Tuesday, 3 September 2013

What is Environmental Health Science, and why should you care!

Science
Investigation. Education . Say. An international leader in the field of environment and health , promoting the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Michigan School of Public Health Excellence , innovation and interdisciplinary collaboration .
Our mission is to enhance the knowledge, researchers and practitioners develop and communicate science-based evidence to improve health and prevent damage.

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

--
--
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.

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: A Black Reporter Summarizes Barack



 




A Black Reporter Summarizes Barack



The below summarization of Barack and Michelle Obama?s 5 year reign in the
White House is by far the best I?ve ever read as ...it squarely hits the
nail on the head. And it took a black reporter writing it to make it as
effective as it is. A white man?s account would be instantly criticized by
the liberal media as pure racism. But, how can anyone scream Racist when an
exacting description of the Obamas is penned by a well known journalist of
color?



BEST SUMMATION OF BARACK AND MICHELLE EVER!

Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.



The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the
Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the
Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect)
their Christmas family picture."



The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology,
and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no
secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked
me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed
to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded
as a Communist state.



I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the
worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for
traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office
he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw
contempt for white America is transpicuous. I don't like them because they
comport themselves as emperor and empress.



I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our
country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of
same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the
country and her people.



The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we
could accomplish. Obama's arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and
constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the
MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you
envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like
jack-booted thugs?



Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much
expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that
low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity,
subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the
citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.



I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the
case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police
of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to not being able to be
proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to
those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien
relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but
rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.



Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of
every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same. I
have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they
have something to hide." No president in history has spent millions of
dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.



And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied
about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems
with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank
stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's
military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the
world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated
and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with
the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today.



He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned
Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and
aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady as her
personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit
card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing
their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly
showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and
fomenting class warfare.



I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public
condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the
disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional
actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by,
and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.



Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has
everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have
open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.



I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest
possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did
President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for
what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white
president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord
over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.



As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never
in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty
in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have
ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors,
his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the
bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood...



Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was
elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar,
a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies,
intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders
He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while
America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."






 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Law enforcement gets own social media sites








 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/02/20295392-have-you-liked-your-cop-today-law-enforcement-gets-own-social-media-sites?lite

 

Have you 'liked' your cop today? Law enforcement gets own social media sites [cid:image001.jpg@01CEA889.324212E0]

 

20for25.com

 

20for25.com launched in August as the social media site 'for cops by cops.'

By M. Alex Johnson, Staff Writer, NBC News

 

If you're a cop, Facebook can be a minefield. It's not a good idea to sound off about the sergeant or hash over confidential investigative techniques with your buddies — and 1.2 billion other users. But what if there were a Facebook just for cops?

 

It turns out there is. 20for25.com<http://20for25.com> launched two weeks ago as a closed, secure social media site "for cops by cops."

 

"Law enforcement professionals need a place to network, share training ideas, and socialize in a medium that is safe and secure," the new site said in an announcement of its launch Aug. 19. So before law enforcement officers can complete registration, 20for25 ("10-20" is standard police code for a location report, and "10-25" is a request to meet in person) verifies their credentials with their employing agency.

 

20for25 isn't alone in the market. In October, former New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton will launch BlueLine, " the secure professional network built exclusively for law enforcement."

 

"At a time when the growing global market for social networking solutions is transforming corporations, the public safety community — individuals with perhaps the greatest need for real-time collaboration — has been left behind with analog tools," BlueLine's parent company, Bratton Technologies, says in its funding pitch through AngelList, the Silicon Valley startup incubator that has nurtured such successes as Uber, Voxer, 500px and Disqus.

 

(Bratton is a law enforcement analyst for NBC News.)

 

BlueLine is less like Facebook than 20for25 is. It'll also provide mechanisms for the thousands of U.S. law enforcement agencies to collaborate in real time, as well as a private marketplace to buy and sell equipment.

 

BlueLine has been in beta testing at three California police agencies since July, including the Los Angeles Police Department. It isn't yet publicly viewable, but the Bratton technologies provided a screenshot of its implementation at the LAPD:

[cid:image002.jpg@01CEA889.324212E0]

 

Bratton Technologies

 

BlueLine, a closed social network for law enforcement and security officers, has been in beta testing at the Los Angeles Police Department and other agencies since July and will launch in October at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Philadelphia.

 

Public safety officers are, by definition, public employees, answerable to the public. So why do they need a private network at all, let alone two?

 

After all, neither site is, or can be, completely private.

 

20for25 stresses<http://20for25.com/privacy.php> that it will not "use, sell or disclose your personal information for any other purpose without your consent unless required by law." [Emphasis added.]

 

Not yet having publicly launched, BlueLine doesn't have a specific policy posted. Bratton Technologies, its parent company, has a similar policy<http://www.brattontech.com/privacy/>, saying it will never share information without permission — except "when we believe release is appropriate to comply with the law or to protect the rights, property, or safety of Bratton Technologies, our users, or others.

 

The real selling point is safety.

 

"The power of the Internet — social media in particular — has brought danger home to officers and their families," the FBI warned in a report in November<http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/november-2012/social-media-and-law-enforcement>. "They cannot shield themselves as easily from the repercussions of their jobs defending the community."

"In the past, police could to some extent protect themselves and their loved ones from threats," it said in the November issue of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.

 

But "with increased exposure of personal information through social media, preventing these antagonists from crossing the line that separates officers' professional and personal lives is difficult," it said.

 

BlueLine will launch in Philadelphia in October at the annual conference of the International Associations of Chiefs of Police, which has invested heavily in law enforcement-related social media education and advocacy.

 

The IACP Center for Social Media is devoted primarily to helping agencies use social media to reach out to the public, but it also notes scenarios in which social media can bite back.

 

Public posts commenting on active cases can jeopardize investigations and even end up as grounds for successful appeals, it warns, and criminals have been documented using photos that officers have posted online to track them down.

 

"Postings by officers and other emergency responders continue to make headlines nationwide and very publicly cast doubt on those officers and their abilities to make good judgments," Boise, Idaho, Police Chief Michael Masterson reports in the current issue of the IACP's magazine, The Police Chief<http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&article_id=2426&issue_id=72011>.

 

Cops will always vent, Masterson writes, but "a passing thought or a gripe posted on Twitter or Facebook is not kept among friends; it could essentially be available to the entire social networking universe."

 

"New technologies are presenting new challenges for officer safety in a huge variety of ways, and those technologies are developing at a frantic and almost overwhelming pace," he said.

 



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Obama's Snooping Excludes Mosques, Missed Boston Bombers




 

 

Before you read this article, take a good look at this distribution map, look at your state, and know that mosques are and have been off-limits to FBI agents because NSA surveillance completely excludes Mosques!

 

This completely defeats the purpose of 'protecting America' via spying as virtually all of the terrorism in this country (and abroad) is perpetuated by radicalized Islamic Muslims. Furthermore, we can assume that this policy will continue as many of our elected politicians have been penetrated by Islamic handlers.

 

Obama's Snooping Excludes Mosques, Missed Boston Bombers

Jun 13 2013 

 

Homeland Insecurity: The White House assures that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is to stop terrorists, and yet it won't snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are.

That's right, the government's sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.

Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.

Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.

We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel's formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.

Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted dozens of plots against the homeland.

If only they were allowed to continue, perhaps the many victims of the Boston Marathon bombings would not have lost their lives and limbs. The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15 attacks, and it did not check out the radical Boston mosque where the Muslim bombers worshipped.

The bureau didn't even contact mosque leaders for help in identifying their images after those images were captured on closed-circuit TV cameras and cellphones.

One of the Muslim bombers made extremist outbursts during worship, yet because the mosque wasn't monitored, red flags didn't go off inside the FBI about his increasing radicalization before the attacks.

This is particularly disturbing in light of recent independent surveys of American mosques, which reveal some 80% of them preach violent jihad or distribute violent literature to worshippers.

What other five-alarm jihadists are counterterrorism officials missing right now, thanks to restrictions on monitoring the one area they should be monitoring?

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [New post] U.S. soldiers in open rebellion against Obama’s war in Syria

Vote on Syria Sets Up Foreign Policy Clash Between 2 Wings of G.O.P.

Jewel Samad/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Senators John McCain, left, and Lindsey Graham after meeting with President Obama on Monday to discuss an attack on Syria. Both senators favor intervention.

WASHINGTON — The Congressional vote on whether to strike Syria will offer the best insight yet on which wing of the Republican Party — the traditional hawks, or a growing bloc of noninterventionists — has the advantage in the fierce internal debates over foreign policy that have been taking place all year.


Multimedia
Timothy D. Easley/Associated Press

Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, left, and Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, in Kentucky in August.

Republican divisions on national security have flared over the use of drones, aid to Egypt and the surveillance practices of the National Security Agency, and the tensions have played out publicly in battles between Senator John McCain of Arizona, a former Navy pilot and Vietnam prisoner of war, and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a libertarian-leaning freshman. Mr. McCain memorably called Mr. Paul and his compatriots "wacko birds," and Mr. Paul suggested that hawks like Mr. McCain were "moss covered."

But those intermittent spats could pale in comparison with the fight over whether to attack Syria, an issue on which Mr. McCain, a former Republican presidential candidate, and Mr. Paul, a possible contender in 2016, will almost certainly be the leading spokesmen for their party's two wings.

Mr. McCain has long advocated intervention in Syria's civil war. After meeting with President Obama at the White House on Monday, he said that it would be "catastrophic" if Congress did not approve the president's proposal and that such a rejection would result in the United States's credibility being "shredded."

Mr. Paul on Sunday made clear his opposition to Mr. Obama's proposal, taking to Twitter and the talk shows to taunt Secretary of State John Kerry.

"John Kerry is, you know, he's famous for saying, you know, how can you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?" Mr. Paul said. "I would ask John Kerry, how can you ask a man to be the first one to die for a mistake?"

A top aide to Mr. Paul said Sunday that the senator would mount a lobbying campaign in the House, where senior leaders like Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, who is the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, will face off against a new vanguard of members like Justin Amash, Republican of Michigan, who are opposed to what they see as risky foreign entanglements.

But even Republicans who are not active supporters of Mr. Paul recognize that the country and their party are susceptible to a come-home-America message at a moment of war weariness and, among conservatives, profound distrust toward Mr. Obama.

"Americans have become increasingly inured to events thousands of miles away, within a distant and disconnected culture," said a longtime Republican strategist, Alex Castellanos, citing a nation "exhausted by crises." "They know our country is already overextended and doubt leaders who tell them there are 'no good options' but demand we choose one anyway."

As a result, Mr. Castellanos said, "Rand Paul is actually in sync with a crisis-weary America and a fatigued G.O.P."

Mr. Paul is very much aware that the vote offers just that chance to reorient, at least for now, the Republican center on foreign affairs. And the debate gives him the chance to re-establish himself as the leading voice of the libertarian-leaning Tea Party movement after months in which Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has won significant attention.

To Republicans concerned about next year's midterm elections, such a divisive public battle amounts to a distraction. They would prefer to focus on issues that voters say they are most interested in: taxes, spending, Mr. Obama's health care law.

But the Syria measure also has important implications for the 2016 Republican presidential contest. White House hopefuls in Congress will be forced to choose between the wishes of Tea Party activists opposed to a strike and the wishes of more traditional Republicans, whose ranks include some major donors and Israel supporters with whom presidential candidates typically align themselves.

And as the hawks are aware, a "yea" vote on taking action in Syria would put potential opponents of Mr. Paul, like Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and Mr. Cruz, on the same side as Mr. Obama.

Dan Senor, a Republican strategist and foreign policy hand in President George W. Bush's administration, lamented the trend of what he called "neo-isolationism" in either the Democratic or Republican Party when it does not hold the White House. But he acknowledged that the current mood of Republicans left Mr. Paul in a better position.

"He is a skilled enough politician to tap into these sentiments and take advantage of them," Mr. Senor said.


On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:20:56 PM UTC-5, Travis wrote:




Dr. Eowyn posted: " As the two duplicitous heads (Boehner, Reid) of the two useless houses of the self-serving Congress fall into lockstep behind Pres. Lucifer, clamoring for "a military strike" war against Syria, no one cares about how either the American people (who wi"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

U.S. soldiers in open rebellion against Obama's war in Syria

by Dr. Eowyn

6

As the two duplicitous heads (Boehner, Reid) of the two useless houses of the self-serving Congress fall into lockstep behind Pres. Lucifer, clamoring for "a military strike" war against Syria, no one cares about how either the American people (who will have to bear stratospheric increases in gas prices) or our soldiers (who risk being maimed or killed) think or feel.

More and more of those service members, however, are risking punishment by speaking out.

Michael Snyder reports for Activist Post, Sept. 2, 2013, that U.S. Representative Justin Amash recently sent out a tweet with the following message: "I've been hearing a lot from members of our Armed Forces. The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action against Syria."

Business Insider asked members of the military to write to them and tell them what they thought about a potential conflict with Syria. 50 of the 52 members of the military who responded were against war with Syria. The following is one example:

I'm a U.S. Air Force vet who spent a solid 6 years shuttling between Afghanistan and Iraq, doing everything from combat airdrops to medevacs to hauling flag-draped coffins," wrote one servicemember in an email, who also mentioned travel to 38 countries in that time. "What we do not need is another war, and we certainly do not need any further involvement in a civil war where our objective isn't clear, and our allies aren't really our allies.

And it is not just the rank and file that are against war with Syria. According to the Washington Post, many among the top military brass are expressing "serious reservations" about taking action in Syria:

The Obama administration's plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers. Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.

This is not about being reflexively anti-war. This is about not wanting to shed American blood in an Islamic civil war where neither side is our friend. Anyone who believes that the Syrian rebels are the "good guys" is being delusional.

None other than the U.S. State Department has admitted that the al-Nusra Front rebels are a terrorist organization that is affiliated with al-Qaeda.

Even the head of al-Qaeda says that the Syrian rebels are working for his side. In an audio recording on Thursday, Al Qaeda's leader Ayman al-Zawahri announced his support for the Syrian rebels and stated that the overthrow of the Assad regime is a "necessary" step towards the ultimate objective of the defeat of Israel: "Supporting jihad in Syria to establish a Muslim state is a basic step towards Jerusalem."

Neither Obama nor those in Congress are stupid. So I can only assume they have their own mysterious malevolent reasons. But our military service members would have to be insane to want to put their lives on the line to help al-Qaeda take over Syria.

And they increasingly are speaking out.

It began with this U.S. Navy petty officer who had his picture taken wearing his dress uniform but obscuring his face because he's risking a court martial and/or expulsion for publicly defying his Commander In Chief:

No war in Syria

The Navy officer was quickly joined by a Marine sergeant:

MarineThen other service members flooded a new Twitter hashtag (#IDidntJoin) with messages their displeasure with the idea of being forced to fight for al-Qaeda in Syria.

Below are photos taken from #IDidntJoin Twitter of more U.S. military service members publicly declaring that they do not want war with Syria.

No Syria war1No Syria war2No Syria war3No Syria war4No Syria war537125

Not a single drop of precious American blood should ever be shed for al-Qaeda. Join the Twitter hashtag (#IDidntJoin) anti-SyriaWar movement by posting a pic of yourself with a sign supporting our men and women in the military!

See also:

~Eowyn

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/2013/09/03/u-s-soldiers-in-open-rebellion-against-obamas-war-in-syria/

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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] Obama Approves Oil Pipeline Between Iraq & Jordan: Spreading The Wealth By Blood & Treasure





Volubrjotr posted: " Nihad Mossa, director general of the Ministry of Oil's State Company for Oil Projects (SCOP), told The Jordan Times on Monday that Jordan and Iraq have signed an $18-billion agreement to build a 1,056 mile double pipeline that will supply Jordan with "

New post on Political Vel Craft

Obama Approves Oil Pipeline Between Iraq & Jordan: Spreading The Wealth By Blood & Treasure

by Volubrjotr

Nihad Mossa, director general of the Ministry of Oil's State Company for Oil Projects (SCOP), told The Jordan Times on Monday that Jordan and Iraq have signed an $18-billion agreement to build a 1,056 mile double pipeline that will supply Jordan with crude oil and natural gas. Iraq Inflation 2.3% Jordan Inflation 5.6% Obama Throws […]

Read more of this post

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2013/09/03/obama-approves-oil-pipeline-between-iraq-jordan-spreading-the-wealth-by-blood-treasure/

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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.