My Blog

1–10 of 24 ‹  | 1 | 2 | 3 | next

Celebrate the 2nd Annual Hemp History Week May 2nd-8th 2011

Celebrate the 2nd Annual Hemp History Week May 2nd-8th 2011
www.freethoughtnation.com/forum...ic.php

Anyone interested in creating an event in your local area - goto the bottom post for more info.

;
Wed, March 16, 2011 - 10:25 AM — permalink - 2 comments - add a comment

The Astrotheology Calendar

The 2011 Astrotheology Calendar - video
www.youtube.com/watch

The 2011 Astrotheology Calendar
stellarhousepublishing.com/2011....html

The 2011 Astrotheology Calendar
www.freethoughtnation.com/forum...ic.php

---------------------------------------------

The 2010 Astrotheology Calendar - VIDEO
www.youtube.com/watch

The 2010 Astrotheology Calendar
stellarhousepublishing.com/2010....html

The 2010 Astrotheology Calendar
www.freethoughtnation.com/forum...ic.php

;
Sun, November 14, 2010 - 7:17 AM — permalink - 2 comments - add a comment

Ground Zero Mosque titled "Cordoba House" Insult to USA

Is a Giant Mosque at Ground Zero Justified?
www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-...95.html

Ground Zero Mosque Overwhelmingly Approved By NYC Community Board: 'It's A Seed Of Peace'
www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...94.html

There are already 200 mosques in New York. One at ground zero titled "The Cordoba House" would only represent CONQUEST to Muslims around the world.

How stupid can people be?

-----

Ground Zero Mosque: A Muslim View: Stop This Imam Now

"In plainer English, forget the separation of church and state: Abdul Rauf's goal is the imposition of Sharia law - in every country -- even democratic ones like the U.S.

"Imam Rauf is dreaming of constructing this mosque with the ultimate goal of Islamizing America."

www.hudson-ny.org/1389/grou...-stop-imam

------

No Mosque at Ground Zero - video by Pat Condell
www.youtube.com/watch

Stop the stealth jihad:

Protest rally against the Islamic supremacist mosque June 6th
www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...6819.html

Ground Zero mosque protest still scheduled
beforeitsnews.com/news/70/9...uled..html

A mosque at Ground Zero equals victory
www.hudsonny.org/2010/05/m...ictory.php

New Mosque named "Cordoba House" See Why
www.memri.org/report/en/0...0/0/4225.htm

One of the Cordoba Initiative's "Muslim leaders of tomorrow"
revuse.wetpaint.com/page/Mus...+Tomorrow

Ground Zero mosque team lacking funds amid bookkeeping chaos
www.nypost.com/p/news/loc...Zq1fNURK3BM

A sneak preview of the Ground Zero mega-mosque
www.americanthinker.com/2010/0...nd.html

How to stop the Ground Zero mega-mosque
europenews.dk/en/node/32600

Overtolerance could pave the way for sharia in America
www.libertiesalliance.org/2010/...nited/

Saudi billionaire boasts of manipulating Fox news coverage
www.aim.org/press-releas...ews-coverage/

Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits
rawstory.com/rs/2010/051...11-lawsuits/

PETITION AGAINST SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN
onelawforallpetition.com/onela...00.php

PETITION AGAINST SHARIA LAW IN THE UNITED STATES
www.petitiononline.com/gty65n...on.html

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

- Omar M. Ahmad, founder of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

Dhimwit: "A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility. A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity."
www.thereligionofpeace.com/Page...s.htm

;
Mon, July 5, 2010 - 1:00 PM — permalink - 96 comments - add a comment

The Mythicist Position video

Enjoy the brand new Mythicist Position video

The Mythicist Position video
www.youtube.com/watch

What is Mythicism?
stellarhousepublishing.com/myth....html

The History of Mythicism
stellarhousepublishing.com/myth....html

Forum thread about the Mythicist Position
freethoughtnation.com/forums/...opic.php

Astrotheology of the Ancients
www.stellarhousepublishing.com/as...tml

The Origins of Christianity: Free E-book
www.stellarhousepublishing.com/or...pdf

Jesus as the Sun throughout History
www.stellarhousepublishing.com/je...tml

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
www.stellarhousepublishing.com/ch...tml

The 2010 Astrotheology Calendar
stellarhousepublishing.com/2010....html

Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence
freethoughtnation.com/forums/...opic.php

Freethought Gear
www.cafepress.com/freethoughtgear

;
Fri, June 18, 2010 - 10:40 AM — permalink - 16 comments - add a comment

New Free E-Book

I thought many here would appreciate this new free e-book

"The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ"
by Acharya S/D.M. Murdock newly updated version and free e-book
www.stellarhousepublishing.com/or...pdf

Newly Updated "The Origins of Christianity"
www.freethoughtnation.com/forum...ic.php

www.freethoughtnation.com

www.youtube.com/watch

The 2010 Astrotheology Calendar
www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

* Join the "Solar Mythology ~ Astrotheology" tribe
tribes.tribe.net/solarmyth...rotheology

;
Fri, November 20, 2009 - 12:08 PM — permalink - 6 comments - add a comment

UN "Blasphemy Resolution"

UN Sets Dangerous Precedent with "Defamation of Religions" Resolutions

February 13,2009

"The basic human right to freedom of expression is increasingly under threat as countries introduce and enforce laws that have been wrongfully legitimized by numerous United Nations resolutions on "defamation of religions." In a statement sent to the UN Human Rights Council today, Freedom House and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty strongly urged members of the council to reject any further resolutions when they meet in Geneva for the upcoming 10th Session March 2-27, and to further reject any attempts to create international instruments or mechanisms that would prohibit "defamation of religions."

The statement explains how such resolutions directly violate international law and can encourage countries to increase the repression of religious minorities, political dissidents and human rights advocates. It points to a 2008 joint report by two UN special rapporteurs that soundly rejects the premise that the rights of religious believers are violated by merely hearing statements critical of their faith: "Defamation of religions may offend people and hurt their religious feelings but it does not necessarily or at least directly result in a violation of their rights."

Several recent high-profile cases have highlighted the growing conflict between freedom of expression and so-called religious "defamation." This month, Indian authorities arrested the editor and the publisher of the Statesman, after Muslims protested the newspaper reprinting an article from the United Kingdom's Independent titled, "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?" The article decried the erosion of the right to criticize religions, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

In another case, Random House backed out of a deal last year to publish "The Jewel of Medina," a fictional novel about one of the wives of Muhammad citing concerns that "the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community" and that it could "incite acts of violence." In September, Gibson Books announced it would publish the book in the United Kingdom, but the publisher's home and office were fire bombed three weeks later. The book was eventually published in the United States by Beaufort Books.

"Although we are sympathetic to the stated goals of the resolutions of combating intolerance, racism, and religious hatred, we believe that such resolutions do not serve to achieve these goals but rather limit the ability of individuals to raise questions, concerns, and even criticisms at a time when people of all faiths need to engage in more, not less, dialogue," said Freedom House and the Becket Fund.

The full text of the statement follows:

Concern over UN Resolutions on "Combating Defamation of Religions"

1. On the occasion of the 10th Session of the Human Rights Council, Freedom House and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty express concern over the resolutions on "combating defamation of religions" adopted by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly since 1999[1]. We urge members of the Council to reject such resolutions in the future and further urge them to reject attempts to create international instruments or mechanisms that would prohibit "defamation of religions."

2. Although we are sympathetic to the stated goals of the resolutions of combating intolerance, racism, and religious hatred, we believe that such resolutions do not serve to achieve these goals but rather limit the ability of individuals to raise questions, concerns, and even criticisms at a time when people of all faiths need to engage in more, not less, dialogue. Moreover, we believe these resolutions directly violate existing international law regarding the fundamental freedoms of expression, thought, conscience and religion.

3. In particular, the resolutions should be rejected on the grounds that 1) the term "defamation of religions" is overly vague, open to abuse, and inconsistent with traditional defamation legislation; 2) the resolutions attempt to provide rights to a belief or idea rather than an individual or group of individuals in contradiction of existing international law; 3) the concept of "defamation of religions" restricts freedom of expression beyond accepted limitations defined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 4) the concept of "defamation of religions" violates the universal right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; and 5) the concept of "defamation of religions" falsely equates religious belief with race.

Problems with the definition of "defamation of religions"

4. The term "defamation of religions" has not been clearly defined and is therefore subject to misuse and abuse. The legal term "defamation" is typically defined as the spreading of mistruths intended to harm an individual's reputation and livelihood. However, by attempting to apply such a definition to ideas or religious beliefs, which by their very nature conflict with opposing ideas or religious beliefs, it is impossible to evaluate whether ideas or religious beliefs represent truths or mistruths. As was noted in the Becket Fund's "Issues Brief for the OHCHR" of June 2008, "religions make conflicting truth claims and indeed the diversity of truth claims is something that religious freedom as a concept is designed to protect."[2] Thus, the concept of "defamation of religions" can be defined as the expression of ideas or beliefs that simply conflict with or offend the ideas of others.

5. Further, because the resolutions call on States to enact necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred, it would be left up to governments to define whether ideas expressed are offensive or, in the language of the resolution, "defame" a religious belief. Governments would thus be forced to pick and choose among competing faith claims.

6. In countries with domestic laws that use equally vague or poorly defined language to restrict individuals from "defaming" or "defiling" religions, the government often "picks" the majority religion over minority religions. These laws are frequently applied to punish individuals from expressing questions, concerns and criticisms of the majority religion.[3] The application of similar legal mechanisms at the international level would not only legitimate such existing problematic domestic legislation, but would result in a greater proliferation of such legislation to other countries.
Problems with providing rights to a belief or idea rather than individuals

7. International law regarding freedom of religion and expression, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has been established to protect individuals and in some case groups of individuals from the violation of their rights. Thus, Articles 18 of both the UDHR and the ICCPR states, "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." (Emphasis added.) Articles 19 of both documents define the right of "everyone" to freedom of opinion and expression free from interference. (Emphasis added.)

8. These documents lay out the right of individuals to hold and express beliefs and ideas and are designed to protect them from discrimination based on their beliefs. However, these documents are not intended to protect the beliefs themselves from criticism or even attack.

9. As the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief together with the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance wrote in a joint report presented at a special seminar on this topic held by the OHCHR in October, 2008.

"Defamation of religions may offend people and hurt their religious feelings but it does not necessarily or at least directly result in a violation of their rights, including their right to freedom of religion. Freedom of religion primarily confers a right to act in accordance with one's religion but does not bestow a right for believers to have their religion itself protected from all adverse comment."[4]

Violations of freedom of expression

10. Article 19 of the ICCPR states that, "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice."

11. The right to free expression and the right to impart information and ideas of all kinds is not intended to be absolute, but rather is restricted by Article 20 of the ICCPR, which calls on signatories to create law prohibiting the "advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." While this language of the ICCPR is itself overly vague and could be better defined, it is our belief that the term "defamation"-because it can be interpreted so broadly-does not necessarily cross the line of inciting discrimination, hostility or violence.

12. In other words, because the definition of "defamation" can be interpreted to include ideas or beliefs that simply conflict with or offend the ideas of others, the term oversteps the restrictions on free expression laid out in international law and places unnecessary and dangerous restrictions on the ability of individuals to freely express conflicting beliefs or to address disagreements through peaceful public debate. Such restrictions will have the opposite effect of increasing religious intolerance and hatred than what the resolutions on "combating defamation of religions" are purportedly designed to combat.

Violations of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion

13. Article 18 of the ICCPR protects not only the freedom to have or adopt a particular religion or belief, but also protects an individual's freedom to manifest his religion or belief.[5] As stated in General Comment No. 22, the freedom to manifest religion includes the sharing of beliefs, thoughts, and ideas.[6] It is this right to manifest belief that allows for inter-religious dialogue efforts to occur within the walls of the UN and around the world. Initiatives like the UN's Alliance of Civilizations[7] and the Saudi Culture of Peace initiative rely upon the free exchange of ideas and beliefs. Yet such initiatives are in direct contradiction to the concept of "defamation of religions."

Conflation of Race and Religion

14. The conflation of race and religion diminishes the uniqueness of both race and religion. Unlike immutable race, religion involves the freedom to follow one's conscience, and implies dialogue and debate with others about the truth claims involved. Treating racial and religious discrimination as the same thing thus confuses racist hate speech with debate about (sometimes controversial) competing truth claims. Whereas one can easily identify and narrowly define racist hate speech, it is not nearly so simple to define what falls into the category of "defamation of religion," which as currently characterized can include any controversial truth claim about someone's religion. Race-based speech restrictions have never been used to cut off discussion about racial identity, whereas the "defamation of religion" measures by definition prohibit controversial discussion of religious belief.

Notes:

1. Commission on Human Rights Res. 1999/82, 2000/84, 2001/4, 2002/9, 2003/4, 2004/6, 2005/3; Human Rights Council Res. 4/9, 7/19; General Assembly Res. 60/150, 61/164, 62/154, 63/3.

2. "Combating Defamation of Religions," Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Issues Brief, p. 5 (submitted June 2, 2008).

3. In Egypt, bloggers, such as Abdel Kareem Nabil Suleiman, have been arrested for posting criticisms of Islam. In Pakistan, defiling Islam is punishable by death and insulting another's religious feelings can result in a ten-year prison sentence. In Saudi Arabia, all Saudis are required by law to be Muslim. Source: Freedom in the World 2008, Freedom House (2008).
In Russia, television stations of have been sued for blasphemous content in the popular television show "South Park." Source: "Russian prosecutors in bid to ban South Park" The Times, September 8, 2008. Available at
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...4089.ece (February 1, 2009).

4. Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief and Doudou Diene, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, "Conference Room Paper #4," presented at the Expert seminar on the links between articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (October 2-3, 2008).

5. ICCPR Article 18: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching."

6. CCPR General Comment 22: 30/07/93 on ICCPR Article 18: "The freedom to manifest religion or belief may be exercised 'either individually or in community with others and in public or private'. The freedom to manifest religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching encompasses a broad range of acts."

7. www.unaoc.org/content/vie...ang,english/

newsblaze.com/story/20090...opstory.html

------------------

U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution Curtails Free Speech, Critics Say www.foxnews.com/story/0,29...502,00.html

;
Wed, February 25, 2009 - 10:20 PM — permalink - 4 comments - add a comment

get involved in separation of church and state issues

With the US Presidential election just a couple weeks away - I just wanted to post a reminder to get involved in separation of church and state issues by being informed on what's going on.

One way to be informed immediately about issues as they're happening right now is by signing up for the Action Alerts by e-mail. Here are the some in no particular order that I highly recommend signing up for and considering getting a membership:

The Secular Coalition for America
action.secular.org/signUp.jsp

Americans United for Separation of Church and State
www.au.org/site/PageServer

Freedom From Religion Foundation
www.ffrf.org/contact/FFRFnewsjoin.php

"... both Senators McCain and Obama have vowed to continue President Bush's White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives. Obama has even promised to expand it. However, this program has become a patronage mill for political allies. There is little effort to ensure that taxpayer subsidized programs do not involve proselytizing, and religious discrimination in hiring is widespread. In spite of Obama's pledge to clean up this unconstitutional mess, it's unlikely anyone can salvage a corrupt, multi-billion dollar government bureaucracy that stretches across twelve federal agencies. Further, this program not only deprives effective secular organizations of needed funds for social services, it actually privileges religious groups by giving them a special status and special access to federal dollars. The candidates should tell us why they are unwilling to shut down this corrupt, discriminatory program."

newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa....html

Get involved and join the "Separation of Church and State" Tribe -
separationofchurchstate.tribe.net

;
Fri, October 24, 2008 - 11:31 AM — permalink - 3 comments - add a comment

What Happens When We Die?

What Happens When We Die?

"A fellow at New York City's Weill Cornell Medical Center, Dr. Sam Parnia is one of the world's leading experts on the scientific study of death. Last week Parnia and his colleagues at the Human Consciousness Project announced their first major undertaking: a 3-year exploration of the biology behind "out-of-body" experiences. The study, known as AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation), involves the collaboration of 25 major medical centers through Europe, Canada and the U.S. and will examine some 1,500 survivors of cardiac arrest. TIME spoke with Parnia about the project's origins, its skeptics and the difference between the mind and the brain.

What sort of methods will this project use to try and verify people's claims of "near-death" experience?

When your heart stops beating, there is no blood getting to your brain. And so what happens is that within about 10 sec., brain activity ceases - as you would imagine. Yet paradoxically, 10% or 20% of people who are then brought back to life from that period, which may be a few minutes or over an hour, will report having consciousness. So the key thing here is, Are these real, or is it some sort of illusion? So the only way to tell is to have pictures only visible from the ceiling and nowhere else, because they claim they can see everything from the ceiling. So if we then get a series of 200 or 300 people who all were clinically dead, and yet they're able to come back and tell us what we were doing and were able see those pictures, that confirms consciousness really was continuing even though the brain wasn't functioning.

How does this project relate to society's perception of death?

People commonly perceive death as being a moment - you're either dead or you're alive. And that's a social definition we have. But the clinical definition we use is when the heart stops beating, the lungs stop working, and as a consequence the brain itself stops working. When doctors shine a light into someone's pupil, it's to demonstrate that there is no reflex present. The eye reflex is mediated by the brain stem, and that's the area that keeps us alive; if that doesn't work, then that means that the brain itself isn't working. At that point, I'll call a nurse into the room so I can certify that this patient is dead. Fifty years ago, people couldn't survive after that.

How is technology challenging the perception that death is a moment?

Nowadays, we have technology that's improved so that we can bring people back to life. In fact, there are drugs being developed right now - who knows if they'll ever make it to the market - that may actually slow down the process of brain-cell injury and death. Imagine you fast-forward to 10 years down the line; and you've given a patient, whose heart has just stopped, this amazing drug; and actually what it does is, it slows everything down so that the things that would've happened over an hour, now happen over two days. As medicine progresses, we will end up with lots and lots of ethical questions.

But what is happening to the individual at that time? What's really going on? Because there is a lack of blood flow, the cells go into a kind of a frenzy to keep themselves alive. And within about 5 min. or so they start to damage or change. After an hour or so the damage is so great that even if we restart the heart again and pump blood, the person can no longer be viable, because the cells have just been changed too much. And then the cells continue to change so that within a couple of days the body actually decomposes. So it's not a moment; it's a process that actually begins when the heart stops and culminates in the complete loss of the body, the decompositions of all the cells. However, ultimately what matters is, What's going on to a person's mind? What happens to the human mind and consciousness during death? Does that cease immediately as soon as the heart stops? Does it cease activity within the first 2 sec., the first 2 min.? Because we know that cells are continuously changing at that time. Does it stop after 10 min., after half an hour, after an hour? And at this point we don't know.

What was your first interview like with someone who had reported an out-of-body experience?

Eye-opening and very humbling. Because what you see is that, first of all, they are completely genuine people who are not looking for any kind of fame or attention. In many cases they haven't even told anybody else about it because they're afraid of what people will think of them. I have about 500 or so cases of people that I've interviewed since I first started out more than 10 years ago. It's the consistency of the experiences, the reality of what they were describing. I managed to speak to doctors and nurses who had been present who said these patients had told them exactly what had happened, and they couldn't explain it. I actually documented a few of those in my book What Happens When We Die because I wanted people to get both angles - not just the patients' side but also the doctors' side - and see how it feels for the doctors to have a patient come back and tell them what was going on. There was a cardiologist that I spoke with who said he hasn't told anyone else about it because he has no explanation for how this patient could have been able to describe in detail what he had said and done. He was so freaked out by it that he just decided not to think about it anymore.

Why do you think there is such resistance to studies like yours?

Because we're pushing through the boundaries of science, working against assumptions and perceptions that have been fixed. A lot of people hold this idea that, well, when you die, you die; that's it. Death is a moment - you know you're either dead or alive. All these things are not scientifically valid, but they're social perceptions. If you look back at the end of the 19th century, physicists at that time had been working with Newtonian laws of motion, and they really felt they had all the answers to everything that was out there in the universe. When we look at the world around us, Newtonian physics is perfectly sufficient. It explains most things that we deal with. But then it was discovered that actually when you look at motion at really small levels - beyond the level of the atoms - Newton's laws no longer apply. A new physics was needed, hence, we eventually ended up with quantum physics. It caused a lot of controversy - even Einstein himself didn't believe in it.

Now, if you look at the mind, consciousness, and the brain, the assumption that the mind and brain are the same thing is fine for most circumstances, because in 99% of circumstances we can't separate the mind and brain; they work at the exactly the same time. But then there are certain extreme examples, like when the brain shuts down, that we see that this assumption may no longer seem to hold true. So a new science is needed in the same way that we had to have a new quantum physics. The CERN particle accelerator may take us back to our roots. It may take us back to the first moments after the Big Bang, the very beginning. With our study, for the first time, we have the technology and the means to be able to investigate this. To see what happens at the end for us. Does something continue? "

news.yahoo.com/s/time/200...nswhenwedie

;
Wed, September 24, 2008 - 8:28 AM — permalink - 2 comments - add a comment

Flow the film .com

Flow the film .com

About the Film

Irena Salina's award-winning documentary investigation into what experts label the most important political and environmental issue of the 21st Century - The World Water Crisis.

Salina builds a case against the growing privatization of the world's dwindling fresh water supply with an unflinching focus on politics, pollution, human rights, and the emergence of a domineering world water cartel.

Interviews with scientists and activists intelligently reveal the rapidly building crisis, at both the global and human scale, and the film introduces many of the governmental and corporate culprits behind the water grab, while begging the question "CAN ANYONE REALLY OWN WATER?"

Beyond identifying the problem, FLOW also gives viewers a look at the people and institutions providing practical solutions to the water crisis and those developing new technologies, which are fast becoming blueprints for a successful global and economic turnaround.

www.flowthefilm.com

www.flowthefilm.com/trailer

www.youtube.com/watch

---

"Our world is not for sale: Stop Corporate Globalization"

"In Whose Service? GATS and the FTAA"

www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/ht...tml

www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/pd...pdf

;
Sun, September 21, 2008 - 11:37 AM — permalink - 0 comments - add a comment

Thousands sign up to buy GM's new all-electric car

Thousands sign up to buy GM's new all-electric car

Over 33,000 buyers signed up for GM electric car

"DETROIT (Reuters) - In a bid to show the demand for the upcoming all-electric Chevrolet Volt, a proponent of the car has released details of an unofficial waiting list for the vehicle with over 33,000 prospective buyers.

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080...olt_list_dc

It's about time US car makers listen to the American people. They would *NOT* be in the trouble they're in had they listened over a decade ago and far beyond. In fact, the energy issues concerning dependence on fossil fuels, especially foreign oil which, the US now relies on 70% some of which is coming from the most unstable countries from the mid-east, Africa and Venezuela etc.

At least here's a starting plan that gets us going in the right direction - what's funny is it comes from a life long oil man T. Boone Pickens:

www.pickensplan.com

View the videos - his plan is better than either Presidential candidate which are both disappointing candidates considering the crisis America faces today on so many fronts. It's time for an Independent President who will actually make the necessary changes and get things done - they way the American people want. And right now that is energy independence and plenty of alternatives to fossil fuels. And to stop sending US dollars over seas helping countries like Saudi Arabia use those petro profit dollars to help fund the spread of Islam into western countries using schools and universities as well as the global banking system.

Islam in America's public schools: Education or indoctrination?
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi

Review: Troubling passages in texts at Va. school
ap.google.com/article/ALe...Q5wD91859CG0

"Global Banks Embrace Islam"
www.augustreview.com/issues/...7121282/

"Islam: Shari'a-Compliant Finance Becoming Viable Part Of Global Banking"
www.rferl.org/featuresart...16eb1c8.html

Shariah Finance Watch: Exposing the Risks of Shariah Finance
shariahfinancewatch.wordpress.com

Islamic Banking Links section
www.islamic-banking.com/links/index.php

muslim-investor.com (pro Shariah Investment site, this should be watched and studied to be able to fight shariah finance)

"Jihad comes to Wall Street"
www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php

"Harvard Goes Halal"

"With $800 billion already in Shariah assets — and $1 trillion to $2 trillion in Arab petrodollars annually looking for an investment home — the potential for billions being siphoned off for terrorism is real."
www.investors.com/editorial...ontent.asp

"Islam: What the West Needs to Know" video
video.google.com/videoplay

Wafa Sultan
www.youtube.com/watch

"Sam Harris on Tucker" VIDEO
www.youtube.com/watch

"Why Critical Scrutiny of Islam Is an Utmost Necessity" by Syed Kamran Mirza
www.secularhumanism.org/index.php

"Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" DVD
www.obsessionthemovie.com

The Association between Naziism and Arab Antisemitism
www.youtube.com/watch

Adolph Hitler Meets with Arab Muslim Grand Mufti Amin Al Hus
www.youtube.com/watch

Geert Wilders's "Fitna: The Movie"
www.truthbeknown.com/fitnareview.html

Islamification: an Infidel Warning!
www.youtube.com/watch

"Make Way for the Monster Mosque in Londonistan"
www.youtube.com/watch

"CNN "The war within" - Part 1"
www.youtube.com/watch

"Islamic Fundamentalists Destroy Ancient Statue of the Buddha"
www.youtube.com/watch

islamwatchers.blogspot.com

thereligionofpeace.com
Thu, August 14, 2008 - 8:19 AM — permalink - 2 comments - add a comment
1–10 of 24 ‹  | 1 | 2 | 3 | next