• Feed RSS
There was an error in this gadget


New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog

What Do Liberals and al-Qaeda Have in Common? Both Are Upset With the Firing of Keith Olbermann and Both Hate Fox News

by Scotty Starnes

Notice that liberals and al-Qaeda members seem to have a lot in common? The truth tends to piss both off. Ask Obama and Osama.

From DC:

When MSNBC discarded Keith Olbermann, al-Qaida mourned.

So reports David Ignatius, the Washington Post columnist who has gained exclusive access to some of the documents recovered from Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

In his Wednesday column in the Washington Post, Ignatius reported on the details of a 21-page letter to bin Laden written by al-Qaida media adviser Adam Gadahn. Though the letter was undated, Ignatius says that it was likely written sometime after November 2010.

Laying out the current media landscape for the now waterlogged terrorist kingpin, Gadahn, an American-born Jewish convert to Islam, lamented the "firing" of Olbermann from MSNBC.

"In the letter, the media adviser focuses on 'how to exploit' the 10th anniversary of 9/11 on television," Ignatius writes.

"He worries that CNN 'seems to be in cooperation with the government more than the others,' though he praises its 'good and detailed' Arabic coverage. 'I used to think that MSNBC channel may be good and neutral a bit,' he continues, but then notes the firing of Olbermann."

Olbermann's final show on MSNBC was in January 2011.

According to Ignatius' reporting, Gadahn's letter only fully disparages one news organization: Fox News.

"As I wrote last week, Gadahn hated Fox News," Ignatius writes. "[H]e liked MSNBC but complained about the firing of Keith Olbermann; he had mixed feelings about CNN (better in Arabic than in English) and made flattering comments about CBS and ABC. Basically, he wanted to play them all off to al-Qaeda's best advantage."

Continue reading>>>

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/2012/03/22/what-do-liberals-and-al-qaeda-have-in-common-both-are-upset-with-the-firing-of-keith-olbermann-and-both-hate-fox-news/

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.
0
about sleep deprivation because muzzy loudspeakers calling the
faithful to pre-dawn prayers keep waking you up?

LMAO!

--
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.

Thousands Protest the Racist Murder of Trayvon Martin at NYC's
'Million Hoodie March'
Participants stressed that while they were there for Trayvon Martin,
the problem went far beyond him, to a culture in which young Black men
are assumed to be dangerous.
March 22, 2012 | LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Activism headlines via email.
Last night, thousands of individuals packed into New York's
Union Square before taking the streets for the Million Hoodies March.
They came to demand justice for Trayvon Martin, the seventeen-year-old
boy who was murdered in Sanford, Florida, after buying some Skittles
and iced tea. His confessed murderer, neighborhood watchman George
Zimmerman, cried self-defense, and the police did not charge him. But
recently released 9/11 calls and testimony from Martin's friend, to
whom he was speaking moments before his death, make it clear that
Zimmerman was on the prowl before he fatally shot Trayvon.

Police, however, seemed to have little interest in investigating the
death of a young, Black male. Cops even called Trayvon Martin's body a
John Doe. Combating the racism exhibited by both Zimmerman and the
Sanford Police Department, the message last night was not that Martin
is just another dead Black kid -- it was that "Trayvon Martin matters.
You matter." Moreover, it was that justice is universal. "No justice,
no peace," they said. "What if Martin had been white?" Demonstrators
demanded Zimmerman be prosecuted and called for a cultural revolution
to create a society where being Black in a hoodie doesn't get people
murdered, by citizens or police.

"I reek of Brooklyn," said City Councilman Jumaane Williams from the
stage, a gray hood over his long dreads. "I'm not a criminal. I'm a
New York City Councilman."

"My blood is not cheap. We want justice -- just like you want justice
when police fall, we want justice when we fall," said Williams, who
has been an outspoken critic of New York's racist stop-and -frisk
policing tactic.

"I don't play the race card," Williams said, "it's always given to me."

Williams, like other participants, stressed that while they were there
for Trayvon Martin, the problem went far beyond him. Ours is a deadly
culture, they said, in which young Black men are assumed to be
dangerous.

"The mayor and commissioner of this city have provided no leadership,"
said Williams, adding that they have instead "provided a culture that,
at a minimum, allowed me to be arrested on Labor Day, and Ramarley
Graham shot." Just eighteen years old when NYPD officers busted down
his door without a warrant, Graham was shot and killed in the bathroom
of his apartment, while his grandmother and six-year-old brother were
inside. He, too, was wearing a hoodie, and his name was echoed
throughout the night.

As the Martins' lawyer Benjamin Crump took the stage, he explained
that Zimmerman's accusations (that Martin was on drugs and "up to no
good") were racial stereotypes. Perhaps more disturbing is that the
police believed him. Crump reiterated that no drug, alcohol, or
background tests were conducted on George Zimmerman before he was
allowed to walk away without a murder charge. Martin, however, was
tested for substances posthumously. Even in death, he was suspicious.

"I am Trayvon Martin!" the crowd chanted repeatedly, echoing rallying
cries following Troy Davis' execution.

The most emotional part of the evening, however, was when Martin's
parents took the stage. For so many women in the crowd that night, the
march was about showing support for the Martins, and ensuring the
safety of their own children.

"We're not going to stop until we get justice," said Trayvon's father,
Tracy Martin, "My son did not deserve to die."

"Trayvon was just a typical teenager," he said, "Trayvon was not a bad person."

Martin said that while nothing can bring his son back, he can work to
ensure that justice is served and that no other parents have to suffer
like he has.

"My heart is in pain," Sybrina Fulton, Martin's mother, said through
tears, "This is the support we need."

"Our son is your son!" she shouted, to much applause. "This is not
about a Black and white thing. This is about a right and wrong thing."

Martin was killed for looking "suspicious" -- being Black in a hoodie
-- and the Sanford Police Department did not doubt it.

"Mic check! Are you ready to march for Trayvon?" shouted someone from the stage.

Demanding justice for Martin's murder, the crowd pulled their hoodies
up and and marched into the street.

The march shuffled west on 14th Street, spilling off of the sidewalks.
In the front of the march, Councilmen Ydanis Rodriguez and Jumaane
Williams linked arms with other marchers before a brief stand-off with
police. As the march hurried passed them, the cops eventually let the
councilmen and the crowd behind push forward. Police made several
efforts to divert the march, even hauling in NYPD vans and other mass
arrest vehicles, but no visible arrests were made, despite the cops'
intimidation. They blocked the streets on motorcycles; the crowd
turned and marched right by them. Some Occupy Wall Street protesters,
with bandanas on their mouths, appeared to block the motorcycles, so
that marchers could get by.

The crowd was far different from an Occupy Wall Street demonstration
-- darker and rowdy, but less anarchistic. CUNY students chanted, with
a rap-like vibe, "Is that a badge or a swastika?" Signs asked "Am I
next?"

Young mother April McDonald and her six-year-old son held hands as
they marched, their free hands in fists, chanting "We are Trayvon!"

"As a parent, this could to happen any of us," said McDonald, who then
told me her own frightening encounter with racism: McDonald said an
NYPD officer ran over her cousin, nearly killing him, then attempted
to blame the victim, saying he had headphones on. "He had nothing on,"
she said. "Just another example of how the NYPD, other police, try to
cover up, protect their necks."

Woman after woman told me they were mothers, there to show their
support for Trayvon Martin's family, and to stand up for their own
children.

Many of the men there had been victims of racial profiling. As Fernel
Williams, 34, told me, "One time I was just walking to the train and a
cop said, 'give me a lift,'" adding, "I didn't know what he was
talking about until he lifted up my shirt, because some 'suspicious'
guy was running around. A robbery had just been committed."

When the march returned to Union Square, Occupy Wall Street protesters
urged the demonstrators to help them hold the park. Organizers of the
march were annoyed at the suggestion, and many continued forward,
disjointed.

Back in Union Square, a mic-checked speak-out went on for hours.
Marchers stood up to tell their stories of encounters with police --
being arrested for walking down the sidewalk, pulled over for being
Black, or witnessing an unlawful, forceful stop -- and demanding the
police show their badges. "If we don't stand up for something, we will
fall down," said one speaker, who urged people to be proactive in
their communities, filming the police, asking cops' names, and
asserting their rights.

Many speakers urged individuals from all communities to show support.
"It rains on all of us," they said.

A sixteen-year-old white girl, Becky, was so moved by their testimony
that she spoke, on the verge of tears. "I cannot imagine being
frisked," she said. "It is so unfair that people my age are."

"I'm from Tennesse," Becky added, "racism is strong there, and I want
to make a difference. People like you have given me the inspiration to
do so."

When occupiers began speaking about issues un-related to racism, many
marchers for Trayvon Martin became angry, and felt as if Occupy was
using their march to push their own agenda. "We are here for Trayvon!"
they shouted. Other occupiers urged each other to "Step back,
listen...There's something beautiful happening here. We can all learn
from each other." Both occupiers and Trayvon marchers, many of which
overlapped (people who had supported OWS, but came primarily for
Trayvon, and vise-versa) were divided about whether OWS had acted
improperly, but most seemed to agree that Occupy has the potential to
include more people of color. To do so, Diana Smith of the South Bronx
said, "Speak on agendas that affect me. When Ramarley Graham was
killed, I didn't see Occupy Wall Street there."

Despite the brief disagreement, Wednesday night was a success for
Trayvon Martin's family and other victims of race-based violence. They
came together in mass support, took the streets for their rights, and
let the world know that they matter.

"We are not criminals," they said, hoodies up.

Sign the petition to prosecute George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin's
cold-blooded killer, here.

http://www.alternet.org/activism/154656/thousands_protest_the_racist_murder_of_trayvon_martin_at_nyc%27s_%27million_hoodie_march%27?page=entire

--
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.

"Sure executive order 13575 seems evil but in reality it is nothing more than yet another shovel of dirt onto the coffin that was nailed shut and put in the ground many years ago. The coffin that represents the United States was originally built upon the ratification of the Hamiltonian Constitution in 1791. The final nail was placed in the lid and it was laid to rest upon the declaration of war by Abraham Lincoln in 1861. Dirt has been placed one shovel full at a time into the grave until this point from that time. Thankfully, it is almost over, the corpse is rotting; the grave is complete all that remains is the placement of the headstone. "Here lies the rotting corpse of the Imperial United States""

March 21st, 2012
Executive Orders and Voting: Ron Paul Can't Save Us, Nothing Can
by Jesse Mathewson

Since 1789 United States Presidents have issued executive orders. And while there is no direct constitutional grant of "executive" power it has been accepted as a fact of office since 1789. In many recent cases executive orders have been issued at the behest or with the support of various major law enforcement agencies. The recent executive order causing a bump in the road to a full dictatorship was signed into law by Obama and will be found to have been the brainchild of the legal team from the Department of Homeland Security. The same goons that brought us pedophilia and pornographic materials courtesy of the scanners and our very own federally paid, ensured and certified band of molesting badges of the TSA.

Sure executive order 13575 seems evil but in reality it is nothing more than yet another shovel of dirt onto the coffin that was nailed shut and put in the ground many years ago. The coffin that represents the United States was originally built upon the ratification of the Hamiltonian Constitution in 1791. The final nail was placed in the lid and it was laid to rest upon the declaration of war by Abraham Lincoln in 1861. Dirt has been placed one shovel full at a time into the grave until this point from that time. Thankfully, it is almost over, the corpse is rotting; the grave is complete all that remains is the placement of the headstone. "Here lies the rotting corpse of the Imperial United States"

Of course, many people would have me believe that this 200+ year journey into its current decrepit state could have been avoided, or could still be avoided by my voting. They would have me believe that the reincarnated Jeebus Christ has risen in the form of Ron Paul. And while I am happy there are people like Ron Paul out there, I should make it clear, and there is no chance I will vote again. Sure, it's nice to see people beginning to wake up, of course like the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement and what will surely be more similar movements people are not really waking up. They are simply turning over in their sleep, possibly scratching that itch before falling back into the coma they almost woke from.

My vote will change nothing, my protesting will change nothing, however, I can still affect change. Knowledge, the spread of truth, and the slow injection of facts into our daily conversations can change things. After all liberty must occur in the mind before it can happen in the body. And liberty is not an incremental government granted ideal, it either occurs or it doesn't.

What will change things positively is if you begin to show through your actions that we do not need this bloated bloodsucking entity called the state. Work with your neighbors; prevent crimes in your neighborhood by being alert. Set up neighborhood watch groups, not for control or for enforcement of ridiculous malum prohibitum laws. Communications, when I was growing up in Illinois we had a volunteer fire department, and it worked. If someone saw a fire they called their neighbor and so on, before you knew it there were dozens of neighbors helping others.

TAKE responsibility for your own actions, decisions and the results of those decisions. This is what I mean when I say, dump DC. If we invest and the company takes a dive, so be it, WE made the choice to invest. If we go to a bar known for its fights because a band we love is playing, and we get in a fight or hurt, SO BE it we made the choice to go. The problem arises when people are no longer willing to take responsibility for their own lives and desire to fall back on a deity or state instead that liberty is lost. Liberty is not easy, it is not cheap and but it can be for everyone if they are willing to work for it.

We do not need saving, we need to learn to swim. Remember, free the mind and the body will follow.

http://zerogov.com/?p=2620

Posted on March 19, 2012
How Religion's Demand for Obedience Keeps Us in the Dark Ages
By Adam Lee

For the vast majority of human history, the only form of government was the few ruling over the many. As human societies became settled and stratified, tribal chiefs and conquering warlords rose to become kings, pharaohs and emperors, all ruling with absolute power and passing on their thrones to their children. To justify this obvious inequality and explain why they should reign over everyone else, most of these ancient rulers claimed that the gods had chosen them, and priesthoods and holy books obligingly came on the scene to promote and defend the theory of divine right.

It's true that religion has often served to unite people against tyranny, as well as to justify it. But in many cases, when a religious rebellion overcame a tyrant, it was only to install a different tyrant whose beliefs matched those of the revolutionaries. Christians were at first ruthlessly persecuted by the Roman Empire, but when they ascended to power, they in turn banned all the pagan religions that had previously persecuted them. Protestant reformers like John Calvin broke away from the decrees of the Pope, but Calvinists created their own theocratic city-states where their will would reign supreme.

Similarly, when King Henry VIII split England away from the Catholic church, it wasn't so he could create a utopia of religious liberty; it was so he could create a theocracy where his preferred beliefs, rather than the Vatican's, would be the law of the land. And in just the same way, when the Puritans fled England and migrated to the New World, it wasn't to uphold religious tolerance; it was to impose their beliefs, rather than the Church of England's.

It's only within the last few centuries, in the era of the Enlightenment, that a few fearless thinkers argued that the people should govern themselves, that society should be steered by the democratic will rather than the whims of an absolute ruler. The kings and emperors battled ferociously to stamp this idea out, but it took root and spread in spite of them. In historical terms, democracy is a young idea, and human civilization is still reverberating from it -- as we see in autocratic Arab societies convulsed with revolution, or Chinese citizens rising up against the state, or even in America, with protesters marching in the streets against a resurgence of oligarchy.

But while the secular arguments for dictatorship have been greatly weakened, the religious arguments for it have scarcely changed at all. Religion is very much a holdover from the dark ages of the past, and the world's holy books still enshrine the ancient demands for us to bow down and obey the (conveniently unseen and absent) gods, and more importantly, the human beings who claim the right to act as their representatives. It's no surprise, then, that the most fervent advocates of religion in the modern world are also the most deeply inculcated with this mindset of command and obedience.

We saw this vividly in recent weeks with the controversy over birth control. As polls and surveys make clear, the overwhelming majority of American Catholics use contraception and in all other ways live normal, modern lives. They mostly just ignore the archaic bluster of the bishops. But the Pope and the Vatican hierarchy conduct themselves publicly as if nothing had changed since the Middle Ages; as if there were billions of Catholics who'd leap to obey the slightest crook of their finger.

The attitude the Vatican displays toward Catholic laypeople is perfectly summed up in a papal encyclical from 1906, titled "Vehementer Nos":

    The Scripture teaches us, and the tradition of the Fathers confirms the teaching, that the Church is the mystical body of Christ, ruled by the Pastors and Doctors -- a society of men containing within its own fold chiefs who have full and perfect powers for ruling, teaching and judging. It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of persons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.

An even more breathtakingly arrogant expression of this idea comes from New Advent, the official Catholic theological encyclopedia. Watch how it addresses that whole embarrassing Galileo episode:

    [I]n the Catholic system internal assent is sometimes demanded, under pain of grievous sin, to doctrinal decisions that do not profess to be infallible.... [but] the assent to be given in such cases is recognized as being not irrevocable and irreversible, like the assent required in the case of definitive and infallible teaching, but merely provisional...

    To take a particular example, if Galileo who happened to be right while the ecclesiastical tribunal which condemned him was wrong, had really possessed convincing scientific evidence in favour of the heliocentric theory, he would have been justified in refusing his internal assent to the opposite theory, provided that in doing so he observed with thorough loyalty all the conditions involved in the duty of external obedience.

To translate the church's legalisms into plain language, what this is saying is that it's OK to doubt something the church teaches, but only if you keep quiet about that doubt and outwardly obey everything the church authorities tell you, acting as if your doubt didn't exist. And if the church teaches that something is an infallible article of faith, even that ineffective option is taken away: you're required to believe it without question or else face eternal damnation.

Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuit order, wrote that believers should "always be ready to obey [the church] with mind and heart, setting aside all judgment of one's own." To explain just how absolute he thought this obedience should be, he used a vivid analogy:

    That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.

Nor is it just from the Catholic side of the aisle where we hear these pronouncements. Even though Protestants don't have one pope to rule them all, they still believe that following your betters is essential. Here's a statement to that effect from the esteemed apologist C.S. Lewis, from his book The Problem of Pain:

    But in addition to the content, the mere obeying is also intrinsically good, for, in obeying, a rational creature consciously enacts its creaturely role, reverses the act by which we fell, treads Adam's dance backward, and returns.

According to Lewis, obedience is "intrinsically good." In other words, it's always a good thing to do as you're told, no matter what you're being told to do or who's telling you to do it! It doesn't take much imagination to picture the moral atrocities that could result from putting this idea into practice.

Another influential Christian writer and one of the intellectual fathers of the modern religious right, Francis Schaeffer, put the same thought -- the same demand for mental slavery -- in even blunter terms:

    I am false or confused if I sing about Christ's Lordship and contrive to retain areas of my own life that are autonomous. This is true if it is my sexual life that is autonomous, but it is at least equally true if it is my intellectual life that is autonomous -- or even my intellectual life in a highly selective area. Any autonomy is wrong.

Just to prove that none of these are flukes, here's one more quote, this time from Christian evangelical pastor Ray Stedman, excerpted from his sermon titled "Bringing Thoughts Into Captivity":

    I have noticed through the years that the intellectual life is often the last part of a Christian to be yielded to the right of Jesus Christ to rule. Somehow we love to retain some area of our intellect, of our thought-life, reserved from the control of Jesus Christ. For instance, we reserve the right to judge Scripture, as to what we will or will not agree with, what we will or will not accept... [Disagreeing with any part of the Bible] represents a struggle with the Lordship of Christ; his right to rule over every area of life, his right to control the thought-life, every thought taken captive to obey him.

Nor is the demand for mindless obedience confined to Christianity. Here's how one Jewish rabbi explained the rationale for the kosher dietary laws, recounted in Richard Dawkins' essay "Viruses of the Mind":

    That most of the Kashrut laws are divine ordinances without reason given is 100 percent the point. It is very easy not to murder people. Very easy. It is a little bit harder not to steal because one is tempted occasionally. So that is no great proof that I believe in God or am fulfilling His will. But, if He tells me not to have a cup of coffee with milk in it with my mincemeat and peas at lunchtime, that is a test. The only reason I am doing that is because I have been told to so do. It is something difficult.

In other words, the kosher laws have no reason or justification, and that's a good thing, because they teach people the habit of unquestioning obedience, which should be encouraged. This uncannily resembles a piece of parenting advice from Stephen Colbert, who satirically wrote that "Arbitrary rules teach kids discipline: If every rule made sense, they wouldn't be learning respect for authority, they'd be learning logic." Religious authorities like this rabbi are making the exact same argument in all seriousness! And then, of course, there's Islam, whose very name is Arabic for "submission."

The social scientist Jonathan Haidt has identified what he calls the five foundations of morality: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, in-group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Surveys from all over the world find that self-identified conservatives put far more emphasis on the last three, two of which are fundamental to a worldview based on obedience and submission. The implied similarity between conservatism and fundamentalist religion is too obvious to ignore, particularly in America, where the conservative political party is dominated by an especially regressive and belligerent strain of evangelical Christianity.

And like political conservatism in general, many religious rules are actively destructive to human liberty and happiness. Christian church leaders claim we should prohibit same-sex marriage and abortion and restrict access to birth control; ultra-Orthodox Jewish zealots want to erase women from public life; Islamic theocracies want to make it illegal to criticize or dissent from their beliefs. If moral commands could only be backed up by appeals to reason or human good, these unfounded and harmful laws would vanish overnight. Instead, the people who make these rules and want us to obey them claim that they're messengers of the will of God, and thus no further justification is needed. It bears emphasizing that this is the exact same argument made by ancient monarchs and tyrants, all of whom used this idea to justify atrocious cruelty.

Those ancient monarchs were toppled because they proved, despite their lofty claims of divine right, that they were no better or wiser or more suited to rule than any other human being. This is a lesson from history that deserves wider attention in the modern world. Like them, religious conservatives claim that they're passing along God's ideas, and thus that we should obey them without critical challenge and questioning. This idea has always had disastrous consequences in the past -- why should we expect anything different this time?

In sharp contrast to the religious and conservative worldview of obedience and submission, the worldview of freethinkers and progressives at its best is one that exalts freedom and liberty -- freedom to make our own choices, freedom of the mind to travel and explore wherever it will. These are our commandments: Think for yourself and don't blindly bow down to the claims of another. Exercise your own best judgment. Ask questions and investigate whether what you've been taught is true. There have been countless wars and devastations because people were too eager to subordinate their will and conscience to the ruling authorities, but as Sam Harris says, no atrocity was ever committed because people were being too reasonable, too skeptical, or too independently minded. If anything, human beings have always been too eager to obey and to subordinate their will to others. The more we throw off that ancient and limiting mindset, the more freedom we have to think, act and speak as we choose, the more humanity as a whole will prosper.

http://www.alternet.org/story/154604/



New post on Creeping Sharia

Obama to bypass Congress, Give $1.5B of your taxes to Muslim Brotherhood

by creeping

via Obama Bypasses Congress, Gives $1.5 Billion to Muslim Brotherhood. During a trip through Colorado in December of last year, President Obama spoke of his intention to implement his economic policies with or without the approval of Congress. Said Obama, "And where Congress is not willing to act, we're going to go ahead and do [...]

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/obama-to-bypass-congress-give-1-5b-of-your-taxes-to-muslim-brotherhood/

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.
0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRqeJcuK-A

--
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.

0


New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Why God gave them Camels.

by Steve

I have to concur. :D    Steve   H/T Jean

 

Steve | March 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Categories: Culture War, Humor, Idiots, Insanity, Islam | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-dgw

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/2012/03/21/why-god-gave-them-camels/

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.