|
| FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Here's a report that has some common sense and a lot of ominous signs undergirding the events it covers. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently joined the Communities Secretary Hazel Blears for the launch of a government consultation supporting inter-faith dialogue among Britain's faith communities. Dr Williams and over 200 representatives from a cross section of church, inter-faith and community organizations joined Mrs. Blears and Cohesion Minister Parmjit Dhanda for the start of the "Face-to-Face and Side-by-Side" consultation. The consultation will look at the inter-faith work currently underway in Britain and will recommend ways the government can support these initiatives in order to foster integration and social cohesion within the community. It comes in response to the report "Our Shared Future" published by the Commission on Integration and Cohesion published last June, which acknowledged the role faith groups play in reducing ethnic and social tensions. The Communities Secretary said: "Faith groups are a key part of the way we respond to the challenges we face from building strong resilient communities to tackling anti-social behaviour." The consultation, which runs through March 2008 "provides us with an opportunity to find out how Government can best support dialogue between faith groups and the circumstances in which inter faith activity is helping to make a positive difference," Mrs. Blears said. "By learning how we can all better work in partnership with each other to increase inter-faith dialogue and social action we can ensure that this activity results in tangible and positive change within local communities in terms of increased cohesion, greater community empowerment and resilience to extremism in all its forms,' the Minister said. Now, one can understand that it is necessary for the government of any country with a multi-cultural population to have leaders from each section of the community sit down and discuss how to avoid potentially deadly confrontations. But there is something very sinister when a socialist government sets up a religious gathering of all sorts of religious leaders with a mandate to find ways to remove "misunderstandings" and other causes of inter-cultural tension. Inevitably, there will be a call for the cessation of Christian missionary work among other religious groups-though Britain's communal troubles have never been the result of Christian witnessing. Some years ago the world Council of Churches proposed a moratorium on Christian missionary activity in Africa-thankfully ignored by Bible believers. It is to be feared that if it suits the secular government's agenda to placate irate ethnic or religious minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, it will use the power ceded to it to get involved in inter-faith work to crack down on any form of vibrant Christianity. It is a big mistake to establish a godless government as the broker among varying faiths and especially as it will work on the assumption that Christianity, to which Britain owes its existence, is just another one of those faiths. This will be a story to watch in 2008. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
EthicsDaily.com is a Baptist internet site dedicated to nurturing good relations between Baptists and Jews. It is also a site that promotes the politically correct environmental cause and tries to give it a Scriptural twist-going so far as to reinterpret Christ's great proclamation of His messianic calling (Luke 4:18-19) as a pro-environmental statement! For the last few years this site has selected a "Baptist of the Year" and for 2007 decided to confer the honor on Al Gore. Here's what the editorial says: Al Gore is EthicsDaily.com's pick as Baptist of the Year for 2007. He has pressed for the global good with a compelling message about the danger of climate change and a clear call for moral responsibility, knitting together science and faith, reason and passion. He has refused to be distracted by the character-assassins, the fear-mongers, the science-deniers and the merchants of short-term gain. He has remained faithful to his mission of protecting the earth and its inhabitants. In the opening paragraphs of his Nobel Peace Prize lecture, Gore said, "I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed that God would show me a way to accomplish it." With an acknowledgment of Providence, Gore tethered his speech to his moral vision. He quoted the Bible, refused to make God responsible for human inaction, called squarely for an ethic of love for neighbor, confessed human failure and placed moral authority at the tip of the needed plan for planetary redemption. His address was profoundly Christian without being offensively so. "The earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong," he said. "We are what is wrong, and we must make it right." The EthicsDaily.com editorial went on to blast Baptists for all but ignoring St. Al. Regrettably no Baptist has received less applause from Baptists than Gore, a shameful but not unexpected reality from a people snarled in religious fear, suspicious of science and stuck in the rut of spiritualized reading of the Bible. Now I wonder where in all the Bible any Baptist, or any sane man for that matter, ever found any reference to "planetary redemption" as being part of the mission of God's people or any people. I will not again repeat the constant stream of criticism that the science behind Gore's doomsday scenario is flawed; that the current trend is part of the endless fluctuations of climate; that man's efforts can and will make no difference to trend; and that anyway, who can say that the current situation is the optimum one for the earth? What I will say is that what Al Gore is promoting is not Christianity but socialism on a worldwide scale. His vision is the old liberal notion that lay behind the "social gospel." It was proved a myth back in the 1920s and will be proved a myth again. It is not part of Al Gore's mission to bring in the new heavens and the new earth (for what else is "planetary redemption"?). It is not the Church's job to save the universe but to preach the gospel. That is not "the rut of a spiritualized reading of the Bible." It is the plain meaning and message of the Word of God. You can follow St. Al or you can follow St. Paul who refused to preach any other message than Christ crucified. You can have St. Al if you want. I'll go with St. Paul, even if Al is designated Baptist of the Year. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Baroness Paisley, the wife of Dr. Ian Paisley, is a member of the House of Lords, the upper chamber of Britain's parliamentary system. Recently the Lords were discussing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill and she took the opportunity to speak powerfully on the subjects of the creation of animal/human embryos, cloning and abortion. She denounced the measures before the House as being against the Holy Scriptures and noted that some leading researchers had abandoned cloning and embryo creation because with their ability to produce stem cells from a patient's own skin cells they looked on cloning as unnecessary. Moving on to the subject of abortion, Baroness Paisley entered a strong objection against moves by abortion supporters in the British Parliament to force the abortion laws currently in use in England on Northern Ireland, where there is widespread opposition to them. She went on to describe the evil of abortion in terms that the House of Lords must rarely hear. She spoke of it as a "massacre" and as "murder" and equated it with the evil of slavery. Here are her stinging words of rebuke of pro-abortion forces. She said that Northern Ireland would not be bullied into accepting England's abortion laws by "activists whose ideas and actions have brought about the massacre of more than 7 million innocent unborn children in the years that this Act has been in operation on the mainland. It is difficult to comprehend the enormity of this murder campaign, and how many scientists, musicians, doctors, teachers and business men and women have been flushed down the sluices of our hospitals and clinics. We hear complaints about the brain drain, but it never seems to be recognised that the surgeons who advise women and carry out their wishes are the people who drain the brains, together with the lifeblood, dismembered limbs and bodies and crushed skulls of their silent victims. I wonder whether the women who abort their children and those who carry out the gruesome execution of these innocent and defenceless living babies ever think that they are emulating Herod in the horrific campaign that he perpetrated on innocent victims in his day. It is heartbreaking to think that any man or woman who has sworn to preserve life is instead wilfully and systematically doing what only God Himself has the authority to do-sons and daughters of Herod indeed." Man, that is strong stuff! But it is stuff that the noble Lords needed to hear. Too often politicians debate the issue as if it were merely a theoretical question. It is not. We are talking about real, living babies whose bodies and brains are being hacked to bits, their skulls crushed and their lives "terminated" at the behest of a mother or her doctor-not to save the mother's life, mind you, but usually to safeguard her imagined comfort level. Uncompromising voices in high places are rare but sorely needed. The House of Lords heard some home truths about the vicious trade of the abortionists. I hope Gordon Brown's government will take heed. Britain prides itself in giving a lead to the world in its rejection of capital punishment but still allows the barbarity of executing pre-born children. It's time to change all that and make the United Kingdom-and, one would hope, America as well-havens of safety for the "poor innocents" whose blood is the shame of civilized nations. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Yesterday I dealt with a protest from a Roman Catholic who objected to my frequently exposing and opposing the Church of Rome. Another correspondent had much of the same concern. He left a brief message on our web page to ask when there is so much hope in the gospels why do I preach hate? Now I must confess that this sort of mindset really concerns me. To many people there is no place in the gospel ministry to expose and condemn even the most egregious departures from the truth as it is in Jesus. To condemn anything as unbiblical or antichristian is, in their eyes, to "preach hate." Now let me ask a question or two. Did the Lord Jesus Christ preach hate when He excoriated the Pharisees? He called them "hypocrites" and asked them "How can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Was that hateful? Or was it a ministry of truth by which he warned souls who were in danger of being subverted by those false teachers? Did John the Baptist preach hate when he addressed the religious leaders as a "generation of vipers?" Did Paul the Apostle preach hate when he confronted Bar-Jesus, Elymas, the false prophet who had a hold over the Roman deputy Sergius Paulus, addressing him thus: "O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness?" According to our politically correct age all these would be examples of preaching hate. But that is ludicrous. In every case the exposing and opposing of false doctrine and those who promote it or evil men who would corrupt the morals of God's people is an essential part of a faithful ministry. Christian love must commence with a love for God and His truth. Only then may it be genuinely exercised toward our fellow man. It would be hateful and despicable to be censuring and condemning on a narrow denominational basis, saying in effect that if you don't agree with me in all my points of view you must be condemned. But to say, "I love God and His Son supremely; I love the gospel He has revealed in Christ; I love the souls of men; I love the Church of God which Christ has purchased with His own blood; therefore I am bound to expose and oppose every perversion of the gospel and every religious movement that is an insult to God and that is blinding and destructive to the souls of men"-I repeat, to say this is not narrow-mindedness but Christ-mindedness. The Apostles actually named men whom they opposed (e.g. Paul; John). They were right. You cannot allow false prophets and false teachers to roam unhindered in the Church. So again I make it clear that I cannot just sit back and say nothing as Rome continues her assault on God's truth and her deception of the souls of men. So if I have been critical of Rome, it's because fidelity to the gospel demanded it. If that offends you, I am sorry-not sorry that I have stood for God's truth but sorry for you that you are more concerned about offending the pope and his friends than Jesus Christ and His faithful people. As Luther said, "Here I stand; I can do no other; so help me God." |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Recently I received an email from a man who objected to what he considered unnecessarily negative comments I have made about the Church of Rome and the Pope. He went so far as to suggest that we rename the broadcast, "The Fallacies of the Catholic Church," or "Why the Catholic Church Isn't Following God's Call," or "Let Dr. Alan Cairns Tell You What's Wrong with the Catholic Church." He wanted to know why I would talk about the Roman Catholic Church. He suggested that it may be to help Protestants "to define what it means to be Protestant and not Catholic" or "to offer Protestants a sense of their faith identity." My correspondent told me how in the past year he has come to know how dependent he is on God and how through Jesus Christ he is made new. Now he tries to live each day to love God and his neighbor. With all that he professes "my love for the Catholic faith and my new found joy in the Priests and how they live their loves [a Freudian slip perhaps, but I am sure he meant love their lives], the sacraments, the communion of saints, intercessory prayer, and my Pope. I realize the bible says nothing explicitly on ANY of these matters. And that's okay for me. We can agree to disagree. But hearing your program only makes me feel further from my protestant brothers and sisters and makes me feel like I need to have my guard up. This does not move me closer to my goal of Love." First of all, I have to thank the gentleman for writing. I appreciate that. But he is laboring under a grievous misapprehension. It may not matter to him that some of the most fundamental matters in the faith he professes to love do not appear in Scripture but it does matter to me. You see, that's the very heart of the controversy with Rome. Rome assumes the power to define doctrine that has absolutely no basis in God's word and is in many instances diametrically opposed to what is revealed. These are not small issues. They have to do with the great cardinal truths of the gospel. Consider this. If the Bible is right then Rome is totally unbiblical-that is, unchristian-on the following key issues: - The finished sacrifice of Christ at Calvary
- The sole mediation of Christ
- Justification by faith alone-that is, the way of acceptance with God
- The meaning and significance of the sacraments
- The sufficiency of Scripture
- The exaltation of the bishop of Rome to be a Pope
- What happens to souls after death-she has invented the dogma of Purgatory
- The merit that finally gains heaven-she makes it the merit of a person's own works
These are just some of the issues. They are not insignificant matters. They go to the very heart of the gospel. Since Rome is a dominant force in the world today, claiming over a billion adherents, it follows that any man who sets out to be faithful to Christ and His gospel will have to Let the Bible Speak against the pernicious errors of a system that is binding and blinding millions. Remember if the Bible is right, Rome is wrong at just about every essential point of the gospel. My correspondent may say, "For me, that's okay." It is not okay for me. I can bring the good news to needy souls only as I distinguish it from counterfeits that pose as the message of God to men. So I'll keep exposing and opposing Rome. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Earlier this week I reported on projections for 2008 about the persecution of Christians. One of the places I mentioned briefly was India. Here's a story that will show just how dire the situation is in those parts of India where radical Hindus can apparently run wild. According to a report a government minister in the state of Orissa, has resigned following communal violence in which rampant radical Hindus attacked a group of people from various Christian denominations who had erected a tent and were gathered for Christmas celebrations. 500 furious Hindus attacked the tent; reportedly some of the Hindus fired weapons while others used sticks and swords to attack and injure their victims. In addition in the days following, 13 churches were demolished or razed to the ground, three Christians were shot dead and several others injured. The minister, Padmanabha Behera, who represents the local district in the state parliament, met the Chief Minister of Orissa at his residence on December 28 and tendered his resignation. "I decided to step down from the minister's post owning full moral responsibility for the violence and disruption of communal harmony in my district," he told the media. "In the last few days, misinformation and misleading statements in my district were spread through media. In order to remove this public misconception and to restore age-old harmony between Scheduled Castes and Tribes in my district, I decided to tender my resignation," he said. It seems that all sides were happy to see the minister resign. A lot of this violence is tied into the Indian caste system. In the Christian Church there are no castes. It appears that there was a move afoot to grant tribal status to converted Christians who hailed from the tribal area dominated by the radical Hindus. A Hindu Community Rights organization opposed the grant and sparked the fatal violence and arson. That organization called for the minister's resignation. Minister Behera said, "I am a victim of a conspiracy hatched by my opposition by political opponents." It is difficult to see how his resignation will cool the situation. Radical Hindus will never give up their "Holy War" until they are soundly defeated-and no state government is going to display the necessary intestinal fortitude to confront the people on whom it depends to keep it in power. These are testing times for believers in parts of India. If any good comes out of the December massacre, perhaps it will be that some of our politicians may follow the Indian minister's lead and take moral responsibility-and resign because of the disastrous results of their political theories and policies. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Illegal immigration is a hot button item all across America. With millions of illegals already in the country and with millions more trying to get in-and of course with a Presidential election looming-it's a subject that is going to be debated more and more over the months to come. Have you ever wondered why the Roman Catholic Church has taken such an interest in protecting illegal immigrants? For years, her priests and bishops have encouraged illegal immigration, have sheltered illegals and have fought to have them receive all the rights, privileges and protections of American citizens. Recently I listened to a bishop interviewed on National Public Radio and he vehemently defended the "right" of illegals, arguing that human rights-for example, the right to live and to work, to have health care and welfare-were the gift of God and not of any government. Of course, what he didn't say was that there is no divine mandate that everybody and anybody has a God-given right to live and work in America! The bishop hastily went on to say that of course he was not advocating that America do away with its borders! Sure he wasn't! He just wants it to do away with its southern border! Now, it is not my purpose to debate the issue of immigration, legal or illegal. That's a political issue and this is not a political commentary. My interest is in just why the Roman Catholic Church is so involved in the issue and has openly challenged every government initiative to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. The politically correct answer is that Rome cares for the poor and downtrodden. The real answer is that Rome is dependent on Hispanic immigration for its survival as the major religious power in the United States. Since 1960, over 70% of new additions to the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. have been Hispanics. At the moment, Hispanics make up 40% of the total membership of the Roman Catholic Church in America has about 65 million members. That means that it has 26 million Hispanic members. And that number increases almost every time another illegal immigrant enters the country. When you think that apart from the Hispanic growth in its membership, the Roman Catholic Church would be showing the same decline as other denominations, you can see why it is so vociferous about allowing illegal immigration to continue and for illegals to be granted permanent status. In other words, Rome's stand on immigration is neither because of Christian charity nor humanitarian interest. It is purely a self-centered policy of maintaining its prominence and power. Do not misunderstand me on this subject. I condemn Roman Catholic hypocrisy but I believe that Bible believing Christians should not allow political considerations to stand in the way of evangelizing the lost. Hispanics, like all the rest of us, need Christ and we should do what we can to get the gospel to them. Never think that you should stop to find out a man's immigrant status before giving him the gospel. Rome shows nothing but self love in dealing with immigrants. Let us, as Bible believers, show the love of Christ by seeking to reach them with the gospel. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
The Christianity Today headline was tantalizing: Good Works Not Enough-Latest papal document urges Roman Catholics to win souls. Can this be true, that the Pope, historically the champion of works-based salvation, is actually telling Roman Catholics that their works will not merit heaven? Well, no it is not true. The Pope has not changed the old tune that Rome has been playing for centuries. What Christianity Today was reporting was a directive given to Roman Catholic missionaries, telling them that doing humanitarian works is not enough, that it is only part of their job and that they should labor to make new converts.. The Pope's call comes at a time when his church is feeling the heat of competition from Pentecostal and other Protestant churches and also when his Church is under attack from Russia's Orthodox Church for sheep stealing. The directive also comes against the backdrop of the highly politicized theology being pursued by some Jesuits. According to Archbishop Angelo Amato, undersecretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's top doctrinal office, "[T]here has been a cooling of missionary spirit in recent years." He specifically cited the work of three Jesuit theologians-Jacques Dupuis, Roger Haight, and Jon Sobrino-suggesting that their work had undermined missionary spirit by casting doubt on the uniqueness of Christ as the universal Savior of humankind. Under the influence of this theology, many Roman missionary priests have come to believe that "it is enough to build communities which strive for justice, freedom, peace, and solidarity." When the Pope says, Good works are not enough," this is what he means. He wants to see his priests make more Roman Catholics. As for personal salvation, Rome still stands by her utterly unbiblical and deeply cherished notion that the only merit that can get anyone to heaven is the merit of the "good works" that he does here on earth. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 2008, 2010), Rome teaches that because "God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace," man can obtain merit. "Then follows man's free acting through his collaboration [with God], so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful." The Catechism has just defined "merit" as "the recompense owed," so it is teaching that God owes men something for the works they do in collaboration with Him. But Rome has even more to say: "No one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification [which Rome says occurs in Baptism] at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life." In plain language, once a priest baptizes you, you can begin to do good works and merit heaven. If the Pope says good works are not enough, be sure he means that in salvation God starts the ball rolling but then it's up to you to do so many good works that God will "owe" you eternal life. Of course, it is all a fabrication. Salvation is on the sole merits of Christ received by faith alone, without works. His righteousness is all the merit a sinner needs to enter heaven. Our works in sanctification and service add nothing to our right to do so, though God graciously promises to reward them for Christ's sake. Rome's dogma comes down to this: The merit of Christ saves you from Hell; the merit of your own works alone can get you to heaven. That is blasphemy. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| TUESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
Evolution and Presidential Politics-A Bad "Omenn" Evolutionists are losing the debate in the court of public opinion. So they are turning to a tried and tested method of garnering support-fear mongering. They have noted how powerfully this has played out in the global warming debate and have decided to take a leaf out of the Green's playbook. Listen to this. Electing a president who does not believe in evolution theory is a way to lead a nation to ruin, according one scientist. "The logic that convinces us that evolution is a fact is the same logic we use to say smoking is hazardous to your health or we have serious energy policy issues because of global warming," said Dr. Gilbert Omenn, professor of Internal Medicine, Human Genetics, and Public Health at the University of Michigan, during a science media day one day after presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses. "I would worry that a president who didn't believe in the evolution arguments wouldn't believe in those other arguments either. This is a way of leading our country to ruin," said Omenn, who was present for the release the pro-evolution book "Science, Evolution and Creationism," published by the National Academy of Sciences. I hope Dr. Omenn's skill in internal medicine is vastly superior to his logic or his honesty. Let's deal with honesty issue first. There is not the slightest correlation in methodology between how medical scientists have determined that smoking is hazardous to one's health and how evolutionists arrived at their theory of origins. To give the impression that evolutionists can produce the empirical evidence in favor of their theory that is available to show the dangers of smoking is downright misleading. As to logic, I will simply say that to try to expect us to accept the truth of evolution because some scientists with a particular agenda have scared a lot of people into accepting that catastrophic, man-induced global warming is occurring-and that big-government measures can fix it-is ludicrous. However, it says a lot about how desperate the evolution lobby is becoming these days. They have successfully closed the door of tenured professorship in scientific disciplines against any scientist who does not share their belief in Darwinism Now they want to extend their closed shop policy to the Presidency of the United States. It's not a Darwin denying President who will "ruin" this country but closed-minded academics who are seeking to make the minds of their students-and if possible, the electorate of this country-as closed as theirs. Pardon the awful pun, but when Dr. Gilbert Omenn speaks so ominously to link America's future to his pet theory of evolution and tries to make the office Presidential the peculiar domain of Darwinian evolutionists, it's an ill omen indeed. It appears that Evolutionists want to grab by spreading fear what they cannot gain by rational debate. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
| MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2008 | 15 years ago |
|
|
According to a British advocacy group, millions of people will be persecuted around in 2008 will take place in four "zones" - Islam, Communism, Hinduism and Buddhism. Harassment may originate from governments or their agents-such as the secret police, military, and judiciary-or from non-governmental movements, such as militant Islamic groups. Consider the following headlines for stories currently running: I have mentioned four zones of persecution. In the Islam zone, Saudi Arabia stands out not only for its extremely harsh laws against all religion other than the Wahhabi branch of Islam, but also because it spends millions each year disseminating Islamic teachings around the world. There are no greater hypocrites on earth than the Saudi royal family. I recently read a report from a female writer who described her interview with one of the Saudi rulers. They met in a large office with a huge glass wall. That was so that their meeting would be observable. The Muslim view is that where a male and a female meet behind closed doors, Satan is the third member of the group. So they met in a room with a glass wall. But as soon as the interview was finished, the prince asked if his guest would like to meet some friends and ushered her into a room where he and his colleagues watched filthy displays of sensuality and drank Johnny Walker whisky at $130 a bottle. Of course, in Saudi Arabia anybody else drinking alcohol anywhere else in the land would be severely punished. The way these hypocrites guard their tenuous hold on power is by underwriting radical Islam and by persecuting non-Muslims, especially Christians. This is the country that the United States has supported and upheld for years. We have treated the Saudis as friends whereas they are more like enemies. They are certainly among the worst persecutors in the world. In India, radical Hindus have entered 2008 with their lust for Christian blood unabated. Burnings and intimidation have become regular and more are expected. In Communist regimes such as China, Cuba, and North Korea, believers face a more systemic form of persecution that involves house arrest, interrogation, fines, and imprisonment. North Korea remains probably the world's worst persecutor of Christians. Believers are imprisoned in special labor camps, brutally tortured and even publicly executed. Christians are forbidden to pray or to or read a Bible, either publicly or at home and are banned from evangelizing even their own children. This is the real axis of evil in the world. |
Weblog Category: Hot Topics
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
