Topic: Fort Hood soldiers say Army warned them off tea party, Christian groups (Read 3852 times)

You are only wrong about the Yeltsin era in the '90s. Back then Russia was up for grabs by the oligarchs. Yeltsin was a very weak president, the Berezovsky clan basically ran the country back in that era. They weren't interested in oppressing the Russian people, only in pillaging their wealth. Putin was the answer to that. I always wondered why the oligarchs gave up power so easily. Several of them ended up in jail (Khodorkovsky), were exiled (Berezovsky) or aligned themselves with the new power (Abramovich).

Elibiary is fucking nuts.  From the MB stem all the roots of Muslim terrorism as we know it - going all the way back to the 1982 Olympics, the plane hijacking, most of the bombings.

no one is disputing that connservative christians want to make USA a Christian nation, and make the rest of the world Christian, right?

I've met some that had crazy ideas like that, but most of 'conservative Christians' don't have crazy ideas.

http://www.fatwaonislam.com/p/1928-birth-of-brotherhood.html

In 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood was founded by an Egyptian school teacher named Hassan al-Banna. He believed that all the problems of the Muslim world were a direct result of Muslims not living the true Islamic life, as modeled by Muhammad and those the first few generations of Muslims.

Al-Banna's fundamentalist interpretation of Allah's religion, as well as the fraternity of Qur'an crazed lunatics his insanity put into was motion, were born of a desire to revive Islam as practiced during of the time of the Prophet.

The ideological heritage of Al-Banna's theology can be traced to an 18th century Muhammadan by the name of Muhammad Ibn al-Wahhab. al-Wahhab articulated that it was a societal need to return to the literal reading and implementation of Islam which was the source of all that ailed the Muslims.

In his motiviational writing, Jihad,  al-Banna clearly communicates the nature of the ideological principles upon which he brought the Brotherhood into existence.

Jihad

Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded. Allah has ascribed great importance to jihad and has made the reward of the martyrs and the fighters in His way a splendid one. Only those who have acted similarly and who have modeled themselves upon the martyrs in their performance of jihad can join them in this reward. Furthermore, Allah has specifically honoured the Mujahideen {those who wage jihad} with certain exceptional qualities, both spiritual and practical, to benefit them in this world and the next. Their pure blood is a symbol of victory in this world and the mark of success and felicity in the world to come.

Those who can only find excuses, however, have been warned of extremely dreadful punishments and Allah has described them with the most unfortunate of names. He has reprimanded them for their cowardice and lack of spirit, and castigated them for their weakness and truancy. In this world, they will be surrounded by dishonour and in the next they will be surrounded by the fire from which they shall not escape though they may possess much wealth. The weaknesses of abstention and evasion of jihad are regarded by Allah as one of the major sins, and one of the seven sins that guarantee failure.

Islam is concerned with the question of jihad and the drafting and the mobilisation of the entire Umma {the global Muslim community} into one body to defend the right cause with all its strength than any other ancient or modern system of living, whether religious or civil. The verses of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of Muhammad (PBUH {Peace Be Unto Him}) are overflowing with all these noble ideals and they summon people in general (with the most eloquent expression and the clearest exposition) to jihad, to warfare, to the armed forces, and all means of land and sea fighting.

[...]

My brothers! The ummah that knows how to die a noble and honorable death is granted an exalted life in this world and eternal felicity in the next. Degradation and dishonor are the results of the love of this world and the fear of death. Therefore prepare for jihad and be the lovers of death. Life itself shall come searching after you.

Wow, talk about a misconception. I wonder what I said to give that impression? 
Nah, my opinion of Russia are as backwoods rednecks that came out of Ukraine (Kievan Rus) that was established some 400+ years before Russia, which then was rulled by some godawful kings, then a godawful soviet government, and just when they were about to establish some sense of freedom, another power (church) came in and started f*cking them over. The people there just have centuries of really really bad pro-authoritarian brainwashing 


And I feel sorry for Russian bitcoiners, who obviously are not part of that whole clusterfuck.

Well, at least this is more correct. Muslim Brotherhood aren't actually extremists, like the Taliban, and want to make the world Islamic about as much as conservative Christians want to make the world Christian (no one is disputing that connservative christians want to make USA a Christian nation, and make the rest of the world Christian, right?)

I'm sorry about that. I didn't know your background. Your original post made it seem to me as if you saw the USSR as better and Russia only become extremist after the fall of communism. There are many people who see the Soviet Union as a "cool" country and think communism is a good alternative for the current crony-capitalist system.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/muslim-brotherhood-just-like-evangelicals/#ij4fE7L3KCqcYd0w.99



    Department of Homeland Security adviser Mohamed Elibiary has penned yet another controversial tweet, this time likening the Muslim Brotherhood to evangelical Christians and comparing the Brotherhood’s indoctrination to Bible study groups.

    WND found that Elibiary tweeted: “Ignorant #Islamophobes (redundant I know) protested my saying #MB like #Evangelicals. Usra like Bible study grp.”

    The “MB,” or Muslim Brotherhood, seeks a worldwide Islamic caliphate ruled by Shariah, or Islamic law, and teaches followers to help establish an Islamic state wherever they live.

Note that Somalia doesn't really have a state, and Al Quida and Taliban don't belong to any specific country, yet both have major issues with religious extremism.

Personally, I would say the issue isn't theocracy, but conservatism. Religious extremism, fascism, communism, socialism, and even moderm democratic socialism of the US, all have concervatism, defined as resistance to change even in the fact of coonflicting evidence, as the central problem. Moderm liberals are more conservative than libertarians, since the former are fighting hard to preserve the status quo when it comes to governance, finance, and social programs, while the later are hoping for change and experimentation.

maybe the problem is not the religion per se or the culture it resides in and influences, but theocracy?

Ayn Rand had some pretty persuasive arguments against religion when it became an arm of the state, which she viewed as inevitable in many cases (fascism, socialism, communism).

Since I am from USSR, and my great-grandparents were one of the royal families who were lined up against the wall and shot in front of my 10 year old grandfather's eyes shortly after the revolution and pogroms, yes, it does ring a bit of a bell. Although I don't know what any of that has to do with religion, or the fact that homosexuality was decriminalized shortly after the fall of USSR, only to get re-criminalized after the orthodox church took over.

Obviously one is more intolerant than the other, but the main problem is that they are both intolerant, and thus neither should be involved with people who's job it is to kill other people. I mean, how little murder, misogynism, homophobia, and racism is OK, exactly?

That's a disgrace.  I did not know that the survivors and their families were suffering due to a lack of benefits due to the definition of "workplace violence".   

I guess also the surviving relatives of the forgotten heros who died at Bengazi have been forgotten.

I believe the killer was not even allowed to defend his jihad in court. So for him he was a soldier using the tools he had and was ready to die at fort Hood. That was clear to me and to the killer and anyone with two brain cells.
And yet the government defined what happened in Fort Hood as ''workplace violence'', not terrorism. Tea Party is the real danger! Danger! Danger Will Robinson!
http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/Lawmakers-pledge-to-bring-benefits-to-Fort-Hood-victims-222093091.html

Yeah that's what's so idiotic about this.  Let's connect the dots...

A) Jerk off Allah believer massacres people at Fort Hood

B) Obama pinhead comes to Ft. Hood to lecture soldiers about the dangers of Tea Party and Christians...

@#$IOJ)(U#@)$*?

You get the award for presenting...

Best Religious Nutcase of the Day!

Well while the USSR existed much more people (including gays and just about everyone else regardless of sexual orientation) were murdered than after Russia became independent. Does the name Stalin ring a bell?

"In 1933, Joseph Stalin added Article 121 to the entire Soviet Union criminal code, which made male homosexuality a crime punishable by up to five years in prison with hard labor. The precise reason for Article 121 is in some dispute among historians. The few official government statements made about the law tended to confuse homosexuality with pedophilia and was tied up with a belief that homosexuality was only practiced among fascists or the aristocracy.

The law remained intact until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; it was repealed in 1993."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_homosexuality

I'm well aware of that and much more, but then this guy came along: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali

One of these happened to be at Fort Hood, resulting in 13 deaths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

But of course those bible thumping Christians are the real threat.

Oh ya, sure, tolerant toward the 'people of the book'....

AS LONG AS THEY PAY THEIR SPECIAL TAXES LIKE THE KORAN SAYS!!!

Meaning, peace through subjugation.

That not my type of peace, thank you kindly.  Neither is it a very nice peace for people who are not 'people of the book', they lose their heads...

By the way, back on the OP topic:  I am certain that it is possible to develop a policy statement to warn soldiers about groups they should not associate with which is fair, unbiased and based on historical facts instead of modern prejudice.

For example, they could be told flat out not to associate with any Muslim sects adhering to the teachings of Sayyid Qut'b would be unacceptable.  They didn't do that with Major Hasad.  My guess is they didn't know the implications.

The Dark Ages and "Islamic Countries" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%B3rdoba,_Andalusia

Córdoba (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈkorðoβa]; Arabic: قُرطبة‎‎, DIN: Qurṭubah), also called Cordova in English,[1] is a city in Andalusia, southern Spain, and the capital of the province of Córdoba. An Iberian and Roman city in ancient times, in the Middle Ages it became the capital of an Islamic caliphate. The old town contains numerous architectural reminders of when Corduba was the capital of Hispania Ulterior during the Roman Republic and capital of Hispania Baetica during the Roman Empire; and when Qurṭubah (قرطبة) was the capital of the Islamic Caliphate of Córdoba, including most of the Iberian Peninsula.

It has been estimated that in the 10th century Córdoba was the most populous city in the world, and under the rule of Caliph Al Hakam II it had also become a centre for education under its Islamic rulers. Al Hakam II opened many libraries on top of the many medical schools and Universities which existed at this time. Such Universities contributed towards developments in mathematics and astronomy.[2][3] During these centuries Córdoba had become the intellectual centre of Europe [4] and was also noted for its predominantly Muslim society that was tolerant toward its Christian and Jewish minorities.[2][3] Today it is a moderately-sized modern city; its population in 2011 was 330,033.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate_of_Cordoba

Well, I have to vote Islam, because it's 2013, but have in mind that we came out from the Dark Ages because of Renaissance and Church lost a lot of power, Islamic countries didn't had such a thing.

And there are many "Christian religions", you have the God Hates Fags people in one corner, and Presbyterians with a gay bishop in the other...

Yeah, I'm waiting for Rassah's response to all this.

Somehow I do believe he can put it into a rational and reasonable perspective.

....pretty good argument could be made for the exact opposite, that the MOST TOLERANT religions are the Christian ... or to put it more accurately, the Judeochristian cultures...

So... The most intolerable religion right now on this planet in 2013 regarding gay rights and women's rights is the Christian religion? Got it.

Can you believe they let women drive cars and buy bitcoins in the USA and Russia? Incredible!

Yeah, and did you read about that atheist who bomb another atheist temple because they disagree on wich disbelief was right?

I think you are getting trolled. Atheists don't care enough about any values to actually go out ad kill someone. They just want Christians to leave them alone

I see far more calls on message boards by atheists to round up and kill Christians than by Christians to round up and kill atheists (or even abortion doctors).

And why is it OK to kill abortion babies but not abortion doctors?

I get where you are coming from, and have to think you are making more sense now that we are using the phras "Christian extremists".  This doesn't envelope the broad mess of Christian fundamentalists, and it does not include the Tea party.

Christian extremists do exist, but it's likely you or I have never ran into one.  The simple reason is that the core beliefs of Christians are not leaning much in the direction of violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Far more dangerous are the left wing extremists and radicals in the US.  I could easily reverse the trail of your logic, substituting left wing and Obama followers, and attribute to them characteristics of left wing extremists....

Oh yeah, don't forget Russia's recent rise to infamy as being extremely anti-gay, with gays being beaten, killed, and when protesting, arrested despite being the ones who got assaulted. Why? Because after the fall of USSR, the church ended up taking power. Russia is basically becoming a Christian extremist nation.

Don't forget, we are actually actively trying to kill them there. And that still doesn't prove one way or another whether the christian nucases would go on a killing spree if they weren't concerned about the law coming down on them. They are quite vocal and supporting about stoping abortion by any means, after all.



Yeah, no, not that one. More like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States#Violent_acts_against_LGBT_persons and even that is still a short lits. Used to be I would read about some gay person being beaten or killed almost every months just maybe 5 to 10 years ago. Typically people doing this are christian religious extremists.


That's true. They wait until we cross into their borders before shooting at us, unlike US military going into other countries, or the mexican border patrol rednecks taking potshots are illegals.


Are you sure about that? I'm not saying that all, or even the majority, of Christians are like that, but some of the religious zealotry out there (that has been caught on tape even) is downright scary 


I will concede, Christian extremists are not AS crazy, insane, violent, and righteously-murderous as Muslim extremists. They are only somewhat crazy, insane, violent,  and murderous. (glad the KKK is almost gone, but we still have nutcases like the guy in Norway 2 years ago)

How many muslins have been killed by US troops, I don't mean muslins soldiers or "terrorists", I mean civilians, children?

This is not about religion, it's about politics and fighting an empire!


Not isolated, and not long ago:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/08/25/nigeria.child.witches/

You can find very graphical videos of people being burned alive because the Bible says "Do not allow a sorceress to live."

In several countries in Africa there is death penalty for homosexuals, these kind of propaganda is being lobbied and preached by christians.

There's plenty of guilt to throw around...

I see where this thread is going.


Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Sharpton, and Richard Dawkins Battle Over the Sins of Islam
http://youtu.be/CLsxnMmhec4


Maher: Islam is only religion that kills you when you disagree with them
http://youtu.be/CVifGxlckAo


Liberals on Liberals mud fight regarding Islam.


Even a broken clock like Maher is right twice a day.

kills gays and transsexuals
What? Where? Iran?

Yes, you ARE trying to equalize the two.  But that doesn't work too well.  First let me object to your broad brush smear on "Christian groups and Tea party groups".  There is zero evidence that Tea party groups have been involved in any violence.  Zero.  Same for all Christian groups with tiny little exceptions.  IIRC all the Abortion clinic bombings were done by crazy individuals.  But yes, there is a tiny fringe of Christian extremism.

Here are some facts.

1.  Since 1983, eight people have been killed in the USA from abortion clinic violence.  How many from muslim violence?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm

3101 in 70 separate attacks in the USA.

2.  Kills gays and transsexuals?  Muslims do this routinely today.  Do Christians?  You might be thinking of the Matthew Shepard story.  The one you were lied to about.  Yeah, that one.

http://nypost.com/2013/10/28/uncomfortable-truth-behind-matthew-shepards-death/

3.  Is very racist and jingoistic?  I think this may be not an issue/or is equally an issue with either Muslim or Christian.  (not exactly NICE, but not in the same category as murder and violence).

4.  Perfectly happy with stony sinners or burning them at the stake.

No.  These practices occurred in isolated cultures of Christianity, a long time ago.  You can't support an assertion that Christians would be happy with those things today with facts.  Stoning sinners is done TODAY BY MUSLIMS.  Like, with girls that got raped - then they let the rapists go.  That's when they aren't busy chopping off hands and stuff.

So where you want to go with this equalizing stuff?

The first one also bombs abortion clinics, kills gays and transsexuals, is typically very racist and jingoistic, and it is extremely likely that, if the law wasn't there to stop them from doing it, would be perfectly happy wth stoning sinners or burning them at the stake as well. Both are quite subject to irrational mob mentality.

What has to be understood is that IF there were references to radical Muslims, don't associate with them, ETC (we know that was not the case because we have knowledge of how Major Hasad was treated)....

....You have a case where evangelical Christians are actually being equalized as extreme and radical alongside radical Muslims.

And we all know the differences between the two.  They are not remotely similar.  One turns the other cheek, the other massacres innocent people.

Yes, I am sure I was being cynical.

No, you are not sure of that. 

  Allahu Akbar!

The idea was, I believe "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion". It does not matter if you believe or not, as soon as you agree the military has a right to control what people should believe or not doesn't compute with being a true libertarian. This state of mind is more likely compatible with a State of Minds that will "quiet the enemies of real Freedom".

The Army is warning not only from Christian groups but Muslim groups and Buddhist groups to, I am sure...

Naw, that's not close to true.  What you likely mean to say is that they reason as well as anyone else on a thousand subjects.  Best place to eat, where to buy cheap stuff, how to balance a bank account, on and on.  But they don't reason the way you'd prefer on the subject of religion.  But even there there is ridiculously wide diversity in thought and behavior.  So we need to ascribe your assertion to the 'true evangelical Christian'.

He lives in a little cottage in the woods with the True Scotsman...



PS:  The "True Scotsman" refers to an error in logic.

But suppose you were in a position to influence who the soldiers interact with.  You in your heart, know that fundamentalist Christians and Tea Party groups are very, very wrong.  You sincerely believe that.  (suppose this is  true for a second)

Would it influence your behavior in telling the soldiers how to behave?  If so, why?  Why not other groups? 

Regarding the OP, I don't like the idea of other people killing some other people in my name. BUT, the idea of religious fanatics, who are blindly convinced that what they are doing is righteous, who don't fear death because they are convinced they will go to heaven, I dislike even more.

I mean evangelical Christians are enemies of reason.

Who is enemy of whose reason?

I submit that for every flaw in reason you may see in their group(s) I can find one in yours.

Let's start with the recent attempt by the Admin to display its 'reason'.

ATTACK SYRIA NOW!!!

Well, they are enemies of reason...

Notice they're not saying it didn't happen...

Glad we figured that out.

Now, back on topic...

  “The American public should be outraged that the U.S. Army is teaching our troops that evangelical Christians and tea party members are enemies of America and that they can be punished for supporting or participating in those groups,” Mr. Berry said, in Fox News. “These statements about evangelicals being domestic enemies are a serious charge.”

So are they enemies of America?

Reggie Love broke up with Obama? How sad.

so Obama does want the marines to wear girlie caps.

Maybe his old boyfriend likes them?

ROFL...

A follow up on that obvious fake foxnews link from the WSJ

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/10/25/marine-corp-shoots-down-unisex-caps/?dsk=y&mg=blogs-wsj&url=http%253A%252F%252Fblogs.wsj.com%252Fwashwire%252F2013%252F10%252F25%252Fmarine-corp-shoots-down-unisex-caps%253Fdsk%253Dy

The Marine Corps has shot down plans to make male and female leathernecks wear a unisex cap with their dress uniforms.

The Corps has been redesigning its female caps and was exploring the possibility of issuing a single cap for men and women. As we reported earlier Friday, a survey this week was meant to gauge interest in which of two options would work as a unisex cap—but critics said one new prototype was too feminine.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos has put an end to the matter. “The survey was incorrect when published and has been pulled. The Marine Corps has zero intention of changing the male cover,” he said in a statement Friday.

Changing the hat design has been a decade-long process of military boards, field trials and prototypes. A Marine spokesman said the impetus for a potential unisex design was simple: “the manufacturer of the female cover is going out of business…a lot of uniform items aren’t cost effective to make,” he said.

In 2002, the Female Uniform Symposium decided the current women’s cap needed redesign because it was expensive and many complained it was not as spiffy as the male version.

In 2007, Marine officials approved a new, improved female cap and in 2012, as it neared implementation, the Commandant of the Marine Corps jumped in, delaying procurement of new caps and ordering experts to explore the idea of a “universal” cap to be worn by both sexes.

This summer a new cap was tested for “fit and function” with the majority of females approving of the design.

In online surveys, some Marines suggested the new female cap resembles the design worn by Marines in the early 1900s, most famously by Dan Daly, twice the recipient of the Medal of Honor and famous for yelling to his men in battle, “Come on, you sons of b—–s, do you want to live forever?”

Once it became known as the “Dan Daly cap,” the design became a candidate for universal wear. But some complain it exudes a feminine air, despite being named for an especially bellicose Marine. And a change in design would have cost the Corps an estimated $6.9 million, according to a Marines spokesman.

The world only censors Truth because it has rejected it.

And the article is racist to the French who are portrayed as unmanly.

It is amazing what a little bit of critical thinking using a tool call the internet can do. Some, mostly librarians living between miles long bookshelves, would call it a modern day miracle!

The story isn't completely false, and did not originate with the New York Post.

It comes from the Marine Times.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20131021/NEWS07/310210028/Marine-Corps-seeks-feedback-on-universal-cover-for-men-and-women

Yep! Me too
http://youtu.be/cCyPAaubENE

I like The Onion.

Maybe I am wrong but I got less allergic reactions from an alex jones link than a foxnews link. I find this funny as there is no such thing as an agenda free news source. Some loves RT but this won't be the best place to learn about Pussy Riot for example.

If you care about Freedom and not just yours you need to know what ''they'' do to ''others''.

ya - I see a lot of derision and snide remarks in this thread.  But nothing little about the ethics of the OP topic.  I think this means they might agree that the Army's position and actions are wrong, but at the same time they don't like seeing missteps of the administration out in the light of day.  Of course I could be wrong - but we're just left to guess about this, since they don't want to discuss the fact that the Army is snuffing the liberties of its soldiers.

So do we agree if a story is coming from foxnews it must be fake all the time and should be banned?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/white-houses-fox-news-boy_n_331437.html

Even the title is misogynistic...

This one is hilarious.  Fox News eagerly perpetuating a story from a tabloid as if it's true despite the Marine Corps Commandant today revealing it's a completely false story that never happened:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/24/obama-wants-marines-to-wear-girly-hats/  And it's still on their website as if it's fact.

i rusia
but i know cbs,fox news is controls govs

Well, now.

We can't have reporting on Fast and Furious, Bengazi, the IRS Corruption Caper, or other unsavory things that reflect poorly on the administration, can we?

And think about it.  When an Islamic Fort Hood soldier starts shouting Ala Akbar and killing people, we can't have the media labeling him an "Islamic Terrorist", can we?

Why, the silly trouble maker of a Fort Hood soldier should have gone to CNN.  They wouldn't have reported the story.  And we wouldn't have to worry about it.

Little problem there, boys and girls?

This type of polarization is the problem, rather than a solution.  I don't particularly understand or like Muslims, those Jews with the funny high hats, Amish, knuckle dragging libtards, and many other types of stereotypes of people. 

But that's different than that is being reported on in this thread. 

Remember, it's you they come for next.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/24/exclusive-army-halts-training-program-that-labeled-christians-as-extremists/

The Secretary of the Army has ordered military leaders to halt all briefings on extremist organizations that labeled Evangelical Christian groups as domestic hate groups. The shutdown comes just four days after I reported exclusively about a briefing at Mississippi’s Camp Shelby that labeled the American Family Association as a domestic hate group.

“On several occasions over the past few months, media accounts have highlighted instances of Army instructors supplementing programs of instruction and including information or material that is inaccurate, objectionable and otherwise inconsistent with current Army policy,” Army Sec. John McHugh wrote to military leaders in a memorandum I obtained.

McHugh “directed that Army leaders cease all briefings, command presentations or training on the subject of extremist organizations or activities until that program of instruction and training has been created and disseminated,” Army spokesman Col. David Patterson, Jr., tells me.

The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty welcomed the news and said it was about time the Secretary of the Army intervened.

“Men and women of faith – who have served the Army faithfully for centuries – have been likened to those who regularly threaten the peace and security of the United States,” said Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance. “It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of improper characterization.”

The Fox news organisation is made up of some of the most stupid people on the planet, they actually believed an onion news network news item was real at one point and just posted it up without thinking, while by itself it's understandable if they didn't realise but they don't even blink when they scream out their stupid shit but that's what most news networks are like anyway.

But according to the mainstream media and the president, foxnews is not mainstream but a fringe. The official sanctioned Mainstream Media are: NPR, CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, MSNBC, Soros founded Media Matters.org, Politico, Daily Beast, OFA, Salon.com.

LOL, my thoughts exactly.

There's your problem right there.  Mainstream media parroting a story reported by a fake news channel.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/24/fort-hood-army-warned-them-tea-party-christians/

    Don’t donate to the tea party or to evangelical Christian groups — that was the message soldiers at a pre-deployment briefing at Fort Hood said they received from a counter-intelligence agent who headed up the meeting.

    If you do, you could face punishment — that was the other half of the message, as reported by Fox News.

    The briefing was Oct. 17, and about a half-hour of it was devoted to discussion about how perceived radical groups — like tea party organizations and the Christian-based American Family Association — were “tearing the country apart,” one unnamed soldier said, to Fox News.

    Among the remarks the agent allegedly made: Military members who donate to these groups would be subject to discipline under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the soldier reported.

    Liberty Institute has stepped in to investigate. Michael Berry, one of the nonprofit’s attorneys, said he has been advising the soldier about his options — but that in the meanwhile, he said the American public should be on guard.

    “The American public should be outraged that the U.S. Army is teaching our troops that evangelical Christians and tea party members are enemies of America and that they can be punished for supporting or participating in those groups,” Mr. Berry said, in Fox News. “These statements about evangelicals being domestic enemies are a serious charge.”


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

I had no idea the US Army was involved in selectively targeting US citizens or members of the soldier's family in many cases.