GOP’s 2012 campaign theme song

New post on Fellowship of the Minds GOP's 2012 campaign theme song by Dr. Eowyn And if it's not, it should be! Crank up the volume and sing along  :D H/t beloved fellow Joseph ~Eowyn Dr. Eowyn | April 24, 2012 at 1:00 am | Tags: Barack Obama, Bryan Glover, Kyle Hill, when you're holding a hammer | Categories: 2012 Election, Liberals/Democrats, Republican Party, United States, US Presidents | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-dQr Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/gops-2012-campaign-theme-song/ Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Was Islam’s founder Muhammad a real man or an invention?

New post on Fellowship of the Minds Was Islam's founder Muhammad a real man or an invention? by Dr. Eowyn Robert Spencer is an authority on Islam and the author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. He is also the director of Jihad Watch. In his new book Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam's Obscure Origins, Spencer asks if Muhammad was a real man or a later invention by those who had fashioned an Arab empire via wars and conquer. Writing in American Thinker, April 23, 2012, Spencer makes a case for Muhammad being more fictive than real: Why would it matter if Muhammad never existed?  Certainly the accepted story of Islam's origins is taken for granted as historically accurate; while many don't accept Muhammad's claim to have been a prophet, few doubt that there was a man named Muhammad who in the early seventh century began to claim that he was receiving messages from Allah through the angel Gabriel. [...] Yet the numerous indications that the standard account of Muhammad's life is more legend than fact actually have considerable implications for the contemporary political scene. These are just a few of the weaknesses in the traditional account of Muhammad's life and the early days of Islam: No record of Muhammad's reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date. The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur'an.  They call the conquerors "Ishmaelites," "Saracens," "Muhajirun," and "Hagarians," but never "Muslims." The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don't mention Islam or the Qur'an for the first six decades of their conquests.  Mentions of "Muhammad" are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross.  The word can be used not only as a proper name, but also as an honorific. The Qur'an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650s.  Casting into serious doubt that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabians nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention its existence until the early eighth century. We don't begin to hear about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and about Islam itself until the 690s, during the reign of the caliph Abd al-Malik.  Coins and inscriptions reflecting Islamic beliefs begin to appear at this time also. In the middle of the eighth century, the Abbasid dynasty supplanted the Umayyad line of Abd al-Malik.  In the Abbasid period, biographical material about Muhammad began to proliferate.  The first complete biography of the prophet of Islam finally appeared during this era-at least 125 years after the traditional date of his death. The lack of confirming detail in the historical record, the late development of biographical material about the Islamic prophet, the atmosphere of political and religious factionalism in which that material developed, and much more, suggest that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him. How to make sense of all this?  If the Arab forces that conquered so much territory beginning in the 630s were not energized by the teachings of a new prophet and the divine word he delivered, how did the Islamic character of their empire arise at all?  If Muhammad did not exist, why was it ever considered necessary to invent him? Every empire of the day had a civic religion.  The Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire was Christian.  Its rival Persia, meanwhile, was Zoroastrian.  The Arab Empire quickly controlled and needed to unify huge expanses of territory where different religions predominated.  The empire was growing quickly, soon rivaling the Byzantine and Persian Empires in size and power.  But at first, it did not have a compelling political theology to compete with those it supplanted and to solidify its conquests.  It needed a common religion -- a political theology that would provide the foundation for the empire's unity and secure allegiance to the state. Toward the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth, the leaders of the Muslim world began to speak specifically about Islam, its prophet, and eventually its book.  Stories about Muhammad began to circulate.  A warrior-prophet would justify the new empire's aggressive expansionism.  To give those conquests a theological justification -- as Muhammad's teachings and example do -- would place them beyond criticism. This is why Islam developed as such a profoundly political religion.  Islam is a political faith: the divine kingdom is very much of this world, with God's wrath and judgment to be expected not only in the next life, but also in this one, to be delivered by believers.  Allah says in the Qur'an: "As for those disbelieving infidels, I will punish them with a terrible agony in this world and the next. They have no one to help or save them" (3:56).  Allah also exhorts Muslims to wage war against those infidels, apostates, and polytheists (2:191, 4:89, 9:5, 9:29). There is compelling reason to conclude that Muhammad, the messenger of Allah came into existence only after the Arab Empire was firmly entrenched and casting about for a political theology to anchor and unify it.  Muhammad and the Qur'an cemented the power of the Umayyad caliphate and then that of the Abbasid caliphate. This is not just academic speculation.  The non-Muslim world can be aided significantly in its understanding of the global jihad threat -- an understanding that has been notably lacking even at the highest levels since September 11, 2001 -- by a careful, unbiased examination of the origins of Islam.  There is a great deal of debate today in the United States and Western Europe about the nature of Islamic law; anti-sharia measures have been proposed in at least twenty states, and one state -- Oklahoma -- voted to ban sharia in November 2010, although that law was quickly overturned as an infringement upon Muslims' religious freedom.  Others have been successfully resisted on the same grounds. If it is understood that the political aspect of Islam preceded the religious aspect, that might change.  But that will happen only if a sufficient number of people are willing to go wherever the truth my take them. ~Eowyn Dr. Eowyn | April 24, 2012 at 9:56 am | Tags: Arab Empire, jihad, political theology, Quran, Robert Spencer, Sharia law | Categories: Culture War, God, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, United States | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-dRD Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/was-islams-founder-muhammad-a-real-man-or-an-invention/ Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Future Killer

encourage them to be all they can be without being in the Army
---
with the economy in the tank and unemployed college grads many of our
best will be lured into military service for benefits ... as if many
of their parents haven't done the same thing.

seeing our nations patriots used like mercenaries is a shame on us all

On Apr 24, 1:34 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Future Killerby Laurence M. Vance
> Thanks to theNo Child Left Behind Act, passed by some of the very Republicans who are now calling for its repeal, "each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings."
> But students at some high schools don't need to be conned by military recruiters into enlisting in the military – their parents will do it for them.
> In Fairfax County, Virginia,some parentssay that spring graduation ceremonies should recognize students who have chosen to enlist in the military instead of go to college. They are pressing the county school board "to acknowledge that volunteering for the armed forces is a commitment worthy of a public display of respect, with red, white, and blue 'honor cords' that graduates would wear around their necks as they receive diplomas."
> Honor cords are generally reserved for members of academic honor societies. If schools are going to give out honor cords to students for non-academic reasons, then they ought to be giving them out to recognize those students who have decided to pursue taxi driving, plumbing, and other practical occupations instead of joining the military.
> Some parents, however, don't wait until high school to influence their children to join the military.
> One of the benefits I enjoy as a writer for LewRockwell.com is the information I receive from perceptive readers, and especially veterans. Some of these veterans are so radically anti-war and anti-military that they make me look like a lightweight. A veteran and friend in Pennsylvania who is always on the lookout for military propaganda was browsing in the gift section of a Cracker Barrel restaurant and came across a T-shirt that he thought I would be interested in. He has since gone back and purchased it and mailed it to me. Here is a picture of it:
>
> There is a sticker on the shirt that says "official licensed product of the U.S. Army." If the shirt looks small it's because it is designed for a toddler. But you don't need to go to Cracker Barrel to get one. You can purchase the shirt online atarmedforcesgear.comin size 3T or 4T. "How cute will they look in their Army Future Soldier T-Shirt," says the ad copy.
> But if the Army told the truth (the Army didn't tell the truth to the family ofPat Tillman), it would change the wording on the T-shirt from Future Soldier to Future Killer.
> It's not just that toddlers who wear these shirts might end up accused of murdering Afghan civilians like Army sergeantRobert Bales, it's that they have a good chance of being sent to kill in some foreign war in the first place. None of the killings in Iraq and Afghanistan were justified since U.S. troops had no business traveling thousands of miles away to invade, bomb, and occupy countries that were not a threat to the United States. These wars werecriminalfrom the very beginning.
> Asothersand I have saidagainand again, U.S. troops aren't defending our freedoms, guaranteeing our First Amendment rights, keeping us safe from our enemies, protecting us from terrorists, avenging 9/11, safeguarding the American way of life, fighting "over there" so we don't have to fight "over here," defending this great nation, or any of the other phony-baloney slogans used as excuses for fighting unjust and immoral wars.
> But as bad as it is to be a Future Killer is, it's not just a Future Killer that these kids might become. There is a good change that they might also become a:Future suicideFuture victim of sexual assaultFuture substance abuserFuture basket caseFuture traumatic brain injury caseFuture disabled veteranFuture paraplegicFuture quadriplegicFuture death in vainFuture cannon fodder
> Parents, do your children a favor: encourage them to be all they can be without being in the Army.http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance288.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Must Watch Video on Young Willard Milton Romney and Vietnam

TOMMYTOMTOM,

I went to Vietnam... one of the bravest decisions I saw made during
that period was that of a friend of mine, Pete. Pete was a really
nice, very pro America, very anti-war, anti-draft young man....

He bet his future, his family, and everything he ever hoped and
dreamed of becoming and doing in order to stand firm for his
beliefs... he went to Canada and "dodged" the draft.

Mormon missions are decided when one is a very young man... what
language they will learn and be absolutely fluent in .... normally 12
or thirteen...sometimes much younger.

I doubt (and would bet my home) Vietnam had anything to do with Mitts
decision on where or when to go.

On Apr 24, 12:06 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Must Watch Video on Young Willard Milton Romney and Vietnam
>
> Watch Here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a94xVe1OW24
>
> --
> 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.

Choosing the Safest Path to ENDA

Op-ed: Choosing the Safest Path to ENDA
When the president decided not to sign an executive order banning
discrimination against LGBT people by federal contractors, he might
have thought further ahead than some activists.

By Andrew Tobias, op-ed contributor

Our community is disappointed the president has not signed an
executive order that would be the equivalent of the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act for federal contractors. The administration
has said it prefers a lasting legislative solution — ENDA itself —
that cannot be easily rescinded by the next president and that would
apply to all employers, not just federal contractors.

Of course, the current Congress won't pass ENDA. But that isn't where
the political logic should stop on this question.

Because ENDA is popular nationally, and because there is the very real
possibility we can return the Speaker's gavel to Nancy Pelosi November
6, it's not inconceivable it could pass next year. If Republicans
block it in the Senate, the president would then have even more reason
to sign an executive order — and at least three more years for it to
remain in effect and prove its worth (instead of eight months if
signed now and Romney wins).

Many cannot accept the administration's delay. Others think it's in
our own best interest in the long run. Let's start with the easy part.
We agree on two things:

(1) We deserve full equality now.

(2) We'll do much better with President Obama (and the kind of Supreme
Court justices he'll appoint) than with President Romney (and his
justices).

So it seems to me there are just two questions remaining on whether to
implement an executive order right now:

(1) How much risk, if any, is there that signing it could help Mitt
Romney win? Nationwide, ENDA enjoys strong support. But is there a
risk that a swing state like Virginia or North Carolina could be lost?
Picture such a state flooded with $20 million in grotesquely unfair,
Willie Horton-type ads featuring trial lawyers suing small business
owners over employee bathroom issues.

2. How much risk should we take to get the order signed this year
rather than next?

If you are certain that the answer to question Number 1 is "zero" –
that we couldn't possibly lose more votes than we gain in swing states
— then you either believe that Karl Rove and the Koch brothers would
never stoop to exploiting us in hateful ways, or you believe the
Virginia electorate is too sophisticated in matters of gender identity
to fall for any of it. In which case, that's that: The decision, for
you, is an easy one.

But if you think there may be some small risk — say 5% — then there's
a trade-off. On the one hand, we get the executive order now. On the
other hand, we risk seeing it rescinded when Romney takes office. We
risk seeing the Supreme Court lost for 20 years, seeing 40 million
people lose the health insurance they were finally going to get,
seeing those of us with "pre-existing conditions" once again at risk,
seeing yet more denial of the environmental challenges that quite
literally threaten humanity, and seeing a concerted effort to roll
back much of the LGBT progress made these last three years. (Here is
that progress. Are any of the listed items steps McCain/Palin would
have taken?)

http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality

Having lived through the Bush years because of the narrowest of losses
in swing states such as Florida and New Mexico (and the loss in
Tennessee), I am risk averse. And the stakes in 2012 are even higher
than they were in 2000.

To be "courageous" on the topic of the executive order may actually
mean standing up to those who would risk everything to get it a year
sooner.

Reasonable people can disagree about the best strategy – whether to
take the small risk of catastrophe or wait a year.

I believe that people on both sides of this issue are ardently
pro-equality – as is the Obama administration. (Again, I refer you to
that list.)

http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality

More:
http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/Oped_Choosing_the_Safest_Path_to_ENDA/

--
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.