My Weblog

October 31, 2006

Useful Idiots are the Islam’s Best Soldiers

Filed under: Global Jihad, Islam, Terror — limewoody @ 6:26 pm

Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new generation of “Useful Idiots,” that Lenin identified as those who lived in liberal democracies and furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies but serves the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.

Useful Idiots are naïve, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population.

Arguably, the most dangerous Useful Idiot is the “Politically Correct.” He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception.

The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor he feels he belongs to.

The Useful Idiot is conflicted and dishonest. He fails to look inside himself and discover the causes of his own problems and unhappiness while he readily enlists himself in causes that validate his distorted perception.
Understandably, it is easier to blame others and the outside world than to examine oneself with an eye to self-discovery and self-improvement. Furthermore, criticizing and complaining—liberal practices of the Useful Idiot—require little talent and energy. The Useful Idiot is a great armchair philosopher and “Monday Morning Quarterback.”

The Useful Idiot is not the same as a person who honestly has a different point of view. A society without honest and open differences of views is a dead society. Critical, different and fresh ideas are the life blood of a living society—the very anathema of autocracies where the official position is sacrosanct.

The Useful Idiot, among other things, is a master practitioner of scapegoating. He assigns blame to others while absolving himself of responsibility, has a long handy list of candidates for blaming anything and everything, and by living a distorted life, he contributes to the ills of society.

The Useful Idiot may even engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits him. Terms such as “Political Islam,” or “Radical Islam,” for instance, are contributions of the Useful Idiot. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter—the Quran—is a radical political movement. It is the Useful Idiot who sanitizes Islam and misguides the populace by saying that the “real Islam” constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate.

Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with these nonsensical euphemisms depicting Islam because it prefers to believe them. It is less threatening to believe that only a hijacked small segment of Islam is radical or politically driven and that the main body of Islam is indeed moderate and non-political.

But Islam is political to the core. In Islam the mosque and state are one and the same—the mosque is the state. This arrangement goes back to the days of Muhammad himself. Islam is also radical to the extreme. Even the “moderate” Islam is radical in its beliefs as well as its deeds. Muslims believe that all non-Muslims, bar none, are hellfire bound and well-deserve being maltreated to the utmost.

No radical barbaric act of depravity is out of bounds for Muslims in dealing with others. They destroy precious statues of Buddha, level sacred monuments of other religions, and bulldoze the cemeteries of non-Muslims—a few examples of their utter extreme contempt toward others.

The lesson is clear. Beware of the Useful Idiots who live in liberal democracies. Knowingly or unknowingly, they serve as the greatest volunteer and effective soldiers of Islam. They pave the way for the advancement of Islam and they will assuredly be among the very first victims of Islam as soon as it assumes power.


The Dark Ages

Filed under: Global Jihad, Islam, Terror — limewoody @ 6:21 pm

Printer Friendly

October 30, 2006
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services

The most frightening aspect of the present war is how easily our pre-modern enemies from the Middle East have brought a stunned postmodern world back into the Dark Ages.

Students of history are sickened when they read of the long-ago, gruesome practice of beheading. How brutal were those societies that chopped off the heads of Cicero, Sir Thomas More and Marie Antoinette. And how lucky we thought we were to have evolved from such elemental barbarity.

Twenty-four hundred years ago, Socrates was executed for unpopular speech. The 18th-century European Enlightenment gave people freedom to express views formerly censored by clerics and the state. Just imagine what life was like once upon a time when no one could write music, compose fiction or paint without court or church approval?

Over 400 years before the birth of Christ, ancient Greek literary characters, from Lysistrata to Antigone, reflected the struggle for sexual equality. The subsequent notion that women could vote, divorce, dress or marry as they pleased was a millennia-long struggle.

It is almost surreal now to read about the elemental hatred of Jews in the Spanish Inquisition, 19th-century Russian pogroms or the Holocaust. Yet here we are revisiting the old horrors of the savage past.

Beheading? As we saw with Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, our Neanderthal enemies in the Middle East have resurrected that ancient barbarity — and married it with 21st-century technology to beam the resulting gore instantaneously onto our computer screens. Xerxes and Attila, who stuck their victims’ heads on poles for public display, would’ve been thrilled by such a gruesome show.

Who would have thought centuries after the Enlightenment that sophisticated Europeans — in fear of radical Islamists — would be afraid to write a novel, put on an opera, draw a cartoon, film a documentary or have their pope discuss comparative theology?

The astonishing fact is not just that millions of women worldwide in 2006 are still veiled from head-to-toe, trapped in arranged marriages, subject to polygamy, honor killings and forced circumcision, or are without the right to vote or appear alone in public. What is more baffling is that in the West, liberal Europeans are often wary of protecting female citizens from the excesses of Sharia law — sometimes even fearful of asking women to unveil their faces for purposes of simple identification and official conversation.

Who these days is shocked that Israel is hated by Arab nations and threatened with annihilation by radical Iran? Instead, the surprise is that even in places like Paris or Seattle, Jews are singled out and killed for the apparent crime of being Jewish.

Since Sept. 11, the West has fought enemies who are determined to bring back the nightmarish world that we thought was long past. And there are lessons Westerners can learn from radical Islamists’ ghastly efforts.

First, the Western liberal tradition is fragile and can still disappear. Just because we have sophisticated cell phones, CAT scanners and jets does not ensure that we are permanently civilized or safe. Technology used by the civilized for positive purposes can easily be manipulated by barbarians for destruction.

Second, the Enlightenment is not always lost on the battlefield. It can be surrendered through either fear or indifference as well. Westerners fearful of terrorist reprisals themselves shut down a production of a Mozart opera in Berlin deemed offensive to Muslims. Few came to the aid of a Salman Rushdie or Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh when their unpopular expression earned death threats from Islamists. Van Gogh, of course, was ultimately killed.

The Goths and Vandals did not sack Rome solely through the power of their hordes; they also relied on the paralysis of Roman elites who no longer knew what it was to be Roman — much less whether it was any better than the alternative.

Third, civilization is forfeited with a whimper, not a bang. Insidiously, we have allowed radical Islamists to redefine the primordial into the not-so-bad. Perhaps women in head-to-toe burkas in Europe prefer them? Maybe that crass German opera was just too over the top after all? Aren’t both parties equally to blame in the Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan wars?

To grasp the flavor of our own Civil War, impersonators now don period dress and reconstruct the battles of Shiloh or Gettysburg. But we need not show such historical reenactment of the Dark Ages. You see, they are back with us — live almost daily from the Middle East.

Car Jihate in France

Filed under: Global Jihad, Islam, Terror — limewoody @ 6:15 pm


October 31, 2006 — FRANCE today is a lot like New York City was before Rudy Giuliani: Its government is so large it crushes the economy – yet also too weak to stem widespread criminality. As with pre-Rudy New York, the fear that France’s best days are behind it prevails. For the moment, the French are breathing a sigh of relief, as the anniversary of last year’s three weeks of rioting by Muslim youth passed with much fanfare but no widespread disturbances.

Yet – with the nation approaching both a presidential election and the Fifth Republic’s 50th anniversary – the French elites worry that their famously unstable country is headed for breakdown and a Sixth Republic.

The 2005 Ramadan Riots, which saw some 10,000 cars torched and 300 buildings firebombed, have been followed by a yearlong, lower-grade rolling riot – what some in the French police are calling a “permanent intifada.” Nationwide, this works out to 15 attacks a day on police and firefighters, and 100 cars set ablaze nightly. And for the first time, the police are being subject to well-planned ambushes.

So when the Oct. 27 anniversary of last year’s violence was met with “only” 277 torched cars, the Interior Ministry declared it “relatively calm.”

But the trends are not good. While last year’s violence was disorganized (rioters armed only with bricks, crowbars and Molotov cocktails) and largely confined to heavily immigrant Muslim and African neighborhoods, this past week saw a half-dozen well-organized attacks on public buses in non-immigrant neighborhoods by “youths” armed with guns. In some cases, they ordered passengers out at gunpoint, then firebombed the bus. In others, they’ve tossed Molotov cocktails into buses with the passengers still aboard.

The French press ardently insists there’s no link between Islam and the unrest in the streets. But there is a connection, albeit complex, between the rioters and Islam’s Jihadi elements.

Some of the rioters of 2005 and car bombers of recent clashes have shouted Allah Akbar (God is Great). But other rioters are drawn to Islam less as a faith and more as an off-the-shelf oppositional ideology that has replaced Marxism as the intellectual drug of the alienated.

In his Policy Review article “The French Path To Jihad,” based on interviews with French prisoners, author John Rosenthal notes that Islam’s attraction is often less its theological content than an aura of rebellion. “Islam disturbs people,” notes Jacques, a non-Muslim “and for me that’s a good sign.”

One Muslim prisoner he interviews sounds like an underclass kid from early ’90s New York: “Islam was my salvation. I understood what I was as a Muslim, someone with dignity, whom the French despised because they didn’t fear me enough . . . That is the achievement of Islamism. Now, we are respected. Hated, but respected.”

The Fifth Republic’s foreign policy, which sees the Arab world as a counter-balance to U.S. and Israeli power, has unintentionally legitimated some of the violence. French television, its perspective an extension of the nation’s ruling elites, has tried to incorporate young Muslims by depicting the conflicts in the Middle East largely from a Franco-Muslim perspective. On many nights, the TV news glorified the intifada against Israel. In the “al Dura affair,” French TV went so far as to fabricate images of a Palestinian boy supposedly killed by Israelis.

The Muslim underclass, not surprisingly, identified with the “youths” attacking Israelis and sees in their own violence a heroic extension of the battle against the enemies of Islam.

The continued violence and fear have received heavy coverage in the French press, and – along with a weak economy, high unemployment and the collapse in support for President Jacques Chirac – set the terms for the 2007 presidential campaign, now underway.

The 74-year-old Chirac is a career politician – and, like most of France’s insular elite, cut off from the public. He has managed the remarkable accomplishment of becoming less popular in France than President Bush.

But the old Socialist opposition – which had already managed to finish third in the 2002 presidential elections, behind the fascist Jean Le Pen – have been unable to capitalize on the nation’s troubles. The Socialists, who largely represent government bureaucrats and professionals, are as cut off from popular sentiment as Chirac. They are, explains American expatriate writer Denis Boyles, so ardent in their courtship of the Muslim vote as to be literally tongue-tied when it comes to the violence.

The one politician who seems to be in touch with the mood of anger and anxiety is Chirac’s plainspoken interior minister and political enemy – Nicholas Sarkozy, whose parents came to France as immigrants.

Sarkozy is not only philo-American, he admires Giuliani.

If his thus-far successful efforts to constrain Muslim violence hold, his chances of becoming the next president increase. The question then will be if Sarkozy has the Giuliani-like courage and ability to buck the tides of the traditional elites and pull his country back from the brink of ruin.

Fred Siegel’s books in-clude “Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York and the Genius of American Life.” He now edits the blog Cities on a Hill (

October 29, 2006

Jihate on Women……………..

Filed under: Global Jihad, Islam, Terror — limewoody @ 9:20 am

“Men are overseers over women, by reason of that wherewith Allah hath made one of them excel over another, and by reason of that which they expend of their substance. Wherefore righteous women are obedient, and are watchers in husbands absence by the aid and protection of Allah. And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty, Grand.”

(Quran 4:34 A.M. Daryabad Trans.)

They claimed that this verse didn’t really mean “to beat them,” but rather to “separate from them” or to “strike them out.”

The Agreed-upon Translations of Verse 4.34 :

1. Yusuf Ali:

“….As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).”

2. Pickthal:

“…As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.”

3. Shakir:

“…and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”

4. Al-Hilali & Mohsin Khan:

“….As to those women on whose part you see ill­conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allâh is Ever Most High, Most Great.”

5. Dr. T.B. Irving:

“…Admonish those women whose surliness you fear, and leave them alone in their beds, and [even] beat them [if necessary]. If they obey you, do not seek any way [to proceed] against them. God is Sublime, Great.”

6. Muhammad Sarwar:

“…Admonish women who disobey (God’s laws), do not sleep with them and beat them. If they obey (the laws of God), do not try to find fault in them. God is High and Supreme.”

7. Rashad Khalifa

“….If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.”

8. Abdul-Majid Daryabadi:

“…And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty, Grand.”

9. E.H. Palmer

“…But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bedchambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then do not seek a way against them; verily, God is high and great.”

10. Muhammad Ayub Khan:

“…And those whose rebellion you fear, admonish them and leave them alone in the beds, and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; God is surely High, Great.”

11. Ahmed Raza Khan:

“…the women from whom you fear disobedience, (at first) advise them and (then) do not cohabit with them, and (lastly) beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek to do injustice to them; indeed Allah is Supreme, Great.”

12. Hassan Qaribullah & Ahmad Darwish:

“…Those from whom you fear rebelliousness, admonish them and desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness). Then, if they obey you, do not look for any way against them. Allah is High, Great.”

13. Mahmud Y. Zayid:

“…and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.”

14. Muhammad Asad:

“…And as for those woolen whose ill-will” you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them ;4s and if thereupon…”

all Non Muslims girls should know this

Schoolbooks i Jihate Land

Filed under: Global Jihad, Islam, Terror — limewoody @ 9:19 am

New DElhi: Out of the 19 ‘Islamists’ who launched the 9/11 terror attack on the US, 15 were Saudis. Saudi Arabia is a trusted friend, not an adversary, of the US. Why then would Saudis target the US? The US realised that the attackers never even thought they were just Saudis. They were just Islamists whose loyalties were only to their faith, not to any country.

But still, why should they die in order to kill others? A search for what motivates them to die in the cause of their faith led the US to scan the textbooks prescribed by Saudi Arabia for its school children. It was horrified by the hate and violence against other faiths contained in the textbooks. Under pressure from the US Government in 2004, the Saudi Government admitted that its religious studies curriculum ‘encourages violence toward others’ and makes the students believe that ‘in order to safeguard their own religion, they must even physically eliminate the ‘other.’

“Later, the Saudi Government claimed that it has removed materials that are intolerant towards people of other faiths,” he said. But the Centre for Religious Freedom at Freedom House in the US was informed by Saudi dissidents that the hate lessons continued as before.

The dissidents also surreptitiously shipped some dozen textbooks one by one.

The Centre had these textbooks which are supposed to be rid of the hate theme translated from Arabic by two independent translators. Based on the translated contents of the textbooks, Nina Shea, director of the Centre has written about the findings in the Washington Post. What, according to her, do the mended textbooks tell the kids about Islam? Read this horrifying story. It teaches the child that Every religion other than Islam is false, and asks the child to fill in the blank after ‘”Whoever dies outside of Islam enters” with the word ‘hell fire.’

This noble instruction on Islam is, believe it, in the textbook for the kids in the First Grade. What do the textbooks for the Fourth Grade kids teach them?

“True belief means that you hate the polytheists and infidels but do not treat them unjustly.”

The Fifth Grade textbook teaches the pupil that an Islamist is “forbidden to be loyal friends to some one who does not believe” in Islam “even if they are his closest relatives.”

On the contrary, it tells him ‘a Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion” and ‘someone’ who is not a Muslim ”even if he is your brother’ is “your enemy in religion.” A Fourth Grade student is told not to befriend a non-Islamist and treat him as an enemy. The Sixth Grade students are told “The Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies, if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for, this is within God’s power.”

The Eighth Grade students are told, citing the Islamist holy book, that ‘Jews’ are ‘apes’ and ‘Christians’ are ‘swine.’

They are also asked to write composition on the danger of imitating the infidels.

“The clash between this [Muslim] community (Umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills.”

This instruction is for the Ninth Grade boy. Nina Shea says, “The 10th grade text on jurisprudence teaches that life for non-Muslims” and Muslim women ‘is worth a fraction of that of a free Muslim male.” It says that murders can be compensated by blood money. The texts even fixes incentive for murdering an infidel as “blood money” payable for murdering an infidel is ‘half of the blood money for a male Muslim.’

The 11th grade students are taught “The greeting ‘Peace be upon you’ is specifically for believers,’ that is Islamists.

“It cannot be said to others. See the sermon on Jihad for the 12th grade students are told this religion arose through jihad and Jihad against unbelief and those who perpetrate it is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God.”

If mended lessons on Islam preach this much hate, how much of it would un-mended lessons contain? The hate is calibrated to increase the intensity of the dosage from the first to the 12th grade so that it is absorbed gradually.

Saudi Arabia, says Nina, runs 25,000 such schools and instructs five million students. But these texts are not limited to only Saudi Arabia. Its academia in 19 world capitals uses these hate books. It also supplies these texts to madarasas across the world. The US Commission on 9/11 observed, “Even in affluent countries, Saudi-funded schools are often the only Islamic schools” available. Thousands of Saudi-funded madarasas use these hate books in their curriculum. One can imagine how many human bombs can be generated by such hate. Thus, it injects slow and deep poison in millions year after year. That is what results in death and destruction in the name of Islam which we see in newspapers every day.

So: More places in Belgian prisons

Filed under: Netherlands — limewoody @ 9:02 am

BRUSSELS – The Inner Cabinet has agreed on measures to increase capacity in the country’s penal institutions.

More then six citizens in ten fear an increase in religious tensions in Belgium according to a survey by Belgian newspaper Le Soir.

Filed under: Eurabia, Global Jihad, Islam, Migration, Multi Kulti, Terror — limewoody @ 9:01 am

BRUSSELS – More then six citizens in ten fear an increase in religious tensions in Belgium according to a survey by Belgian newspaper Le Soir.

A “pessimistic” attitude in contrast with the overall “moderate attitude” of Belgians towards religions, notes the evening paper.
The majority of interviewees supported a ‘respectful criticism’ of religions, meaning that criticism can be expressed so long as personal religious beliefs are respected.

But not all Belgians follow this moderated view: 23 percent are opposed to all critics of religion, half as much as the French notes Le Soir, while 16 percent assume a highly critical standpoint, three times more then in France.

Eric de Beukelaer, spokesman of Belgium’s Francophone Bishops, said he was satisfied with the results.

“All religions can be criticised, but there are limits,” he said, emphasizing the difference between “criticising” and “offending someone in his or her conviction.”


The CAL, the Centre for Secular Action (Centre d’Action Laïque), agreed, although its president, Philippe Grollet said that 23 percent of Belgians thinking religion should not be criticised is “too much.”  He deplores such attitudes which leave no space for debate.

Abdelmajid Mhauchi, Belgians representative of the European Muslim Network, said that Belgium has a long history of conflict between Seculars and Catholics and has learnt to respect religious liberties. “As a Muslim” he said “I accept critics of Islam … but I cannot tolerate mockery and provocation.”

About 60 percent of Belgians accept the presence of religious signs and symbols in public life. A minority of 36 percent admit the wish to see these symbols and signs confined to the private sphere. This view is reflected in France’s law which bans the public display of ostentatious religious symbols in republican intuitions such as schools and tribunals.

Here, too, religious institutions and organizations expressed satisfaction with these figures. Philippe Grollet of CAL pointed out that although people should be allowed to display signs of their religion, “those who represent the government (secular and neutral by definition) and the public authority – magistrates, policemen, teachers etc – should remain neutral.”

 Despite these reasonable views, 60 percent of the people interviewed predict an increase in tensions between Christians and Muslims with Flemish men being the most pessimistic.
Only 7 percent of the interviewees forecast a decrease of tensions in Belgium. In this respect, Brussels is the Belgium capital of optimism with 12 percent predicting a decrease in tensions.

BBC ‘guilty’ of ignoring public opinion says senior executive

Filed under: Left, Media, Media Watch, Multi Kulti — limewoody @ 8:54 am

A senior BBC executive has admitted the politically correct views of the corporation are at odds with most of its viewers.

BBC commissioning editor for documentaries Richard Klein admitted the broadcaster was out of touch with the British public, saying it was guilty of “ignoring” mainstream opinion.

Speaking to a room full of TV viewers and BBC staff, he suggested that if the current situation continued it could affect the organisation’s long-term future.

Klein said: “By and large, people who work at the BBC think the same and it’s not the way the audience thinks. That’s not long term sustainable.”

“We pride ourselves on being ‘of the people’, and it’s pathetic…..Channel 4 tends to laugh at people, the BBC ignores them.”

His comments, reported in the corporation’s in-house magazine, come on the back of news earlier this week that a string of BBC executives and journalists have admitted that the corporation is institutionally biased.

Details from a recent “impartiality” summit held at the BBC highlighted how some of the corporation’s own top staff now believe it is guilty of promoting left-wing views, is biased against Christianity and as an organisation is disproportionately dominated by gays and ethnic minorities.

It was also claimed the BBC overtly promotes multiculturalism and is anti-American and anti-countryside.

Klein, who made his views known at an “audience festival” organised by the BBC last week to find out what its viewers think, admitted that the BBC’s liberal internal culture did not match that of the wider British public.

He said: “Most people at the BBC don’t live lives like this, but these are our licence payers. It’s our job to reflect and engage.”

The TV executive, who sponsored a study to find out what issues concerned viewers, even warned other BBC staff about the dangers of ignoring popular opinion.

“They may be challenging to us, but don’t dismiss them”, he said.

His comments come after repeated claims that the BBC has misjudged the mood of British public.

Last month the corporation was deluged with complaints after a Muslim extremist was given 12 minutes of airtime on Radio 4’s flagship Today programme.

It also came under attack in the summer when it broadcast a “sick” comedy, which showed Tony Blair being assasinated and terrorists crashing a jet into parliament.

The BBC was also criticised last year after it was revealed that the corporation had cautioned journalists against using the word terrorist – claiming the word was too judgmental.

More recently the BBC has agonised over whether news-reader Fiona Bruce should be allowed to wear a necklace with a cross on it.

Research conducted by the BBC showed that many viewers felt “gagged and alone” and also believed mainstream views were being driven underground.

Ann Davies, who carried out the research for the corporation, openly questioned whether the BBC should change its approach.

She asked: “Should we, the BBC, be a pressure valve for that opinion? Should we help break the contraints of the PC police?”

Research into audience members views showed that many thought that politcal correctness had become endemic in Britain.

One said: “Politicians know more about how a Muslim lives than they do about what it’s like to be me, day in, day out.”’guilty’+of+ignoring+public+opinion+says+senior+executive/

Crushing of dissent in Brussels

Filed under: Eurabia — limewoody @ 8:33 am

Booze Jihate

Filed under: Global Jihad, Islam, Terror — limewoody @ 8:15 am

Older Posts »

Blog at