Fred Heads. The drafting of Fred Thompson.

The American Spectator

It appears the movement to draft Fred Thompson into the 2008 presidential race is gaining steam. The former Tennessee senator, lawyer and actor’s appearance on Fox News Sunday a few weeks ago has re-energized the right in a way that no one else in the race has come close to doing. Why? Because he is truly one of us and because he can win.

Think of the assets touted by Rudy Giuliani’s followers; that he’s a tax-cutting, small government, fiscal conservative who’s tough on crime and terrorism. Thompson is all of these, plus he is free of the liberal baggage that front-running Rudy drags around like a ball and chain while campaigning in the red states.

Although Mitt Romney and Rudy make promises about nominating originalist justices to the Supreme Court, Thompson actually has practical experience, having been named by President Bush to shepherd John Roberts through the minefield that is the modern nomination process. He succeeded spectacularly, securing 78 votes while peeling off half of Senate Democrats in favor of Roberts’ confirmation.

While his views on illegal immigration are a bit vague, Thompson is steadfastly pro-life, pro-gun, pro-military, pro-traditional marriage and pro-choice in matters of school vouchers. In short, he is at least as conservative as Ronald Reagan, and, given the Gipper’s record on immigration, maybe even more so.

About the only concrete objection conservatives share is Thompson’s support of the noxious Campaign Finance Reform bill of his good buddy John McCain. In fact, rumor has it that his possible candidacy is contingent on the faltering of McCain’s. A hint could be in his evolving ideas about CFR: “I’m not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn’t just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately.”

As far as the crowd who will vote for anyone who can beat Mrs. Bill Clinton, consider the following: Which is more likely, that the extremely polarizing Hillary can appeal to red state NASCAR dads, or that TV and movie star Thompson — with his deep voice and folksy, reassuring, Reagan-like manner — can woo the ever-anxious, blue state soccer moms? Let’s face it; the man is a six feet, five inches tall tower of walking gravitas whose rugged, rural demeanor will have the ladies swooning from coast to coast.

Of course, we will soon be hearing from the mainstream media that he is “only an actor” and that his some of his acting took place on the taxpayer’s nickel; although most of his work on Law & Order in the final year of his term took place during the Labor Day recess. Unlike say, John F. Kerry who missed two-thirds of Senate roll call votes while out on the hustings in 2004.

Perhaps the most attractive thing about a possible Thompson run is that he doesn’t give the impression that he thirsts for the job like a fish for water and doesn’t seem particularly rushed into seeking it; he playfully hints that he might even wait until October to declare his intentions. He puts his presidential aspirations this way: “One advantage you have in not, you know, having this as lifelong ambition is that if it turns out that your calculation is wrong, it’s not the end of the world.”

This refreshing attitude was evident when he recently tackled that sacred cow of pacifism, Mahatma Gandhi. Subbing on the Paul Harvey show, he pointed out that during World War II, Gandhi urged the British people to surrender to the Nazis and later opined that the Jews “should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. Collective suicide would have been heroism.” Thompson concluded:

The so-called peace movement certainly has the right to make Gandhi’s way their way, but their efforts to make collective suicide American foreign policy just won’t cut it in this country. When American’s think of heroism, we think of the young American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives to prevent another Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein. Gandhi probably wouldn’t approve, but I can live with that.

And if that’s not enough to get you excited about the hunt for a Fred October, consider this from a John Fund interview in the Wall Street Journal: “So how would he campaign against Democratic millionaires he used to serve in the Senate with, such as Hillary Clinton or John Edwards? He smiles and says he has plenty of zingers and points he would make but it’s premature to discuss them.”


More on Ayaan Hirshi Ali

We’ve profiled Ms. Ali before. She has also appeared as a guest on Glenn Back. So here is another enlightening piece on what happens when you question Islam.

NEW YORK–Ayaan Hirsi Ali is untrammeled and unrepentant: “I am supposed to apologize for saying the prophet is a pervert and a tyrant,” she declares. “But that is apologizing for the truth.”

Statements such as these have brought Ms. Hirsi Ali to world-wide attention. Though she recently left her adopted country, Holland–where her friend and intellectual collaborator Theo van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim extremist in 2004–she is still accompanied by armed guards wherever she travels.

Ms. Hirsi Ali was born in 1969 in Mogadishu–into, as she puts it, “the Islamic civilization, as far as you can call it a civilization.” In 1992, at age 22, her family gave her hand to a distant relative; had the marriage ensued, she says, it would have been “an arranged rape.” But as she was shipped to the appointment via Europe, she fled, obtaining asylum in Holland. There, “through observation, through experience, through reading,” she acquainted herself with a different world. “The culture that I came to and I live in now is not perfect,” Ms. Hirsi Ali says. “But this culture, the West, the product of the Enlightenment, is the best humanity has ever achieved.”

Unease over Muslim immigration had been rising in the Low Countries for some time. For instance, when the gay right-wing politician Pim Fortuyn–“I am in favor of a cold war with Islam,” he said, and believed the borders should be closed to Muslims–was gunned down in 2002, it was widely assumed his killer was an Islamist. There was a strange sense of relief when he turned out to be a mere animal-rights activist. Ms. Hirsi Ali brought integration issues to further attention, exposing domestic abuse and even honor killings in the Dutch-Muslim “dish cities.”

In 2003, she won a seat in the parliament as a member of the center-right VVD Party, for People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy. The next year, she wrote the script for a short film called “Submission.” It investigated passages from the Quran that Ms. Hirsi Ali contends authorize violence against women, and did so by projecting those passages onto naked female bodies. In retrospect, she deeply regrets the outcome: “I don’t think the film was worth the human life.”

The life in question was that of Van Gogh, a prominent controversialist and the film’s director. At the end of 2004, an Islamist named Mohammed Buyeri shot him as he was bicycling to work in downtown Amsterdam, then almost decapitated him with a curved sword. He left a manifesto impaled to the body: “I know for sure that you, Oh Hirsi Ali, will go down,” was its incantation. “I know for sure that you, Oh unbelieving fundamentalist, will go down.”

The shock was palpable. Holland–which has the second largest per capita population of Muslims in the EU, after France–had always prided itself on its pluralism, in which all groups would be tolerated but not integrated. The killing made clear just how apart its groups were. “Immediately after the murder,” Ms. Hirsi Ali says, “we learned Theo’s killer had access to education, he had learned the language, he had taken welfare. He made it very clear he knew what democracy meant, he knew what liberalism was, and he consciously rejected it. . . . He said, ‘I have an alternative framework. It’s Islam. It’s the Quran.’ ”

At his sentencing, Mohammed Buyeri said he would have killed his own brother, had he made “Submission” or otherwise insulted the One True Faith. “And why?” Ms. Hirsi Ali asks. “Because he said his god ordered him to do it. . . . We need to see,” she continues, “that this isn’t something that’s caused by special offense, the right, Jews, poverty. It’s religion

Ms. Hirsi Ali was forced into living underground; a hard-line VVD minister named Rita Verdonk, cracking down on immigration, canceled her citizenship for misstatements made on her asylum application–which Ms. Hirsi Ali had admitted years before and justified as a means to win quicker admission at a time of great personal vulnerability. The resulting controversy led to the collapse of Holland’s coalition government. Ms. Hirsi Ali has since decamped for America–in effect a political refugee from Western Europe–to take up a position with the American Enterprise Institute. But the crisis, she says, is “still simmering underneath and it might erupt–somewhere, anywhere.”

That partly explains why Ms. Hirsi Ali’s new autobiography, “Infidel,” is already a best seller. It may also have something to do with the way she scrambles our expectations. In person, she is modest, graceful, enthralling. Intellectually, she is fierce, even predatory: “We know exactly what it is about but we don’t have the guts to say it out loud,” she says. “We are too weak to take up our role. The West is falling apart. The open society is coming undone.”

Many liberals loathe her for disrupting an imagined “diversity” consensus: It is absurd, she argues, to pretend that cultures are all equal, or all equally desirable. But conservatives, and others, might be reasonably unnerved by her dim view of religion. She does not believe that Islam has been “hijacked” by fanatics, but that fanaticism is intrinsic in Islam itself: “Islam, even Islam in its nonviolent form, is dangerous.”

The Muslim faith has many variations, but Ms. Hirsi Ali contends that the unities are of greater significance. “Islam has a very consistent doctrine,” she says, “and I define Islam as I was taught to define it: submission to the will of Allah. His will is written in the Quran, and in the hadith and Sunna. What we are all taught is that when you want to make a distinction between right and wrong, you follow the prophet. Muhammad is the model guide for every Muslim through time, throughout history.”

This supposition justifies, in her view, a withering critique of Islam’s most holy human messenger. “You start by scrutinizing the morality of the prophet,” and then ask: “Are you prepared to follow the morality of the prophet in a society such as this one?” She draws a connection between Mohammed’s taking of child brides and modern sexual oppressions–what she calls “this imprisonment of women.” She decries the murder of adulteresses and rape victims, the wearing of the veil, arranged marriages, domestic violence, genital mutilation and other contraventions of “the most basic freedoms.”

These sufferings, she maintains, are traceable to theological imperatives. “People say it is a bad strategy,” Ms. Hirsi Ali says forcefully. “I think it is the best strategy. . . . Muslims must choose to follow their rational capacities as humans and to follow reason instead of Quranic commands. At that point Islam will be reformed.”

This worldview has led certain critics to dismiss Ms. Hirsi Ali as a secular extremist. “I have my ideas and my views,” she says, “and I want to argue them. It is our obligation to look at things critically.” As to the charges that she is an “Enlightenment fundamentalist,” she points out, rightly, that people who live in democratic societies are not supposed to settle their disagreements by killing one another.

And yet contemporary democracies, she says, accommodate the incitement of such behavior: “The multiculturalism theology, like all theologies, is cruel, is wrongheaded, and is unarguable because it is an utter dogmatism. . . . Minorities are exempted from the obligations of the rest of society, so they don’t improve. . . . With this theory you limit them, you freeze their culture, you keep them in place.”

The most grievous failing of the West is self-congratulatory passivity: We face “an external enemy that to a degree has become an internal enemy, that has infiltrated the system and wants to destroy it.” She believes a more drastic reaction is required: “It’s easy,” she says, “to weigh liberties against the damage that can be done to society and decide to deny liberties. As it should be. A free society should be prepared to recognize the patterns in front of it, and do something about them.”

She says the West must begin to think long term about its relationship with Islam–because the Islamists are. Ms. Hirsi Ali notes Muslim birth rates are vastly outstripping those elsewhere (particularly in Western Europe) and believes this is a conscious attempt to extend the faith. Muslims, she says, treat women as “these baby-machines, these son-factories. . . . We need to compete with this,” she goes on. “It is a totalitarian method. The Nazis tried it using women as incubators, literally to give birth to soldiers. Islam is now doing it. . . . It is a very effective and very frightening way of dealing with human beings.”

All of this is profoundly politically incorrect. But for this remarkable woman, ideas are not abstractions. She forces us back to first principles, and she punctures complacencies. These ought to be seen as virtues, even by those who find some of Ms. Hirsi Ali’s ideas disturbing or objectionable. Society, after all, sometimes needs to be roused from its slumbers by agitators who go too far so that others will go far enough.

The Look-at-Me Generation

Simply Awesome. I love American Spectator. This piece is a nice primer for parents who iver indulge their children. Get a grip!!!

The American Spectator

Kids these days. They’ve got these things called blogs and Myspace, and they post nekkid photographs and videos of themselves doing crazy things on the Internets. I don’t get it. It frightens and confuses me…

Okay, I’m not that old. On occasion I blog myself. My girlfriend has a Myspace page. Who hasn’t seen a Ted Kennedy in his cups call the junior senator from Illinois “Osama bin Ladin” on YouTube?

On the other hand, I’m one of the last of the Boomers — or first of the Gen Xers — so I wasn’t part of that millennial generation raised on an overdose of self-esteem and self-promoting technology that have combined to create a perfect storm of narcissism.

Nor was I surprised to read that a study led by San Diego State University psychologists finds that about two-thirds of college students have above average scores in self-adulation. That’s thirty percent more than when I was in college in 1982. These millennials make Narcissus look like a self-hating Greek.

But while millennials are more confident, assertive, and head over heels in love with themselves, they have less reason to be. The study’s authors note that Gen Y is shallower than its parents’ generation and less well educated. It is emotionally challenged. And more miserable.

Perhaps the biggest clue to its shallowness can be found in its priorities. Asked what they most want out of life, most millennials answer “wealth and fame.” Riches are most important to more than 80 percent of college students, and fame came in a near second. Ironically, today’s generation has become the little materialists and “fame whores” (New York Magazine‘s term) their boomer parents so reviled.

And despite MTV’s Rock the Vote efforts, they are the least socially aware generation in decades. The study contradicts the common view that millennials are civic-minded, public-service do-gooders who volunteer en masse to help hurricane and tsunami victims, who, rather than booze and sex it up on spring break, prefer to donate their time vaccinating poor children in sub-equatorial Ecuador. Instead, researchers noted that much of that community spirit is due to the fact that high schools require “mandatory” volunteer service, which also conveniently serves as a way to pad one’s resume.

I HAVE NEVER BEEN a great fan of the Baby Boom Generation, which was no slacker in the Ego Overload Sweepstakes; Tom Wolfe, after all, dubbed it the “Me Generation.” But at least that gang’s number one priority, according to a 1967 college survey, was to find “a meaningful philosophy of life.” Unfortunately, that “meaningful philosophy of life” entailed overly permissive parenting and systematic ego inflation. The millennials have had every aspect of their lives recorded and photographed and documented from the time they were pulled screaming from the womb. And it was the boomers who stressed self-esteem over learning, who lavished excessive praise on their kids and presented them awards for everything from their first bowel movement to just showing up. No wonder that this overindulged generation’s heroes are vacuous celebrities like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton who is famous for a reality TV show and a sex video.

Oh, and you’ll probably want to be careful when criticizing your younger employees. Millennials don’t take criticism very well, the report says. They also tend to have less stable relationships and are to be more prone to violent behavior than their parents’ generation. Why? According to the report, people with an inflated sense of self are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, at risk for infidelity, and lack emotional warmth, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors. “I’m concerned we are heading to a society where people are going to treat each other badly, either on the street or in relationships,” the report’s lead researcher Dr. Jean Twenge, of San Diego State University, told the Los Angeles Times.

Of course not everyone agrees. For an alternative view, some researchers regard narcissistic behavior not as the fault of bad boomer parenting, but as an adoptive mechanism in a culture that prizes the bottom-line over learning and cooperation.

“This is a bottom-line society, so students are smart to seek the most direct route to the bottom line,” Marc Flacks, an assistant professor of sociology, said in the Times. “If you don’t have a me-first attitude, you won’t succeed….The old model was a collegial one in which students and professors alike sought knowledge for knowledge’s sake. The new model is ‘I paid my money, give me my grade and degree.'”

So next time you are stuck on an elevator with a young person who is screaming into his cell phone, try to remember that he isn’t just some rude, vacuous millennial, he is rather a new model of bottom-line, free-market capitalism. And grin and bear it.

Christopher Orlet is a frequent contributor and runs the Existential Journalist.

Duncan Hunter-Right to Life

This post is the first in a series discussing the core principles of Duncan Hunter, as listed on his official website. We will be addressing them in oder, as they appear. So, no particular importance is placed on the order. First up is Duncan’s stance on right to life. While I think he hits it out of the park on his general stance, there are some contradictions with respect to his voting record. I realize that this may simply be a case of not throwing the baby out with the bath water. As often occurs when legislation is cobbled. Most notably, Mr. Hunter voted for federal funds to be directed toward stem cell research not involving human embryos. While this stance is laudable, I think Mr. Hunter needs to clarify two points important to conservatives.

(1) Should any federal funds be allocated to private enterprise, without justifiable evidence that said enterprise contributes to the general welfare? This would fall within the scope of the federal mandate. But, as of yet, stem cell research seems provide some promise and little result. The job of the Federal Government is not that of venture capitalist.

(2) His vote regarding funding with regards to ‘abortion on demand’ is somewhat noncommittal. Again, this may be a result of the verbiage within the bill, not Mr. Hunters own sentiment on the matter. But the central question remains. Is the right to terminate the life of an unborn, genetically unique being, the sole right of the mother? Or is that a shared right of both genetic contributors?

These and other questions were discussed in the forum over the weekend. Feel free to check in and leave your two cents.


1. Right to Life Amendment:

I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.

2. Federal laws relating to abortion and human life protections (e.g, embryonic research and end of life, etc.):

There are several areas of federal law that require human life protections. I have cosponsored the following pieces of legislation:

The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would amend the federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, if this action circumvents the minor’s native state’s parental involvement law. I voted in favor of this bill when it passed the House 270-157 on April 27, 2005.
The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2005, which would prohibit and criminalize efforts at reproductive cloning.
The Parent’s Right to Know Act of 2005, which would prohibit federal funding to carry out federal family planning programs in which service providers in the project knowingly provides contraceptive drugs or devices to a minor, except in specific circumstances.
The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006, which would require abortion providers to notify women who want to have an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that the evidence suggests their unborn child feels pain and they may request anesthesia for their unborn child in order to reduce or eliminate the pain.

I have also supported human life protection efforts with the following votes:

I supported the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, banning the practice of fetal farming, the creation of embryos specifically for the purposes of scientific research.
I voted in favor of the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, which would direct federal funding to stem-cell research that does not rely on embryos.
I voted against the Stem-Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which would have directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem-cells, regardless of the date on which the stem-cells were derived from a human embryo.
I voted against amendments offered to the National Defense Authorization Act permitting taxpayer funded military facilities overseas to be used to support abortions on demand for military women and military dependents.
I voted against amendments providing UN funding to groups that support coercive abortion programs.

So Help Us Darwin

I won’t insult Mr. Buckley with trying to add my own commentary. Anything I could hope to add would pale in comparison to his eloquence on the subject. I’ll only say that it is fitting that today’s word of the day is ‘doyen’.

By William F. Buckley Jr.

An intimidatingly learned colleague has written to a few friends to deplore the latest bulletin on Senator John McCain, who is of course running for president. The news is that McCain has agreed to speak at a luncheon hosted by the Discovery Institute in Seattle. What offends my friend is that the think tank in question supports the concept of Intelligent Design. And the question raised—believe it or not—is whether such a latitudinarian thinker should be thought qualified to be president of the United States.


It seems an ancient controversy, and of course it is. Fifteen minutes after Charles Darwin explained his theory of evolution, his disciples—apostles—ruled out any heresy on the subject of the naturalist explanation for human life. Young people are educated to think of the question in the grammar of the Scopes Trial, Clarence Darrow vs. William Jennings Bryan. That trial made for great naturalist theater. Mr. Bryan was not born either to become president or to explain how God could tolerate chicken pox, so Clarence Darrow wiped him into dust.

But the contention continued, and has been explored from time to time under heavy lights. My own forensic involvement took place nine years ago as host of Firing Line. The two-hour, nationally televised debate on the topic “Resolved: that the evolutionists should acknowledge creation” featured seven professors. Four of them took the establishmentarian scientific position. It is, essentially, that not only is naturalism established as verified science, but any interposition into the picture—of inquisitiveness, let alone conviction that there might have been design in the evolution of our world—is excluded.

But that was a tough night for those who hoped that the lunacy of creationist thought would prove self-evident. The evolutionists had to contend with, for instance, Phillip E. Johnson, professor emeritus of law at the University of California at Berkeley, who wrote the book Darwin on Trial, and then Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.

In outlining epochal events in this quarrel, Johnson quoted the official directive on teaching evolution as it appeared in the 1995 position statement of the National Association of Biology Teachers. “The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process.”

Please note, said Professor Johnson, that two years later the board of that association dropped the words “unsupervised” and “impersonal.” The meaning of it being that hard scientific research has taken from the evolutionary position not its authenticity—no one can argue with much of its description of what happened in the development of man—but its title to exclusivity. To prove absolutely that an apple, dropped from above Johnny’s head, will fall down on it is not the equivalent of proving that no extrinsic force had a hand in setting up that gravitational exercise.

Johnson’s objections have to do with separating real science from the materialist philosophy that provides “the only support for Darwinist theory.”

The questions are profound, and the arguments subtle. It is not reasonably expected of Senator McCain, or any other contender for the presidency, that in his public appearances he will explicate all the conundrums.

But the intelligent liberal community should not impose on anyone a requirement of believing that there is only the single, materialist word on the subject, and that only contempt is merited by those who consent to appear at think tanks composed of men and women prepared to explore ultimate questions, which certainly include the question, Did God have a hand in creating all of this? Including the great messes we live with?

Representing the affirmative that night on television, one debater closed with this: “I’m taken with the reply of an elderly scientific scholar to an exuberant young skeptic. ‘I find it easier to believe in God than to believe that Hamlet was deduced from the molecular structure of a mutton chop.’”

Fit, Lean, and Happy

 A great little piece from Men’s Health.  ironically, this mirrors fairly well what I’ve been doing for the last 3 months. While I do some things a little differrently, 20 pounds off and significant gains in muscle mass tells me it’s working.  And there is a lot of truth to not having to be a gym rat to see results.

Taylor Kitsch’s five laws of leanness are ironclad. Judge the results for yourself

Taylor Kitsch has the relaxed look of a man in control. Part of that comes from his starring role in NBC’s football drama Friday Night Lights. But most of it comes from being a self-made man. In Hollywood, the land of personal assistants, Kitsch has no need for a nutritionist. Kitsch himself–not some pestering food wonk–is the mastermind behind his ripped eight-pack, thanks to nutritional training at the University of Lethbridge, in Alberta. His simple strategy of “disciplined eating and regular workouts” can help keep you lean, too. Turn the page to learn his five-point program.


The 5 Laws of Staying Lean

Always Start With Protein

“I begin my meals with a lean protein and then work around that,” says Kitsch. It’s an easy rule to follow at dinner, when you can simply choose poultry or fish, but what’s for breakfast? Kitsch’s favorite solution: mixing egg whites into his morning oatmeal (before cooking) to boost the protein content.

Front-Load Your Carbs

“Throughout the day, I like to reduce the number of carbohydrates I eat, since I don’t need as much energy at night as in the morning.” So eat most of your carbs at breakfast and cut back on the amount at every meal thereafter. For Kitsch, dinner typically consists of meat and vegetables, which have very few carbs. It’s a principle supported by science: Researchers have found that your body’s ability to metabolize carbs drops as the day goes on, so more end up stored as fat.

Avoid Fast-Digesting Foods

“I stay away from sugar and flour,” says Kitsch. That’s because products that contain high amounts of these ingredients–such as most breads, pasta, and baked goods–are quickly digested, causing blood sugar to rise dramatically. This stimulates the release of the hormone insulin, which signals your body to stop burning–and start storing–fat. Kitsch notes that when he eats bread, he chooses the flour-free, 100 percent whole-grain kind from Food for Life (

Strike a Balance

“There are times when you simply can’t get to the gym as much as you’d like,” he says. “But as long as you’re eating right 85 to 90 percent of the time, you’ll be fine. It’s not realistic to expect your diet to be perfect, especially when you’re busy.” For example, let’s say you eat five times a day. That’s 35 meals a week. Stay disciplined for 30 of those meals and you’ll keep your diet–and your midsection–on track.

Monitor More Than Your Abs

“Your mood swings and your whole outlook on life revolve around what you’re putting into your body,” says Kitsch. The take-home advice: Start paying attention to the way you feel–for instance, by keeping a daily log–and not just the way you look. Chances are, you’ll find even better reasons to stick with a healthy diet for the long term.

The Jawa Report: Follow-up Report on the King Fahad Academy (YouTube Video)

The Jawa Report: Follow-up Report on the King Fahad Academy (YouTube Video)
Follow-up Report on the King Fahad Academy (YouTube Video)

By Ragnar Danneskjold, Arrogant Prick at February 10, 2007 01:34 PM

Ooh, that tolerant Islam.