The skit opens with Romney and Santorum reminiscing about the GOP
presidential campaign at a bar.
Santorum orders a chocolate milk and Romney a napkin.
"That was certainly a primary season to remember, ha?" Romney asks.
"Sure was, there was even a time when people were saying I was the
front-runner. Gotta thank you for that Mitt. The only candidate who
could make me look exciting," Santorum says.
"And you're the only candidate who could make me look gay friendly,"
Romney responds.
Romney and Santorum are eventually joined at the bar by Rick Perry,
Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann.
"Hey are you crashing boys night?" Romney asks Bachmann.
"Oh, I've crashed a lot of boys nights," a despondent Bachmann
answers. "Usually when I come home early and unannounced."
(Watch the entire clip at Mediaite.com.)
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/snl-mitt-romney-rick-santorum-campaign/
More:
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=11536&MediaType=1&Category=16
--
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.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/16/tsa-thinks-drag-queens-fake-boobs-are-aMobile
Katherine Mangu-Ward | April 16, 2012
"Would this happen if I were dressed as Britney Spears?" asked [Derrick] Barry, a featured star in Frank Marino's "Divas Las Vegas" at Imperial Palace. He was not in drag at the airport.
Barry was held up by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at the Las Vegas airport after he attempted to board a plane with a carryon containing some of the tools of his trade: silicone breast enhancers, known (horrifyingly) as chicken cutlets. Apparently Barry's enhancements were sizeable—they exceeded the TSA's 3.2 ounce limit on liquids and gels. He wound up getting held for more than a hour while the TSA tried to figure out what to do with him, and nearly missed his flight to Tampa.
Women presumably go through security all the time wearing various species of falsies—particularly in Vegas, one imagines. And so do men, apparently:
"I've gone through with my fake butt and my fake boobs and never had a problem," said Barry's boss Marino, a Las Vegas drag icon for almost 30 years in "La Cage" and "Divas Las Vegas."
"Next time he travels," Marino said , "he should go through in drag and when he goes through the electronic X-ray machine, oh those eyes, those thighs and a little surprise. That would get 'em back."
More Reason on sexy fun with the TSA here:
How Regulators Wrecked Our Mowers
Jeffrey Tucker · April 16, 2012
When I was a kid, lawn mowers worked. You pushed them and they cut grass. The grass went into the bag. Then you emptied the bag. The results were great. There was no grass to rake. It all went into the bag, because that's what lawn mowers did.
Then the feds got involved. Or so I now gather. I didn't know this for a long time. Every time I would buy a mower, I would be disappointed in the results. I kept buying mowers with ever-larger engines. Then I would buy them with different bag designs, and then a different brands, and then different features. Nothing worked.
The problem was always the same. I would mow and most of the grass would go in the catcher. But some didn't. Some landed on the lawn in a line. When the grass was wet, it left an even bigger trail. Or when I would go from the grass to the sidewalk, a big clump would fall out from underneath the mower onto the sidewalk, requiring that I get a broom and sweep it up. Then I would have to empty the bag long before it was full.
It took me many years of thinking to figure out the problem. After all, I never had this problem when I was a kid. Have companies started making lawn mowers that don't work? Are manufacturers worse than they used to be? It all seems crazy. I would mow with a smartphone in my pocket that could check my blood pressure, make the sound of a flute or surf the Web. Why can't private enterprise seem to make a mower that works?
I would try to forget about the problem, adjust to the downgraded reality and finish up the growing season. But the next year, it would all come back to me. Grass trails. Clumps on the sidewalk. Emptying too often. Buying a new mower and finding the same problem all over again.
What is the source of the problem? The spinning blade cuts the grass and creates a flow of air that lifts the grass and throws it into the catcher. A flow requires circulation, and where does the circulation come from? It can't be a vacuum seal. You can't create a small wind tunnel without a source of air. Where is this coming from? Nowhere. The base of the lawn mower is flush against the grass. The blades spin but create no suction effect.
Why is the base so low to the ground? I tend to mow my grass pretty low just because of the variety of grass and the topsoil level. But doing this causes a perfect seal between the mower and the ground, cutting off all airflow and denying the blade the air it needs to create the wind tunnel to empty the grass.
It is pretty obvious, right? So why have manufacturers not responded by raising the steel casing on the lawn mower? Why would they keep selling mowers that don't work well? I'm hardly the only person who has the problem. Lawn mower forums all over the Internet are filled with people asking exactly the same questions and having the same symptoms. The manufacturers are shy to mention the real reason. They talk about changing blades, removing obstructions and things like that. Users know better. There is another factor.
I was just looking at the detailed regulations for lawn mowers. In particular, the relevant passage is 16 CFR PART 1205 the Safety Standard for Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers. Here we find that the height of the lawn mower case must be low enough to pass a "foot probe" test. No matter how high or low the wheels are adjusted, it cannot be possible to stick your foot under the case.
Now, when I was young, you could stick your foot under the mower. We didn't do that, of course, but we could. Therefore, there was suction. The air sucked from underneath and swirled up and out in the grass catcher. It was like running a vacuum cleaner over a floor. It shaved the grass, and not one grass blade was left anywhere in sight. It all went into the catcher.
The new regulations, which apply only to walking mowers that you use at home, went into effect sometime after 1982. I still used my old mower for years after that date. I fact, I didn't have a reason to buy a new one until about 15 years ago. That's when my troubles began.
Now I know the cause. The bottom line is that federal regulations have degraded the lawn mower. In the name of safety, the government has forced all manufacturers to sacrifice functionality. They are forced to sell equipment that doesn't do what it is supposed to do. All the while, I've been blaming private enterprise. It turns out to be the fault of government.
The government's central plan for walk-behind mowers is mind boggling. That bar you have to squeeze and hold on the handle to make the wheel move? Mandated by government. That annoying plastic piece that covers the blow hole for the grass that you have to push out of the way? Mandated by government. The government has mandated the blueprint for the whole machine and thereby frozen its structure in place with an inferior and unalterable design.
It is not enough that regulations have invaded the bathroom, ruined our showers and toilets, degraded our detergent, made it ever harder to unclog drains and made essential medicines hard to get. Now I find that regulations have even made it difficult for me to do something completely American like mow my own lawn!
This also explains why so many of my neighbors are using lawn mowing services that have giant riding lawn mowers. It turns out that these particular regulations do not apply to them. It wouldn't surprise me to find that lawn services were actually instrumental in lobbying for these safety regulations. This is how commerce works these days: Compete for a while, but when that doesn't work, turn to the government to wreck the competition.
Government hates lawns -- except at the White House, of course. They consider private lawns to be wasteful and vain, a symbol of conspicuous consumption. If they had their way, we would all have rocks in our front yards. Or maybe we wouldn't have front yards. We would have little window boxes, and surely that would be enough for us.
It's all in the interest of your safety. And security. What about your freedom? It's been mowed under, and it landed like clumps of grass on the sidewalk.
http://lfb.org/today/how-regulators-wrecked-our-mowers/
Travis,
Now tell us how you REALLY feel.....don't hold back!!
On Apr 16, 9:34 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wil give you a partial answer. Governments are scared as hell of the
> little muzzieshits. You mock their pedophile prophet, MoHAMhead, or their
> book of shit, the KORAP, and they try ti kill you. Muzzieshits like to
> blow up things like buildings full of good honest people. They demand that
> everything be their way and only their way when no one but idiotic, insane
> muzzieshits would ever want anything to do with that shariashit. And
> muzzieshits love to kill each other for no reason at all. In essence,
> Islamoshit makes no sense itself. It is just a garbage state. Rotten,
> stinking, filthy garbage that needs to be eleminated from this planet by
> any and all means necessary.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com> wrote:> > **
>
> > Got this one from my mom of all people. WE don't have muslims praying in
> > the streets here yet. Just in the public schools.
>
>
> > **
>
> > **
>
> > A VERY POWERFUL CARTOON....
>
> > **
> > *A very powerful cartoon.....please keep it going*.
> > This should be posted in every school in the Canada and the USA> > [image: Description: cid:94ECEE59A8424E918AE9A27AD9A4BCF7@computer]*
>
> > Only 31 words -- Think about it!*
> > *
> > Isn't life strange? I never met one Veteran who enlisted to fight for> > 86% will send this on.*
> > Socialism!
>> > ****
> > If Muslims can pray on Madison Avenue, why are Christians banned from
> > praying in public and from erecting religious displays on their holy days?
>
> > What happened to our National Day of Prayer?
> > Muslims are allowed to block off Madison Ave. , in N.Y.C., and pray in
> > the middle of the street! And, it's a monthly ritual!
>
> > Tell me, again, whose country is this?
> > Ours or the Muslims?
>
> > I was asked to send this on if I agree, or delete if I don't.
>
> > It is said that 86% of Americans & Canadians believe in God.
>
> > Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a
> > problem in having 'In God! We Trust' on our money and having 'God' in the
> > Pledge of Allegiance or the Lord's prayer said in our schools or public
> > meetings.
>
> > I believe it's time we stand up for what we believe!
>
> > If you agree, pass this on; if not, delete.
>
> > Thank you
>
> > **
> > ****
> > ****
>> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.> ATT000~111.JPG
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
>
> 19KViewDownload
>
> Mail122.jpg
> 165KViewDownload
--
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.
Gay Republicans are self-loathing hypocrites who support oppression
and bigotry against themselves.
I know one who rails against Marriage Equality, repeating what he
hears on Faux Noise for the Parrots.
How Can Anyone Be Gay and Republican?
"To join a party on condition that we oppose our own civil rights and
our own basic civil equality seems a non-starter for me," says the
conservative blogger. "There's something quite nauseating about it
actually."
Question: How can anyone call himself a gay Republican?
Andrew Sullivan: You know, I used to say, we have to stay in these
parties because certainly gay people do not want to become a
Democratic Party constituency that is totally taken for granted, which
is, of course, what has happened. When you have no leverage over the
party, they don't do anything for you—except take your money and
invite you to cocktail parties, which is all that's happened really in
two years under Obama with two houses of Congress.
But at the same time, you know, this Homocon thing... it was in
someone's apartment. I mean the idea that this has been any genuine
meaning out there for most people, there are plenty of gay people;
many, many, many more I think than other minority groups actually, who
would love a party of limited small government, prudent, strong
foreign policy, balanced budgets, live and let live, like the British
Tories. And if the Republican Party ever becomes that again, I think
there will be plenty of places for gay people in it.
But to do so and join a party on condition that we oppose our own
civil rights and our own basic civil equality seems a non-starter for
me. I mean, it's... there's something quite nauseating about it
actually. And you see even, like, Chris Barron who is the head of
Homocon, or whatever they are calling themselves, GOProud, having to
say that when Jim DeMint goes on and says that no gay person should be
a school teacher, which is to the—which Ronald Reagan rejected in
1978—where are you left? I mean, it's also important to remember that
the Republican Party is now a Southern party. So the old Republican
party, which had a balance of different regions and was based also in
the Libertarian West—and remember how Goldwater ended up—and of course
many elite Republicans, by which I mean a lot of people in Washington,
are completely comfortable and accepting of gay people, and support
our right to marry and our right to serve our country without lying
about ourselves, which are just the two non-negotiables. But they are
cravenly incapable of either understanding the importance of that or
taking us as serious human beings.
I mean, I'm sorry, but Dick Cheney is not going to pass Mary Cheney,
who is organizing to get a Republican majority that will make sure
that gay people never serve openly in the military. And support a
Republican Party in her own state that will strip her even the most
basic contractual rights with her wife and children. At this point,
I'm sorry, but no.
Question: So how should gay conservatives vote—against their political
beliefs or against their rights as humans?
Andrew Sullivan: They have to vote for whichever candidate they think
is the least worst option. And not... and of course we don't just
vote on our sexual orientation. And on the critical issues, the
critical issue of marriage, it's fundamentally a state issue anyway,
although DOMA remains you know, a terrible blight on our national
federal equality. So, I've never been a partisan, I've never been a
Republican, I've never been a Democrat, ever, which is why I was very
frustrated being called a gay Republican when I never attached myself
to that. You just have to keep going. I mean I think our job, my
job, is to keep articulating that I exist and that there are lots of
people like me exist and we just have no home.
But if temporarily we seek a home with Obama, or with people who are
less hostile to us and we are not also too opposed to their other
policies, then that's the compromise that we all have to make.
More:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/24588
Andrew Sullivan
--
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
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PresidentBarakObama/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PresidentBarakObama/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
PresidentBarakObama-digest@yahoogroups.com
PresidentBarakObama-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
PresidentBarakObama-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
I know one who rails against Marriage Equality, repeating what he
hears on Faux Noise for the Parrots.
How Can Anyone Be Gay and Republican?
"To join a party on condition that we oppose our own civil rights and
our own basic civil equality seems a non-starter for me," says the
conservative blogger. "There's something quite nauseating about it
actually."
Question: How can anyone call himself a gay Republican?
Andrew Sullivan: You know, I used to say, we have to stay in these
parties because certainly gay people do not want to become a
Democratic Party constituency that is totally taken for granted, which
is, of course, what has happened. When you have no leverage over the
party, they don't do anything for you—except take your money and
invite you to cocktail parties, which is all that's happened really in
two years under Obama with two houses of Congress.
But at the same time, you know, this Homocon thing... it was in
someone's apartment. I mean the idea that this has been any genuine
meaning out there for most people, there are plenty of gay people;
many, many, many more I think than other minority groups actually, who
would love a party of limited small government, prudent, strong
foreign policy, balanced budgets, live and let live, like the British
Tories. And if the Republican Party ever becomes that again, I think
there will be plenty of places for gay people in it.
But to do so and join a party on condition that we oppose our own
civil rights and our own basic civil equality seems a non-starter for
me. I mean, it's... there's something quite nauseating about it
actually. And you see even, like, Chris Barron who is the head of
Homocon, or whatever they are calling themselves, GOProud, having to
say that when Jim DeMint goes on and says that no gay person should be
a school teacher, which is to the—which Ronald Reagan rejected in
1978—where are you left? I mean, it's also important to remember that
the Republican Party is now a Southern party. So the old Republican
party, which had a balance of different regions and was based also in
the Libertarian West—and remember how Goldwater ended up—and of course
many elite Republicans, by which I mean a lot of people in Washington,
are completely comfortable and accepting of gay people, and support
our right to marry and our right to serve our country without lying
about ourselves, which are just the two non-negotiables. But they are
cravenly incapable of either understanding the importance of that or
taking us as serious human beings.
I mean, I'm sorry, but Dick Cheney is not going to pass Mary Cheney,
who is organizing to get a Republican majority that will make sure
that gay people never serve openly in the military. And support a
Republican Party in her own state that will strip her even the most
basic contractual rights with her wife and children. At this point,
I'm sorry, but no.
Question: So how should gay conservatives vote—against their political
beliefs or against their rights as humans?
Andrew Sullivan: They have to vote for whichever candidate they think
is the least worst option. And not... and of course we don't just
vote on our sexual orientation. And on the critical issues, the
critical issue of marriage, it's fundamentally a state issue anyway,
although DOMA remains you know, a terrible blight on our national
federal equality. So, I've never been a partisan, I've never been a
Republican, I've never been a Democrat, ever, which is why I was very
frustrated being called a gay Republican when I never attached myself
to that. You just have to keep going. I mean I think our job, my
job, is to keep articulating that I exist and that there are lots of
people like me exist and we just have no home.
But if temporarily we seek a home with Obama, or with people who are
less hostile to us and we are not also too opposed to their other
policies, then that's the compromise that we all have to make.
More:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/24588
Andrew Sullivan
--
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.
On Apr 16, 7:53 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> What Would Reagan Do?Posted by David Boaz
> Peggy Noonan, who once worked with Ronald Reagan to shape his words, has some useful advice for today s Republicans in Saturday s Wall Street Journal:Finally, in foreign affairs the Republican candidates staked out dangerous ground. They want to show they re strong on defense. Fine, we should have a strong defense, the best in the world. But that is different from having an aggressive foreign policy stance, and every one of the GOP candidates, with the exceptions of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, was aggressive. This is how their debates sounded: We should bomb Iran Thursday. No, stupid, we should bomb Iran on Wednesday. How could you be so foolish? You know we do all our bombings on Monday. You re wrong, we send in the destroyers and arm the insurgents on Monday.There was no room for discretion, prudence, nuance, to use unjustly maligned terms. There was no room for an expressed bias toward not-fighting. But grown-ups really do have a bias toward not-fighting.They are allowing the GOP to be painted as the war party. They are ceding all non-war ground to the president, who can come forward as the sober, constrained, non-bellicose contender. Do they want that? Are they under the impression America is hungry for another war? Really? After the past 11 years?The GOP used to be derided by Democrats as the John Wayne party: It loved shoot- em-ups. Actually, John Wayne didn t ride into town itching for a fight, and he didn t ride in shooting off his mouth, either. He was laconic, observant. He rode in hoping for peace, but if something broke out he was ready. He had a gun, it was loaded, and he knew how to use it if he had to.But he didn t want to have to. Which was part of his character s power. The GOP should go back to being John Wayne.When Ronald Reagan s speechwriter tells you you need to be less trigger-happy and more like John Wayne, you probably need to recalibrate.http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/what-would-reagan-do/
--
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.
What happened to our National Day of Prayer?
---
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of
America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution
and laws of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 6,
2010, as a National Day of Prayer.
Most of the early colonies were generally not tolerant of dissident
forms of worship, with Maryland being the only exception. For example,
Roger Williams found it necessary to found a new colony in Rhode
Island to escape persecution in the theocratically dominated colony of
Massachusetts. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were the
most active of the New England persecutors of Quakers, and the
persecuting spirit was shared by the Plymouth Colony and the colonies
along the Connecticut river.[29] In 1660, one of the most notable
victims of the religious intolerance was English Quaker Mary Dyer who
was hanged in Boston, Massachusetts for repeatedly defying a Puritan
law banning Quakers from the colony.[29] As one of the four executed
Quakers known as the Boston martyrs, the hanging of Dyer on the Boston
gallows marked the beginning of the end of the Puritan theocracy and
New England independence from English rule, and in 1661 King Charles
II explicitly forbade Massachusetts from executing anyone for
professing Quakerism.[30]
Another notable example of religious persecution by Puritans in
Massachusetts was the Salem witch trials in 1692 and 1693. Thirty-one
witchcraft trials were held, convicting twenty-nine people of the
capital felony of witchcraft. Nineteen of the accused, fourteen women
and five men, were hanged. One man who refused to enter a plea was
crushed to death under heavy stones in an attempt to force him to do
so.
Freedom of religion was first applied as a principle of government in
the founding of the colony of Maryland, founded by the Catholic Lord
Baltimore, in 1634.[31] Fifteen years later (1649) the Maryland
Toleration Act, drafted by Lord Baltimore, provided: "No person or
persons...shall from henceforth be any waies troubled, molested or
discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the
free exercise thereof." The Maryland Toleration Act was repealed with
the assistance of Protestant assemblymen and a new law barring
Catholics from openly practicing their religion was passed.[32] In
1657, the Catholic Lord Baltimore regained control after making a deal
with the colony's Protestants, and in 1658 the Act was again passed by
the colonial assembly. This time, it would last more than thirty
years, until 1692,[33] when after Maryland's Protestant Revolution of
1689, freedom of religion was again rescinded.[31][34] In addition in
1704, an Act was passed "to prevent the growth of Popery in this
Province", preventing Catholics from holding political office.[34]
Full religious toleration would not be restored in Maryland until the
American Revolution, when Maryland's Charles Carroll of Carrollton
signed the American Declaration of Independence.
Reiterating Maryland's earlier colonial legislation, the Virginia
Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson,
proclaimed:
"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious
worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced,
restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall
otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but
that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain,
their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no
wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
Those sentiments also found expression in the First Amendment of the
national constitution, part of the United States' Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The United States formally considers religious freedom in its foreign
relations. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 established
the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom which
investigates the records of over 200 other nations with respect to
religious freedom, and makes recommendations to submit nations with
egregious records to ongoing scrutiny and possible economic sanctions.
Many human rights organizations have urged the United States to be
still more vigorous in imposing sanctions on countries that do not
permit or tolerate religious freedom.
On Apr 16, 10:24 am, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Got this one from my mom of all people. WE don't have muslims praying in
> the streets here yet. Just in the public schools.
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> A VERY POWERFUL CARTOON....
>
> **
> *A very powerful cartoon.....please keep it going*.
> This should be posted in every school in the Canada and the USA
>
> [image: Description: cid:94ECEE59A8424E918AE9A27AD9A4BCF7@computer]*
> Only 31 words -- Think about it!*
> *
> Isn't life strange? I never met one Veteran who enlisted to fight for
> Socialism!
> 86% will send this on.*
>
> If Muslims can pray on Madison Avenue, why are Christians banned from
> praying in public and from erecting religious displays on their holy days?
>
> What happened to our National Day of Prayer?
> Muslims are allowed to block off Madison Ave. , in N.Y.C., and pray in
> the middle of the street! And, it's a monthly ritual!
>
> Tell me, again, whose country is this?
> Ours or the Muslims?
>
> I was asked to send this on if I agree, or delete if I don't.
>
> It is said that 86% of Americans & Canadians believe in God.
>
> Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a
> problem in having 'In God! We Trust' on our money and having 'God' in the
> Pledge of Allegiance or the Lord's prayer said in our schools or public
> meetings.
>
> I believe it's time we stand up for what we believe!
>
> If you agree, pass this on; if not, delete.
>
> Thank you
>
> ****
> **
> ****
> ****
>
> Mail122.jpg
> 165KViewDownload
>
> ATT000~111.JPG
> 19KViewDownload
--
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.
WordPress.com
