Sunday, September 16, 2007

Faith schools and ‘cherry-picking’

As Cranmer was walking yesterday through the lovely English countryside, he was struck by the beauty of early autumn – red leaves, yellow leaves, blackberries, plums, cherries, and conkers – thousands of them. Being rather fascinated by these shiny brown spheroids, he set about finding the largest, and as each in his possession was subsequently trumped by a superior one, the inferior were discarded, and Cranmer returned home with two magnificent specimens. They now sit upon his mantelpiece, small trophies of autumn, waiting to complement the log fires of an impending winter.

He well remembers soaking these in vinegar all those years ago, drilling a hole, inserting a shoelace, and going into battle in the school playground. Cranmer was always proud of his conkers, and frequently reached the championship stakes of a ‘25-er’.

But all that was a very long time ago, and such pursuits are now, apparently, banned. Health and safety, you see. So many children lost eyes, limbs, or even their life playing conkers, that HM Government has outlawed the pursuit in its schools, and teachers enforce the regulations much more rigorously than they demand acquisition of the skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic. There are probably league tables for health and safety, in the Department for Children, Schools, Families and Nappy Changing if nowhere else, and headmasters and headmistresses the length and breadth of the land live in mortal fear of their school being named and shamed by the education Gestapo, because the children we are producing today belong to the state by which all things are made. They are programmed to exalt secularism, to conform to pluralism, and to laud relativism.

It is no wonder that standards are sinking into a morass of mediocrity. It is also no wonder that schools which have a faith dimension are somehow ‘better’. Oh, it’s awfully un-PC to say it, but it’s as plain as the nose upon one’s face. Faith schools are popular, over-subscribed, encourage the pursuit of excellence within a moral framework, and yield first class results. They are a credit to the country, a liberating beacon of light in the anally-retentive politically-restrictive education policies of all the political parties.

And now they stand accused of ‘cherry-picking’ the best children. Could it be, could it just possibly be, that the ‘best’ children have been nurtured in a faith environment? Could it be that they are more inclined to value hard work, respect authority, and pursue excellence because these are qualities that are pleasing to God?

It is heartening indeed that the Government is not seeking to eliminate them, as some teaching unions demand, but their expansion to include Muslim, Sikh and Hindu schools has caused more than a ripple among some commentators. Speaking at the launch of Faith in the System, Dr Mohamed Mukadam, chairman of the Association of Muslim Schools, said their schools ‘should be free to teach according to the tenets of their faith’. In response, The Daily Telegraph’s Holy Smoke blog goes so far as to suggest that all faith schools should be closed rather than permit the expansion of state-funded Muslim schools. Prominent Roman Catholic Damian Thompson declares: ‘I would rather every Anglican, Catholic and Jewish school in the country lost government funding than set up an Islamic state sector in education.’

This is reactionary nonsense and ill-considered hyperbole. Indeed, one might even call it ‘bigotry’. Of course there are concerns, as there are with some church schools and ‘the tenets of their faith’, but taken as a whole they are a force for good. While Damian Thompson talks of Muslim schools turning into madrassahs, he appears oblivious to the many Roman Catholic schools in which children have been emotionally terrorised and sexually abused by nuns and monks, who have been indoctrinated with ‘the truth’, all of which has had the life-long effect of causing them to repudiate utterly their faith and despise the Church. Cranmer knows many. Yet, taken as a whole, these schools are an undoubted force for good.

As long as the state is content to finance Jewish, Church of England, and Roman Catholic education, it is impossible to argue against it doing the same for Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. They are, after all, British tax-payers also, and (according to Conservative educational philosophy) these parents are fully entitled to bring up their children as they wish as they are the primary educators. There should not be, however, carte blanche granted for an unregulated curriculum. If nice Muslims parents want their nice children educated for the niceties of Shari'a law and Islamic culture, they should send them to a nice Muslim country like Pakistan. And there they should stay.

The solution must be to demand an absolute and unequivocal commitment by schools in receipt of public funding to underpin their educational philosophy with the principles of liberal democracy. There cannot be endless hours dedicated to reciting the Qur’an or learning Arabic, and neither should there be gender segregation in those areas of school life where there is no discernible educative benefit. And it is not ineffectual local education authorities which should oversee and ensure implementation of these policies, but a rigorous Ofsted regime, with the power to close schools which fail the test.

Closing excellent faith schools in order to prevent a few radical Islamic schools will deprive generations of children of all faiths of the opportunity of an excellent education based on moral principles, worship, and a greater awareness of God. It is wrong, quite utterly wrong, to undermine the Christian foundations of the educational structure of the United Kingdom simply because other faiths wish to acquire a slice of the cake. Church schools are a part of our heritage and culture, and must remain so. And rather like the process of natural selection in acquiring a championshp conker, schools should be able to select by aptitude and ability in order to ensure that children receive the best education for which they are suited. And if that is unacceptable, un-PC 'cherry-picking', then the nation is in desperate need of an educational philosophy which can expound the superlative qualities of a natural, juicy, ripe cherry over the disgusting, mass-produced, e-number-ridden, glazed specimens found on cheap trifle.

30 Comments:

Anonymous Neo said...

What does Your Grace say to the critics who claim fath schools are at the heart of our problems with integration?

Families of Muslims, Sikhs etc, keen to get their children a place at the local faith school, move nearer to the school in an effort to ensure their child may receive a better education. This in turn leads to largely Muslim/Sikh/Hindu pockets in our society; does this not provide an obstacle in the struggle for a united Britain free from racial (and religious) tensions?

16 September 2007 at 10:24  
Anonymous Ultraviolence said...

Faith Schools are obviously discriminatory and should be shut down.

It is discriminatory to say you are anymore aquainted with the truth than anyone else.

For that reason there should only be one kind of school: Comprehensives. And one kind of religion: One World.

16 September 2007 at 11:28  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Neo,

His Grace concurs with the Archbishop of Canterbury on the matter:

"They offer not a programme of indoctrination (or thereby an augmentation of segregation), but the possibility of developing a greater level of community cohesion through the understanding of how faith shapes common life. This matters for the lives of individuals, whether they are believers or not — because the failure to understand how faith operates leaves us at sea in engaging with our neighbours at local and global level."

And Mr Ultraviolence,

It is a pity indeed that you are blind to your own assertions of 'truth', the exaltation of your own narrow worldview, and the discrimination inherent in the propagation of your sociologically outmoded and educationally redundant one-size-fits-all 'comprehensive' system, of which you are doubtless a product.

16 September 2007 at 11:40  
Anonymous Observer said...

Having watched a couple of lads throwing sticks to try and bring the conkers from the trees, i had a little chat about how they prepared them - in vinegar - and how things were in conker contests.

Nothing changed.

It must be schools with genteel school maams determined to feminise little boys...but obviously a few fathers need to give them a good talking to

16 September 2007 at 11:51  
Anonymous Voyager said...

There should be no State Schools. All schools should be private and independent of State control...the State is destructive of all that is free

16 September 2007 at 11:52  
Blogger Sam Tarran said...

"Cranmer was always proud of his conkers ... such pursuits are now, apparently, banned."

Indeed they are, at my school at least. However, we have replaced the joys of conker fights with tie-fights instead, with the conkers supplanted by knots tied into the ends. Very fun, and very immature, especially for a "senior prefect".

16 September 2007 at 11:55  
Anonymous Neo said...

Your Grace,

Whilst I am willing to concede the values of faith schools as a means of educating people, the sentiment of "developing a greater level of community cohesion through the understanding of how faith shapes common life" I find hard to conceive.

Does Your Grace not agree that more understanding can be gained from actually mixing with people of different religions rather than reading about them from a book?

16 September 2007 at 12:12  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Neo,

Indeed His Grace can agree, but to enforce such a policy by statute law runs counter to the fundamentals of human nature which finds security in the familiarity of familes, clans and nations. Like seeks communion and social intercourse with like. The creation of artifically-contrived entitities in order to engineer social cohesion is doomed to failure.

16 September 2007 at 12:27  
Anonymous Observer said...

more understanding can be gained from actually mixing with people of different religions

Why ?

I mix with Muslims daily - I have no interest in their religion, nor their customs, nor their dress, nor their diet....I resent that not a day goes by without the media mentioning either Muslim or Islam....I am very tired of this cultural subgroup and its blatant hogging of the agenda.....much prefer to read about it in books....or not

16 September 2007 at 12:36  
Anonymous Neo said...

"I have no interest in their religion"

I think you answered your question; disinterest is hardly an ideal foundation for understanding is it?

16 September 2007 at 13:26  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Why should i have to pay to "educate" muslims to despise me,and wish to put my people under a vicious alien law?I did not come to this country to hate muslims, i was here already,they came to impose thier will upon mine,and forget this "moderate muslim"tripe, there are none, islam does not recognise "moderation"and it is only muslims that we are discussing, the rest of the idolaters pose little threat to us.If they wish to impart this disgusting mummery to thier children let them pay for it, if there are any of them working that is,why do we continue to turn our society upsidedown for 3 million muslims, who when it comes to the crunch will revert to type and will never extend our liberal virtues to us, but meerly laugh at us for being so stupid.

16 September 2007 at 13:47  
Anonymous James said...

Familiarity breeds contempt. Mixing with people of other religions or cultures does not, in practice, produce happy rainbow-glowing, multi-coloured groups of people-in-perfect-harmony. Instead it tends to make the religious groups all the more vigorous in despising each other and engraining code of conduct which separate them from the others.

If we want a future which does not include continual multi-cultural violence, we need to either make these people conform to the mass culture, or else make their areas autonomous and fence them off.

16 September 2007 at 13:56  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

It is also no wonder that schools which have a faith dimension are somehow ‘better’... encourage the pursuit of excellence within a moral framework... Could it be, could it just possibly be, that the ‘best’ children have been nurtured in a faith environment?

His Grace should beware. Those who use rebarbative terms like 'faith dimension', 'faith environment' and 'pursuit of excellence within a moral framework' (some form of gymnastics?) are closer to the 'anally-retentive politically-restrictive education' community than they might like to think.

His Grace concurs with the Archbishop of Canterbury on the matter:

"They offer not a programme of indoctrination (or thereby an augmentation of segregation), but the possibility of developing a greater level of community cohesion through the understanding of how faith shapes common life. This matters for the lives of individuals, whether they are believers or not — because the failure to understand how faith operates leaves us at sea in engaging with our neighbours at local and global level."


No-one mixes the banal and the pretentious so skilfully as the current Arch-B of Cant. "Leaves us at sea in engaging with our neighbours..."

16 September 2007 at 14:29  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

============================================================

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

============================================================

Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) >>> Arguably, one of the greatest Frenchmen who has ever lived.

Taken from "The Law" ... (first published in 1850)

16 September 2007 at 15:27  
Anonymous Observer said...

I think you answered your question; disinterest is hardly an ideal foundation for understanding is it?

I don't want to "understand" - I know too much about Islam and have one of the largest Muslim populations in England around me...I just wish you did instead Neo....

16 September 2007 at 16:21  
Anonymous Neo said...

I do too; I also have a large Sikh population near me and a large "chav" neighbourhood...

I see nothing worse in the Islamic culture than in that of half of the aforementioned "chav" neighbourhoods I have to walk through each day, neighbourhoods in which I am regularly subjected to vulgar abuse and (on several occasions) physical attacks.

16 September 2007 at 17:47  
Anonymous Neo said...

Oh, and should you detect an unpresent bias here, I have also been attacked twice by large groups of Muslims, so it isn't some sort of bitter resentment that formed by view.

16 September 2007 at 17:50  
Anonymous Observer said...

I see nothing worse in the Islamic culture than in that of half of the aforementioned "chav" neighbourhoods

True, Paganism exists in many forms

16 September 2007 at 18:15  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Ultraviolence said, "Faith Schools are obviously discriminatory".

What the devil should education be about if not discrimination? Without discrimination there is no education.

16 September 2007 at 18:22  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster said...

For the last 10-15 years, I taught RE in schools as well as at university.

As a result of experiences gained during these years, I conclude that it would be very difficult for Muslims to teach the tenets of their religion without incorporating their desire for sharia law to be incorporated for the entire British population, as well as for the disappearance of Israel as a sovereign and democratic country.

Islam is not a 'faith' and finds it very difficult to separate politics from mere 'belief'. It constitutes not an oriental form of Christianity, but a completely different outlook on life.

Interestingly, I am currently teaching part of the week in a mixed school in Jaffa. Most of the pupils are Christian Arabs, followed by Muslim Arabs and then members of the Jewish community.

Here for the first time in about 10 years I have come across Muslim pupils who are tolerant of other faiths and rejoice in learning about them.

I wonder why that is.

16 September 2007 at 22:24  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Thank you for your patronizing comments Dr. Irene Lancaster, FRSA, Dame of the UK, Most Wise Emminence, Associate Member of the Illuminati, Mensa IQ 210, Anobi Kanobe, etc., etc.

Phew, she must carry one hell of a name card! Ha-ha-ha!

I conclude that it would be very difficult for Muslims to teach the tenets of their religion without incorporating their desire for sharia law to be incorporated for the entire British population

Well, well, have you now? Most of us concluded that no-brainer about 6 years ago, some as long as 15 years ago.

Here for the first time in about 10 years I have come across Muslim pupils who are tolerant of other faiths and rejoice in learning about them.

I have lived and worked in several Muslim countries, over a span of two decades, and I have found NO SHORTAGE of individual Muslims who are tolerant of other faiths. The problem lies with their Clergy, the amateurish assessments of people like you, and their corrupt national leaders.

Writes the Jewess: Islam is not a 'faith.'

Indeed, it is not. Something I have already written on for the past 6 years. Interestingly, neither is Judaism a faith. Rather, it is a set of Laws that you lot insist were given exclusively to you, so you Jews can then give them to the rest of us, but strictly on your own terms.

If that isn't arrogance and conceit, then I don't know what is.

17 September 2007 at 07:20  
Anonymous Lega Nord said...

I think islamic education should be banished and punished, one might argue whether the Muhammedan blashpemy should be outright outlawed in our countries but, since we cannot control the consciences, I would content myself with prohibiting overt worship i.e. praying in mosques. No mosques no madrassas down with Muhammad, if you want to blaspheme, do it on the sly, and, above all, at your home.
The sons of the bearded fanatical barbarians who invaded our countries should be given lessons about Christianity so that they may realise the gloom and darkness they're in and finally embrace our True Religion based on the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ True God and True Man died for our salvation.
God willing, they'll give up their Satanic beliefs and find the True Light and the True Path.

17 September 2007 at 15:51  
Blogger Dean McConnell said...

Here in the USA we have to pay taxes for secular schools that indoctrinate children in relativism, secularism, left wing politics, and revissionist views of history, but in too many cases, fail to teach them much else.

If we object to this we have to pay out of our own pockets to send our Children to schools that are not supported by the government.

Because of our constitution, many people believe the state cannot suport religeous schools.

I would have thought that in the UK you had the great advantage of the established church of England. Why should the government not be free to supposrt Anglican schools or Christian schools only? Is this a European "human rights" limitation or a self imposed political limitation?

17 September 2007 at 20:47  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Because of our constitution, many people believe the state cannot suport religeous schools.

although that is not true, it is simply The Supreme Court usurping the role of democratic government whereby the USA is an Autocracy run by Legal Realists,

The USA is a quasi-Socialist Society in that it operates compulsory education much as in the former Soviet Bloc with similar ideological blinkers....even France which has a fetish of State and Church separation funds religious schools.

The USA permits Marxism to be taught in publicly-funded universities but makes theology students attend private seminaries.....quite absurd

17 September 2007 at 21:18  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

The US Constitution was effectively dispensed with during the 1960s by the Civil Rights amendments and the Hart-Cellar Act, the latter opening the US Borders to an enduring flood of non-White immigration from every corner of the globe.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" was not a statement in support of racial equivalance and cultural relativity. Nor was it an invitation for non-Europeans to turn the USA into a Third World society and culture propped up by a First World Military.

The Signatories and Witnesses to the Declaration of Independence were:

John Hancock

Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
Geo. Walton

Wm. Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
Edward Rutledge
Thos. Heyward, Junr.
Thomas Lynch, Junr.
Arthur Middleton

Samuel Chase
Wm. Paca
Thos. Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Th. Jefferson
Benja. Harrison
Thos. Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Robt. Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benja. Franklin
John Morton
Geo. Clymer
Jas. Smith
Geo. Taylor
James Wilson
Geo. Ross
Caesar Rodney
Geo. Read
Tho. Mckean

Wm. Floyd
Phil. Livingston
Frans. Lewis
Lewis Morris
Richd. Stockton
Jno. Witherspoon
Fras. Hopkinson
John Hart
Abra. Clark

Josiah Bartlett
Wm. Whipple
Saml. Adams
John Adams
Robt. Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Step. Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
Wm. Williams
Oliver Wolcott
Matthew Thornton

Notice, they are all white, Christian Europeans (mostly English stock) and it was to their racial cousins that famous extract from the Declaration statement about 'equality' actually referred. What has followed since has little to do with the US Constitution, as originally intended by the Founding Fathers, and everything to do with the Judaeofication of U.S. Institutions, its Culture, and the Supreme Court, since 1916; accelerating since 1950.

The US has been under sustained attack from a parasitic minority for many decades. The Gentile majority has squandered too much time and energy pursuing only the Right to Happiness portion, out of the three Rights enshrined: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. They need to wake up and realize their Lives and Liberties are now coming under increasing threat from other races, too used to being given their Rights (on demand) without earning them, and oftentimes, without even deserving them.

The United States of America is no longer a country, a society, or even a culture ... rather it has become an ideology of itself, and a perverted one at that.

18 September 2007 at 14:04  
Blogger Peter Kirk said...

neither should there be gender segregation in those areas of school life where there is no discernible educative benefit

I agree, but that would not go down very well at our local separate boys' and girls' grammar schools.

18 September 2007 at 18:00  
Anonymous Alexandrian said...

"neither should there be gender segregation in those areas of school life where there is no discernible educative benefit"

I cannot see any reason why not, Your Grace.

18 September 2007 at 20:29  
Blogger Dean McConnell said...

Mission Impossible gives the view of the Declaration held by many in the Southern states after 1830. A careful survey of the writtings of the actual signators shows they did believe all humans should be "equal" before the law as all were sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve.

The founders recognized the southern states were addicted to slavery even though everybody knew it was wrong. To preserve the union of the states they put off going "cold turkey." They thought slavery would die out naturally. Sadley, the cotten gin and a a Senator names Calhoun proved them wrong.

Slavery, and the attitudes that supported it, were not only wrong, but were an economic albatros round the neck of the southern states. That part of the USA is only now becoming indusrtially developed because of the legacy of slavery and the errors that supported it.

The attempt to justify slavery after 1830 is what lead to the seclarization of American law, the rise of political theories that rejected any anchor in the divine order or morality, and the change in the role of the judiciary from a case deciding body to an organ of policy creation. So, in an odd way it was racism and prejudice that led to the courts America has today, not the factors cited by Mission Impossible.

19 September 2007 at 18:10  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Thank you for your contribution dean mcconnell.

Your hypothesis is interesting, but unproven, and therefore little more than your opinion. You seem to be blind to several key historical events regarding your Supreme Court, the Jewish lawyers who were the power behind the Civil Rights movements, the Jewish characters that drove the Counter-Culture revolution during the 1960s, and the Jewish dominance (if not control) of Hollywood: this has been an oft quoted factor since since the 1930s, etc., etc., etc. Presumably you would prefer to assert that observertions from three different generations have been wrong, or biased, or 'anti-Semitic.'

To exclusively vilify the Southern States for their use of slaves suggests you are a northerner who still retains an animosity for those damned red-necks.

In fact, slavery was just as commonly practised in the northern (Union) states, and you know very well it was. Slavery lingered in the Southern States more because of the crops that environment grew: cotton and tobacco. To suggest the Southern states are only now becoming industrialized is because of slavery and the attitudes that supported it, is a gross distortion and presumably a calculated insult to the people of those Southern States.

What has actually driven industrialization into the Southern States during the past decade or so is a cheaper workforce (i.e., lower wages) and lower state taxes on commerce.

The original writings of George Washington and others of his time, on the subject of equality, and on the status of Black Slaves came to my attention a short time ago.

They were of the opinion it would be better if they were freed in order to return to Africa. They believed that segregation was the preferable solution for both whites and blacks. These gentlemen actually opposed full integration.

This is interesting considering such men are often held up as the first apostles of the Liberal world view so common in the USA.

Liberia, officially the Republic of Liberia, a country on the west coast of Africa, bordered by Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Côte d'Ivoire. Liberia, means "Land of the Free", and was founded as an independent nation with support of the American government, for free-born and formerly enslaved Blacks and thus, is only one of two nations in Africa (along with Ethiopia) that didn't fall under European domination.

19 September 2007 at 19:08  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

ERRATUM :: correction, in my 19 September 2007 19:08 just above I wrote 'George Washington' when I meant to write Abraham Lincoln. My apologies to all readers. I was writing in haste.

There is also the (corrected) opinions of Thomas Jefferson; not those contrived by the media. Consider this:

---------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate that these people [the Negroes] are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be ... pari passau filled up by free White laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up." [Thomas Jefferson's Autobiography]
---------------------------------------------------------------

The words chiselled on the Jefferson Memorial are a deceit, calculated to change the meaning of Jefferson's original words by selective quotation and the removal of the second part of his paragraph which clearly alters the first part's meaning.

Then consider these words by Lincoln:

---------------------------------------------------------------
"Negro equality. Fudge! How long in the Government of a God great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?" [The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol III, p. 399]
---------------------------------------------------------------

You Liberals/Socialists out there might also like to consider this next quotation, whilst you contemplate the dissolution of your fantasy island:

---------------------------------------------------------------
"I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." [Abraham Lincoln during Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, 18 September 1858 -- The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. III, pp. 145-461]
---------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, Liberia (founded by African-Americans with the blessing and support of Washington DC) was consolidated in 1821-1842 and achieved independence on 26 July 1847.

Does Liberia's Flag look familiar?

These brief examples demonstrate that America's founding fathers and greatest statesmen did NOT intend the USA to become a rainbow coalition between the world's multitudes. The USA was constructed as a Christian Country based on Biblical law, by White Men for White ancestors. What changed the country was the mass arrival of Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (along with their colonization of New York) which followed the pogroms by the Russian Czar during the late 19th century. Since when, the USA has become a Talmudist's project. This is why the USA is sliding towards Third World Status propped up by an over-sized, bullying, military machine.

20 September 2007 at 08:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older