Monday, 30 December 2013

Re: [New post] Muslim Persecution of Christians: October, 2013

Muslim Persecution of Christians
---
not an American concern.

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 3:01:32 PM UTC-6, Travis wrote:




creeping posted: "More Slaughter in Muslim Lands; Media, Governments Silent  by Raymond Ibrahim "Don't they know that the Koran orders us to slit the throat of whoever is disrespectful to Allah's beloved prophet?" — Representative of Jamaat ud Dawa. Although Christi"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Creeping Sharia

Muslim Persecution of Christians: October, 2013

by creeping

More Slaughter in Muslim Lands; Media, Governments Silent  by Raymond Ibrahim "Don't they know that the Koran orders us to slit the throat of whoever is disrespectful to Allah's beloved prophet?" — Representative of Jamaat ud Dawa. Although Christians are habitually killed in Muslim countries, as this series attests, the U.S. government rarely condemns the […]

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Creeping Sharia.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/muslim-persecution-of-christians-october-2013/

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.

Re: Massive global push to criminalize all dissent against Islam

Massive global push to criminalize all dissent against Islam

----
A new resolution passed by the California State Assembly attempts to limit criticism of Israeli policy on college campuses by equating it with anti-Semitic hate speech. The law urges "California colleges and universities to squelch nascent anti-Semitism" and "encourages university leaders to combat a wide array of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel actions," according to the Associated Press.

The jews at the ADL  helped create S.B. 1977, California's 'anti-hate' statute, which forbids criticism of homosexuality in the public schools. It was written by liberal Jewish activist and ADL lackey Rep.Sheila Kuehl.

On their website, the ADL boasts that their involvement in getting the Supreme Court to ban prayer in public schools is their "greatest accomplishment." 


On Sunday, December 29, 2013 3:04:45 PM UTC-6, Travis wrote:






Massive global push to criminalize all dissent against Islam officially begins

 

Robert Moon

 

December 24, 2013

In yet another openly hostile, in-your-face act of intimidation against anyone who dares to disagree with the "Religion of Peace," 57 Muslim countries around the world are now coming together to pressure Western countries into silencing and prosecuting any and all criticism of Islam as a "hate crime."

As Investor's Business Daily explains, it is all happening under the banner of a Saudi-based group called the "Organization of Islamic Cooperation," which released its 94-page document on "Islamophobia" (noticing Islamic violence is fear-based bigotry) in recent weeks.

If this calculated attempt to obliterate all dissent has its way, it will officially become a felony in the U.S. and Europe for citizens to even suggest "that Muslims are inclined to violence" or that "Islam is an inherently expansionist religion."

Never mind the fact that huge portions of Muslims in countries all around the world admittedly believe adulterers and non-believers should be put to death, support suicide bombing civilians, and endorse honor killings.

Or that these are the same people who routinely stone women to death for being raped, who erupt into murderous worldwide riots over cartoons, and who danced in the streets on 9/11.

Or that Islam was founded at the tip of a sword. Or that its Koran openly teaches violent jihad against all non-believers. Or that Islam has remained entrenched in self-initiated carnage in every corner of the world since its bloody inception.

Islam revolves around violent expansion and conquest. Every last thing that in any way indicates something about a religion confirms this--its history, its founder, its teachings, its followers...everything.

But noticing this or objecting in any way is to be condemned and persecuted as "hate speech." Instead, we are to believe that approximately one abortion clinic bombing per decade makes Christians the dangerous extremists here...while Islam is just a misunderstood "religion of peace."

Incidentally, it is also worth noting that the "pro-tolerance," "pro-diversity" liberals who defend Islam as it murders, mutilates and enslaves women across the globe are the very same champions of civility who vindictively smear anyone who objects to limitless taxpayer-funded abortion and contraceptives as being "at war with women."



__._,_.___
 


           

__,_._,___


--
--
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: We're About to Lose Net Neutrality - And the Internet as We Know It







http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/so-the-internets-about-to-lose-its-net-neutrality

We're About to Lose Net Neutrality — And the Internet as We Know It

Net neutrality is a dead man walking. The execution date isn't set, but it could be days, or months (at best). And since net neutrality is the principle forbidding huge telecommunications companies from treating users, websites, or apps differently — say, by letting some work better than others over their pipes — the dead man walking isn't some abstract or far-removed principle just for wonks: It affects the internet as we all know it.

Once upon a time, companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and others declared a war on the internet's foundational principle: that its networks should be "neutral" and users don't need anyone's permission to invent, create, communicate, broadcast, or share online. The neutral and level playing field provided by permissionless innovation has empowered all of us with the freedom to express ourselves and innovate online without having to seek the permission of a remote telecom executive.

But today, that freedom won't survive much longer if a federal court — the second most powerful court in the nation behind the Supreme Court, the DC Circuit — is set to strike down the nation's net neutrality law, a rule adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 2010. Some will claim the new solution "splits the baby" in a way that somehow doesn't kill net neutrality and so we should be grateful. But make no mistake: Despite eight years of public and political activism by multitudes fighting for freedom on the internet, a court decision may soon take it away.

 

Marvin Ammori is a Future Tense Fellow at the New America Foundation and a lawyer who represents technology companies on internet policy issues. He is also the cofounder of a startup, Wearab.ly, which enables content to be distributed to wearable devices. A graduate of Harvard Law School, Ammori serves on the boards of Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, and Engine Advocacy. Fast Company named him one of the 100 Most Creative People in Business in 2012 for being Silicon Valley's "go-to First Amendment guy" and one of the leaders of the campaign against SOPA and PIPA.

 

Game of Loopholes and Rules

How did we get here?

The CEO of AT&T told an interviewer back in 2005 that he wanted to introduce a new business model to the internet: charging companies like Google and Yahoo! to reliably reach internet users on the AT&T network. Keep in mind that users already pay to access the internet and that Google and Yahoo! already pay other telecom companies — often called backbone providers — to connect to these internet users. [Disclosure: I have done legal work for several companies supporting network neutrality, including Google.]

But AT&T wanted to add an additional toll, beyond what it already made from the internet. Shortly after that, a Verizon executive voiced agreement, hoping to end what he called tech companies' "free lunch". It turns out that around the same time, Comcast had begun secretly trialing services to block some of the web's most popular applications that could pose a competitive threat to Comcast, such as BitTorrent.

Yet the phone and cable companies tried to dress up their plans as a false compromise. Counterintuitively, they supported telecommunications legislation in 2006 that would authorize the FCC to stop phone and cable companies from blocking websites.

There was a catch, however. The bills included an exception that swallowed the rule: the FCC would be unable to stop cable and phone companies from taxing innovators or providing worse service to some sites and better service to others. Since we know internet users tend to quit using a website or application if it loads even just a few seconds slower than a competitor's version, this no-blocking rule would essentially have enabled the phone and cable companies to discriminate by picking website/app/platform winners and losers. (Congress would merely enact the loophole. Think of it as a safe harbor for discriminating online.)

Luckily, consumer groups, technology companies, political leaders, and American citizens saw through the nonsense and rallied around a principle to preserve the internet's openness. They advocated for one simple, necessary rule — a nondiscrimination principle that became known as "network neutrality". This principle would forbid phone and cable companies not only from blocking — but also from discriminating between or entering in special business deals to the benefit of — some sites over others.

Unfortunately, the FCC decision that included the nondiscrimination rule still had major loopholes — especially when it came to mobile networks.

Both sides battled out the issues before Congress, federal agencies, and in several senate and presidential campaigns over the next five years. These fights culminated in the 2010 FCC decision that included the nondiscrimination rule.

Unfortunately, the rule still had major loopholes — especially when it came to mobile networks. It also was built, to some extent, on a shaky political foundation because the then-FCC chairman repeatedly folded when facing pressure. Still, the adopted rule was better than nothing, and it was a major advance over AT&T's opening bid in 2005 of a no-blocking rule.

As a result, Verizon took the FCC to court to void the 2010 FCC rule. Verizon went to court to attack the part of the rule forbidding them from discriminating among websites and applications; from setting up — on what we once called the information superhighway — the equivalents of tollbooths, fast lanes, and dirt roads.

There and Back Again

So that's where we are today — waiting for the second most powerful court in the nation, the DC Circuit, to rule in Verizon's case. During the case's oral argument, back in early September, corporate lobbyists, lawyers, financial analysts, and consumer advocates packed into the courtroom: some sitting, some standing, some relegated to an overflow room.

Since then, everyone interested in internet freedom has been waiting for an opinion — including everyday folks who search the web or share their thoughts in 140 characters; and including me, who argued the first (losing) network neutrality case before the DC Circuit in 2010.

Web and mobile companies will live or die not on the merits of their technology, but on the deals they can strike with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others.

But, in their questions and statements during oral argument, the judges have made clear how they planned to rule — for the phone and cable companies, not for those who use the internet. While the FCC has the power to impose the toothless "no-blocking" rule (originally proposed by AT&T above), it does not (the court will say) have the power to impose the essential "nondiscrimination" rule.

It looks like we'll end up where AT&T initially began: a false compromise.

The implications of such a decision would be profound. Web and mobile companies will live or die not on the merits of their technology and design, but on the deals they can strike with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and others. This means large phone and cable companies will be able to "shakedown" startups and established companies in every sector, requiring payment for reliable service. In fact, during the oral argument in the current case, Verizon's lawyer said, "I'm authorized to state from my client today that but for these [FCC] rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements."

Wait, it gets even worse. Pricing isn't even a necessary forcing factor. Once the court voids the nondiscrimination rule, AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast will be able to deliver some sites and services more quickly and reliably than others for any reason. Whim. Envy. Ignorance. Competition. Vengeance. Whatever. Or, no reason at all.

So what if you've got a great new company, an amazing group of founders, a seat in a reputable accelerator program, great investors and mentors. With the permission-based innovation over "our pipes" desired from the likes of Comcast, Verizon and AT&T… there's no meritocracy here.

Of course, despite everything the judges suggested during the two-hour argument, it's possible that they offer net neutrality a reprieve. Given how sticky this morass is, there's one simple way for you to judge the opinion: If the court throws out the non-discrimination rule, permission-less innovation on the internet as we know it is done. If the nondiscrimination rule miraculously survives, then, for now at least, so too will freedom on the internet.

 



__._,_.___
 


           

__,_._,___


--
--
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: The New York Times' Benghazi Revisionism: Only Trying to Help Hillary for 2016








Hey, hey.  Ho, ho.  Hillfullofbeans has got to go.

The New York Times' Benghazi Revisionism

Posted By Matthew Vadum On December 30, 2013To help put Hillary Clinton in the White House, the once-great New York Times has published a dubious report swallowing the Obama administration's lies about the Sept. 11, 2012 Islamist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

In an act of journalistic malfeasance, the agenda-setting newspaper of record concluded over the weekend that the once-obscure "Innocence of Muslims" YouTube video sparked the armed assault that left four Americans dead at the height of last year's presidential election cycle. The newspaper also concluded that al-Qaeda wasn't involved, ignoring the mountain of evidence suggesting al-Qaeda was involved.

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO's extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

Evidently the Old Gray Lady didn't look too hard for the truth.

From the outset the Obama administration said that what happened in Benghazi was a spontaneous riot identical to what had taken place in Cairo, Egypt, a short time before.

The administration claimed that the Benghazi violence was a spontaneous protest that somehow got out of hand. The official line was that a demonstration outside the U.S. mission in Benghazi grew increasingly violent and that protesters unconnected to terrorist groups eventually stormed the facility.

Not long after the attack National Security Adviser Susan Rice told Fox's Chris Wallace that,

the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.

Weeks later the Obama administration changed its tune, admitting as more and more evidence accumulated that terrorist groups were involved in planning and carrying out the attack.

After Rice's TV appearance, the State Department said that there were no protests whatsoever outside the consulate before the attack. The tale that Rice told of "mobs" and "protests" spiraling out of control was an utter fabrication. It was a bald-faced lie told with a straight face to the American people on national TV.

Why would the administration go on with this charade? Mostly likely to downplay the threat of Islamic jihad during Obama's reelection campaign. President Obama had gone to great lengths to declare that al-Qaeda was in decline thanks to his efforts. It is clear that the Benghazi attack was premeditated and planned, though the exact details of for how long and by whom remain a bit fuzzy.

Like radical leftist fabulist Oliver Stone laboring to create his crazy-quilt alternative myth explaining the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the New York Times is attempting to rewrite the narrative about what really happened in Benghazi and afterwards. It is trying to resurrect the Obama administration's original line of argument in order to create wiggle room for Hillary Clinton who has been scathingly criticized by Republican lawmakers and the occasional Democrat for bungling the Benghazi saga.

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas), an outspoken critic of the Obama administration's handling of the Benghazi saga, was not impressed, saying a proper congressional investigation is urgently needed to clear the air.

"This is why I introduced my discharge petition to force a full investigation into the Benghazi attacks with full subpoena power," Stockman, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told FrontPage. "So far we have had only partial, limited investigations. I hope Speaker Boehner will immediately bring my petition to the floor so justice can be served."

Stockman's discharge petition, House Resolution 306, would establish "a select committee to investigate and report on the attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya." Boehner has been blocking Stockman's request for months.

Amidst White House stonewalling, intimidation of witnesses, and Republican gutlessness, little has been done to move the ball forward in the investigation surrounding the deaths on Sept. 11, 2012, of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith, and security personnel Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods at U.S. facilities in eastern Libya.

But on "Fox News Sunday," House Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), rejected the New York Times story. "I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that," he said, adding several times that the article was "not accurate."

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), also on the show, also rejected the newspaper report, saying "intelligence indicates al-Qaeda was involved."

On Saturday, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a member and former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News the contention in the NYT article that the militia group Ansar al-Shariah — not al-Qaeda — led the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, was an exercise in semantics.

"It's misleading," said King, given that Ansar al-Shariah is widely believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda. "It's a distinction without a difference."

The New York Times article, allegedly the work product of a team of researchers, also contradicts the testimony of Greg Hicks, the deputy of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was murdered during the attack. Hicks said the "Innocence of Muslims" video, which portrayed the Islamic prophet Mohammed in an unflattering manner, was "a non-event in Libya" at that time and didn't precipitate the Benghazi attack.

As previously noted, the obvious goal of this breathtakingly dishonest move is to insulate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from criticism for her role in the affair. It is no understatement to suggest that there is a vast left-wing media conspiracy aimed at maintaining the political viability of the woman who coined the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy" as a red herring to explain away the problems of her corrupt, lawbreaking husband, then-President Bill Clinton.

The Left's coverup of the Obama administration's mishandling of the Benghazi saga began as soon as the attack got underway a little over 15 months ago. A coordinated effort to deflect blame from President Obama, at that time involved in a competitive reelection fight, was directed by the White House with the assistance of dupes in the media.

Even the hapless Candy Crowley got involved in defending Obama when during a televised presidential debate she slapped down GOP candidate Mitt Romney for correctly stating that "it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror." Obama got more support from the left-wing media and the George Soros-funded Media Matters for America, which went on to publish a book titled The Benghazi Hoax, by Media Matters founder and confessed liar David Brock, in order to provide progressive dupes with talking points to regurgitate.

The New York Times story comes as Democrats grow increasingly nervous about an electoral wipeout in the congressional elections in November 2014. Evidence of Democrat jitters abounds. Republicans lead Democrats in the generic congressional ballot by 5 percentage points as public disapproval of President Obama and Obamacare continue to rise.

The Obama White House is preparing to flood the airwaves with pro-Affordable Care Act propaganda showing alleged Obamacare success stories. Over the weekend the Democratic National Committee sent out a mass email to Obama supporters warning that Republicans are preparing to impeach the 44th president. The email referred to the "I-Word" and said that "Republicans are actually excited about the idea." Actually, only a handful of Republican lawmakers would like to move forward with impeachment proceedings. Members of the GOP leadership are terrified of taking action out of a paralyzing fear of being tarred as bigots by left-wingers who characterize virtually all criticism of Obama as motivated by racial antagonism.

The Left will do whatever it takes to decouple Hillary Clinton in the public mind from the fiasco in Benghazi. Expect many more blatant media attempts to rehabilitate her stained legacy as Secretary of State to come.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/matthew-vadum/the-new-york-times-benghazi-revisionism/

 



__._,_.___



           

__,_._,___


--
--
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] Why are 8 Democrats sponsoring a bill to eliminate the death penalty for treason?




Dr. Eowyn posted: "Nearly a year ago, on January 2, 2012, eight Democrats in the House introduced a curious piece of legislation -- H.R. 3741: Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2013, which seeks to abolish the death penalty under federal law. But the bill has only just"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Why are 8 Democrats sponsoring a bill to eliminate the death penalty for treason?

by Dr. Eowyn

Nearly a year ago, on January 2, 2012, eight Democrats in the House introduced a curious piece of legislation -- H.R. 3741: Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2013, which seeks to abolish the death penalty under federal law. But the bill has only just been discovered by the media, notably The Hill on Dec. 16, 2013.

HR 3741 specifically prevents anyone from being sentenced to death or put to death for all federal offenses that presently would bring the death penalty. Those offenses include:

1. Homicide-related offenses:

  • Murder related to the smuggling of aliens (illegal immigrants)
  • Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related facilities, resulting in death.
  • Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting
  • Murder committed at an airport serving international civil aviation
  • Murder committed using chemical weapons
  • Civil rights offenses relating in death
  • Murder of a member of Congress, an important executive official, or a Supreme Court justice
  • Death resulting from offenses involving transportation of explosives, destruction of government property, or destruction of property related to foreign or interstate commerce
  • Murder committed by use of a firearm or armor piercing ammunition during commission of a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime
  • Genocide
  • First degree murder
  • Murder by a federal prisoner
  • Murder of a state or local law enforcement official or other person aiding in a federal investigation; murder of a state correctional officer
  • Murder during a kidnapping
  • Murder during a hostage-taking
  • Murder with the intent of preventing testimony by a witness, victim, or informant
  • Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or resulting in death
  • Assassination or kidnapping resulting in the death of the president or vice-president
  • Murder for hire
  • Murder involved in a racketeering offense
  • Willful wreckage of a train resulting in death
  • Bank robbery-related murder or kidnapping
  • Murder related to a carjacking
  • Murder related to aggravated child sexual abuse
  • Murder related to sexual exploitation of children
  • Murder committed during an offense against maritime navigation
  •  Murder committed during an offense against a maritime fixed platform
  • Murder using devices or dangerous substances in waters of the United States
  • Murder involving the transportation of explosive, biological, chemical, or radioactive or nuclear materials
  • Murder involving the destruction of vessel or maritime facility
  • Murder of a United States national in another country
  • Murder by the use of a weapon of mass destruction
  • Murder by act of terrorism transcending national boundaries
  • Murder involving torture
  • Murder involving a war crime
  • Murder related to a continuing criminal enterprise or related murder of a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer
  • Death resulting from aircraft hijacking

2. Non-homicide related offenses:

  • Espionage
  • Treason

3. Title 10: Offenses include

  • conspiracy
  • desertion
  • assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer
  • mutiny or sedition
  • misbehavior before the enemy
  • subordinate compelling surrender
  • improper use of countersign
  • forcing a safeguard
  • aiding the enemy
  • spies
  • espionage
  • improper hazarding of vessel
  • misbehavior of sentinel
  • murder
  • death or injury of an unborn child
  • crimes triable by military commission

HR 3741 also states: "Anyone who was already sentenced to death for a federal crime prior to the bill taking effect would have that sentence reduced to a lifetime prison sentence without any possibility of parole."

Nothing happens in politics without a reason. Certainly, members of the United States Congress, who are more preoccupied with fundraising for their reelection than with legislating, don't propose bills without a reason.

We must therefore ask ourselves the reason for HR 3741. Is it motivated by Altruism, the highest and most selfless form of charity?

The answer, I submit, can be found in two clues:

1. The bill stretches credulity by the sheer scope of the crimes for the elimination of death penalty as punishment, including even for such egregious acts as genocide, mutiny, sedition, murder by use of a weapon of mass destruction, not to mention assassination of the U.S. president or vice-president, and of members of Congress. If genocide doesn't warrant the death penalty, what would? Why not just abolish the death penalty altogether?

2. The bill's sponsors:

They are eight -- a sponsor and 7 co-sponsors:

  • Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), the sponsor of HR 3741.
  • Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.)
  • Keith Ellison (D-Minn.): the first Muslim to be elected to the U.S. Congress.
  • Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
  • Hank Johnson (D-Ga.): the bright bulb who thinks the island of Guam would tip over because of more U.S. troops.
  • John Lewis (D-Ga.)
  • Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)
  • José Serrano (D-N.Y.)

Edwards, Cummings, Ellisonl to r: Donna Edwards, Elijah Cummings, Keith Ellison

Lee, Johnson, Lewisl to r: Barbara Lee, Hank Johnson, John Lewis

Not only are HR 3741's eight sponsors all Democrats, 6 of the 8 are members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Jan Schakowsky

Jan Schakowsky, 69, is Jewish, the daughter of Jewish immigrants from, respectively, Lithuania and Russia. Not only is Schakowsky a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, she is the most "Progressive" leftwing socialist communist member of the current US Congress, with ratings of between 90 and 100 from "liberal and progressive" interest groups -- which means she is a pro-abort. Not only does she favor the killing of the unborn, she has the gall to call abortion a mere "health procedure" and wants more "federal funding," that is to have taxpayers pay even more for that killing.

On March 11, 2004, Schakowsky's husband, lobbyist Robert Creamer, the executive director of the Illinois Public Action Fund (IPAF), was indicted in federal court on 16 counts of bank fraud involving three alleged check-kiting schemes in the mid-1990s, leading several banks to experience shortfalls of at least $2.3 million. In August 2005, Creamer pleaded guilty to one count of failure to collect withholding tax, and bank fraud for writing checks with insufficient funds. On April 5, 2006, Creamer was sentenced to five months in prison and 11 months of house arrest. All of the money was repaid. Schakowsky was not accused of any wrongdoing despite her serving on IPAF's board during the time the crimes occurred, and despite her co-signing the IRS filings along with her husband.

José Serrano, 70, is the avowed socialist who repeatedly has introduced House resolutions to do away with presidential term limit by repealing the 22nd Amendment that limits U.S. presidents to two consecutive terms. He is widely regarded as one of the most "Progressive" members of Congress.

In other words, the bill's eight sponsors, being all "Progressive" Democrats are not individuals noted for their sweetness and light and altruistic love of humanity. If they were, they wouldn't be "Progressives" who support the killing of the most innocent and defenseless of human beings -- the unborn.

The logical conclusion, therefore, is this:

HR 3741's real objective is to eliminate the death penalty for TREASON because Democrats think Barack Hussein Obama may be arrested and tried for treason.

Like that fascinating impeachment email that the Democratic National Committee recently sent to its supporters, HR 3741 is motivated by the Demonrats' real fear that their idol, President Lucifer, is in serious trouble.

~Eowyn

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Fellowship of the Minds.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2013/12/30/why-are-8-democrats-sponsoring-a-bill-to-eliminate-the-death-penalty-for-treason/

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.