Skip to comments.Islam is not a religion, it is foreign law (From 2010)
Posted on 11/17/2015 7:53:33 AM PST by DJ MacWoW
click here to read article
From the article: Islamists know they cannot destroy us militarily, but they also know that they can do it with political correctness and insisting that we respect their freedom of religion, even though they have no respect for ours. We are extending a welcoming hand to the enemy of our country and western culture under the pretense of religious freedom.
There's much more at the link.
islam is a totalitarian death cult founded by a child rapist.
I’ve run into 2 posters who believe it is a valid religion. Makes your head spin.
Islam is centered around Sharia law, which is fascism. It would be the same as if Nazis called their ideology a religion.
Absolutely but there are posters who believe it is just a religion with laws. This was posted to get those posters to think.
I have been saying for a long time that we need to re-define Islam for what it is, a political ideology with religious overtones. That takes it out of the realm of freedom of religion and we can start shutting down the Mosques and get rid of it. We also need to stop letting anymore Muslims into the US and deport as many as possible.
Islam is a parasite that kills its host.
The Plague of Islam
If the civilized world is to survive, Islam must be understood for what it really is: It’s not a religion, form of government, or anything recognizable to the civilized mind. Islam is a disease, an incurable disease of the mind that is highly contagious among the feeble minded and is now spreading among the world’s feeble minded at an epidemic rate. As with any disease, one can’t reason with this disease, negotiate with it, or treat in any manner other than how one would treat any incurable disease.
As past efforts to contain this disease have failed, carriers of this Plague of Islam must be eradicated wherever they’re found, for if they’re not, this disease will eventually end not just Western Civilization, but it will undo over 5,000 years of human civilization.
Islam is Not a Religionâ
February 19, 2011
New book by Rebecca Bynum
Reviewed by Louis Palme
The duck-billed platypus is native to Australia. It is an amphibious egg-laying mammal which has a duck-like bill, web feet, and fur. It electrocutes its under-water prey of worms, shrimp, and larvae, but it also has a venomous claw that can paralyze land-based animals and people. It stores food in pouches in the mouth, but it has no teeth. When the babies are hatched they nurse through the skin, as the platypus has no nipples. One could not imagine a stranger animal on the face of the earth.
So it is not a casual remark when Rebecca Bynum calls Islam the duck-billed platypus of belief systems. This is because Islam is really an all-encompassing hybrid religio-socio-political system that cannot be compared with Christianity, or any other major religion, for that matter.
Why Islam is Not a Religion
Just because people profess a faith in an ideology doesnât make it a religion. In our lifetime, people swore loyalty to Communism and Nazism with religious fervor, but those ideologies were never granted a âreligiousâ status. Also in America, one so-called âreligiousâ practice â polygamy â was so offensive that the Mormon Church was forced to discontinue it to gain legal acceptance. There are definite limits to what can be deemed a religion, even in First Amendment America.
In addition to being a hybrid, Islam is wholly materialistic. The Quran takes on an almost fetish character, where the book itself is âsacred,â not the contents. The focus of prayer and the object of pilgrimage and veneration is a black rock. The rewards for dying in the cause of Allah are completely material â virgins, food, and sensual ambiance. Finally, Islam is the only religion where territorial sovereignty is more important than the inner spiritual sovereignty over menâs hearts. Mankind and territory are divided between the world of âsubmissionâ and the world of âwarfare.â Whereas Judeo-Christian religions focus on the righteousness of individuals, the emphasis in Islam is the collective âthe ummah.
When it comes to a concept of a god, the Allah of Islam predestines mankindâs lives with both good and evil outcomes. The submission to âAllahâs willâ means not only that man has no personal responsibility, but Allahâs powers are unlimited and often whimsical. Good and evil cannot be determined rationally, but only by the dictates of the Quran and the example of Muhammad. The Judeo-Christian God, on the other hand, is characterized by loving kindness (checked), and mankind can use reason to distinguish between good and evil without relying on a written scripture or religious teaching.
Ms. Bynum concludes, âSo what the Islamic system has done is usurped the place of God in the lives of believers. It has made a spiritual God unnecessary. The Islamic system is all one needs to know and obey. One must memorize the fixed words of the Quran, but knowing God as a living spiritual being is not required. . . The freedom Muslims are promised is of course entirely delusional because the reality in Islam is a life reduced to utter slavery â physical, psychological, and spiritual â without balm, without rest, without peace.â
What Should the Response to Islam Be?
âCompassion demands that we see Muslims as human beings first. . . Should we not then thoroughly examine the fundamental error of Islam, that is, of seeing the worldâs peoples as divided and fundamentally separate, that Muslims and non-Muslims are not only different, but Muslims are more and non-Muslims less? If Godâs love is divided, then God who is love must be divided, and though Muslims claim otherwise â that they worship âone Godââ their theology in this regard is contradictory and insupportable. Judged in this light, is it not incumbent upon us to seek to free individual Muslims from the totalitarian thought-system of Islam, just as we once sought to free Eastern Europeans from the totalitarian system of communism on the basis that it is fundamentally in error?â
âReal peacemaking is the result of the stout and unyielding defense of the values our civilization was founded upon. . . . Islam is deeply and profoundly wrong. Pretending it is right only worsens our situation by delaying actions that must be taken if our own civilization, however imperfect and unseemly it may be, is to be preserved.â
âReligion must hold to the transcendent purpose of reconciling man to a greater reality â it must lead man to God and bring God, or Love, if you will, into the life of man in ever increasing measure. Religion must always stand apart from the social and political institutions of the society in which it exists. Its function is not to uphold the status quo; its function is to show man a higher reality.â
âOne of the most important points to make about Islam is this: the purpose of Islam is only found in the perpetuation of Islam. Islam literally has no higher purpose. . . [Thatâs one of the reasons Islam is not really a religion.] There is no greater integrating or unifying force than religion. Without religion, we have absolutely nothing with which to counter Islam. . . Only faith in a loving God and the conviction that truth, beauty and goodness are real can oppose faith in a God of hate, a God of untruth, ugliness and cruelty. Religion itself is not the enemy and should not be treated as such.â
Rebecca Bynumâs book is a rational and compassionate discussion of the numerous disconnects between Islam and the Judeo-Christian ideologies. While it will be disturbing to Muslims who have never considered the theological and spiritual merits of Islam, it will empower non-Muslims to challenge the deeply worn âriverbedâ of Islamic traditions which have very little to do with the sustaining âriverâ of a spiritual faith in a living God which should be central to any true religion.
Scroll to page 4 to view the graphic illustrating the % of Islamic doctrine devoted to Kafir (non-muslims). Note that the Islamic doctrinal trilogy, Hadith, Sira, Koran devote 60% of total attention on the treatment of non-believers, 'kafir'. SIXTY PERCENT!
islam isn’t a religion, it’s a death cult for cowardly murderers and demented cutthroats.
Excellent! Thank you!
There needs to be a cluster of major events which violently discourages any Muslim to enter any Western nation. I can suggest some, but do not want to be banned.
Dr Bill Warner is an excellent source for knowledge on islam.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.
- Frank Herbert, Children of Dune
I searched for this post from 2002 and was unable to find it however I believe this will answer a lot of questions about the whole topic and some of the many misconceptions that exist about freedom of religion and our constitution and what we have to do.
Myth: The Founders Established A Wall of Separation Between Church and State
excerpt from the book Five Lies of the Century pp. 15-30 | 1995 | David T. Moore
Posted on 1/4/02 7:53 PM Pacific by sirgawain
MYTH: THE FOUNDING FATHERS ESTABLISHED A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE
The founding fathers were certainly men of faith, and it was their intention to establish a nation built upon the principles of Christianity. American statesman Patrick Henry said, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not to be religionist but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ.”2 Granted, by today’s standards, Henry’s words are narrow and offensive, but to ignore or deny them is censorship of history. Ambassador to France Benjamin Franklin wrote, “He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity will change the face of the world.”3 Indeed they did—and there is much evidence to combat any myth to the contrary.
Evidence from presidents and statesmen
On April 30, 1789, George Washington took the presidential oath of office and delivered America’s first inaugural address, acknowledging God as the reason for America’s birth:
It would be improper to omit, in this fisrt official act, my fervent supplication to that Almighty Being....No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some providential agency....We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.4
Our second president, John Adams, once told Thomas Jefferson,
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were....the general principles of Christianity....I will avow that I believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.5
John Quincy Adams, sixth president of the United States, summarized American history: “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government and the principles of Christianity.”6 Adams’s statement is diametrically opposed to the separation myth.
Noah Webster claimed,
The religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is the genuine Christianity, and to this [Christianity] we owe our free Constitution of government.7
Those are not the words of some wing-nut fundamentalist. Webster literally wrote the English dictionary, and he used words as precisely as a surgeon uses a scapel. His words cannot be redifined to say anything less than the Christian origin of the Constitution.
Evidence in the Supreme Court
When James Wilson was unanimously confirmed as George Washington’s appointment to the Supreme Court, he said, “Christianity is part of the common-law.”8 “Common-law” referred to the basis on which all other laws were built and reflected the posture of the Supreme Court for decades. In the case of Runkel v. Winemiller in 1796, just twenty years after the Declaration of Independence and nine years after adopting the Constitution, the supreme court of Maryland ruled, “By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing and are equally entitled to protection in their liberty.”
This case is crucial because it makes two issues very clear. First, it illustrates the real meaning behind the First Amendment: Each Christian denomination was placed upon an equal footing. Notice it didn’t say all religions were equal in America, but that all denominations of Christians were equal. The intention behind the First Amendment was to prevent one denomination from becoming the national church. Everyone understood that; most could remember what it was like to live under the oppressive Church of England. This was one of the primary motivations for leaving England. But and “equal footing” had nothing to do with a wall of separation.
The second issue is quite a bombshell. The truth about the First Amendment is that it was adopted to prevent any one denomination from infringing upon another but was never intended to be hostile toward Christianity or designed to exclude Christianity from political life. The Supreme Court affirmed Christianity as the established religion. Following the case, there was no public outcry, no suits by the ACLU, and no conflict with the Constitution. While the separation of church and state might well be entrenched in the political thinking of today, it was absolutely foreign to both the founding fathers and the Supreme Court prior to 1947.
Nearly 120 years after the birth of our nation, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fact that America was a Christian nation. In the case of Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) the unanimous decision stated:
Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teaching of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian....This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation...we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth....These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.9
Following the Court’s statement that America was a Christian nation, three pages were devoted to eighty-seven authoritative citations. From the commission of Christopher Columbus onward, the Court built and airtight case for its proposition that America is a Christian nation. That’s why Congress saw no conflict when it spent federal money to support ministers and missionaries for over one hundred years. Nor was there a conflict with appointing chaplains to the Senate, the House, or the armed forces. They saw no problem with Washington’s being sworn into office with his hand on the Bible opened to Deuteronomy 6. That’s also why the very same Congress that gave us the Constitution decided that President Washington’s inauguration would conclude with a church service at Saint Paul’s Chapel, led by the chaplains of Congress. The same Congress that approved a national day of prayer and thanksgiving, “whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly implore His protection and favor.”10
Evidence in other political, educational, and spiritual arenas
The spirit of Christianity continued to engulf the American political arena well into the next century. Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic text on early America’s political institutions says, “The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.”11
The separation of church and state was so foreign to the roots of America that Congress even approved a special printing of the Bible for use in public schools. In 1781, a publisher petitioned Congress for permission to print Bibles. Congress not only approved his request but issued this statement in 1782: “The Congress of the United States approves and recommends to the people, the Holy Bible...for use in schools.”12 Interestingly enough, that statement isn’t included within the NEA policy handbook. When the congressional recommendation was challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, “Why not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the schools? Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?”13
The founding fathers saw such a blend of Christianity and civil government that most expected officeholders to be Christians. While denominational affiliation didn’t matter, a belief in God and the Bible was paramount. Nine of the thirteen colonies had written constitutions. Many of them required officeholders to sign a declaration that amounted to a statement of faith. The Delaware Constitution of 1776 is a perfect example:
Everyone appointed to public office must say: “I do profess faith in God the Father, and in the Lord Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration.”14
Many theological seminaries couldn’t say that today. I’m not suggesting that we return to such a standard, but the Delaware Constitution blows away the separation myth and illustrates the Christian bias of the founding fathers.
Statements about elected officials and citizens
John Jay, the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and one of the three men most responsible for the Constitution, said, “Providence [God] has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”15 That’s pretty radical. Roger Sherman, the only founding father to sign all four of America’s major documents, totally agreed with Jay when he wrote, “The right to hold office was to be extended to persons of any Christian denomination.”16 While the remarks are shocking by modern standards, the comments simply reflect the common political sentiment of that day.
Even as late as 1931, the Court continued to affirm America as a Christian nation. In the U.S v. Macintosh, the Court ruled, “We are a Christian people, according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.” In addition to being a “Christian people,” the Court asserted that obedience to the will of God was duty of American citizens. No wonder de Tocqeville wrote what he did about Americans combining the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately that it was impossible to make them conceive of the one without the other. De Tocqueville’s testimony is priceless because he was an unbiased eyewitness to what was actually occurring in early America.
IS AMERICA GOING THROUGH “RELIGIOUS CLEANSING”?
It’s amazing that the Supreme Court cases Holy Trinity v. United States and U.S. v. Macintosh don’t appear in a single law text being used today. It certainly isn’t because the cases weren’t important. In the 1991 case Chapman v. United States, Justice John Paul Stevens quoted Holy Trinity as controlling precedent. If the case is still controlling precedent, then why has it (and its eighty-seven authoritative statements about America’s being a Christian nation) been extracted from law books? And why are the faith-affirming quotes of the founding fathers removed from public-school history books? Furthermore, why do the history books say nothing of a Christian nation governed by Christian principles? And if the founding fathers were Christians who intended to establish a Christian land, governed by Christian principles, how was that dream uprooted? And why do 67 percent of Americans believe that the separation of church and state is part of the First Amendment?
A simple case of censorship
The founders’ words and the court cases just cited fly in the face of the separation myth. Given the contemporary court’s secular bias, they would be very embarrassing. Politically correct humanists are determined to further the separation myth in the hope that every hint of religion will be removed from public life. The primary objective is nothing less than religious cleansing.
Knowledge of the founding fathers’ faith and their intention to establish a Christian nation has been a long-standing part of our American heritage. Even the modern-day liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas confessed, “We are a religious people, and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”17 More direct still were the words of Chief Justice Earl Warren. Certainly not known for a conservative bent, Warren told Time:
I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing the Good Book and the Spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses....Whether we look to the First Charter of Virginia, or to the Charter of New England, or to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay, or the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. The same object is present; a Christian land governed by Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it; freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under the law, and the reservation of powers to the people. I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country.18
How could a contemporary Supreme Court justice utter words so contrary to the current Court’s position? The answer is that Warren made his statements in 1954. Justice Warren was educated within a system that had not yet rewritten a secular, sanitized version of American history. He was historically accurate but politically incorrect. His words were also prophetic: “I like also to believe that as long as we do so [live in the spirit of a Christian land governed by Christian principles], no great harm can come to our country.”
A radical turn in the courts
In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court made a 180-degree turn. Without citing a single precedent, and ignoring 175 years of historically consistent rulings, the Court claimed, “The wall of separation between church and state must be kept high and impregnable” (Everson v. Board of Education). This was a totally new approach for the Court and a radical departure from the past. With that single decision, the myth of separation between church and state was born. That explains why the phrase “separation of church and state” didn’t appear in the World Book Encyclopedia until 1967. The wall is a myth. It was not established by the founders, nor was it part of our national heritage.
The fanatical nature of the Court’s decision is obvious when set within the context of the 1940s. Just three years earlier, the National Education Association had published a series of sixteen “Personal Growth Leaflets” to help public-school students become “familiar with our great literary heritage.” The back of the booklet read, “It is important that people who are to live together and work together happily shall have a common mind—a common body of appreciations and ideals to animate and inspire them.”19 The NEA’s selections for inspiring American students is extraordinary: the Lord’s Prayer; the poem “Father in Heaven, We Thank Thee”; another poem that introduced the concept of daily prayers; a thanksgiving poem that admonished kids to “thank the One who gave all the good things that we have.” If there was a distinctive “wall of separation” between church and state, why didn’t the National Education Association (of all organizations) know about it in 1944? The wall is a myth.
For fifteen years the Court’s decision had little impact upon judicial decisions but instead quietly cultivated a whole new thought system. In 1962, the seeds of the Everson case burst into full bloom and became controlling precedent for Engle v. Vitale—the case that removed prayer in public education by ruling voluntary and denominationally neutral prayer unconstitutional. The actual prayer was rather benign: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee and we beg thy blessings upon us and our parents, our teachers, and our country.” Tragically, Engle v. Vitale started a domino effect of court rulings that removed our religious heritage from the public arena, especially from education.
In the 1963 decision of Abington v. Schempp, the Court removed Bible reading from public education. The Court’s justification? “If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be and have been psychologically harmful to a child.” Simply amazing. Suddenly, the best- selling book of all time and the most quoted source by the founding fathers was unconstitutional and psychologically harmful. The honorable court certainly didn’t share the religious values of the founders nor the sustainers of the Republic. Abraham Lincoln said, “But for the Bible we would not know right from wrong.” Exactly. One of the reasons we have lost our moral bearings is that the objective values of right and wrong have been removed from chilren’s education.
In 1965, the Court ruled that religious speech among students was unconstitutional (Stein v. Oshinsky). While freedom of speech is still guaranteed for pornographers and political dissidents, one topic is taboo on the campus: religion. Stein v. Oshinsky made it unconstitutional for a student to pray aloud over a meal. In 1992, the Court carried its censorship into the college classroom by ordering a professor to stop discussing Christianity. In the outlandish ruling for DeSpain v. DeKalb County Community School District (1967), the Court declared the following kindergarten nursery rhyme unconstitutional: “We thank you for the flowers so sweet; We thank you for the food we eat; We thank you for the birds that sing; We thank you for everything.” The Court’s logic baffles common sense. Although the word God was not contained in this nursery rhyme, the Court argued that if someone were to hear it, it might cause them to think of God and was therefore unconstitutional.
In 1969, it became unconstitutional to erect a war memorial in the shape of a cross (Lowe v. City of Eugene, 1969). The Court carried that same religious bigotry into a 1994 case in which a cross in a San Diego park had to be removed. In 1976, it became unconstitutional for a board of education to use or refer to the word God in any official writings (State of Ohio v. Whisner). In 1979, it became unconstitutional for a kindergarten class to ask whose birthday was being celebrated in a Christmas assembly (Florey v. Sioux Falls School District).
By 1980 this incredibly twisted approach made it unconstitutional to post the Ten Commandments on school walls. According to Stone v. Graham, “If posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps venerate and obey the commandments; this is not a permissable objective.” James Madison, the man most responsible for the U.S. Constitution said “[We] have staked the future of all of our political Constitutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”20 Once again, the honorable Court is completely out of step with the founding fathers. Madison was absolutely right—the pathetic condition of our culture reflects the inability of individuals to control themselves. While the Ten Commandments hang above the chief justice of the Supreme Court, they are hypocritically censored from the halls of our schools. George Washington said that apart from religion, there can be no morality. We have removed religion from the public arena—and internal self-restraint has gone with it.
In 1985, Wallace v. Jaffree, the Supreme Court declared that any bill (even those which are constitutionally acceptable) is unconstitutional if the author of the bill had a religious activity in mind when the bill was written. With this case the Court carried the wall of separation beyond absurdity. In addition to applying to religious activities, words, and symbols, along with anything else that might cause someone to think about God, now the mythological wall may be brought to bear on an author’s thoughts while penning a bill. I suppose the speculations of mind readers will soon be admissible as evidence within our insane court system.
Why did the courts make such a drastic departure from our roots? The answer is self-interest and a complete disregard for the Constitution’s intent. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes illustrated his personal contempt for the original intent of the Constitution when he said, “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what judges say it is.”21 The words of Supreme Court Justice Brennan are even more toxic: “It is arrogant to use the Constitution as the founding fathers intended, it must be interpreted in light of current problems and current needs.”22 Perhaps the arrogance lies not in interpreting the Constitution as the founding fathers intended but, rather, in reinterpreting the Constitution to meet one’s current needs. It takes brazen audacity to ignore the intentions of the founding fathers and to turn one’s back on the 175 years of stellar American history that our Constitution provided.
A WAY TO STOP OUR NATIONAL DECLINE
Today, America is unraveling because we are no longer governed by Christian principles. We were once the undisputed world leader in nearly every area of life; now we lead the world in violent crime. Our divorce rate ranks number one in the world. We lead the Western world in teenage pregnancies, and we are world leader in voluntary abortions. We are the number one consumer of illegal drugs, and we lead the industrial world in illiteracy. Meanwhile, our economy limps along, struggling to sustain the $4 trillion debt dumped upon us by unprincipled people. This is all due to the turning of our backs upon the very heritage that made us great. We have bought this lie, but at what price? The indispensible pillars of morality and religion have proved to be just that—indispensible.
While many things can be done to stop our steady decline, the most important issue is truth. The truth must be told about our nation’s heritage. The lie concerning the faith of our founding fathers and the myth of separation between church and state must be corrected with historical truth. Only then will we be able to reintroduce into public affairs the Judeo-Christian ethic that made this nation great. From the schoolhouse to the White House, the principles of Christianity must once again be seen as the guiding genius behind our matchless Constitution. Once this is appreciated by the populace, the indispensible pillars of morality and religion can breathe life back into our society.
[ Report Abuse ]
Please forgive any typos. Numbered references available upon request.
1 posted on 1/4/02 7:53 PM Pacific by sirgawain
it is all balderdash
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.