|
| FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
You are going to find this report difficult to believe. But I am not kidding you. What I am about to tell you comes from The British Broadcasting Corporation. It is sober fact and it is crazy. But judge for yourself: A story based on the Three Little Pigs fairy tale has been turned down by a government agency's awards panel as the subject matter could offend Muslims. The digital book, re-telling the classic story, was rejected by judges who warned that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues". Becta, the government's educational technology agency, is a leading partner in the annual Bett Award for schools. The judges also attacked Three Little Cowboy Builders for offending builders. The book's creative director, Anne Curtis, said the idea that including pigs in a story could be interpreted as racism was "like a slap in the face". The CD-Rom digital version of the traditional story of the three little pigs, called Three Little Cowboy Builders, is aimed at primary school children. But judges at this year's Bett Award said that they had "concerns about the Asian community and the use of pigs raises cultural issues". The Three Little Cowboy Builders has already been a prize winner at the recent Education Resource Award - but its Newcastle-based publishers, Shoo-fly, were turned down by the Bett Award panel. The feedback from the judges explaining why they had rejected the CD-Rom highlighted that they "could not recommend this product to the Muslim community". They also warned that the story might "alienate parts of the workforce (building trade)". The judges criticised the stereotyping in the story of the unfortunate pigs: "Is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and builders are like pigs?" So there you have it. A fairy tale aimed at entertaining four and five year old kids could insult Muslims and hurt the tender feelings of construction workers! It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the world has gone mad. I am reminded of the verdict of a famous Conservative on those who voted for Socialist candidates: "They are stark, raving bonkers!" I think that is a good phrase to sum up these politically correct lunatics. Compared to them, most certifiable madmen are models of sanity. They are stark, raving bonkers! |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Ben Stein is not a Bible believing Christian. He is a Jew and a journalist, a former speech writer for Presidents Nixon and Ford. Both as a Jew and a journalist he has a very personal interest in anything to do with the Holocaust, the slaughter of some 6 million Jews by Hitler's Nazi regime. For Stein, Darwinism is not just problematic but dangerous even. He contended in a teleconference with the press that Darwin said that there were certain species that were superior to other species and all were competing for scarce supplies of food or resources. But if there was a limited supply of basic resources, Darwinism taught that "you owe it to the superior race to kill the inferior race." Stein further stated that Darwinian evolutionary theory fueled Nazi idealism that felt gypsies, Eastern Europeans and others were competing with them for scarce basic resources. "As a Jew, I am horrified that people thought Jews were so inferior they didn't deserve to live." Referring to the Darwinian theory of natural selection and random mutation, he said that it "led in a straight line to the holocaust and Nazism." Stein's strictures on Darwinism are right on the money. The blame for the 20th century's blackest nightmare lies fairly and squarely at the door of Darwinian evolution. So it is a dangerous system of belief. But there are other reasons for viewing Darwinism as dangerous, an enemy of liberty of thought and investigation. Stein has produced a documentary film that will hit theaters across the nation in April of this year titled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The film deals with the stranglehold that Darwinists have gained over academia and how its evolutionists are determined to exclude any other possible explanation of origins. He interviews leading atheists and evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, as well as leading proponents of the theory of Intelligent Design. While Stein's film does not seek to validate one theory over the other it does raise questions that evolutionists would rather avoid. Stein asks, "Where did life come from? How did cells get so complex? If the origins of life all did happen by random mutation, where do the laws that make the universe possible to function - the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, laws of motion - all come from? Who created these laws that keeps the planets in motion?" As Stein says, "These are fundamental questions" to which Darwinism has no answer. Don't expect to see Stein's film win any Oscars. But if enough sane people act on the impetus it causes we can see our politicians forced to move to protect freedom of speech in academia. As the executive producer of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed said, "What we are asking for is freedom of speech ... for people who do research to have freedom to ask the questions they need to ask and go where they need to go." That sounds good. It is good. But it is enough to give evolutionists across America a heart attack. The last thing Darwinism can stand is competition from people free to think. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
According to the British government Islamic terrorists or extremists will be no more. Last year it stopped using such terms as "the war on terror." It was offensive to Muslims and provided Al Qaida with a powerful recruiting tool as the terrorists could paint their struggle as the defense of Muslim values against a war waged by Western secularism. Now Gordon Brown's government imagines it can woo Muslim opinion by renaming Islamic terrorism as "anti-Islamic activity." At the same time a Dutch film maker was postponing the issue of his study of Islam in which he likened the Koran to Hitler's Mein Kampf, the British government wants us all to believe that Muslim belief does not countenance acts of atrocity against infidels. I must say it will have a hard job on its hands. Looking at the problem of radicalizing young Muslims in Western society, we may say that if indeed renaming Islamic terrorism as anti-Islamic activity they have done in the past, it would be an acceptable change. However, there is no evidence that changes like the one we are considering will have the slightest effect on Al Qaida recruitment or on the radicalizing of young Muslims. Along with renaming Islamic terrorism, the government intends seeking to encourage mosques to deal with extremism and to prevail on more imams to learn to speak English. Now we are getting to the real heart of the problem but the government's way of dealing with is insipid and doomed to fail. Britain's mosques have all too often been hotbeds of rebellion and treachery. The Arabic-speaking imams bode no good for Britain, rather are they all too often the lightning rods for Muslim discontent. Wishing Muslim terrorism away will not get rid of it. Renaming it will make no difference to it. Being nice to radical imams whose big purpose in Britain is to radicalize young Muslims is like feeding cupcakes to a hungry lion in the hope he won't eat you. Britain is afflicted with the same fear of Islam that is paralyzing the other governments of Europe. They are undoubtedly right in seeking not to offend or alienate Muslims who wish them no harm and engage in no radical activity. But it is difficult to see how or why law-abiding Muslims should be radicalized or scandalized by calling terrorists who commit their acts of carnage in the name of their religion "Islamic terrorists." Those moderate Muslims know as well as the rest of us that many of Britain's mosques are havens for radical imams and their followers, so why would they be offended at that fact being publicly stated? Whether we like it or not, the West is in a war with Islamic terrorists. We cannot wish it away. Nor can we win it simply with guns and rockets. We have an increasing Muslim community. It is largely a closed community and therefore more easily radicalized. What we need is the exposure of Muslims to genuine Christianity, preached and lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. What they imagine is Christianity is more likely antichristianity and we need to give ourselves to prayer that we may be able to have an effective Christian witness that will bring Muslims out of the bondage of Islam into the liberty of the gospel. Converted Muslims-just as converted Jews, Protestants, Roman Catholics or Hindus-will never become terrorists. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Yesterday I spoke about a huge row in Britain about faith schools. What has really fueled the debate is the increase of Muslim schools, what are called "voluntary-aided schools." These schools operate with the financial support of the government. They are really faith-based state schools as distinct from secular state schools. At present there are more than 100 private Muslim schools and eight state-funded Muslim schools in Britain. At the beginning of 2007, David lay the risk of undermining the coherence of British society. He worried that "many young people were being educated with little appreciation of their wider responsibilities and obligations to British society". He added, we "must not allow our recognition of diversity to become apathy in the face of any challenge to our coherence as a nation." There is something unique to Muslim schools, something that is not true of Jewish or nominally Christian schools in England. It is that Muslim schools do not lead to the integration of their pupils into the life of the nation. Even though the children of Muslim immigrants are born in Britain and are educated with the help of British taxes, they do not really become British. Despite this, as the Times Online stated in an op-ed article, "Tony Blair decided the government would offer voluntary aided status to 120-150 independent Muslim schools, bringing them in line with the existing 6,850 Christian and Jewish schools - in other words it will create masses of Muslim state schools. The heart sinks. How, in the name of integration, familiarity and trust, can it possibly be a good idea to have lots of state schools that are exclusively Muslim, with Muslim teachers, Muslim traditions and intense Islamic education?" The government now says that all new faith schools-i.e., Muslim schools-will have to make 25% of their places available to those outside their faith. The government minister then hinted that-to be fair to the new Muslim schools-all faith schools would have to do the same. Now this is dangerous. The government should stop what one writer termed "sleepwalking to apartheid" and refuse to allow any financial support to any schools that set themselves against the ideals of British society. It should criminalize any purportedly educational program that inculcates violence or that supports Islamic or other terrorists. It should then keep its nose out of purely theological issues. The government will do none of this. Instead it will capitulate to Muslim pressure. It will allow Muslim schools to polarize British society and the only targets at which it will shoot its arrows of wrath are those schools and churches that dare to oppose its policy of accommodating the destructive and insatiable demands of Islamic radicals. "Sleepwalking to apartheid" is an apt phrase to describe this policy of madness. Or we could go even further and see it as it is, the cringing, fawning and cowardly capitulation of spineless politicians who desperately, but vainly, hope that their pliability will help them avoid the runaway train of Muslim fanaticism. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Britain is having a huge debate these days about the role of what are termed "faith schools." In many cases these are schools run by the state church, the Church of England. In other cases, they are Roman Catholic or Jewish. And, of course, with the influx of Muslims into the country, many are Muslim schools. Given the rather abysmal record of many secular state schools, many middle class parents have been opting to send their children to "faith" schools. It's not that these parents have suddenly become religious or started going to church. They just want access to better schools and therefore have been faking a religiosity they don't really possess to open the way for their kids. Many politicians and journalists are angry at them. Some longtime church goers are a bit upset as well-the fakers get the benefits of religion without the tedium of the usual Church of England Sunday homily! One journalist found it disgusting that in a country with a state-run education system faith schools should even be allowed to exist. Many were incensed at the thought of tax revenues supporting schools that were not open to all-apparently careless of the obvious fact that those revenues were producing much better results than in secular schools. So there has been a great brouhaha over faith schools. Perhaps the most bizarre thing that has come to light is the case of a Muslim teacher who worked in a professedly "Christian" school. She arrived in her Muslim dress, all carefully covered up, except for her expensively decorated eyes and toes. The school refused to allow her to come to class in her Muslim costume. Parents found it intolerable and the school agreed. So she sued. She lost her discrimination suit-though her lawyers are ready to appeal to the European Court, which is so out in left field that it could give any sort of a crazy decision. As I say, she lost her discrimination suit but she was awarded a couple of thousand dollars for her hurt feelings. Some people in Britain look on this case as proof that no matter how tolerant you try to be toward the Muslim community, it will never be enough. If a school is really a Christian school, one that exists to teach its students Christian truth and inculcate Christian moral standards, why should a Muslim expect to have the right to teach there? We will have to wait to see what the European Court may decide. As I say, that is anybody's guess, but you can be sure that sooner rather than later the British government will capitulate to Muslim pressure and deny Christian schools the right to refuse to hire Muslim teachers, even if they arrive in full Muslim regalia. In Northern Ireland, the Free Presbyterian Church has a number of Christian schools. They do not receive a penny in government support. It may be unfair to Christian parents to have to pay tax to support the state school system and then pay again for the education of their children-especially since Roman Catholic schools in Northern Ireland are fully funded by the government. But being free from government financial support has clear benefits, not the least of which is the right to hire or not to hire according to the beliefs of our church. England's faith schools will find that when Caesar gives with one hand he takes away a lot more with the other. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
The ordination of openly avowed and practicing homosexual Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire split the worldwide Anglican Communion wide open. Where all the turmoil and talk of separate communions will end it is difficult to say. Meanwhile, the homosexual bishop of New Hampshire has been on a visit to England and has been stoking the flames of controversy. Robinson, who was once married and is divorced and is living with his homosexual partner said that he found it mystifying that the mother Church of the Anglican Communion was unable to be honest about the number of gay clergy in its ranks. He said that many of the English Church's clergy lived openly in their rectories with gay partners, with the full knowledge of their bishops. But he criticized the stance of bishops who threaten the clergy with enmity should their relationships become public. Speaking in an interview in London, Robinson said: "I have met so many gay-partnered clergy here and it is so troubling to hear them tell me that their bishop comes to their house for dinner, knows fully about their relationship, is wonderfully supportive but has also said, ‘If this ever becomes public then I'm your worst enemy.' It's a terrible way to live your life and I think it's a terrible way to be a Church. I think integrity is so important. What does it mean for a clergy-person to be in a pulpit calling the parishioners to a life of integrity when they can't even live a life of integrity with their own bishop and their own Church? So I would feel better about the Church of England's stance, its reluctance to support the Episcopal Church in what it has done, if it would at least admit that this not just an American challenge. If all the gay people stayed away from church on a given Sunday the Church of England would be close to shut down, between its organists, its clergy, its wardens . . . it just seems less than humble not to admit that." Robinson's sanctimonious rantings are enough to make you sick. Here is a man who vowed to live with one woman until death, yet he divorced and started living in a perverted relationship with a man. And he has the gall to talk about integrity! However, he may well be right that if you took the sodomite element out of the Church of England or the Episcopal Church they would collapse. If he is right, then I say the sooner they collapse the better for you can be sure that no church that has any claim to be recognized as Christian is sustained in being by the number of practicing sodomites in its ranks. God has placed such perversion-and therefore the institutions that are sustained by it-under His anathema. He says He has given them up to judgment. It's time that all true Christians who remain in such divinely rejected communions gave them up too. How can any Bible believer continue to worship in and support a denomination that depends for its existence on holding on to the vast number of sexual perverts who have gained access to its membership and ministry? Homosexuality is by the plain standards of Scripture unclean. Yet it fills and is welcomed in many churches. By contrast, the Bible says, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them" (Ephesians 5:11). This is God's command and the duty of every Christian. No more prevaricating. It is time to obey God, time to get out. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
There's something decidedly fishy about this story. The Times of London carried the provocative headline: Scientists find missing link-and it's a fish finger! Listen carefully: HUMANS could be closer to pond life than had been realized. Researchers have linked a raft of our anatomical and genetic features with fishy ancestors that lived hundreds of millions of years ago. They have found that the origin of human hands and fingers could lie in the emergence of a finned fish 365m years ago. Similarly, the sophisticated joints that give us the ability to run, grip and turn may owe their existence to a sea creature known as the tiktaalik that lived in the Arctic 375m years ago. Even our acute vision may be a legacy of an even earlier ancestor, similar to a jellyfish, whose genes have been adapted to play a crucial role in the human eye. "An entire tree of life, from microbe to worm, to fish and mammal, is embedded inside of us. We can uncover our past by studying fossils and understanding our DNA," said Neil Shubin, professor of anatomy at Chicago University Here we go again. Lacking any sort of credible evidence of the reality of their theory evolutionists love to theorize on what "could" have happened millions of years ago. The origin of human hands and eyes "could lie in the emergence of a finned fish 365m years ago." The joints in our hands and feet "may owe their existence to a sea creature." Our acute vision "may be a legacy from an even earlier ancestor." This is what passes for science among evolutionists. To them anything "may be" so long as it excludes the possibility of a divine Creator! We need to give the lie to the constant claim from evolutionists that our eyes and joints "could" have evolved from primitive forms. The reality is that they could not. Even Darwin recognized that the complexity of the human eye formed an impenetrable barrier against his theory of gradual change. The vast number of intermediate forms would still have left their bearers lacking our power of sight. In addition, in the evolutionary world where only the fittest survived, the gradual changes would have rendered the modified specimens less capable of surviving, not more. We must also emphasize that no scientist has ever found any of the millions of intermediate stages between the fish finger and the human hand. They do not exist outside of the fertile imaginations of evolutionary scientists. We give no credence to their mental meanderings or their pseudo-science. We know the difference between fish fingers and human hands. The only connection is when our hands transport the fish fingers to our mouths! |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Christianity stands or falls on the truth or otherwise of the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Resurrection has been well termed the Gibraltar of the gospel. The Apostles of Christ recognized the importance of this truth. Paul went so far as to tell the Corinthians that if Christ did not actually rise again from the dead the whole Christian faith was vain, empty, worthless. Furthermore, he said that if Christ did not rise from the dead, the Apostles would have been liars and false prophets, for they testified that they had actually seen, touched and spoken with him and had received His teaching in the interval between His Resurrection and His Ascension. Not only the Apostles recognized the central importance of the Resurrection of Christ to Christianity. So did the Jews. And so did the devil. Thus, ever since, there has been an unremitting campaign to discredit the truth of the Resurrection. Rationalists have attacked it as mythical, for, say they, dead people just don't rise from the dead. We all know that, but that does not for a moment give any logical reason to disbelieve that God, who sent His Son into the world to die for sinners, could raise Him from the dead as a proof of His divine person and mission. The tomb that Jesus occupied lies outside Jerusalem. After three days occupancy, He left it as He rose again from the dead. However, every now and again someone claims to have found the tomb of the Lord Jesus. Allegedly, it has been found as far away from the Holy Land as the Himalayas! Of course, it is all imaginary. Last year the Discovery Channel aired a documentary about a tomb unearthed by archeologists in 1980 that its discoverer claims to be the tomb of Jesus. The report by a Jewish "investigative reporter" stated that the in tomb a crypt was found containing what were said to be the ossuaries of Joseph, Mary, Jesus, the son of Joseph, Mariamne and Judah, son of Jesus. To make the report a little spicier, the film makers speculated that "Mariamne" could have been Mary Magdalene and that Jesus could have been married to her. Not surprisingly, Christians and academics slammed the film. However, recently Time magazine reported that Princeton Theological Seminary Professor James Charlesworth, organized a conference in Jerusalem, bringing together over 50 archeologists, statisticians and experts in DNA, ceramics and ancient languages, to give evidence as to whether or not the crypt of Christ had been found. The vast majority of these "experts" canned the idea that they were dealing with Jesus' coffin. I know that DNA is a marvelous investigative tool but its use here to "prove" that a certain coffin or bunch of bones belonged to Jesus of Nazareth is a crazy attempt to lend a pseudo-scientific appearance to prejudice or opinion. Charlesworth, a Methodist minister, thinks that if this is the tomb of Jesus and his wife and son, Christians should rejoice at evidence that He really existed! Now there's liberalism run absolutely mad. The truth is that all the names used were extremely common names in Judea at the time of Jesus. Some think it statistically improbable that all the names should be found together. Actually, there are just three names on the ossuaries that coincide with the Gospels' accounts-Mary, Joseph, and Jesus. Mariamne and Judah the son of Jesus do not appear in the story of our Saviour. The appearance of three common names in one family is a poor basis for attacking the truth of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. This time the Discovery Channel discovered nothing more than the enduring prejudice of Jews against the Lord Jesus and of liberal apostates against the supernatural elements of the gospel. Some discovery! |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
The federal authorities recently issued a sobering report. Almost 7000 little children per year die in the United States as the result of their parents giving them over the counter cold and cough medicine. Apparently these medicines are too strong for young children but parents are in many cases unaware of the danger. In their anxiety to alleviate cold symptoms and relieve minor coughs they fail to read the warning labels and often cause the little one they are trying to protect grave harm-as I have mentioned, in 7000 cases a year, fatal harm. This is the story of a human tragedy. We cannot begin to fathom the grief of good parents who see their little ones die in such a way. Our hearts go out to them. Theirs is a heavy burden, a sorrow that will persist and that will overwhelm them in long, dark, sleepless nights. While the world will forget and make their children mere statistics, they will never forget. This human tragedy is also a modern parable. It points us to consider a parallel case in the spiritual realm. Every day, parents who desire the very best for their little ones are giving them what will ultimately destroy them. Instead of carefully considering the dangers, many parents give their children a diet of rock music, of Hollywood movies, and of sensual entertainment. They get them hooked on the celebrity cult. We all know parents who have allowed the TV to raise their kids for them. It seems an ideal way to keep rowdy kids quiet or to give bored kids something to interest them. But it is a colossal mistake. Every TV should come with a large warning label: This machine may bring Satan into your home and may be destructive to the health and life of your family. Of course, they don't have such labels so it is up to parents to recognize the danger for themselves. Most don't and they destroy their children. Warning labels should also be attached to schools, colleges and even churches that deny the truth of God and the gospel of Christ. Parents should be very careful before allowing their children to be brainwashed-a poor word for the introduction of moral and spiritual corruption into the mind-by academics or clerics whose teaching is poison that will destroy both body and soul. Our children suffer from much more than the moral equivalent of a cold or cough. They are born in sin. They inherit all the depravity and spiritual corruption of Adam's fall. They need radical treatment-they need the redemption that is found alone in Christ. Anything else, however well intended, will be fatal to their souls. Let us be wise. Let us read and heed the warnings. Let us not destroy our children for all eternity by failing to make sure that they are exposed to the truth of the gospel and are protected from the poison of the world. In time they will be strong enough to face the evils of the world for themselves. Meantime, don't let us make the mistake of turning their coughin' into coffins. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Incredible as it may seem, at a time when American troops are being murdered by Muslim terrorists and when the atrocities of 9/11 are just six and a half years removed, the Iowa House of Representatives invited a Muslim imam to open its 2008 session with prayer. After speaking in Arabic, Muhammad Khan of the Islamic Center of Des Moines, spoke in English and prayed, "I seek refuge in God against the accursed Satan in the name of God, most gracious, most merciful." To many Muslims around the world, America is the great Satan. Was Muhammad Khan referring to America and stigmatizing it as "accursed?" In leading the Iowa Legislature in prayer, was he asking his god for the destruction of America? Certainly, the use of the language he chose was incendiary. Without any indication to the contrary we must conclude that he knew very well the connotation of "Satan" as employed by millions of Muslims around the world. Khan went even further. He made no direct reference to the war in Iraq but he spoke of his god as "the master of the day of judgment" and asked for "victory over those who disbelieve." Now that is pretty specific. To a Muslim imam, those who disbelieve are infidels. America's troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are, according to Muslims, unbelievers, infidels. I believe that it was for their defeat that this Muslim cleric prayed to ask Allah in the Iowa House of Representatives for the defeat of their own troops. And for whose victory do you suppose he was praying? Since it was a victory over unbelievers he had in mind, it stands to reason that he was asking for victory to given to the forces of "belief," that is, the forces of Islam. Muhammad Khan was a guest of Iowa State Representative Ako Abdul Samad of Des Moines, another local Muslim leader. I can only suppose that Samad found the imam's prayer to his liking. What concerns me is that I have heard of no Representative who rose up in protest or who walked out of the chamber rather than listen to the sectarian rant of a Muslim insulting the legislature and the nation. Whatever anyone's view of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, for a State Legislature to sit docilely while a Muslim leads the members in prayer for the defeat of his own nation and for the victory of Islam over his own troops is disgraceful. I have noted that there has been no outcry from the ACLU. If a Christian minister prays in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ or includes anything specifically Christian in his prayer, the ACLU will cry "Separation of Church and State" and seek to silence such public prayer. But when a Muslim prays as Muhammad Khan did in Iowa it goes strangely silent. Even the clearly understood references to political and military matters do not call forth their ire. It seems that the only religious expression that offends the liberals of the ACLU is anything that professes to be Christian. Islam is becoming bolder by the day. It took a lot of gall for Muhammad Khan to appear in an American State Legislature to pray against "the accursed Satan," and for the defeat of the forces of unbelief, knowing full well that to Muslims, America is the great Satan and her armies are the armies of the infidel. But at least he was loyal to his cause, however perverted that cause may be. The Representatives who sat idly by to listen to him did a spineless thing, a shameful thing. If Americans don't soon waken up they will soon be where Britain is, with Muslims graciously "offering" them sharia law. That's a gift we can do without, along with such incantations as that with which Muhammad Khan disgraced the Iowa legislature's opening session for 2008. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
