Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  

What Obama Doesn't Seem to Get about the Crusades

Recommended Posts


“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place,

remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed

terrible deeds in the name of Christ..."


—President Barack Obama, February 5, 2015 National Prayer Breakfast


The Crusades may have happened 1000 years ago, but they’re headline news once again. President Obama’s statement above compared the Crusades with the recent actions of Islamic terrorists, drawing a collective gasp from Christians everywhere.


Ravi Zacharias summarizes it well:

President Obama basically lectured Christians not to get on a moral high horse in their castigation of the ISIS atrocities by reminding them that the Crusades and slavery were also justified in the name of Christ. Citing the Crusades, he used the single most inflammatory word he could have with which to feed the insatiable rage of the extremists. That is exactly what they want to hear to feed their lunacy. ‎In the Middle East, history never dies and words carry the weight of revenge.


May I dare suggest that if Christians had been burning Muslims and be-heading them, he would have never dared to go to Saudi Arabia and tell them to get off their high horse. He unwittingly paid a compliment to those who preach grace and forgiveness. That is the dominant theme of the Gospel. That is why we sit in courtesy listening to the distortion of truth, the abuse of a privilege, and the wrong-headedness of a message.


Ironically, Obama’s words have caused many to actually investigate the Crusades as evidenced by this popular post by Kevin DeYoung at The Gospel Coalition:

Contrary to popular opinion, the Crusades did not begin as a holy war whose mission was to convert the heathen by the sword. In fact, very few of the crusaders saw their mission as an evangelistic one. The initial purpose of the Crusades, and the main military goal throughout the Middle Ages, was quite simply to reclaim Christian lands captured by Muslim armies.


The popular conception of barbaric, ignorant, cruel, and superstitious crusaders attacking peaceful, sophisticated Muslims comes largely from Sir Walter Scott’s novel, The Talisman (1825) and Sir Steven Runciman’s three-volume History of the Crusades (1951-54).


[Yes,] many of the Christians who went to war under the sign of the cross conducted themselves as if they knew nothing of the Christ of the cross. But that’s not the whole story. The Crusades is also the story of thousands of godly men, women, and children who sacrificed time, money, and health to reclaim holy lands in distant countries overrun by Muslims. The Christians of the East had suffered mightily at the hands of the Turks and Arabs. It was only right, it seemed to medieval Christians, to go and help their fellow Christians and reclaim their land and property.


The point of this article is not to make us fans of the Crusades, but to make us more careful in our denunciation of them. We fight for nation-states and democracy. They fought for religion and holy lands. Their reasons for war seem wrong to us, but no more than our reasons would seem wrong to them.

(Read the rest here.)


Another key point that Obama and others seem reluctant to admit is that violence and murder are actually commanded in the Muslim holy book, the Quran, but the opposite is true with Christ. While it may very well be true that "no religion has ever been immune from exploitation for nefarious ends, and that to believe otherwise is dangerous" (as this blog post at The Economist so condescendingly points out), it seems ill-advised for Obama to have lectured a room full of Christians at the National Prayer Breakfast about that. Honestly, would he have told a room full of Muslims at a prayer meeting to “get off their high horse” if Christians were actively beheading Muslim hostages and burning Muslim villages around the world? My guess is probably not. This article by Christianity.com writer, Doug Ponder, discusses some crucial differences between Islam and Christianity in greater detail on this front. Here is a summary excerpt:


Some will object (they always do) that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people. This is quite true, and we can be thankful it is so. But we must remember that a Muslim’s peacefulness is actually inconsistent with the full teachings of the Quran. In other words, most Muslims are not peaceful because of Islam but in spite of Islam. The Japanese journalist, Kenji Goto, who was recently beheaded by ISIS militants wrote in 2010, "Hate is not for humans. Judgment lies with God. That's what I learned from my Arabic brothers and sisters." Sadly and ironically, Goto’s 'Arabic brothers and sisters' could not have learned such a peaceful philosophy from the Muslim holy book. Indeed, his final encounter in this life was with Muslims who were following Quranic directives to the letter.


Your turn: Are Christians today obligated to answer for the Crusades? Are the Crusades the same as terrorist actions carried out by those who are literally following the teachings of Islam? Weigh in with your thoughts in the comments below. Finally, rather than become discouraged by all the misinformation being spread about Christianity, let's at least be glad that it’s a topic being discussed. Keep in mind the most important things we are to winsomely declare to others today: (1) who Jesus is and (2) the message of freedom and forgiveness that He teaches.

Share this post

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Top Obama White House Lawyer Made False Statements To DOJ About Manafort-Related Work

      By Chuck Ross - The Justice Department is alleging that the former Obama White House general counsel made ‘false and misleading’ statements regarding consulting work done for Ukraine. Greg Craig was lead partner for the law firm Skadden Arps on its Ukraine work, which was done in partnership with Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman.  Skadden Arps agreed Thursday to settle with the Justice Department by registering as a foreign agent of Ukraine and paying a $4.6 million fine. Craig’s fate remains uncertain. The former general counsel for President Obama made “false and misleading statements” to the Justice Department regarding work he did for the Ukrainian government that has come under scrutiny in the special counsel’s probe. Greg Craig’s alleged false statements were revealed in a settlement announced Thursday by the Justice Department. The agency announced it was settling with Craig’s former firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, which worked with former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on behalf of Ukraine beginning in 2012. Skadden Arps agreed to register retroactively with the Justice Department as a foreign agent of Ukraine and to pay a $4.6 million fine, the same amount that the firm was paid for its consulting work. Craig, who left Skadden Arps in April 2018, is not identified by name in the Justice Department announcement, but he has previously been identified as the lead Skadden Arps partner who worked on its Ukraine account. Other clues from the Justice Department settlement point to Craig as the lead partner referenced in case. As part of the settlement, Skadden Arps acknowledged that it acted on behalf of the Ukrainian government “by contributing to a public relations campaign directed at select members of the U.S. news media in 2012.” Craig and others at Skadden Arps helped promote a report that raised questions about Yulia Tymoshenko, a former Ukrainian prime minister who was seen as a foe to Viktor Yanukovych, who served as prime minister through 2014. The Justice Department says that it contacted Skadden Arps in 2012 and 2013 about registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) after the law firm released a report that defended Tymoshenko’s imprisonment. But the firm ended up not registering under FARA based on false assurances provided by Skadden Arps’ partner. “A partner then at Skadden made false and misleading statements to the FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act] Unit, which led it to conclude in 2013 that the firm was not obligated to register under FARA,” the Justice Department said. “The facts, when uncovered, showed that Skadden was indeed required to register in 2012, and, under the Agreement, it will do so retroactively.” The Skadden Arps media outreach centered mostly on a report about Tymoshenko that was finalized in December 2012. According to the Justice Department, the Skadden Arps lead partner, seemingly Craig, contacted a major national newspaper on Dec. 12, 2012, to provide a preview of the report as well as a quotation. The news outlet appears to be The New York Times, which quoted Craig in an article laying out Skadden Arps’ report regarding Tymoshenko. The Skadden Arps report determined that some of Tymoshenko’s legal rights were violated during her trial in Ukraine. But it ultimately sided against Tymoshenko and with Yanukovych’s administration. Craig, who contacted the newspaper, is quoted in the article, saying that “We leave to others the question of whether this prosecution was politically motivated.” “Our assignment was to look at the evidence in the record and determine whether the trial was fair.” According to the Justice Department, the Skadden Arps partner provided misleading statements about the dissemination of the Tymoshenko report and the interactions with the media. “In both written and oral responses to the FARA Unit between February 6, 2013, and October 11, 2013, Skadden, in reliance on the lead partner, made false and misleading statements including, among other things, that Skadden provided a copy of the Report only in response to requests from the media and spoke to the media to correct misinformation about the report that the media was already reporting,” the Justice Department said. The agency also asserted that the Skadden Arps’ partner’s “pre-release outreach” to the journalist “was consistent with Ukraine’s media strategy for the Report.” That strategy involved “leaking the Report prior to its official release so as to ‘effectively set the agenda for subsequent coverage,’” according to the DOJ. It is unclear whether Craig faces any legal jeopardy in the case or whether he concurs with the Skadden Arps settlement. The government’s agreement with Skadden Arps explicitly states that the settlement does not protect “current or former partners” from criminal liability. CNN reported on Sept. 15, 2018, that the Justice Department was weighing charges against Craig, who left the Obama White House on Jan. 3, 2010. An attorney for Craig responded, “no comment” to an inquiry by TheDCNF. The settlement closes one chapter of the ongoing saga over the Ukraine lobbying effort. Two other lobbying firms, the Podesta Group and Mercury Public Affairs, are also reportedly the subject of an investigation into the Ukraine work. Manafort has pleaded guilty in the special counsel’s investigation to working as an unregistered foreign agent for Ukraine. He was convicted on Aug. 21, 2018, for money laundering and fraud related to money he made on the Ukrainian consulting gig. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Top Obama White House Lawyer Made False Statements To DOJ About Manafort-Related Work is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • President Trump Shutdown Differs Greatly From President Obama’s: Here Are A Few Ways How

      By Molly Prince - The OMB has been operating under the orders to cause as little disruption as possible during the partial government shutdown. The response differs greatly from that of the previous administration. Critics charge that acting Directer Russ Vought’s push to keep services functioning may land the administration in legal trouble. Services typically suspended during government shutdowns have continued to operate under the Trump administration, with insiders pointing to acting Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought as the reason why. Agencies impacted by government shutdowns are forced to severely cut back on operations, suspend services and often send workers home without pay. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been using creative solutions to blunt the burden, according to a senior administration official and several prominent Republicans. Vought joined the OMB in early 2018, and assumed the role of acting director on Jan. 3 after Director Mick Mulvaney became President Donald Trump’s chief of staff. “My marching orders from Russ is to make this shutdown as painless as possible,” a senior administration official, who was not authorized to speak on the record because they are not a principal, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The response by the Trump administration has differed greatly from that of the previous administration during the 2013 shutdown. “What the marching orders in the last administration were was to weaponize the shutdown, to make it as painful as possible,” the official continued. “They did things as a policy matter, to not keep programs running, to not keep services running, to not have federal workers delivering services as a policy matter and as a political matter.” The Republican-led House passed a stopgap funding bill on Dec. 20 that included appropriations to construct a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. However, with a 51-seat majority, Senate Republicans fell short of the necessary 60 votes needed to send it to Trump’s desk for his signature. Consequently, a partial government shutdown has been in effect since funding expired Dec. 21. “In many cases, Russ has been the one keeping things straight at OMB [while Director Mulvaney has been running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau],” Marc Short, the former White House director of legislative affairs, told TheDCNF. “Nobody wants the shutdown, but it’s not as if Russ was thrown into the fire. The reality is that Russ was already managing the OMB, and he’s very capable to handle the challenges the shutdown presents.” Skeptics, however, charge that Vought’s limited governing experience has prevented the OMB from providing a clear direction during the shutdown. “I feel like they are making up the rules as they go along here and are going to get themselves in trouble legally,” William Hoagland, a Republican who served as staff director on the Senate Budget Committee during a government shutdown in 1995 told The Washington Post. “I’m not sure Russ’s strong suit is on the legal side and the management side.” One example of the differences in action is this year the Internal Revenue Service will be able to, for the first time, issue tax refunds during the shutdown. “I don’t know anybody who has greater expertise at the budget [than Vought] … he’s got an incredible work ethic,” former Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, who chaired the House Financial Services Committee, told TheDCNF. “I’ve got to tell you, he doesn’t lose his head in a fight. He is committed, he is focused, he is smart and I just don’t know of any body on Capitol Hill who can match his budgetary expertise.” The senior administrative official noted that other agencies are also implementing Vought’s directive to make the shutdown as painless as possible. An example of this is the IRS’s move to restart verifying mortgage applications. “We give guidance to the agencies about how to look at things, how to have the mindset that where can we find money,” the official explained. “[The Deptartment of the Treasury] determined that even though the program has run out of funding, they were able to identify fees that they had collected that they could actually transfer into this program. Perfectly legal. They came to OMB to approve it.” The OMB also amended budgeting rules to extend Coast Guard salaries through the end of 2018 and the Department of Agriculture announced on Tuesday that low-income Americans will continue to have access to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits through the month of February. “I don’t wish to make light of the families who very much count on [a federal] paycheck. But I think for the vast majority of Americans, they are not seeing this temporary lapse in appropriations,” Hensarling continued. “That’s attributed to [Vought’s] skillful ability to manage this process.” President Barack Obama was accused of political theater after he fenced up war memorials, preventing veterans from honoring their fallen brethren. In 2013, after the Republican House and Democratic Senate failed to come to terms, the federal government spent money to maximize disruption, including shutting down parking lots to President George Washington’s privately owned home, removing the handles from bike path water pumps, closing private shops and restaurants on federal lands, fencing off a Capitol Hill turtle statue, creating new government websites to explain the existing websites weren’t funded, and taping Capitol Hill community notice boxes shut. Conversely, the Trump administration has kept national parks and monuments open by tapping into entrance fees to generate the revenue needed to provide basic services. Former National Park Services Deputy Director P. Daniel Smith hailed the move as an “extraordinary step.” “You’re always going to have criticism, but I’ll take our record of trying to make it as painless as possible against the last administration, or any administration for that matter,” the senior official said. “Any time there’s a shutdown the media will look to drive hysteria about it, so that makes anyone’s job tough,” Short told TheDCNF. “By all accounts I think Russ is doing a great job.” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] President Trump Shutdown Differs Greatly From President Obama’s: Here Are A Few Ways How is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Here Are The Obama-Era Officials Allegedly Behind The Alabama False Flag Campaign

      By Chris White - Two Obama-era officials were instrumental in the false flag operation in Alabama ahead of the special election in 2017  One of the Obama-era officials behind the misinformation campaign in Alabama finally opens up about his group’s role in the caper  Two  of the people involved in the social media misinformation campaign in Alabama are denying their roles in the operation, reports show A trove of reports show that two Obama-era officials are partially responsible for a misinformation campaign designed to derail Republican Roy Moore’s senatorial campaign in Alabama. Former President Barack Obama campaign organizer, Mickey Dickerson, was instrumental in a disinformation campaign targeting Moore, reports show. He was not alone. Evan Coren, who has worked for the National Archives unit since Obama’s first term, also targeted the Republican’s campaign. Coren, for his part, is a progressive activist who handles classified documents for the Department of Energy. He has not responded to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about the nature of the campaign, which was designed to fool conservatives into believing Moore intended to reimpose prohibition. Coren and other operatives created a “Dry Alabama” Facebook page with a blunt message attached: Alcohol is evil and should be prohibited, The New York Times reported Monday, citing sources. The page included images of car wrecks and ruined families, the report notes. Its contents were targeted at business conservatives who are inclined to oppose prohibition. Two wealthy Virginia donors who wanted to defeat Moore funded the project, according to a person who worked on the project and who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Dry Alabama project was one of two $100,000 campaigns designed to help Moore’s Democratic opponent, Doug Jones, who barely won the 2017 special election. Jones has previously stated that his campaign was unaware of the project and is also calling for an investigation into who is behind the antics. Political analysts believe allegations that Moore sexually assaulted underage women three decades earlier likely played a larger part in his loss. Coren’s false flag operation happened alongside a similar campaign by Dickerson, a former Obama official known for fixing the government’s notoriously glitchy Obamacare website. Operatives with New Knowledge, a group affiliated with Dickerson, created thousands of Twitter accounts posing as Russian bots to boost the election-year chances of Jones – the accounts began following Moore’s Twitter account in October 2017. The project created a slew of Facebook accounts as well that were designed to troll conservatives into opposing Moore. But the misinformation project attracted attention from local and national media, falsely suggesting Russia was backing Moore’s candidacy. The Montgomery Advertiser, for one, was the first to cover the story using the Russian-bot angle. National media outlets quickly followed suit. “Roy Moore flooded with fake Russian Twitter followers,” read the headline on a New York Post story, which cited the Advertiser. WaPo focused its reporting on that fact that Moore blamed Democrats for the fake accounts. Other major national outlets picked up on the story shortly thereafter, with many pundits mocking Moore for blaming Democratic operatives. The cost of the effort, which was funded by liberal billionaire Reid Hoffman, totaled $100,000 — the identical amount Facebook says the Russian Internet Research Agency spent trolling people on social media leading up to the 2016 presidential election. Dickerson, who has not responded to TheDCNF’s repeated requests for comment about the campaign, finally responded to reporters on Monday. “I received the report in early 2018, which is when I first learned about the false flag and write-in tactics,” Dickerson said in a press statement, referring to a 12-page report from New Knowledge detailing crucial elements of the project. Jonathon Morgan, head of New Knowledge, denies knowledge of most of the activities described in the Project Birmingham document. He also denies Dickerson’s claim that New Knowledge authored the report. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Here Are The Obama-Era Officials Allegedly Behind The Alabama False Flag Campaign is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Court Axes Obama’s Pro-Union ‘Joint Employer’ Rule

      By Tim Pearce - A federal appeals court ruled Friday that an Obama-era labor law that made businesses responsible for labor violations committed by contractors was too broad, Reuters reports. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in 2015 that companies and franchisers with “indirect and direct control” of employees could be held liable for labor violations committed by contractors or franchisees. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the board did not sufficiently define “indirect” control and sent the 2015 decision back to the board for a more restricted explanation. The 2015 NLRB ruling overturned more than two decades of precedent while placing businesses at increased risk of violating labor laws. The ruling also empowered unions to negotiate directly with a franchise’s corporate headquarters if franchisee employees sought to unionize. Franchisers, companies and pro-business groups have sought to have the ruling overturned. An attempt by President Donald Trump’s NLRB fell flat after Republican board member William Emanuel was forced to retroactively recuse himself from ruling in a case that would affect the 2015. The NLRB proposed a new definition of the “joint employer standard” in September that would restrict the responsibility of employer labor violations to companies that have “direct control” of employees. The board is expected to pass a final rule by June. The Obama NLRB’s decision threatened to topple the current franchise business model as franchisers tried to navigate or avoid the additional liability the law forced them to take on. Most franchisers began pulling back support for franchisee businesses. Prior to the 2015 ruling, franchisers offered advice and counseling to franchisees on topics such as running a business and employee relations. After the 2015 ruling, many franchisers began pulling back that support and guidance to avoid being classified as an employer with “indirect control.” Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Court Axes Obama’s Pro-Union ‘Joint Employer’ Rule is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News

    • Did Obama’s 2008 Campaign Pay The Largest FEC Fine Ever?

      By Brad Sylvester - Conservative commentator Bill Mitchell claimed on Twitter that former President Barack Obama’s campaign paid the single-largest fine in Federal Election Commission (FEC) history. “Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign paid the largest single fine to the FEC for campaign finance violations in history. Why didn’t anyone go to jail?” reads the Dec. 9 tweet. Verdict: True In 2012, Obama’s campaign agreed to pay an administrative fine of $191,135 for a campaign finance violation committed during the 2008 presidential election. It also paid $183,865 in civil penalties, for a total of $375,000 in violations. This is the largest administrative fine ever issued by the FEC, but not the largest civil penalty. Administrative fines are handed out for technical violations, while civil penalties stem from enforcement actions that sometimes involve formal FEC investigations. Fact Check: Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s one-time lawyer, was recently sentenced to three years in prison, partly for a “hush money” payment arranged to Stormy Daniels, the porn star who alleges she had an affair with Trump back in 2006. Prosecutors said the payment, made in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election, was designed to influence the outcome and thus amounted to an illegal campaign contribution in violation of FEC rules. With many saying that Trump himself may be implicated in the violations, Mitchell took to Twitter to claim that Obama’s campaign paid the single-largest FEC fine in history. FEC records show that Obama’s 2008 campaign, “Obama for America,” was hit with a record-breaking $191,135 administrative fine, more than five times larger than the next largest fine. Administrative fines are levied for less serious, more routine matters involving the late or non-filing of reports and are calculated using a formula, according to the FEC. The administrative fine system was first authorized in 2000 in an attempt to streamline the processing of technical violations, allowing the FEC to focus on higher priority matters. The Obama campaign’s fine was issued after it failed to report 1,266 last-minute campaign contributions, totaling $1.9 million, in a timely manner. This violated an FEC rule that stipulates that a campaign must report all contributions over $1,000 received less than 20 days but more than 48 hours before an election. In a 2012 conciliatory agreement between the Obama campaign and the FEC, the campaign agreed to pay the administrative fine and an additional civil penalty of $183,865 for two other violations: not returning in a timely fashion $1.4 million in contributions that exceeded the $2,300 per person limit and misreporting the receipt dates for $85.2 million in contributions received through its joint fundraising efforts. The two amounts combined totaled $375,000. “The 2008 campaign was a record-breaking campaign with over 3 million grass-roots donors,” Katie Hogan, a spokeswoman for the campaign, told The Washington Post at the time. “The very few outstanding questions have now all been resolved.” Civil penalties result from enforcement actions and sometimes involve FEC investigations. In 2006, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, also known as Freddie Mac, agreed to pay a $3.8 million civil penalty for improperly making and facilitating campaign contributions – the largest civil penalty ever paid to the FEC. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected] Did Obama’s 2008 Campaign Pay The Largest FEC Fine Ever? is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more. View the original full article

      in Political Conservative News


Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.