Monday, October 25, 2010

Re: OT: Hell froze over today...

Way to go Cleveland!! 
 


 
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Cold Water <coldwater000@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Believeland: The Cleveland Browns beat the New Orleans Saints

Posted by Web Staff - email | Facebook | Twitter

CLEVELAND, OH (WOIO) - Don't stop believing! The Cleveland Browns have beaten the defending Super Bowl champions, the New Orleans Saints 30-17.

In fact, the Cleveland Browns won out three of the quarters.

Trick plays by special teams and the offense along with four interceptions thrown by Drew Brees kept the Browns alive.

The Browns had three interceptions in the first half, and one in the second half. Two of the four interceptions resulted in touchdowns by Browns LB David Bowens.

The former Super Bowl champs fall to 4-3 and the Cleveland Browns advance to 2-5.

The Browns have a bye week next Sunday.

                                1ST      2ND    3RD     4TH

CLEVELAND            10         10       0        10

NEW ORLEANS        0          3         0        14


Scoring Breakdown:

1ST:

  • CLEVELAND - Phil Dawson 23 Yard Field Goal is Good
  • CLEVELAND - Peyton Hillis 4 Yard Run (Phil Dawson Kick is Good)

2ND:

  • NEW ORLEANS - Garrett Hartley 32 Yard Field Goal is Good
  • CLEVELAND - Phil Dawson 21 Yard Field Goal is Good
  • CLEVELAND - David Bowens 30 Yard Interception Return

3RD:

  • NO POINTS SCORED

4TH:

  • NEW ORLEANS - David Thomas 11 Yard Pass From Drew Brees (Garrett Hartley Kick is Good)
  • CLEVELAND - Phil Dawson 48 Yard Field Goal is Good
  • CLEVELAND - David Bowens 64 Yard Interception Return ...Phil Dawson Kick is Good)
  • NEW ORLEANS - Marques Colston 8 Yard Pass From Drew Brees (Garrett Hartley Kick is Good)

 

Copyright 2010 WOIO. All rights reserved.

--
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.

--
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.

Obama rejected...Democrat says he voted for McCain




Obama rejected...Democrat says he voted for McCain

Can you smell the desperation in the air. Democrats can't run away fast enough from Obama and his failed policies. We have seen the stories of Democrats fronting fake Tea Party candidates to steal votes away from Republicans. We have seen some Democrats who conveniently leave out that they are Democrats in their own campaign ads. Now we have Democrats claiming they voted for McCain over Obama.

The Hill reports:

Conservative Democratic Rep. Gene Taylor (Miss.) said over the weekend that voted against his own party when he went to the ballot box to vote for president in 2008.

Taylor told the Sun Herald of South Mississippi that he chose Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president over then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)

Reporter Maria Recio told The Hill that when Taylor was asked if he voted for the Democratic nominee in 2008, he said, "I did not vote for Obama. I voted for Sen. McCain. Better the devil you know."

Like other conservative Democrats, the 11-term congressman has spoken out against party leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) during his reelection campaign and has argued the leadership has been too liberal. 

The congressman's comments illustrate the extent to which he and other conservative and Blue Dog Democrats have gone to show they are independent of their party's leaders. 

But remember, the liberal media wants you to believe its the Republican party who is having a civil war within its party.

Add a comment to this post


WordPress

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


--
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.

Good response to the article about the poll in California about illegal immigrants


In a secret survey, pollsters were quick to admit unless they were directly affected by illegals, they could give a rats ass on whether they were here illegally or not....as long as they got their house cleaned, vegetables picked and didn't require any of their own money to subsidize them.

...secret survey is not a real survey, just an assumption based on the totality of the action by the Obama administration's lack of acting, on any illegal alien activity taking place in a country that he pretends to be an official officer sworn to protect, and not just exclusive to the take over of land 70 miles into the country.     :biggrin: :wave:

Re: Convince Me

At 12:04 PM 10/25/2010, you wrote:
I don't recall the NRA championing the left's call for the banning of assault rifles.  Just the opposite would be accurate.


THAT was not the claim made.



Am I the NRA?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org

This coming August I'll have been a Life member of the National Rifle Association 22 years. If you're not a member yourself, it may surprise you to learn that, by the standards of that organization, born just after the War between the States, this isn't particularly long. I know people who've been in the NRA twice as long as I have, and one or two who've been members three times that number of years.

It is long enough, however, to make me wonder, as one does upon occasion in any long-term relationship, whether, knowing everything I know today, after 22 years, I'd do it again. Lately, the answer seems to be­and I'm sure the NRA will be devastated to learn this­that I'd have to think about it.

Knowing everything I know today, I'd want assurances this time that the NRA is willing and able to perform the task that brought me to it. I'd been in Junior NRA as a Scout, but the course of my life had taken me away from shooting (it seems hard to believe now) until just before that surrealistic year of 1968 when, as a newly-fledged handgun owner (we'd had an incident in the neighborhood) I recall sitting in front of the TV watching the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, knowing the proclivity of liberals to blame everyone but the perpetrator, and thinking, "Boy, we're gonna get it now."

And so we did.

And so I joined the NRA, although it took me five more years to get the cash together for Life membership. Since then, we've lost one fight after another until today, the enfringements we deal with­on an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right that was supposed to be absolutely guaranteed­are beyond anything most members of the NRA 22 years ago would have believed.

I was one of a few who saw the ugly future ahead, even then. Four years after I became a Life member, I wrote my first science fiction novel, full of dire predictions. I also wrote letters, not just to politicans, but to editors of gun magazines, even to the NRA's top banana, the guy who looked so much like Nikita Khrushchev, urging them to stop fighting the Battle of the Second Amendment as a holding action, a tactic we have seen was bound for inevitable defeat, and adopt an offensive strategy.

Those editors (with a remarkable exception whose good judgement I'll repay by NOT associating his name with mine) laughed me off as an alarmist. I never heard from the bald guy at the NRA. And why should I? Who was I? Just some nobody, worried over what was about to happen to his unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human rights. For that matter, who am I today? Just a 22-year Life member wondering whether he'd do it all over again, remember?

As I say, I'd want assurances this time, sort of a prenuptial agreement, before I slipped the metaphorical ring on my trigger finger. My 22 years of experience have taught me a few things­a dozen of them, roughly­about defending the Second Amendment. For the life of me, I don't understand why they haven't taught the same things to the NRA.

FIRST, I'd want the NRA not to write any more legislation. It's said the NRA leadership wrote the Gun Control Act of 1968 (before my time, if you'll recall). I know they wrote the Maryland Handgun Ban because they were afraid that something worse was in the works. Fear seems to be their principal motivation, not anger or determination. Invariably it steers them toward a submissive, repulsive "strategy" of doing the enemy's work before he can do it himself.

SECOND, I'd want the NRA not to trade away any more rights it "thinks" are less important for those it "thinks" are more so. The leadership would find, if they ever asked, that their membership often disagrees with them. The "cop-killer" bullet fiasco comes to mind, where we got trivial reforms in a devil's bargain­letting them make some bullets illegal­that serves our enemies so well today that one particularly repellant and evil Senator has based the sunset of his career on it.

THIRD, I'd want the NRA to stop supporting government activities irrelevant, even harmful, to the Second Amendment. Increasingly, gun owners see that the War on Drugs, to name an example, was meant from the outset as a calculated assault on the Bill of Rights, especially on the Second Amendment. It must end if there's to be anything left of the Constitution in the 21st century. That isn't the NRA's job, but it should butt out of the debate. Its "Operation Crimestrike", celebrating patently illegal incursions against individual rights is nothing more than a sustained, humiliating grovel­like having to watch another kind of civil rights advocacy crawl up on the verandah and whine, "See Massah, what a good boy Ah is?"

FOURTH, in the same context, I'd want the NRA to disconnect all future discussion of the Second Amendment from the totally unrelated topic of crime. My rights have nothing whatever to do with anything anybody else does, right or wrong. If the crime rate were only 1/10 that of today, my rights would be unaffected. Likewise, if the rate were TEN TIMES what it is, it would have nothing whatever to do with my individual right to own and carry weapons.

FIFTH, I'd want the NRA to reject all future argument about the "sporting use" of weapons­why look like an imbecile, pushing the AK-47 as a deer rifle, when it meets the Founding Fathers' ACTUAL criteria so elegantly?­in favor of frank and frequent public reference to the original Constitutional purpose for an armed citizenry, which is to intimidate the government.

SIXTH­and this may be the most important point I'll make, so pay attention­I'd want the NRA to adopt as its principal and publicly-acknowledged objective the repeal or nullification of every weapons law, at every level of government in America. The Second Amendment is explicit about this and requires no esoteric legal interpretation. Check the dictionary meaning of "enfringe" if you doubt my word.

SEVENTH, in support of that objective, I'd want the NRA to print ads, half a page in every issue, in all its periodicals, reminding members of the duty and power of an American jury to nullify any law it believes unjust or unconstitutional. Alcohol prohibition died this way. Gun prohibition could, as well. All it takes is eight and a third percent of the population, one twelfth, to carry it off.

EIGHTH, I'd want the NRA to establish programs to educate the police in their absolute obligation (given the Nuremburg trials after World War II) to enforce only those statutes­and obey only those commands­that are lawful, i.e., constitutional. For many decades, the NRA has spent a lot of resources in what can only be described as sucking up disgustingly to the military and the cops; it's past time we got something out of it. (I'm an ex-reservist, my brother's a deputy, and we both grew up in the Air Force, so don't give me a hard time­this is the truth, and we all know it.)

NINTH, I'd want the NRA to give up the self-defeating notion that you can keep guns OUT of the hands of the "wrong" folks, while simultaneously and miraculously keeping them IN the hands of the "right" folks. Each of us is somebody else's badguy. In the last century, laws were passed to keep guns from Italians and the Irish. Earlier this century it was blacks and now it's those who believe in the Bill of Rights. Get it straight: the latter could never have happened if the former hadn't been possible. No more background checks, NRA, no more prior restraint. History, ancient and recent, clearly shows that if the badguys have guns, the only way to handle it is to make sure as many goodguys have guns as possible.

TENTH, while we're on the subject of prior restraint, I'd want the NRA to abandon its strategically idiotic enthusiasm for government-controlled concealed carry­illegal under the Second Amendment­in favor of uncontrolled and legal "Vermont Carry". If it won't, I guarantee that in years to come, someone will say: the NRA wants your name on this piece of paper BEFORE you'll be allowed to exercise your unalienable individual, Constitutional, civil, and human rights. The NRA wants your age, address, phone, sex, race, social security number, photograph, and fingerprints as a cost of doing what the Framers meant you to do without all that. In short, it wants to impose the very system of gun and owner registration we've been fighting more than 60 years!

Huey Long, virtual dictator of Louisiana in the 1930s when Mussolini was making the trains run on time, was asked by the press, "Will we ever have fascism in America?" "Yes," Long replied with a grin, "but we'll call it ANTIfascism." I can guarantee that someone will say all of this, because if nobody else does, I will. And to the advocates of licensed carry, I say now: don't you realize how pathetic you look, lying there with your OWN foot on your neck?

ELEVENTH, I'd want the NRA to make endorsements based on the candidate's respect for the Second Amendment, regardless of his affiliation or its estimate of his chances. It's suicidal­if only because it denies us leverage we'd otherwise possess over the Republicans­to say a third party candidate can't win, and on that self-fulfilling basis, withhold endorsement that could give him, and us, a victory. If "NRA" stands for "National Republican Association" let it be said plainly and stop what amounts to a consumer fraud. If not, then if a candidate's unwilling to be photographed for public consumption firing a machine gun, a semiautomatic rifle with a long, curved magazine, or a pistol with a fat, two-column grip, he can't be trusted whatever his affiliation, and shouldn't be endorsed.

TWELFTH, I'd want the NRA to reduce its Board of Directors to no more than 20, so they can lead instead of turning things over to a tiny, often misguided elite. One director I know told me the NRA is in trouble precisely because its huge, unwieldy board flounders helplessly, leaving policy in the hands of a "troika" with its own agenda. It's time for that to end.

In general, I'd give the NRA the same advice I give everybody else. Never let anybody keep you from enjoying your rights to the fullest, not for a day, not for a minute. Never let anybody stand in your way. Never accept even the most reasonable-sounding excuse for why you can't have everything you deserve. Never accept compromise.

Worse than thieves, murderers, or cannibals, those who offer compromise slow you and sap your vitality while pretending to be your friends. They are not your friends. Compromisers are the enemies of all humanity, the enemies of life itself. Compromisers are the enemies of everything important, sacred, and true.

So, would I join the NRA all over again, after 22 years, knowing everything I know today? I guess I'm still thinking about it.

Give me a reason, NRA.

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle401-20070114-03.html

New poll from the LA times on the question of illegal immigrants

Strange that they do not link to the poll nor do they show the questions
asked or the breakdown of who was polled. Essentially this poll is
useless unless you can show all these things


ReprintPrint Email Font Resize
Poll: California voters see immigrants as a benefit, oppose deportation

By Cathleen Decker

Los Angeles Times
Posted: 10/24/2010 08:04:50 PM PDT
Updated: 10/24/2010 11:02:58 PM PDT

LOS ANGELES -- Repeated clashes over illegal immigration have marked
California's political races for years, but a new Los Angeles
Times/University of Southern California poll found that voters hold
positive views about immigrants overall and favor accommodating illegal
immigrants who have held down jobs in the state.

Asked whether immigrants represented a benefit or a burden to the state,
48 percent of voters likely to cast ballots in November said they were a
benefit, and 36 percent said they strongly held that view.

Only 32 percent said immigrants overall were a burden to California
because of their impact on public services, and only 22 percent felt
that way strongly.

Separately, 59 percent of likely voters said that an illegal immigrant
who had lived and worked in the United States for at least two years
should be allowed to remain here if discovered. More than two in five
voters said they felt strongly that such an option should be available.
Only 30 percent of likely voters thought the illegal immigrant should be
deported.

Views varied widely by political persuasion and age.

Liberals were most supportive of immigrants legal and illegal, with 75
percent saying immigrants were a benefit and 81 percent saying that
working illegal immigrants should be able to keep their jobs. Voters
under 45 agreed, with 59 percent saying immigrants were beneficial and
68 percent calling for illegal immigrants to keep their jobs rather
Advertisement
than be deported.

Among conservative likely voters, 52 percent felt immigrants were a
burden and 25 percent said they were a benefit. Conservatives were the
only group that leaned more toward deportation.


http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_16424649?source=email&nclick_check=1

--
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: Frago 242

"What should not and must not be forgotten is the person who gave us
access to these horrific secrets: Pfc. Bradley Manning, the 22-year-
old intelligence officer who is suspected of handing over the logs to
WikiLeaks. He, along with Assange, is being vilified and smeared in
the media: under arrest, in solitary confinement, and subject to
"military justice," he can't speak for himself. It is up to us – to
all who believe that we have the right to know what our government is
doing in our name and with our tax dollars – to speak up on his
behalf." / article

Good point.....Someone... all "free speech" proponents.. Press ,
Media, Private Citizens, Legal or Civil Rights organizations,
Humanitarian or Human Rights advocates... etc., they should all be in
there trying to help this soldier and looking out for all of his due
interests.....
nominal9

On Oct 25, 10:44 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Frago 242US war crimes in Iraq revealed by WikiLeaksbyJustin Raimondo, October 25, 2010
> Thebiggest US security breachin our history, carried off byWikiLeaks, reveals a wealth of information –hundreds of thousands of field reports, the raw material collected by the US military on the ground in Iraq. It will be quite a while before the "gems" are mined fromthis treasure trove, but initially the one that stands out as the jewel in the crown is the revelation of "Frago 242" – an order from high up in the US military command instructing officers not to investigate reports of torture and other human rights violations bytheir Iraqi allies. As theGuardian, one of the media outlets given privileged access to the database prior to its general release,reports:"A frago is a 'fragmentary order' which summarizes a complex requirement. This one, issued in June 2004, about a year after the invasion of Iraq, orders coalition troops not to investigate any breach of the laws of armed conflict, such as the abuse of detainees, unless it directly involves members of the coalition. Where the alleged abuse is committed by Iraqi on Iraqi, 'only an initial report will be made … No further investigation will be required unless directed by HQ.'"
> The Iraq war logs detail hundreds of reports by US personnel, recording incidents of abuse by the US-supported Iraqi authorities. Helpless prisoners are blindfolded, bound, thrown into dungeons and tortured, they are beaten with "wire cables, metal rods, rubber hoses, wooden stakes, TV antennae, plastic water pipes, engine fan belts or chains," burned with cigarettes, electrocuted, sodomized, some as young as 16 years of age. Some prisoners are summarily executed.
> We invaded Iraq, according to George W. Bush, because Saddam Hussein was "killing his own people." Yet the same can be said about the regime we installed after the Iraqi dictator was deposed – andit was being done with our knowledge. There are many references in the Iraq war logs to detainees being turned over to "MOI" (the Iraqi Ministry of Information) for interrogation, where, as theGuardianreports:"At the torturer's whim, the logs reveal, the victim can be hung by his wrists or by his ankles; knotted up in stress positions; sexually molested or raped; tormented with hot peppers, cigarettes, acid, pliers or boiling water – and always with little fear of retribution since, far more often than not, if the Iraqi official is assaulting an Iraqi civilian, no further investigation will be required."There's no doubt US officials knew about this torture, and by their inaction were complicit. Indeed, the regularity with which they turned over detainees captured by US forces to MOI personnel shows they were depending on their Iraqi allies to employ methods that were far worse than anything that happened atAbu Ghraib[.pdf].
> This isquite clearlya war crime, committed not just by the Iraqi security forces but also by the top US military command and no doubt extending up to the political leadership. Allroadsinthis matterleadstraightto Washington, D.C.
> Another aspect of the Iraq war logs is the revelation that, contrary to their public statements, the US military was carefully recordingcivilian casualtiesin Iraq – and the number turns out to be significantly higher than anyone thought. The new documentation indicates a minimum of122,000civilians were killed, 15,000 more than previous estimates.
> Another little "gem" that has come to light: US pilots spotted two insurgents and tried to take them out, but they managed to scramble to cover, whereupon they came out of hiding with their hands up, indicating that they wished to surrender. However, a Pentagon "lawyer" in communication with the pilots told them to keep shooting. The log entry reports: "Lawyer states they can not surrender to aircraft and are still valid targets."
> This is not just the record of the tragedy of war, the horrific chaos and horror unleashed by themightiest military machine on earthagainst a nation that posedno threatto us or our legitimate interests: it is an indictment of those who made it possible – the men and women at the top, the ones who issued the orders, made the policy, and lied to the American people while they were committing war crimes in our name.
> Although I should have expected it, it never ceases to amaze me how relentless thesmear campaignagainst WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, has been: and if anything it has intensified since the release of the latest war logs. The coverage in theNew York Timesand theWashington Postputsjust as much if not moreemphasis on the trumped-up allegations against Assange as on the actual content of the released materials. Assange, to his credit, simplywalked out of a CNN interviewin the course of which the "reporter" insisted on discussing his personal life – rather than the fact that the equivalent of a mass grave of 15,000 bodies had just been uncovered. CNN has a history of cooperating with US government agencies: during the Kosovo war, CNNplayed hostto the Fourth Psychological Operations Group, which was "training." No doubt they are back for a reunion.
> What should not and must not be forgotten is the person who gave us access to these horrific secrets:Pfc. Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old intelligence officer who is suspected of handing over the logs to WikiLeaks. He, along with Assange, is beingvilified and smearedin the media: under arrest, in solitary confinement, and subject to "military justice," he can't speak for himself. It is up to us – to all who believe that we have the right to know what our government is doing in our name and with our tax dollars – to speak up on his behalf.http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/10/24/frago-242/

--
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: Convince Me

I don't recall the NRA championing the left's call for the banning of assault rifles.  Just the opposite would be accurate.
 

 
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:04 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:


I am a single gay man who holds a more Centrist view.  I think gun
ownership rights are guaranteed by the 1st amendment, but I think the
NRA is an abomination.  Who really needs an assault rifle?


The NRA works AGAINST Amendment II -- for the most part.
Who needs an assault rifle?  Well, those Business Owners
during the Rodney King riots may have benefitted.

  The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to
  keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect
  themselves against tyranny in government.
     -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776




I was a proponent of Obama's universal healthcare plan.  As someone
who has had cancer, and now can't get health insurance that will cover
that, I'm troubled by the fact that Republicans fought this so
fiercely. I don't think a national health care plan would have
required you to give up any of your "cadillac" plans, so what was the
all  the resistance about?

The Republican resistance?  That their name was not on the legislation.

Why should people be FORCED (ie. slavery) to provide things for others?



Regard$,
--MJ

The power of the statists to exercise unrestrained force against people goes to the essence of all political systems.  Being defined  even by political "scientists"  as an entity that exercises a monopoly on the use of violence within a given geographic area, the state must continue to exercise such unquestioned powers, particularly at times when its credibility and respect are in rapid decline.  The people employed to carry out such powers  be they police officers, TSA employees, militarists, bureaucrats of various stripes, etc.  are the kinds of sociopaths who are eager to exercise such unrestricted violence against others.  The state is the playground bully writ large, and state officials are unwilling to hold their bullies accountable for their wrongs because, to do so, would be to deny the very monopoly status that defines their system. -- Butler Shaffer



--
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.

--
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 Liberals Argue (Video)




How Liberals Argue (Video)

This is exactly how liberals argue. 100% on point.

Add a comment to this post


WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Express yourself. Start a blog.

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

Obama authorizes 80,000 refugees for 2011

[[  Just what we need.  More muzzieshit potential terrorists here. ]]


Obama authorizes 80,000 refugees for 2011

How many will be Muslim, from areas rife with anti-American hatred and hot spots for jihad?  How many will support sharia law or belong to a terrorist group and not tell immigration officials? Hat tip Bare Naked Islam via Paul L. Williams, The Last Crusade President Barack Hussein Obama, in a determination letter to Congress, [...]

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post


WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Express yourself. Start a blog.

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

**JP** URDU COLUMNS 25.1010

DO NOT LOOK WHO IS TALKING, LOOK WHAT HE IS TALKING. 
PLZ MUST READ......
Assalam -U- Alaikum warahmatullah,
Plz arrange to forward the Columns/press clippings to your friends and family members..... .
Best Wishes...
well-wisher
If any person is not interested to receive my mails plz ask me to  discontinue

PS:  I AM GOING TO ROCHDALE, ENGLAND AND WILL BE BACK ON 28.10.10 (late night) AFTER 3 DAYS ABSENCE COLUMNS WILL BE SENT 0N 29.10.10

--
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