Fwd: OBAMA'S COLLEGE CLASSMATE

 

Wish I had Spencers address book. I like to share factual information.       subject: Fwd: OBAMA'S COLLEGE CLASSMATE   Friends and Family, I'm forwarding this article because it substantiates what I, personally, have known for quite some time.  I hope you'll follow the links to a recent Nevada newspaper article and to an evaluation by Snopes.  You'll get the full context of the material. Personally, we must do everything we can to protect America now and to defeat Barack Hussein Obama in the next election. Respectfully, DaddyBob Collester P.S.  Recipients are Bcc'd to protect their innocence. OBAMA'S COLLEGE CLASSMATE   If he is re-elected in 2012, the US is finished. The following is in simple language that everyone can understand. Not the gibberish that our government keeps telling people. Please read this carefully and make sure you keep this message going. This needs to be emailed to everyone in the USA ... OBAMA'S COLLEGE CLASSMATE SPEAKS OUT  By Wayne Allyn Root , June 6th, 2010 Barack Hussien Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within. Barack Hussien Obama was my college classmate ( Columbia University , class of '83). He is a devout Muslim do not be fooled. Look at his Czars... anti-business... anti-American. As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Barack Hussien Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University... They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it. Universal health care . The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression? Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around." Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Barack Hussein Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government. Legalize 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security. Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means. Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Barack Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition. With the acts outlined above, Barack Hussein Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system. Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Hussein Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan. "Correctly attributed" says Snopes! http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

• New Members 3
• New Files 1

Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

--
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.

Fwd: On Norway

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/slandering-progress-party_577800.html


Slandering  the Progress Party
Norway's opposition isn't extremist.
James Kirchick
August 8, 2011, Vol. 16, No. 44

In 1986, five-year-old Mazyar Kesh-vari and his family fled their native Tehran for Oslo. His parents were opponents of the Khomeini regime that took power following Iran's 1979 revolution, and there came a point when "it was not possible to be in Iran without risking being killed or tortured and imprisoned," he told me. Raised in a "politically active" family, he was expected to follow the path of civic engagement in his adopted country. "We have experience, on our own body and life, how political decisions make a difference in people's life," he says. "So when we came to Norway, it was very natural for me to go to a liberal party that worked for individual liberty."

For Keshvari, that party was Norway's Progress party, whose youth wing he joined in 1999 and which he today represents on the Oslo City Council. Founded in 1973 primarily to advocate for a lower tax burden, the party was concerned mainly with economics. Calling for the legalization of private medical insurance, income tax cuts, and the privatization of government-owned monopolies, the Progress party became the third-largest party in the 1989 parliamentary election. As Muslim immigration has become a major issue in Norway (as it has across Europe), the party has taken a (relatively) hard line, calling not only for a decrease in the number of immigrants allowed into the country, but for more exacting assimilation policies as well. 

Those policies, and the party's rhetoric in defending them, have come under attack in the wake of last week's massacre, in which anti-Muslim extremist Anders Behring Breivik murdered 76 Norwegians as part of a plan to "save Europe from Islamification." Breivik, who was a member of the party's youth movement from 1997 to 2007, claims to have attacked young members of the ruling Labor party because of its allegedly lax view on Muslim immigration. While the Progress party has long been a target of the country's left-wing media and cultural elite, most Norwegians have desisted from scoring political points off of last week's horror. Instead, the party has come under attack from -foreign media.

The New York Times refers to it as "stridently anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim." The Sydney Morning Herald calls it "far right," as does the Irish Times. In the New Republic, Karen J. Greenberg complains that the party's "political pushback against Muslim populations" is "deceptively urbane" and "largely acceptable in polite company." As early as 2002, the Guardian was warning about "Norway's dark secret," namely, the increasing popularity of the "far-right Progress party," which rendered Norway "home to Europe's most successful far-right movement."

Others have gone so far as to lay the blame for the murders on the doorstep of the party itself. In an article for the Spanish newspaper El Mundo entitled "To You who Nourished the Killer," former Norwegian television personality Petter Nome specifically addressed Siv Jensen, the party's leader. While writing that "Ms. Jensen is not a supporter of violence," and that "neither are most of her colleagues in populist and right wing parties in Europe," Nome argued, "They carry profound responsibility for actively creating a climate where hate and violence appear as options for their most impatient followers." (Nome has since apologized for his remarks.)

All of this is astonishing to Keshvari. "I think it's sad that people who don't have knowledge about our party can say something like that, because the Progress party's ideology is classical liberalism." Indeed, the party's stance on immigration is doctrinaire libertarian, in that it believes in the "freest possible movement of labor," provided "that people who take up residence in Norway do not automatically receive welfare rights, which burden the Norwegian taxpayer." One might find this policy uncompassionate. But it's not racist or "anti-Muslim." As an Iranian immigrant, Keshvari says that, if anything, it is left-wing Norwegians who are obsessed with his immigrant background, attacking him for belonging to a center-right party. He likens his situation to "the problems that you have in your country with black Republicans."

"There are too many immigrants coming here, so we have to stop that because we have to take care of those who are already here," Farida Amin, a Norwegian of Pakistani descent who immigrated with her family in 1975, told me. She now works for the Progress party and has been a member for eight years. Its emphasis on assimilation, and its concern for the harsh treatment that many Muslim women in Norway receive at the hands of their male relatives, is what attracted her. "Many women from non-Western countries are prevented from employment and active citizenship by their husbands, so we are working for that."

In 2009, a representative of the sexual violence division of the Oslo police reported that, in the past 3 years, every single one of the city's 41 reported aggravated sexual assaults had been committed by immigrants who come from countries "with a very different view of women than we have in Norway." As to accusations that the party is "anti-Muslim," Amin says, "No one has ever discriminated against me because of my religion."

Among immigrant Norwegians, Amin is hardly alone in her allegiance. A poll conducted in 2009, at the time of the country's last national elections, found that while the Labor party was "by far" the most popular with immigrants, the Progress party came second. "The Progress party is gaining more members who believe in Allah," claimed the Norwegian Dagbladet newspaper at the time. Adnan Made-sko, a self-described "liberal Muslim" from Bosnia, is cognizant of the dangers of anti-Muslim prejudice. He and his family fled the former Yugoslavia for Norway, "because of the racism we experienced towards Bosnians," he told the paper. "The Serbs tried to exterminate us as the Germans tried to exterminate the Jews. Therefore, I am sad and angry when people call me a racist. I know what racism is." For what it's worth, the party's shadow foreign minister, Morton Hoglund, is married to a Muslim woman.

It's true that anti-immigration sentiment is on the rise in Europe, and the Progress party has certainly been able to harness that concern for electoral advantage. But unlike other Scandinavian political parties that have gained support in recent years, like the Sweden Democrats or Geert Wilders's Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, the Progress party does not endorse ending immigration or asylum. "All parties agree on one thing," Siv Jensen told me, "and that is that we do have immigration to Norway and we will have immigration to Norway in the future as well. So you won't find any elected party in Norway opposing immigration or opposing Norway's [taking] our share of the responsibility for people running for their lives."

Moreover, the attempt to tar the party with Breivik's erstwhile membership is weakened by the fact that it was, well, erstwhile. Breivik may have initially been attracted to the Progress party by its policy on immigration, but he eventually quit because it did not conform to his own, murderously paranoid views. In a 2002 entry to his manifesto, Breivik wrote, "I am going to discontinue my involvement in the Norwegian Progress party as I have lost faith in the democratic struggle to save Europe from Islamification." Breivik complained that the party is "systematically ridiculed and isolated by all other political parties and a united media sector. This, even despite the fact that they have taken measures and gotten rid of all true nationalists ending up with only opportunistic career cynisists [sic] unwilling to take any political risks."

One of the reasons why the attack came as such a shock is that, unlike in other European countries, Norway has no appreciable, organized far-right movement. Therefore, in order to fit a convenient media narrative, the party's critics have simply asserted that it is the Norwegian offshoot of a continent-wide phenomenon. Even the Daily Telegraph, hardly a bastion of elite left-wing opinion, called the Progress party a "fringe group" (an odd way to describe the country's second-largest party), though it qualified the characterization by reporting that it "denies holding neo-Nazi views," a variation of the old "when did you stop beating your wife" chestnut. 

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, many commentators were quick to allege that the perpetrators were Muslim. While such a scenario was certainly plausible, it was nonetheless false. The error of that hasty assumption, however, hasn't prevented others from making a host of assertions about the Progress party that are equally unfounded. "Journalists, who have an important job to do," says Jensen, the party leader, "need to face facts before they write and jump to conclusions."

Towards the end of his manifesto, Breivik wrote,

I anticipate that the Norwegian media will persecute and undermine the Progress Party for my earlier involvement in the organisation. This is not a negative thing as an increasing amount of Norwegians will then have their "illusions of democratic change" crushed (if the Progress Party is annihilated by the multiculturalist media) and rather resorts to armed resistance. From a tactical and pragmatical viewpoint; the PC Media's defeat of the Progress Party will benefit the armed National Resistance Movement in Norway. The more moderate alternatives are persecuted the more likely it is that the average nationalist's illusions of peaceful reform will be crushed, which will lead to him seeking "other means."

By painting the Progress party as something it is emphatically not, the media is playing right into the hands of this mass-murdering sociopath.

 
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/new/blogs/kirchick/Lessons_from_Oslo

World Affairs Journal
Lessons from Oslo
July 27, 2011

For anyone who has visited Oslo—a city of quiet streets and quiet people—that a horrific massacre on the scale of what took place there last Friday would occur is, for lack of a better word, unbelievable. Oslo is a city where the Slottet, the palace of Norway's royal family, lays open to Karl Johans Gate, the city's main avenue, with nary a police officer in sight. Contrast this lackadaisical approach to safety with the massive, armed presence around any government building in Washington, and you get a sense of the feeling which Norwegians had about their "idyllic country that basked in wealth, equality and beauty," in the words of Anthony Browne.

A small country buoyed by massive oil wealth, Norway contributes more foreign aid per capita than any other nation in the world. It is the granter of the Nobel Peace Prize. Norwegians have long been used to playing an outsized (some might say meddlesome) role in the affairs of the world. Now, they are experiencing something unprecedented: the world playing an outsized role in theirs.  

The incredulity that Norway, of all countries, would be attacked was encapsulated in the remark of a friend, posted (where else?) on Facebook. "What did Norway do to anybody?!" he wrote. 
  
The implication of this statement is that while terrorism against countries like the United States, Great Britain, or Israel may not be warranted, it is at least understandable. After all, these nations have long-term military engagements in Muslim countries, thus rendering them targets for Muslim fanatics. These countries "do" things, presumably bad things, to Muslims, which explains why some Muslims feel the divinely inspired duty to respond in kind.
  
But to imply that terrorism against the United States (or any other nation involved in some sort of military action in a Muslim country) is logical, that it could be averted were coalition nations to pack up their bags and leave the Middle East altogether, validates the arguments of extremists. While affecting neutrality, it is in fact an expression of taking a side, and the wrong one, in the great intra-Muslim dispute in which the West has inevitably become entwined. To say that the United States has brought terrorism upon itself by its decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq or the Taliban in Afghanistan is to take the side of those Muslims who supported these reactionary forces over those who resisted them.
  
Moreover, such a belief ignores the fact that the United States has shed blood and treasure to defend Muslims from genocide in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor, conflicts where American national interests, strictly defined, were not at stake. It also ignores the fact that the United States is one of the most generous benefactors of humanitarian aid to Muslim victims of natural disasters in places ranging from Turkey to Somalia to Indonesia.  
  
Furthermore, it's not as if Norway was an unlikely target for Islamist terrorism. The country is a founding member of NATO, and in that capacity has a fighting force of several hundred soldiers in Afghanistan. Norwegian newspapers published the infamous Muhammed cartoons several years ago, a move that resulted in worldwide riots and fatwas. And just over a week before Friday's massacre, the Norwegian government finally issued a terrorism charge against Mullah Krekar, founder of the Kurdish-based and al-Qaeda–linked Islamist group Ansar al-Islam. A proud supporter of Osama bin Laden and an inciter of violence against American soldiers, Krekar and his family have been living off the munificent Norwegian welfare state for two decades. The inexplicable generosity of the Norwegian government toward this cretin was not enough to persuade him from issuing death threats against those politicians who sought his deportation.
  
All of this is to say is that it was entirely plausible to think, in the immediate aftermath of a massive bomb striking government buildings in downtown Oslo, that last week's attack was the work of Islamists. While it may have been premature for some writers to speculate as to the identity of the perpetrators before the facts were known, it was hardly, in the words of James Fallows, "hysterical." It was certainly no more "hysterical" than it was for Fallows to write, just moments after Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head in January, that, "it has been a time of extreme, implicitly violent political rhetoric and imagery, including SarahPac's famous bulls-eye map of 20 Congressional targets" and that "it is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be."
  
Of course, there was no solace to be had at all when the news emerged that the perpetrator of last week's attacks, Anders Breivik, was a Norwegian, far-right extremist, and not a Muslim one. Surely, many Muslims let out a private sigh of relief, understandably fearful that they would have come under increased suspicion had the assailant been a fellow Muslim. Before Breivik's identity was even released, the secretary general of the Islamic Council of Norway released a statement declaring, "This is our homeland, this is my homeland; I condemn these attacks and the Islamic Council of Norway condemns these attacks, whoever is behind them."

It's become a ritual now, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, to scour every utterance, squib, and, in this case, manifesto produced by the killer for clues about his political beliefs. With Jared Lee Loughner, Giffords's attempted assassin, it is abundantly clear that there was no discernable political philosophy, despite the (stomach-turning) attempts by many American liberals to link him directly with the mainstream conservative movement. With Breivik, the picture is not so clear. London Mayor and Daily Telegraph columnist Boris Johnson would have us believe that, "There is nothing to study in the mind of Norway's mass killer." But that's not true. At points, his manifesto does not read altogether differently from what many on the American and European far-right (with whose work Breivik is quite familiar, at points quoting many of them approvingly, and at length) have to say about Muslims. To "study" Breivik is not to aggrandize him, just as the study of anti-Semitism does not to aggrandize anti-Semites, nor the study of anti-black racism aggrandizes the KKK.

Part of the temptation to write off a terrorist's ramblings as the delusions of a "radical loser," as Alan Johnson characterizes Breivik, is that it helps us isolate the killer as an enigma, to place him outside the realm of our regular political life. Doing so might make us feel better; it might solidify our own sense of sanity, but it does us no good as a society to ignore the very real furies that exist in the minds of other potential Breiviks. It should be clear to all at this point that there was a political motive to Breivik's horror, in a way that there was not for Loughner's, which is why the former, and not the latter, is accurately described as a "terrorist," given that word's definition as one who uses violence against civilians to further a political cause. If we are to combat that political cause, we must understand it first. We take the ideology of al-Qaeda very seriously. We must do the same for Anders Breivik.

--
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.

Ron Paul’s Challenge to the Left

Ron Paul's Challenge to the Left
A Question of Morality
by John V. Walsh / July 29th, 2011

On the question of war and empire, the Republican presidential candidates from Romney to Bachmann are clones of Obama, just as surely as Obama is a clone of Bush.

There is, however, one exception, Rep. Ron Paul (R, TX) the only contender who is a consistent, principled anti-interventionist, opposed to overseas Empire, and a staunch defender of our civil liberties so imperiled since 9/11. These are not newfound positions for Paul, come upon along the campaign trail or via a focus group, but long standing convictions, rooted in libertarian principles and verified by countless votes in the House and speeches on the Floor. You can take them to the proverbial bank. Nothing approaching this phenomenon has been seen in a major party since George McGovern. And even McGovern did not identify, let alone oppose, the U.S. as an Empire.

Paul must be taken seriously; he is not a candidate without real prospects. In New Hampshire, he is running third in the Republican race behind the chameleonic Romney and the looney Bachmann. And in the latest national Rasmussen poll, Dr. Paul runs 37% to 41% against Obama, clearly within striking distance of victory. Interestingly when Paul is put up against Obama, as opposed to others, the percentage choosing Obama drops. Paul has money from his grass roots "money bomb" fundraising and he has an enthusiastic base, especially among the under 30 set.

The question must be asked, what is to be done by the antiwar Left? This question may be put in a variety of ways. The Left often acknowledges its obligation to those in developing countries, people of color over the planet whose standard of living and life itself is held back by the depredations of the U.S. Empire. If the Left acknowledges such a primary obligation, does it not need to support an antiwar candidate like Paul when there is no other around? Look at Libya with thousands killed by NATO bombing and the infrastructure of the African country with the highest Human Development Index being systematically destroyed. It is a war that is undeclared by Congress, therefore in violation of the Constitution and thus an impeachable action. Or Iraq where a million have been killed and four million displaced. Paul takes an unequivocal stance to stop this killing. How can the Left justify withholding its support?

Is not the very first obligation of the Left above and beyond all else to stop the killing, done in our name and with our tax dollars? Is any other stance moral? And does not the Paul candidacy need to be seen in this light?

The Left has complained for decades that it is unable to reach much of the American public with a message of peace. In large part that is due to a cultural gap – the "progressive" Left does not speak in the same language as much of the country. Nor does the Left share the same worldview as many Americans. Ron Paul does, and he can reach, in fact, has reached these people with a solid anti-intervention message. Paul does not ask that his base change its worldview but simply to understand that anti-interventionism is a consistent part of that view. Paul speaks in straightforward terms. Let us stop poking our nose into other nations' business and stop wasting our money doing so. He reaches people never before touched by an anti-war message. How can the Left pass up the chance to help such a candidate?

But what of other issues – like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security which the libertarian Paul wants to phase out, albeit gradually. Paul, the country doc, knows full well how people of little means rely on these programs and he proposes no sudden termination of them. But this author and others on the Left want to extend those programs. How do we square that circle? I contend it is no problem, because Paul is committed to preservation of civil liberties and the prerogatives of Congress. I am confident that under those conditions, where the discussion is open and free, my views on these social democratic programs will prevail. I am sure that my Libertarian friends feel the same way. And what more can we ask for in a democracy? Under Paul I do not have to worry about being locked up for my views. I am confident of that under Paul; I am not with any other candidate. Certainly not with Barack Obama.

On the other hand the only way that popular entitlement programs can be scrapped is by taking the decisions out of the hands of our elected officials and putting them in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. That is precisely what Obama is trying to do in the case of Medicare with his so-called "Independent Payment Advisory Board." Congress will effectively be out of the loop, and so we will be unable to affect the decision with our votes. And Obama has already signaled that he is willing to cut these fixed benefit (aka "entitlement") programs, incurring the wrath even of the usually placid AARP. As Alexander Cockburn has remarked, the only way to end Medicare is by pretending to save it – that is, by stealth. That is the way of Obama – but not of Paul.

The slogan "No Justice, No Peace," has often been used by the Left; and for the developing world it is quite appropriate. But in the heart of the Empire it is the other way around: "No Peace, No Justice" – in that order. Until we get the monkey of Empire off our back, neither the desire for lower taxes nor the desire for better social benefits are likely to be realized. The Left cannot afford to ignore this fact or the Ron Paul candidacy. At the least it must be discussed. To simply avoid the question and look the other way as the wars and slaughter continue simply does not qualify as a moral stance.
See also " Evilism: There Is No Lesser ­ The Left Can Pose Its Own Challenges to Ron Paul."

John V. Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com. Read other articles by John V..

This article was posted on Friday, July 29th, 2011 at 8:02am


http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/07/a-question-of-morality-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-challenge-to-the-left/

Fwd: From Steve Blak

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: noelle finnerty <skylark.nf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: From Steve Blak
To: stephan black <sblack84@gmail.com>

Here are some promotions you may download and distribute  these are good ideas to help you help me start up a new business  Also please find out where we can sell some crafts together  you can take things I make and others that might join the group to distribution outlets for a commission.  Have you taken the petitions to the t.v. and radio stations yet?  Let me know when that is done please.

thanks, Noelle

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM, stephan black <sblack84@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Noelle, Sorry never got back, been busy.. hope all is well !! 

Best wishes from Steve .........  God Bless ..... I had to buy a new computer as my old one died on me ( Sad ) but new one ( Happy ) LOL ..........  See ya later ..   From Steve     

--
yorkton environment directorate

--
yorkton environment directorate

--
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.

Fwd: [grendelreport] Utoya - a not so innocent youth camp?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 6:09 AM
Subject: [grendelreport] Utoya - a not so innocent youth camp?
To: grendelreport@yahoogroups.com

 

July 27, 2011

Utoya - a not so innocent youth camp?

The Guardian was quick to pounce on a remark by Glenn Beck in which he wondered what the meaning of a "political youth camp" actually was in Utoya, Norway and might it be something like the Hitler-Youth.

 

The Guardian promptly skewed this into a headline saying:

Glenn Beck likens Norwegian dead to Hitler youth

 

So what was REALLY going on on Utoya Island?

 

Here's a report from Norway's online news site, Politisk. 

It is dated last Thursday, 21st July ... the day before the massacre at Utoya.

 

The picture is of Norwegian Foreign Minister Gahre-Store on a visit to the AUF (Workers' Youth League) 'campers' at Utoya.  After being escorted around the camp by AUF leader Eskil Pedersen, the campers demand a boycott of Israel and that Norway recognize the Palestinian state.  

 

To which the minister reportedly replied, to cheers from the 'campers': The Palestinians must have their own state, the occupation must end, the wall must be demolished and it must happen now.

 

Whilst this doesn't change the fact that this was a monstrous slaughter of innocent kids, one has to ask who is this Pederson guy and to what lengths has his Workers Youth League gone to incite impressionable kids with such hatred of Israel fuelled by lies and propaganda about deprivation in Gaza? 

 

It is reported that one of the main activities on Utoya last week was "Break the Blockade" games.  Here's a mock Palestinian aid boat bearing the sign Opphev Blokkaden Gaza - Unlock the Gaza Blockade. 

 

Footnote:  Earlier this month Gaza opened its newest and grandest shopping mall. See the Gulf News report and picture gallery HERE. 

 

Videos debunking the Gaza deprivation libels can be viewed HERE.

 

 

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic

Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

.

__,_._,___

--
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.