that rarely clarifies anything. "Compassionate" conservative, for example. I know a lot of very generous, caring, self-described conservatives who routinely give far more of their own resources to worthy causes than the most sanctimonious, guilt-ridden "liberals." These "conservatives" wonder why any adjective is necessary.

And how about that word "moderate"? That's been sanctified to describe one who occupies a lofty perch of enlightened and thoughtful objectivity. Look closer and you usually find a person who hasn't done his homework and can't make his mind up. And when he finally does come to a conclusion, it's strikingly inconsistent with other half-baked views he holds.

Maybe we need a new set of labels. Or perhaps we need to recognize that shorthand just won't do the job when talking about how complex principles apply to current-day issues.

In any event, if we must label people this or that, I suggest we do so in more meaningful ways, with fewer sound bites and single-word monikers. That suggests we not use one-size-fits-all descriptions, but rather that we describe traits and tendencies.

For starters: Why not differentiate between those who are satisfied with rhetoric versus those who demand results?

People who advocate government-financed and government-directed efforts to address problems once widely regarded as personal, private, or "civil society" responsibilities almost always settle for rhetoric alone. Perhaps that's because their handiwork rarely produces results worth bragging about. To these people, it is usually enough for someone to simply declare his concern for the poor to prove that he really cares. It doesn't matter that government programs to help the poor have decisively accomplished the very opposite, a painful fact that both experience and economics should have forecast in advance.

People who advocate nongovernmental solutions­changes in attitudes and behavior, strengthening the family, involvement of churches and private associations, for example­are not typically animated by rhetoric. They are focused on results, and they have the incredible story of the American experience to which they can proudly point. It wasn't rhetoric that carved a great civilization out of wilderness; it wasn't self-righteous breast-beating or mere professions of concern that fed, clothed, and housed more people at higher levels than any other society ever known in history. It was a combination of strong families, rugged self-reliance, effective volunteer associations, wealth-creating private initiative, and risk-taking entrepreneurship.

Here's another meaningful way to categorize people's thinking: Those who are happy with short-term answers versus those who plan for the long run.

Some people think only of the here-and-now, what strikes the eye, the present moment. Others see further ahead and recognize that quick fixes often yield long-term disaster.

In this regard, those who favor government "solutions" are on the short end of the stick. The primary answer they offer to problems such as poverty is to toss the poor a government check. They observe the subject spending the check on groceries and conclude that they have done good. But those who support nongovernment solutions know the meaning of the adage "Give me a fish and I eat for a day; teach me to fish and I eat for a lifetime."

Yet another possible method of drawing distinctions and applying accurate descriptions: Those who exhibit little interest in liberty versus those who understand that without liberty, little else either matters or is possible.

People who push government to "tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect" (in the words of FDR brain truster Harry Hopkins) are more than willing to sacrifice a little liberty for the sake of a handout. More appropriately, they are willing to sacrifice the liberties of everyone for the sake of handouts for a few. Those who prefer private, nongovernmental measures to address problems understand (1) that government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes from somebody and (2) that government which is big enough to give you everything you want has become big enough to take away everything you've got.

Instead of settling for today's standard and increasingly confusing or irrelevant labels, we should concentrate on explaining that the ideas worth supporting are those that are tested and found worthwhile because they produce results, not rhetoric; that the ideas worth supporting are those that do not mortgage the future for the sake of the present; and finally, that the ideas worth supporting are those that do not treat other people's liberty as though it were so much scrap paper waiting to be cleared away.

Surely, for reasons I've already made apparent, one who values freedom and free markets can readily embrace these new criteria for pegging political/economic tendencies. We'll probably have a very hard time, however, getting the other side to go along. But that fact says volumes about the merits of their positions and certainly tells us all a lot more than the old mainstream mislabels. If insisting on this approach compels a few to dig a little deeper and learn more than what can fit on a bumper sticker, public debate will to some degree be better informed.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/get-rid-of-the-labels/

U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb

U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb
By JAMES RISEN and MARK MAZZETTI
Published: February 24, 2012

WASHINGTON ­ Even as the United Nations' nuclear watchdog said in a new report Friday that Iran had accelerated its uranium enrichment program, American intelligence analysts continue to believe that there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb.

Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America's 16 intelligence agencies.

At the center of the debate is the murky question of the ultimate ambitions of the leaders in Tehran. There is no dispute among American, Israeli and European intelligence officials that Iran has been enriching nuclear fuel and developing some necessary infrastructure to become a nuclear power. But the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies believe that Iran has yet to decide whether to resume a parallel program to design a nuclear warhead ­ a program they believe was essentially halted in 2003 and which would be necessary for Iran to build a nuclear bomb. Iranian officials maintain that their nuclear program is for civilian purposes.

In Senate testimony on Jan. 31, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, stated explicitly that American officials believe that Iran is preserving its options for a nuclear weapon, but said there was no evidence that it had made a decision on making a concerted push to build a weapon. David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director, concurred with that view at the same hearing. Other senior United States officials, including Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have made similar statements in recent television appearances.

"They are certainly moving on that path, but we don't believe they have actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon," Mr. Clapper told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Critics of the American assessment in Jerusalem and some European capitals point out that Iran has made great strides in the most difficult step toward building a nuclear weapon, enriching uranium. That has also been the conclusion of a series of reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors, who on Friday presented new evidence that the Iranians have begun enriching uranium in an underground facility.

Once Iran takes further steps to actually enrich weapons grade fuel ­ a feat that the United States does not believe Iran has yet accomplished ­ the critics believe that it would be relatively easy for Iran to engineer a warhead and then have a bomb in short order. They also criticize the C.I.A. for being overly cautious in its assessments of Iran, suggesting that it is perhaps overcompensating for its faulty intelligence assessments in 2002 about Iraq's purported weapons programs, which turned out not to exist. In addition, Israeli officials have challenged the very premise of the 2007 intelligence assessment, saying they do not believe that Iran ever fully halted its work on a weapons program.

Yet some intelligence officials and outside analysts believe there is another possible explanation for Iran's enrichment activity, besides a headlong race to build a bomb as quickly as possible. They say that Iran could be seeking to enhance its influence in the region by creating what some analysts call "strategic ambiguity." Rather than building a bomb now, Iran may want to increase its power by sowing doubt among other nations about its nuclear ambitions. Some point to the examples of Pakistan and India, both of which had clandestine nuclear weapons programs for decades before they actually decided to build bombs and test their weapons in 1998.

"I think the Iranians want the capability, but not a stockpile," said Kenneth C. Brill, a former United States ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency who also served as director of the intelligence community's National Counterproliferation Center from 2005 until 2009. Added a former intelligence official: "The Indians were a screwdriver turn away from having a bomb for many years. The Iranians are not that close."

To be sure, American analysts acknowledge that understanding the intentions of Iran's leadership is extremely difficult, and that their assessments are based on limited information. David A. Kay, who was head of the C.I.A.'s team that searched for Iraq's weapons programs after the United States invasion, was cautious about the quality of the intelligence underlying the current American assessment.

"They don't have evidence that Iran has made a decision to build a bomb, and that reflects a real gap in the intelligence," Mr. Kay said. "It's true the evidence hasn't changed very much" since 2007, he added. "But that reflects a lack of access and a lack of intelligence as much as anything."

Divining the intentions of closed societies is one of the most difficult tasks for American intelligence analysts, and the C.I.A. for decades has had little success penetrating regimes like Iran and North Korea to learn how their leaders make decisions.

Amid the ugly aftermath of the botched Iraq intelligence assessments, American spy agencies in 2006 put new analytical procedures in place to avoid repeating the failures. Analysts now have access to raw information about the sources behind intelligence reports, to help better determine the credibility of the sources and prevent another episode like the one in which the C.I.A. based much of its conclusions about Iraq's purported biological weapons on an Iraqi exile who turned out to be lying.

Analysts are also required to include in their reports more information about the chain of logic that has led them to their conclusions, and differing judgments are featured prominently in classified reports, rather than buried in footnotes.

When an unclassified summary of the 2007 intelligence estimate on Iran's nuclear program was made public, stating that it had abandoned work on a bomb, it stunned the Bush administration and the world. It represented a sharp reversal from the intelligence community's 2005 estimate, and drew criticism of the C.I.A. from European and Israeli officials, as well as conservative pundits. They argued that it was part of a larger effort by the C.I.A. to prevent American military action against Iran.

The report was so controversial that many outside analysts expected that the intelligence community would be forced to revise and repudiate the estimate after new evidence emerged about Iran's program, notably from the United Nations' inspectors. Yet analysts now say that while there has been mounting evidence of Iranian work on enrichment facilities, there has been far less clear evidence of a weapons program.

Still, Iran's enrichment activities have raised suspicions, even among skeptics.

"What has been driving the discussion has been the enrichment activity," said one former intelligence official. "That's made everybody nervous. So the Iranians continue to contribute to the suspicions about what they are trying to do."

Iran's efforts to hide its nuclear facilities and to deceive the West about its activities have also intensified doubts. But some American analysts warn that such behavior is not necessarily proof of a weapons program. They say that one mistake the C.I.A. made before the war in Iraq was to assume that because Saddam Hussein resisted weapons inspections ­ acting as if he were hiding something ­ it meant that he had a weapons program.

As Mr. Kay explained, "The amount of evidence that you were willing to go with in 2002 is not the same evidence you are willing to accept today."

A version of this article appeared in print on February 25, 2012, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. Spies See No Iran Moves To Build Bomb.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq&st=cse

19 Pepsi Flavors You've Probably Never Heard Of

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Travis <twmccoy@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:43 AM
Subject: 19 Pepsi Flavors You've Probably Never Heard Of
To: Travis McCoy <baconlard@gmail.com>


http://www.buzzfeed.com/hgrant/19-pepsi-flavors-youve-probably-never-heard-of

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Cannaberg

Unbelievable, look at the site  at http://www.cannaberg.com/

 

Because getting ripped shouldn't mean getting ripped off, this handy, interactive map anonymously crowdsources the per oz price of herb in a given 'burb, allowing submitters to specify their bud's strain (Afghan Delight! Yumboldt!), and grade level from A to AAA, who'll be a lot busier helping you unlock your car when you improbably become even more stoned.

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Virginia Commonwealth becomes laughing stock of the Nation; "Personhood" Bill Dies in Virginia Senate

Virginia is for Lovers, But Only Heterosexual Ones!

Commonwealth becomes laughing stock of the Nation

The mighty Citadel of Governance, Washington DC, is surrounded by 2
states, VA and MD, having been carved out of a Virginia swamp when our
new Nation's Capital was moved from Philadelphia to neutralized
ground.

Ironically, today it would be hard to find 2 states more radically
opposite in their current behavior regarding human sexuality, as
expressed by recent acts of their Legislatures.

Maryland's Legislature just approved same-sex marriage.

Virginia almost passed a law allowing Legislative Rape of non-virgin
Virginia women with medical probes before they would be allowed by the
Commonwealth to have an abortion. VA Governor Bob McDonnell, after
being soundly trounced as a dunce by national media, including having
a national TV comedian claim she always flew Transvaginal Airways, the
Gov walked back the ultra sound snafu by saying the law would be
amended. He also admitted he had not read the proposed law causing
all the controversy.

Now that law -- instead of requiring insertion of a hard metal probe
into vaginas and wiggling it around-- will only require jelly belly
external abdominal ultrasoundings, which do not work in early stages
of pregnancies. Further, the procedure may not be compulsory, which
Gov Bob claimed he only discovered was unconstitutional when his
Attorney General explained it to him. And what was Gov Bob's job
before being elected Gov? Commonwealth Attorney General.

If the procedure does not work reliably, and it is no longer
compulsory, what is the purpose of the law? Why didn't the
Rethuglican dominated Legislature drop it and admit it was a mistake?
Misogynists, sociopaths and Rethugs cannot admit they make mistakes.

Bob's being Catholic with 5 children had no effect on his opposition
to abortion.

From Wickipedia:
.
Identifying as pro-life, McDonnell campaigned as an opponent of
elective abortion. As a state legislator, he was the lead sponsor for
legislation that would have banned partial birth abortions, as well as
legislation requiring parental consent before a minor has an abortion
and informed consent for women seeking an abortion.[42] He opposed
state and federal government funding for elective abortions.
McDonnell's 1989 thesis for Regent University[48] was a 93-page
document titled The Republican Party's Vision for the Family: The
Compelling Issue of The Decade. The document explored the rise in the
numbers of divorces and illegitimate births, and examined public
policies that may have contributed to that increase and proposed
solutions. The document gained attention in the campaign because it
outlined a 15-point conservative agenda, including 10 points McDonnell
pursued during his years in the General Assembly, according to press
analysis.[49]
This agenda includes opposition to abortion, support for school
vouchers and covenant marriage, and tax policies that favor
heterosexual families.[50] In his thesis, McDonnell wrote "government
policy should favor married couples over 'cohabitators, homosexuals or
fornicators.'"[51] McDonnell "described working women and feminists as
'detrimental' to the family."[51]
McDonnell "criticized a landmark 1965 Supreme Court decision" which
legalized the use of contraceptives, writing that "man's basic nature
is inclined towards evil, and when the exercise of liberty takes the
shape of pornography, drug abuse, or homosexuality, the government
must restrain, punish, and deter." McDonnell responded to the article,
stating "Virginians will judge me on my 18-year record as a legislator
and attorney general and the specific plans I have laid out for our
future -- not on a decades-old academic paper I wrote as a student
during the Reagan era and haven't thought about in years."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_McDonnell
.
Clearly, McDonnell is thinking about such things again. He has a
lifelong history of firm belief that Government has a right -- and an
invasive duty -- to proscribe (forbid) behavior of women, now having
advanced to believing the Commonwealth can invent excuses to insert
metallic probes into women's vaginas and wiggle them around as a form
of punishment for what he considers evil behavior.
.
McDonnell's position is exactly opposite of National Republican Party
and conservative ideology, which states that Government should be made
smaller, shall pass fewer laws restricting freedom, and must stay as
far away from regulating personal liberties as possible.
.
Here's a summary of Links to Articles and Videos which came forth
taking Gov Bob and the Commonwealth Legislature to task for their
covert attack on Virginia women's vaginas.

* SNAFU - Situation Normal: All Fu•ked Up

=====================================

Video: Virginia Repub Jokes: Wife Refused to Have Sex After He Pushed
State-Rape Bill

Number of Children Living Amid Poverty Has Surged This Decade
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/24

"Personhood" Bill Dies in Virginia Senate
Read the Article at Care2

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Virgnia Libertarian Party convention

Home
About Us
Who we are
Organization
Local Affiliates
Candidates
Bylaws
Office Holders
Media
Students
Action!
Events Calendar
Join the LP
Email Lists
Contribute
Opinion
Links
Archives

Libertarian Party
of Virginia





Events Calendar
Find nearby and statewide events.

Virginia Liberty
The Official Newsletter of the LPVA

Email Lists
Get Connected!

Change of Address
Stay Connected!

Editorials/Letters

SLAVERY: Not Such a Simple Issue
- Marc Montoni

Budget Crises Are Mostly Hogwash
- Marc Montoni

What's with these failures by the U.S.?
- Stew Engel

Feds are 'over-leveraged'
- Bradley S. Rees

Don't Lump Ford In With GM
- Craig Gilkison

Drug Prohibition Isn't Working, Either
- Lennice Werth

The Libertarian Party Is the Voice for Liberty
- James W. Lark

A raw deal for US democracy
- Marc Montoni

 

Liberty Enlightening the World


National
Libertarian
Party

Are you a Libertarian?

Find out by taking the "World's
Smallest
Political Quiz"

2012 State Convention

Register now to attend the 2012 convention of the Libertarian Party of Virginia.


 

When?

 
February 24-25, 2012

Where?

 
Richmond, VA

 

 

Cost:

Early Bird FULL (Thru 2/20) $ 75
Early Bird BASIC (Thru 2/20) $ 35
FULL (2/21 & later) $ 90
BASIC (2/21 & later) $ 50
Luncheon Address only $ 10
BUSINESS SESSION for members only FREE
NON-MEMBER BUSINESS SESSION

( BUSINESS SESSION ADMITTANCE ONLY - SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY MEMBERS!)(NOTE: price is *in addition to* any
package costs)
(No meal included)

$ 10

Speakers:

Carla Howell

Executive Director of the Libertarian Party - Ms. Howell received 12% of the vote as Libertarian Senate candidate in Massachusetts in 2000 – the highest % in party history for an LP Senate candidate - in a 3 way race against Ted Kennedy and a Republican candidate. She served two terms as Massachusetts LP State Chair (1997-1999). She has been a featured stand-alone guest on O'Reilly Factor, Neil Cavuto, Glenn Beck, and Fox Business News Happy Hour and has been covered by Wall Street Journal, New York Times, LA Times, The Economist, and USA Today.
Kelly Jemison

Program Manager, Students For Liberty - Ms. Jemison received her B.A. in Economics from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, VA. During her sophomore year at JMU, she founded a pro-liberty organization called Madison Liberty. Under Kelly's leadership, Madison Liberty became a strong advocate for libertarian ideals at JMU and successfully lobbied the University for greater student freedom of speech. She was elected to the executive board of the non-profit SFL during her senior year at JMU. Upon graduating, she joined SFL's staff as their Program Manager.
Discussion PANEL:

Mike Kane

of Fairfax County has been a member of the Fairfax County business community for over ten years. He received an A.S. in Business Administration from Northern Virginia Community College. He then attended George Mason University and graduated from the Nobel Prize winning department of Economics with a B.A. in Economics. He is a charter member of the Libertarian Party of Northern Virginia and serves as an at large Board Member.
Bill Redpath

of Leesburg is the former chairman of the Libertarian Party. He has served as the national ballot access coordinator for the LP on several occasions. He was the LPVA chairman during the 1989-1991 term. He served as the LPVa candidate for Governor in 2001; he and Gary Reams (candidate for Lt. Governor) were the first LPVa candidates for statewide office.
Glenn McGuire

of Newport News attended college in Mount Vernon, Washington and served 8 years in the U.S. Navy as an Electronics Technician. He served 7 years on the U.S.S. Enterprise until 1998. He has worked in sales for Montgomery Ward and as Technical Support for Gateway computers. He has been employed by Cox Communications in their Field Services Department for the last 10 years.
 

Venue:

Richmond Marriott
500 East Broad St.
Richmond, VA 23219
(800) 228-9290



 
Accommodations

As of press time, there may be a few guest rooms left at the special convention rate of $128.82 per night including tax. Call the reservation line and see if they can accommodate you -- ask for the "Libertarian Party convention rate". Parking Garage: Valet Parking for $25.00 per day, unlimited in/out. Self Park is $8.00. Day Event Parking s $8.50 (ask for voucher).
Convention Schedule:

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24

7:30 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. – Hospitality Suite
**Open to all LPVa Members**

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 25

8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. – Registration

9:30 a.m. - 9:45 a.m. -- Welcoming Remarks;
"State of the LPVA" by Bill Wood, LPVa Chair

9:45 a.m. – 11:50 a.m. -- Business Session:
- Constitutional changes
- Election of officers
- Endorsement of candidates
- Election of national convention delegates
- Consideration of resolutions

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. -- Luncheon (Plated).
Speaker: Carla Howell, Executive Director, Liber-
tarian Party

2:00 p.m. – 2:50 p.m. – Forum,
"The Libertarian Party: 2012 and Beyond"
Featuring James Lark, Chuck Moulton & Bill Red-
path & LP Presidential Candidates

3:00 p.m. – 3:50 p.m. – Speaker: Kelly Jemison,
Eastern Reg. Director, Students for Liberty

4:00 – 4:50 – LP Candidate Panel
"Running for Office in Virginia", Featuring Mike
Kane & Glenn McGuire. Moderator: Bill Redpath

5:00 – 5:50 – Meeting of State Central Committee
(SCC)

Note: Appearances by presidential candidates at the LPVA convention are subject to change in the event of conflicting campaign obligations
Registration:

Click here to be taken to Donortownsquare.com to Register online.
Or..

Download this 2012 LPVA Convention Registration form and mail it to:

LPVA Convention Registration
c/o Donna Grebas
PO Box 2134
Chesterfield VA 23832

The Libertarian Party of Virginia • PO Box 28263 • Richmond, VA 23228-0263
Information Requests only: 703-715-6230
© 2012 Libertarian Party of Virginia
Questions? Comments? Email the webmaster by clicking here.
Be notified of page updates     it's private powered by ChangeDetection

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

New Long List of Words That Make You A Terrorist

New Long List of Words That Make You A Terrorist , page 1
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread811145/pg1

Topic started on 19-2-2012 @ 06:14 PM by N3v3rmor3 Ive seen a few other
posts but i havent seen one quite like this one :p

now in addition to buying your coffee with cash or other rediculous
things....

just saying these words will now make you a terrorist

Remember to not post these words or you will be considered a terrorist lol.

Waihopai, INFOSEC, Information Security, Information Warfare, IW, IS,
Priavacy, Information Terrorism, Terrorism Defensive Information, Defense
Information Warfare, Offensive Information, Offensive Information Warfare,
National Information Infrastructure, InfoSec, Reno, Compsec, Computer
Terrorism, Firewalls, Secure Internet Connections, ISS, Passwords, DefCon V,
Hackers, Encryption, Espionage, USDOJ, NSA, CIA, S/Key, SSL, FBI, Secert
Service, USSS, Defcon, Military, White House, Undercover, NCCS, Mayfly, PGP,
PEM, RSA, Perl-RSA, MSNBC, bet, AOL, AOL TOS, CIS, CBOT, AIMSX, STARLAN,
3B2, BITNET, COSMOS, DATTA, E911, FCIC, HTCIA, IACIS, UT/RUS, JANET, JICC,
ReMOB, LEETAC, UTU, VNET, BRLO, BZ, CANSLO, CBNRC, CIDA, JAVA, Active X,
Compsec 97, LLC, DERA, Mavricks, ****-hackers, ^?, Steve Case, Tools, Telex,
Military Intelligence, Scully, Flame, Infowar, Bubba, Freeh, Archives,
Sundevil, jack, Investigation, ISACA, NCSA, spook words, Verisign, Secure,
ASIO, Lebed, ICE, NRO, Lexis-Nexis, NSCT, SCIF, FLiR, Lacrosse, Flashbangs,
HRT, DIA, USCOI, CID, BOP, FINCEN, FLETC, NIJ, ACC, AFSPC, BMDO, NAVWAN,
NRL, RL, NAVWCWPNS, NSWC, USAFA, AHPCRC, ARPA, LABLINK, USACIL, USCG, NRC,
~, CDC, DOE, FMS, HPCC, NTIS, SEL, USCODE, CISE, SIRC, CIM, ISN, DJC, SGC,
UNCPCJ, CFC, DREO, CDA, DRA, SHAPE, SACLANT, BECCA, DCJFTF, HALO, HAHO, FKS,
868, GCHQ, DITSA, SORT, AMEMB, NSG, HIC, EDI, SAS, SBS, UDT, GOE, DOE, GEO,
Masuda, Forte, AT, GIGN, Exon Shell, CQB, CONUS, CTU, RCMP, GRU, SASR,
GSG-9, 22nd SAS, GEOS, EADA, BBE, STEP, Echelon, Dictionary, MD2, MD4, MDA,
MYK, 747,777, 767, MI5, 737, MI6, 757, Kh-11, Shayet-13, SADMS, Spetznaz,
Recce, 707, CIO, NOCS, Halcon, Duress, RAID, Psyops, grom, D-11, SERT, VIP,
ARC, S.E.T. Team, MP5k, DREC, DEVGRP, DF, DSD, FDM, GRU, LRTS, SIGDEV,
NACSI, PSAC, PTT, RFI, SIGDASYS, TDM. SUKLO, SUSLO, TELINT, TEXTA. ELF, LF,
MF, VHF, UHF, SHF, SASP, WANK, Colonel, domestic disruption, smuggle, 15kg,
nitrate, Pretoria, M-14, enigma, Bletchley Park, Clandestine, nkvd, argus,
afsatcom, CQB, NVD, Counter Terrorism Security, Rapid Reaction, Corporate
Security, Police, sniper, PPS, ASIS, ASLET, TSCM, Security Consulting, High
Security, Security Evaluation, Electronic Surveillance, MI-17,
Counterterrorism, spies, eavesdropping, debugging, interception, COCOT,
rhost, rhosts, SETA, Amherst, Broadside, Capricorn, Gamma, Gorizont, Guppy,
Ionosphere, Mole, Keyhole, Kilderkin, Artichoke, Badger, Cornflower, Daisy,
Egret, Iris, Hollyhock, Jasmine, Juile, Vinnell, B.D.M.,Sphinx, Stephanie,
Reflection, Spoke, Talent, Trump, FX, FXR, IMF, POCSAG, Covert Video,
Intiso, r00t, lock picking, Beyond Hope, csystems, passwd, 2600 Magazine,
Competitor, EO, Chan, Alouette,executive, Event Security, Mace, Cap-Stun,
stakeout, ninja, ASIS, ISA, EOD, Oscor, Merlin, NTT, SL-1, Rolm, TIE,
Tie-fighter, PBX, SLI, NTT, MSCJ, MIT, 69, RIT, Time, MSEE, Cable &
Wireless, CSE, Embassy, ETA, Porno, Fax, finks, Fax encryption, white noise,
pink noise, CRA, M.P.R.I., top secret, Mossberg, 50BMG, Macintosh Security,
Macintosh Internet Security, Macintosh Firewalls, Unix Security, VIP
Protection, SIG, sweep, Medco, TRD, TDR, sweeping, TELINT, Audiotel,
Harvard, 1080H, SWS, Asset, Satellite imagery, force, Cypherpunks,
Coderpunks, TRW, remailers, replay, redheads, RX-7, explicit, FLAME,
Pornstars, AVN, Playboy, Anonymous, Sex, chaining, codes, Nuclear, 20,
subversives, SLIP, toad, fish, data havens, unix, c, a, b, d, the, Elvis,
quiche, DES, 1*, NATIA, NATOA, sneakers, counterintelligence, industrial
espionage, PI, TSCI, industrial intelligence, H.N.P., Juiliett Class
Submarine, Locks, loch, Ingram Mac-10, sigvoice, ssa, E.O.D., SEMTEX,
penrep, racal, OTP, OSS, Blowpipe, CCS, GSA, Kilo Class, squib, primacord,
RSP, Becker, Nerd, fangs, Austin, Comirex, GPMG, Speakeasy, humint, GEODSS,
SORO, M5, ANC, zone, SBI, DSS, S.A.I.C., Minox, Keyhole, SAR, Rand
Corporation, Wackenhutt, EO, Wackendude, mol, Hillal, GGL, CTU, botux,
Virii, CCC, Blacklisted 411, Internet Underground, XS4ALL, Retinal Fetish,
Fetish, Yobie, CTP, CATO, Phon-e, Chicago Posse, l0ck, spook keywords, PLA,
TDYC, W3, CUD, CdC, Weekly World News, Zen, World Domination, Dead, GRU,
M72750, Salsa, 7, Blowfish, Gorelick, Glock, Ft. Meade, press-release,
Indigo, wire transfer, e-cash, Bubba the Love Sponge, Digicash, zip, SWAT,
Ortega, PPP, crypto-anarchy, AT&T, SGI, SUN, MCI, Blacknet, Middleman, KLM,
Blackbird, plutonium, Texas, jihad, SDI, Uzi, Fort Meade, supercomputer,
bullion, 3, Blackmednet, Propaganda, ABC, Satellite phones, Planet-1,
cryptanalysis, nuclear, FBI, Panama, fissionable, Sears Tower, NORAD, Delta
Force, SEAL, virtual, Dolch, secure shell, screws, Black-Ops, Area51, SABC,
basement, data-haven, black-bag, TEMPSET, Goodwin, rebels, ID, MD5, IDEA,
garbage, market, beef, Stego, unclassified, utopia, orthodox, Alica, SHA,
Global, gorilla, Bob, Pseudonyms, MITM, Gray Data, VLSI, mega, Leitrim,
Yakima, Sugar Grove, Cowboy, Gist, 8182, Gatt, Platform, 1911, Geraldton,
UKUSA, veggie, 3848, Morwenstow, Consul, Oratory, Pine Gap, Menwith, Mantis,
DSD, BVD, 1984, Flintlock, cybercash, government, hate, speedbump,
illuminati, president, freedom, cocaine, $, Roswell, ESN, COS, E.T., credit
card, b9, fraud, assasinate, virus, anarchy, rogue, mailbomb, 888, Chelsea,
1997, Whitewater, MOD, York, plutonium, William Gates, clone, BATF, SGDN,
Nike, Atlas, Delta, TWA, Kiwi, PGP 2.6.2., PGP 5.0i, PGP 5.1, siliconpimp,
Lynch, 414, Face, Pixar, IRIDF, eternity server, Skytel, Yukon, Templeton,
LUK, Cohiba, Soros, Standford, niche, 51, H&K, USP, ^, sardine, bank, EUB,
USP, PCS, NRO, Red Cell, Glock 26, snuffle, Patel, package, ISI, INR, INS,
IRS, GRU, RUOP, GSS, NSP, SRI, Ronco, Armani, BOSS, Chobetsu, FBIS, BND,
SISDE, FSB, BfV, IB, froglegs, JITEM, SADF, advise, TUSA, HoHoCon, SISMI,
FIS, MSW, Spyderco, UOP, SSCI, NIMA, MOIS, SVR, SIN, advisors, SAP, OAU,
PFS, Aladdin, chameleon man, Hutsul, CESID, Bess, rail gun, Peering, 17,
312, NB, CBM, CTP, Sardine, SBIRS, SGDN, ADIU, DEADBEEF, IDP, IDF, Halibut,
SONANGOL, Flu, &, Loin, PGP 5.53, EG&G, AIEWS, AMW, WORM, MP5K-SD, 1071,
WINGS, cdi, DynCorp, UXO, Ti, THAAD, package, chosen, PRIME, SURVIAC,UFO.


how many lists am i on now... Oh damnit and i paid for my coffee with cash
again... take me away boys im a horrible horrible person

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

PAKISTAN: “We do not accept Barack Obama’s apology for the qrispy qurans”

"Qrispy Qurans".  Is that a new brand of dog food?

New post on Bare Naked Islam PAKISTAN: "We do not accept Barack Obama's apology for the qrispy qurans" by barenakedislam Inbred Pakis scream, "We want the desecrators punished to the fullest extent of the law".....which in Islam means EXECUTION by hanging or beheading. How about giving us back the $11 billion+ we've thrown down your Islamic shithole for which we've gotten nothing in return? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWBn3Z34Mhc RELATED STORIES/VIDEOS: quran-burning-stop-apologizing-damn-it afghan-muslim-savages-want-to-put-quran-burners-on-public-trial afghanistan-muslim-meltdown-over-u-s-troops-burning-of-qurans barenakedislam | February 25, 2012 at 12:56 am | Categories: IslamoMania | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-FQF Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://barenakedislam.com/2012/02/25/pakistan-we-do-not-accept-barack-obamas-apology-for-the-qrispy-qurans/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

How To Remove Your Google Search History Before Google's New Privacy Policy Takes Effect

http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/remove-your-google-search-history.html

 

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.