Aug 23, 2010 || World News

Monday, August 23, 2010

Hey kids! I am today's evil racist on the Leftover blogosphere

Hey kids! Yours truly has just been attacked in the Leftover blogosphere (not the first time) including Charles Johnson's website "Little Green Footballs" for my FaceBook Note recommending that people visiting on 8/28 avoid certain metro stops. Apparently that makes me a racist.

My blog is here: www.teapartiers.blogspot.com

Famous Beltway journ-o-list David Weigel just called me, and then my tea party/CPAC friend Andrew Ian Dodge, who had posted my 8/28 March on DC travel tips instant messaged me.

My reply:

Chas, Chas, Chas -- why such incompetence and/or dishonesty. That blog isn't from Maine, it's from DC. I wrote it and I have lived in DC since 1980.

The fellow in Maine is just linking to my Tea Party blog, "Tea Party -- ONe Lump or Two?" at www.teapartiers.blogspot.com.

And despite your possibly legally actionable whine of racism, my injunction to strangers to not offend the local Ethiopian etc population by making guesses about what country they are from, and my recommendation that strangers not get on the green or yellow lines and ride them out to the end of the city, had nothing to do with each other.

Sorry Charlie. One again you show us what idiots you Demwits be.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com

In in his defense, Johnson was just copying a story he saw at www.DCist.com website, which must be run by total morons. One wonders if all their coverage of DC is this incompetent?

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (ronpaul-30@meetup.com)
This message was sent by bruce (majors.bruce@gmail.com) from The Arlington/Alexandria Ron Paul Meetup Group.
To learn more about bruce, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | support@meetup.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.

JP help

JP Altaf Bhai is calling for Army Govt.....?

What you say...?

JP ANP views ....?

Corrupt leadership

What you say about money getting from international forum, Shame shame shame.....?

JP Great respect

JP Important Notice

Dear All group members,

With deep regret to inform you that, due to some problem with gmail account, your message sent after Saturday 21st August 2010 to joinPakistan could not be published.

Therefore, if you like to publish your messages, please resend it now to joinPakistan.

Sorry for inconvenience.

Thanks / Admin - joinPakistan

Re: Steve's guide to Ground Zero

I wonder if this guy is really that stupid, or if he posts crap like this just for shits and giggles....

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 9:52 AM, M. Johnson <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Steve's guide to Ground Zero

http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/08/steves-guide-to-sacred-precincts-of.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.

Re: Jackie O'

This should be interesting.....Probably fictional, but nothing would shock me, I don't think.....

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

I have just had my ear bent in the most entertaining fashion here in DC. It involves a tale in which Jacqueline Lee Bouvier becomes a CIA agent in 1951, breaks up with an investment banker boyfriend, and has her marriage to a Presidential aspirant arranged by the spooks. Supposedly a good deal of this will be coming out in about 6 months in a book published by DoubleDay.

--
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.

Jackie O'

I have just had my ear bent in the most entertaining fashion here in DC. It involves a tale in which Jacqueline Lee Bouvier becomes a CIA agent in 1951, breaks up with an investment banker boyfriend, and has her marriage to a Presidential aspirant arranged by the spooks. Supposedly a good deal of this will be coming out in about 6 months in a book published by DoubleDay.

Steve's guide to Ground Zero

Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Steve's guide to Ground Zero

http://budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/08/steves-guide-to-sacred-precincts-of.html

Obama's Unique Form of 'Christianity:' No Baptism Or Renunciation of Islam Required

Obama's Unique Form of 'Christianity:' No Baptism Or Renunciation of Islam Required

By Madeline Brooks Saturday, August 21, 2010

New questions arise lately concerning whether President Obama is a Muslim or a Christian, as Mr. Obama gives his partial support to the mosque at Ground Zero.

We've all heard by now that Obama became a Christian mostly to expedite his political career and that the Trinity United Church of Christ he joined, presided over by Reverend Jonathan Wright, was not exactly mainstream. We've heard about Wright's damning of America and we know that the church was – and might still be - a hot bed of black nationalism. But what is not as well known is that no baptism is required nor must Muslims renounce Islam to be accepted as full members in that church.

On a tip from a pastor, which I wrote about here I called the Trinity United Church back in February, 2010 to ask about the requirements of membership. The church receptionist transferred my call to the Director of Membership, who told me that baptism is optional and that Muslims who believe in the prophet Mohammed can be full members. In fact, she reassured me cheerfully, they have plenty of Muslim members.

Never mind that this is theologically impossible, except when one makes one's own rules. The doctrines of Christianity and Islam are incompatible. Christianity believes that Jesus Christ is one with the Creator, through the doctrine of the Trinity, and that Jesus died on the cross in order to redeem humanity from its sins. Islam calls the Trinity 'idolatry' because it sees the Trinity's three parts as separate entities – three distinct gods – instead of one divine being. Islam also denies Christianity's claim that Jesus Christ died on the cross, or that he is the unique savior of humanity.

Baptism is central to Christian practices, both as a way to mark the convert's entrance into a new life and as a washing away of sinful practices from the person's past. The core of the new life as a Christian is a renunciation of other religious beliefs. The World Council of Churches is an umbrella organization for Protestant churches that represents about 550 million Christians throughout more than 120 countries. It has declared the centrality of baptism for a Christian and notes that no matter how much churches may differ in other ways, the vast majority of churches agree on the importance of baptism.

Why would a Muslim want to join a church that proclaimed these Christian beliefs? It would be a betrayal of his own convictions. Besides, the word "Trinity" is in the name of the Trinity United Church of Christ, which should discourage a Muslim who thinks the Christian trinity is blasphemous. What's going on here?

The Trinity United Church of Christ is affiliated with the mainline United Church of Christ which branched out of Congregationalism, and going back even further, that denomination had its roots in Puritanism. All these connections are very traditional. The affirmation of faith of the parent organization, as found in their constitution begins with, "The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior." However, when the black pride movement burgeoned in Chicago during the 1960's at the time when Malcolm X made that city the headquarters for the Nation of Islam, the Trinity United Church of Christ appears to have made doctrinal adjustments to accommodate its constituents. They were African Americans who wanted a veneer of Christianity, which many of them had been raised with, to cover their newly acquired black nationalism and Nation of Islam inspired faith. At the same time, the church needed new members because church attendance was falling off.

So a new, syncretic religion was born, Muslim Christianity. Never mind that it makes a mish mash of theology – in order to suit the emotional and cultural needs of the parishioners. Obama may have been telling the truth when he called himself a Christian, even though he has not apparently spent much time in any church since leaving the tutelage of Rev. Wright. But for the rest of us, there is confusion, a confusion that is sure to grow as not only the President but possibly many others influenced by him, take the side of Islamic political entities while still calling themselves 'Christian.'

Dare to Bare it All, Go Topless Protest

Ronin | 22 August, 2010 at 8:04 pm | Categories: cover-up, human interest, protest | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-6qz

I knew when I saw the title of this article I would have to weigh in. With all the drama and violence on the border, high unemployment and a dwindling economic base, Texans have time to worry about boobs. It seems to me as if they have a strange set of priorities. At least they have no problem letting their opinions hang out.

myFOXaustin 22 aug, 2010, (AUSTIN) - A topless protest was held in Austin Sunday. Noted as National Go-topless Day, several dozen protesters took to Congress. Those in attendance say it is unconstitutional for men to be able to go topless but women cannot.

"We're supposed to have freedom to go topless just as men are, otherwise it's not really an equal right," said Michele Pernoud, protester. "Men have to cover their breasts just like we do; otherwise, it's all or none." For many, like Steve Parker, who is visiting Austin with his family, the rally came as a surprise.
-Having lived part of my life outside of the USA, I can testify that this is a bad idea. The sun and gravity will soon teach these free hanging mommas to strap on an over the shoulder boulder holder.

"Well I didn't expect to see that this morning with my kids with me," said Parker. "I'm not sure it's appropriate for just walking down the street everyday."
-I think both sides can win here, some women want to flash and that is ok. As long as the men get to pick um. So men, get your "show me your tits" t-shirts and when you see a woman that has a respectable reason to show her freedoms, just smile and say "flash me".

One grandmother brought her six-year old grandson to the protest, saying he needs to be exposed to life.
-Trust me on this grandma, that boy will need therapy if you do not bag your girls and leave um strapped down tight. Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

Ammo recall vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExkUOOXkGtg

If George Bush was an idiot....

If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?

If George W. Bush joined the country of  Mexico  and sued a state in the  United States  to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?

If George W. Bush had put 87000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident would you have agreed?

If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of  England  an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of  Saudi Arabia  , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited  Austria  and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States , would you have said that he is clueless.

If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas , would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown   Manhattan   causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in  America  , would you have approved.

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 15 months -- so you'll have two years and nine months to come up with an answer.

Every statement in this email is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable.

LET'S SEE HOW MANY OF YOU FORWARD THIS...

The Mercedes E550 Cabriolet

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439390183298092.html?KEYWORDS=mercedes+convertible

An Open Letter to Paul Krugman

Monday, August 23, 2010
An Open Letter to Paul Krugman
William Anderson

Dear Professor Krugman,

In your column today on extending the lower tax rates that now exist on the highest levels of income, you justify your point on two levels:

The government needs more revenue and the state needs to take as much property as possible from private owners;
Wealthy people are unlikely to spend every penny of their income immediately, so it is important for the Political Classes to get their hands on those funds, as governments will spend freely in the short run.

Thus, from what I can tell, you believe that it is the Very Duty of Everyone to spend everything quickly, and since you are advocating such beliefs publicly, I would like to challenge you to practice what you preach. Here are some suggestions:

Impose your own tax rates on yourself: If these irresponsible Democrats and Republicans don't jack up the tax rates, i.e. Herbert Hoover in 1932, then raise your own personal rate, taxing yourself at 39.6 percent, and then sending that money to Washington. Your example will inspire others to do the same, I'm sure. If you complain that to do so would require you to hire another accountant, that would be good, since you would be providing a job and we need jobs, you know;
Spend all of your current income: I'm not privy to what you make, but I suspect that your Princeton salary does not even pay all of your taxes, given that you probably make well over a million dollars a year and maybe more. Now, if you are to be consistent, then you need to spend everything you get when you get it, the sooner the better. Since you are not willing to do the Right Thing and turn your entire income over to the government, the next best thing you can do is to be on a permanent spending spree, with any "savings" falling into the next category;
Eliminate all of your "investments" except for any portfolio of government bonds: Because governments are up-front spenders, you don't have to worry about where your government bond money is going, for it will be spent quickly (perhaps not quickly enough for True Believing Keynesians, but at least more quickly than private individuals might be spending). Moreover, I would recommend that you eliminate ALL investment in stock, corporate bonds, or anything else that would be deemed "private," since government spending not only is economically superior to private spending, but also morally superior. You can feel good about yourself while still having an "investment" portfolio;
Don't buy gold, silver, or other commodities: Because of your own personal loathing for gold or any other hedge against inflation (because our immediate "threat" is deflation), you really should not purchase anything that would smack of a "gold standard" or any other representation of money. (This includes any "collectibles" such as gold and silver coins. No cheating, please!) I mean, if you really and truly believe that paper money is morally and economically superior to those "barbarous" relics like gold and silver, then you need to be willing to practice what you are preaching.

I realize that you might be objecting by now. After all, why should you be the fall guy? However, as I read your words, you are claiming that there not only is an economic problem with paying less taxes, saving money, and abstaining from some personal spending in order to save for the future, but also a moral problem, then I would hate for you to be forced to act both unprofessionally AND engage in immoral behavior.

Here is your opportunity to help Save The World! Yes, you can set an example for the rest of us to follow. I mean, if you announce this new Paul Krugman Personal Spending Strategy, what is next? Will Bill Gates sell all of his Microsoft stock and buy government bonds and spend the rest? Who knows?

This hardly is a "modest proposal." All I am doing is recommending that you be consistent with what you are writing, and I know that you are anxious to set that personal example so that everyone else in your income category will be shamed for saving, investing, and refusing to spend every penny today.

http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/2010/08/open-letter-to-paul-krugman.html

Dirty Tricks

Dirty Tricks
Smear campaign against Julian Assange reaches new low
by Justin Raimondo
August 23, 2010

The smear campaign targeting Julian Assange and WikiLeaks isn't very subtle, nor is it very effective. First the Pentagon refuses Assange's request to vet the tens of thousands of secret files WikiLeaks put online, expunging material that might cost American or Afghan lives – and then turns around and declares Assange and his organization have " blood on their hands." In a similar act of self-refutation, they announce there will be no negotiations with the WikiLeakers, and then denounce WikiLeaks' American lawyer for not keeping a 10 a.m. appointment to … negotiate.

All this was preceded by a smear campaign against Pfc. Bradley Manning, the 23-year-old intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the "Collateral Murder" video, posted by WikiLeaks (Manning is also suspected of leaking the Afghan logs database, consisting of some 75,000 internal US Army communications, the so-called Afghan war logs). A whispering campaign was launched which targeted Manning's sexuality: links to his Facebook page detailing his opposition to "Don't ask, don't tell," were accompanied by wildly speculative assertions that he might be a transsexual. Then it was asserted that his alleged boyfriend is a drag queen – an odd relationship for a transsexual to have, but then I don't keep up with these things.

In any case, the campaign against Assange has taken the same turn – in the direction of Kraft-Ebbing – with the bizarre arrest warrant issued by a Swedish prosecutor against the WikiLeaks founder on charges of rape and molestation. The rape charge was revoked less than 24 hours later, with the explanation that an "on call" prosecutor had filed the original charges based on incomplete evidence, while the regular prosecutor was able to obtain more information and revoke the warrant. The charges of "molestation," we are told, are still being investigated.

The source of these charges is two anonymous women, one in her twenties and the other in her thirties, whose story is very murky. According to the Telegraph,

"One of the two women behind the charges yesterday told a Swedish newspaper that the women who alleged rape had been a stranger who had also attended speeches by Mr. Assange. The woman had approached her and she had agreed to attend a police interview to lay the charges and make a complaint of her own.

"'I believed her information immediately because I had a similar experience myself,' she said. 'The other woman wanted to report a rape, I gave my statement as a support statement to her story and to support her.'"

Sisterly solidarity in the Pentagon's cause: just one of the many ways Western feminism is useful in the selling of the Afghan war (that recent Time magazine cover is another example). Looks like the War Party is aiming its propaganda at a targeted demographic: it's all so very professional.

And not a bit credible. The big problem for the Smear Brigade, quite aside from the swift retraction of the rape charges, is this story stinks to high heaven. So these two women just happened to meet up at one of Assange's lectures, and – in the course of casual conversation – realized they'd both been raped by this monster. I don't know how many rape victims attend lectures by their assaulters, but the number is probably very low. More indications the whole thing is a set up: the Guardian reports that "the preliminary allegation, made on the Friday night, and not further investigated at that stage, was apparently leaked by police to a tabloid in Stockholm, which published dramatic claims on Saturday morning that Assange was to be arrested."

The police leaked all by their lonesome selves, with no prodding either from Swedish or American intelligence services – who naturally knew nothing of any of this. And anyone who believes otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist," as one of the women put it:

"In her [Aftonbladet] interview, she dismissed the idea, seized on by many conspiracy theorists that 'dirty tricks' lay behind the rape allegations, because of WikiLeaks' defiance of the US government. She said: 'The charges against Assange are of course not orchestrated by the Pentagon.'"

Oh, of course not: why, it's pure coincidence that these charges have appeared just at the moment when US government prosecutors are looking for ways to nail him.

In the same interview, Assange's anonymous accuser averred "that she had never intended Assange to be charged with rape. She was quoted as saying: 'It is quite wrong that we were afraid of him. He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him.'… She said each had had voluntary relations with Assange: 'The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man who had attitude problems with women.' Sources close to the woman said today that issues arose during the relationships about Assange's willingness to use condoms."

The story, you see, is no longer about WikiLeaks, the Afghan logs, war crimes committed by the US under cover of darkness, or the US government's frantic efforts to cover them up – it's now about Assange's sexual habits, and Manning's, too.

So why am I so certain this is what Assange says it is: a coordinated effort by Washington to smear and discredit him?

Because it's all so very American, i.e. sex-obsessed. In what other country would their spooks exhibit such an unhealthy interest in the erotic routines of their quarry? The combination of voyeurism and puritanism is a national characteristic: this smear campaign has "Made in America" stamped all over it.

It's a new low for the War Party, even by their debased standards, but not really all that surprising. A debased empire reveals its character in little things, and large: the lies they spin are perfervid projections of their own decadent appetites, sprung from the depths of a culture that resembles Rome in full decline.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/08/22/dirty-tricks/

Demagoguing the Mosque

Demagoguing the Mosque
by Ron Paul

Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?

It has been said, "Nero fiddled while Rome burned." Are we not overly preoccupied with this controversy, now being used in various ways by grandstanding politicians? It looks to me like the politicians are "fiddling while the economy burns.

The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be "sensitive" requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from "ground zero."

Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill-conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we're supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

The nineteen suicide bombers didn't come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran. Fifteen came from our ally Saudi Arabia, a country that harbors strong American resentment, yet we invade and occupy Iraq where no al Qaeda existed prior to 9/11.

Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don't want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be "sensitive" and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

This sentiment seems to confirm that Islam itself is to be made the issue, and radical religious Islamic views were the only reasons for 9/11. If it became known that 9/11 resulted in part from a desire to retaliate against what many Muslims saw as American aggression and occupation, the need to demonize Islam would be difficult if not impossible.

There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?

If Islam is further discredited by making the building of the mosque the issue, then the false justification for our wars in the Middle East will continue to be acceptable.

The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.

Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam – the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don't want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society – protecting liberty.

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative's aggressive wars.

The House Speaker is now treading on a slippery slope by demanding an investigation to find out just who is funding the mosque – a bold rejection of property rights, 1st Amendment rights, and the Rule of Law – in order to look tough against Islam.

This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.

We now have an epidemic of "sunshine patriots" on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there's no controversy and nobody is offended.

Political demagoguery rules when truth and liberty are ignored.

Northern VA Tea Party candidate forum

NoVA Tea Party 10th Congressional District Candidate Forum

You are Attending · Share · Public Event

See All

Events

5 event invitations

Create an Ad

Like · Thomas Ashby likes this.

Time	Today · 12:00pm - 1:00pm

Location	Ashburn Library 43316 Hay Road Ashburn, VA

Created By	Northern Virginia Tea Party

More Info	Come see who is really reaching out to Tea Partiers, and is willing to answer your toughest questions! Candidates: Jeff Barnett (Democrat) Bill Redpath (Libertarian) Frank Wolf (Republican) Moderator: John Geddie, Jr., Managing Editor, Loudoun Times Mirror

JP ADAL NAHIN FAZAL FAQAT

Click For More Articles

http://www.makepakistanbetter.com/why_how_what_user.asp?UserID=Sami%20Malik

http://urdunetjpn.com/ur/category/sami-ullah-malik

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197