This popular post was first published here on May 9, 2011.

It is easier to believe a lie that one has heard a thousand times than to believe a fact that no one has heard before.

Revelations that rock the status quo are hard to take.  And sometimes people rather lie about the messenger than listen to truth. People didn’t want to hear the earth wasn’t flat, cigarettes weren’t healthy, or pro-wrestling was fake. I still don’t believe the last one! People don’t want to be challenged. And those who challenge are often gagged. That was true this week when the University of California Santa Barbara student council had to vote on allowing David Horowitz to speak on their campus.

Earlier this week the Associated Students Legislative Council of UCSB met to discuss giving student money so that Horowitz could give a speech. The College Republicans scheduled Horowitz as a guest speaker, and the school is supposedly obligated to help pay for security and technology needs to pull off the event.

Last Monday, the board denied any money for the speech. One problem: the board is not allowed to deny the funding simply because they find the speech offensive. On Wednesday, the Republican group went back to the board and asked for the minutes to be reopened and the issue to be reconsidered. The groups asked again for around $1500 to help put on the event. The council meeting lasted six hours as free speech was discussed and while Horowitz was made out to be the anti-Christ.

In the end the board would vote to give the College Republicans only about half the money needed.  Even worse, the all night session was a disturbing battle that consisted of a barrage of lies about Horowitz. Not only was his character questioned, but angry student Leftist groups did a hatchet job on Horowitz using a doctored Youtube tape. Both the board and one of the reporters covering the meeting fell for these lies.

During Public Forum…(they) played a YouTube video to the audience and Leg Council depicting Horowitz giving a speech filled with racial slurs and accusations at Brooklyn College December 2010…  In the video, Horowitz is heard to say the following statements such as “no other people have sunk themselves so low as the Palestinians” as well as “Arabs are racists, Jew haters, and can’t live peacefully with others.

I’m not sure why Amanda Garcia, the student author of this article, would misrepresent the Horowitz Youtube video this way.  Anyone can go watch it themselves and see how the video only shows clips of Horowitz out of context.  And anyone who watches it can see that Garcia has misquoted and misrepresented Horowitz’s statements in the video.  (Go see the video for yourself, or better yet, see the whole unedited video.  And for a serious rebuttal of the chopped up video, check out this blog which features pictures and video of the event.)

The Youtube video shown at UCSB gives only snippets of a speech (given this March – not last December) where Horowitz is discussing Palestinians who have acted out in terror against Israel and are demanding the removal or destruction of Jews.  It is specifically these people who Horowitz calls “racist, Jew haters” who have “sunk themselves so low morally” (Garcia removed the word morally when she quoted Horowitz).  Yet the Leftist students at the UCSB meeting (along with the Garcia article) portray Horowitz as saying all Arabs are racists and all Palestinians are the dregs of society.

The edited version of Horowitz’s speech was reportedly made by Philip Weiss, a known anti-Israel activist and Horowitz hater.  It appears student Sophia Armen, the person showing the Youtube propaganda piece, did not disclose that information.  In fact, Armen is the head of Human Rights Group at UCSB, which is a division of Human Rights Watch (a group known for being anti-Israel).  This isn’t Armen’s first dip into attempting to silence speakers.

Last year she helped lead a campus walk-out on Karl Rove and went so far as to call him a “war criminal” to the press.

Others at the meeting claimed Horowitz was hate-filled and dangerous.  One Muslim student (a member of the student council no less) proclaimed having Horowitz come to campus would make him feel unsafe, though he never detailed why.

As a marginalized individual, I feel my safety is somewhat threatened by bringing this individual to campus.  I don’t want to subject anyone else to the hate that I’ve experienced. – Ahmed Mostafa

The Left has learned that the best way to gag someone is call them racist.  But if that doesn’t work, the last straw is to say that someone’s speech will somehow endanger you physically.  It doesn’t matter that there are zero reports of someone harming people based on hearing Horowitz speak.  You say whatever lie works to keep people from listening to the truth.

Even though UCSB isn’t giving the College Republicans all the money that is due them for the Horowitz event, the good news is that the speech will still happen.  The next question will be how will the anti-Israel, Horowitz haters react when it’s time for the actual speech.  Will freedom win out or will there be more lies to try to silence truth?

They called it ugly man’s paradise. In parts of the Muslim world you will find unattractive and usually older foreign white men married to beautiful, young Muslim women. All they have to do to get the family’s approval is convert to Islam.  Now that may sound tough, but it’s easier than you think. The ugly Caucasian must merely make a declaration of faith which Muslims call the Shahada. In Indonesia, where I have traveled, the Shahada is often simply stating, “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet.”  Say it, pretend you mean it, and voila you are Muslim and can marry that young hotty in the hijab.

Most people don’t have a problem with some non-believing Euro-trash fake converting to Islam for marriage purposes. But when the marriage involves a real Christian and a Muslim (or two Christians where people believe one wants to convert to Islam), the picture changes. Suddenly you are talking fire bombing churches and Muslims killing Christians. Such a violent reaction took place this past weekend in Egypt, offering us yet another example of the error in thinking Mubarak was the only problem in that country.

The news coverage has varied, but we know that last Saturday Muslims attacked and firebombed two churches in Cairo, Egypt and at least twelve people were killed while hundreds were injured. Reports say that an ultraconservative Muslim group known as Salafists attacked one of the churches because they believed a Christian woman who was married to a Muslim man was being held hostage. The local Muslims believed (for some unknown reason) that the Christian woman decided to convert to Islam, so the Christians had kidnapped her to stop her from doing so.

No evidence has been offered by the Salafists to back up their story. It is common in many parts of the Muslim world for people to spread lies as a reason to kill more Christians. Anyone who follows such news has read how Muslims have accused Christians of burning Korans, saying offensive things about Mohammad (like he was a child rapist – oh wait, that’s true) or not wearing Muslim attire as reasons to burn buildings, beat or even kill women. Well, add mixed marriages to the list of excuses to act out in terror against non-Muslims.

A Washington Post editorial summarized this Islamic worldwide problem well:

Pressure on Christian minorities, violent and otherwise, has been a chronic feature of the Arab and Muslim political landscape in recent years. In Pakistan, gunmen murdered two high-profile opponents of laws that impose the death penalty for insulting Islam; one victim was a Christian, the other the son of a Muslim father and a Christian mother. Iraq was home to more than 1 million Christians before the 2003 U.S. invasion; roughly half have fled, largely because of radical Islamist attacks.

This Saturday’s attacks were fierce and frightening.

This is not the first time since Mubarak was booted that we have seen Islamic violence against Christians.  Just last March I reported on another church burning where Muslims killed Christians just outside of Cairo.  Witnesses claimed during that attack that the military did not help the Christians and may have even been part of the violence. Some have said the same thing about last week’s violence.

My son attends this church. How can we ever feel safe?  This is religious strife facilitated by the army and police. Let’s just face the truth. – Nashaat Boshra

Clearly the Left was wrong about what Egypt would be post-Mubarak. But there is another lesson the Left needs to learn: the spread of Sharia means the spread of at least a thread of ultraconservative Islamists who will find any reason to bring violence towards non-Muslims, especially Christians. Egypt is not alone in such activity. Find me one dominant Muslim nation where this activity doesn’t take place. They may be ugly man’s paradise, but for the rest of us, these places are just plain nightmares.

It is easier to believe a lie that one has heard a thousand times than to believe a fact that no one has heard before.

Revelations that rock the status quo are hard to take.  And sometimes people rather lie about the messenger than listen to truth. People didn’t want to hear the earth wasn’t flat, cigarettes weren’t healthy, or pro-wrestling was fake. I still don’t believe the last one! People don’t want to be challenged. And those who challenge are often gagged. That was true this week when the University of California Santa Barbara student council had to vote on allowing David Horowitz to speak on their campus.

Earlier this week the Associated Students Legislative Council of UCSB met to discuss giving student money so that Horowitz could give a speech. The College Republicans scheduled Horowitz as a guest speaker, and the school is supposedly obligated to help pay for security and technology needs to pull off the event.

Last Monday, the board denied any money for the speech. One problem: the board is not allowed to deny the funding simply because they find the speech offensive. On Wednesday, the Republican group went back to the board and asked for the minutes to be reopened and the issue to be reconsidered. The groups asked again for around $1500 to help put on the event. The council meeting lasted six hours as free speech was discussed and while Horowitz was made out to be the anti-Christ.

In the end the board would vote to give the College Republicans only about half the money needed.  Even worse, the all night session was a disturbing battle that consisted of a barrage of lies about Horowitz. Not only was his character questioned, but angry student Leftist groups did a hatchet job on Horowitz using a doctored Youtube tape. Both the board and one of the reporters covering the meeting fell for these lies.

During Public Forum…(they) played a YouTube video to the audience and Leg Council depicting Horowitz giving a speech filled with racial slurs and accusations at Brooklyn College December 2010…  In the video, Horowitz is heard to say the following statements such as “no other people have sunk themselves so low as the Palestinians” as well as “Arabs are racists, Jew haters, and can’t live peacefully with others.

I’m not sure why Amanda Garcia, the student author of this article, would misrepresent the Horowitz Youtube video this way.  Anyone can go watch it themselves and see how the video only shows clips of Horowitz out of context.  And anyone who watches it can see that Garcia has misquoted and misrepresented Horowitz’s statements in the video.  (Go see the video for yourself, or better yet, see the whole unedited video.  And for a serious rebuttal of the chopped up video, check out this blog which features pictures and video of the event.)

The Youtube video shown at UCSB gives only snippets of a speech (given this March – not last December) where Horowitz is discussing Palestinians who have acted out in terror against Israel and are demanding the removal or destruction of Jews.  It is specifically these people who Horowitz calls “racist, Jew haters” who have “sunk themselves so low morally” (Garcia removed the word morally when she quoted Horowitz).  Yet the Leftist students at the UCSB meeting (along with the Garcia article) portray Horowitz as saying all Arabs are racists and all Palestinians are the dregs of society.

The edited version of Horowitz’s speech was reportedly made by Philip Weiss, a known anti-Israel activist and Horowitz hater.  It appears student Sophia Armen, the person showing the Youtube propaganda piece, did not disclose that information.  In fact, Armen is the head of Human Rights Group at UCSB, which is a division of Human Rights Watch (a group known for being anti-Israel).  This isn’t Armen’s first dip into attempting to silence speakers.

Last year she helped lead a campus walk-out on Karl Rove and went so far as to call him a “war criminal” to the press.

Others at the meeting claimed Horowitz was hate-filled and dangerous.  One Muslim student (a member of the student council no less) proclaimed having Horowitz come to campus would make him feel unsafe, though he never detailed why.

As a marginalized individual, I feel my safety is somewhat threatened by bringing this individual to campus.  I don’t want to subject anyone else to the hate that I’ve experienced. – Ahmed Mostafa

The Left has learned that the best way to gag someone is call them racist.  But if that doesn’t work, the last straw is to say that someone’s speech will somehow endanger you physically.  It doesn’t matter that there are zero reports of someone harming people based on hearing Horowitz speak.  You say whatever lie works to keep people from listening to the truth.

Even though UCSB isn’t giving the College Republicans all the money that is due them for the Horowitz event, the good news is that the speech will still happen.  The next question will be how will the anti-Israel, Horowitz haters react when it’s time for the actual speech.  Will freedom win out or will there be more lies to try to silence truth?

This popular post was first published here on April 23, 2011.

Our mainstream media  and political leaders rolled the dice on Egypt and the Middle East by backing the overthrow of the Mubarak government.  They didn’t gamble with their own money though, they gambled with the lives of innocent people throughout the region.  Now their recklessness  has proven dangerous as the Muslim Brotherhood has finally admitted they are aiming to bring violent extremes of Sharia to the people of Egypt and a sure destruction to relations with Israel.

How many times were we told not to worry about Egypt?  How many times were we told that the Muslim Brotherhood wasn’t so bad?  How many times were we told we were watching a pro-democracy movement in Egypt that had nothing to do with the spread of radical Islam?  How many times were we told that Israel and America had nothing to fear by an Egyptian leadership change?  Well the mainstream media, the Left, and the like were all wrong.  They were dead wrong and now we know it.

The independent news source Al-Masry al-Youm reported last week that Muslim Brotherhood leaders have finally admitted to wanting Egyptian government to be based on Sharia law:

Mahmoud Ezzat, the Muslim Brotherhood’s deputy Supreme Guide, said in a forum held in the Cairo district of Imbaba on Thursday that the group wants to establish an Islamic state after it achieves widespread popularity through its Freedom and Justice Party. Meanwhile, Brotherhood leader Saad al-Husseiny, said at the forum that the group aims to apply Islamic legislation and establish Islamic rule.

The reaction by moderates and Coptic Christians is near panic.  Even some of them had been convinced or at least hoped that the Brotherhood had changed its ways.  With these recent revelations, Christian groups in Cairo are canceling Easter service invitations to Brotherhood members.  Abdel Maseeh Baseet, the pastor of the Church of Saint Marie in Mostorod, Egypt said we now know the true plans of the Brotherhood and it’s time for the rest of us to realize it:

This way of thinking is rejected both locally and internationally. The world is not ready for a Taliban-style state.

Maybe not surprisingly, but sadly, some on the Left continue to defend the Brotherhood regardless of recent revelations.  They are ignoring moderate and Coptic Egyptians and blaming America instead.

The Brotherhood is more likely to remain moderate if the U.S. takes what is perceived in Egypt as a reasonable stance on the Israel-Palestine question.  We push the Egyptian public toward fundamentalism with actions like our recent veto in the U.N. Security Council of a draft resolution that would have criticized Israel for its civilian settlements in the Palestinian territory… – John Quigley, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

So the Brotherhood, according to the Left, is actually moderate, but if they become radical it is because America has pushed them to it.  Why?  Because we have the audacity to support Israel.  Exactly how different are such views from Jeremiah Wright claiming that 9-11 was America’s chickens coming home to roost?  I guess when the true Left discovers they are wrong they just double down on anti-America and anti-Israel speech.

The Brotherhood’s deputy Supreme Guide Ezzat also said that “enforcement of Sharia punishments will need time and will only come after Islam is planted in every heart and masters the life of the people.”  Such comments should awaken all in the so-called liberal and progressive world to the real mindset of Islamists.  They don’t simply want freedom of religion.  Devout and committed Muslims want Islam to be “planted in every heart” and for us to accept our slavery to Allah.  (That goal is not limited to Egypt or the Middle East, that is the Islamists’ desire for the entire world – including America.)

The good news is that these statements by the Brotherhood are waking up some in Egypt who previously thought the organization should get at least some power in government.  If enough people find out about the Brotherhood’s comments then they may lose a chance at power (which is why the Brotherhood now claims the press misrepresented their comments).  Of course, the problem is that these statements are being ignored by much of the press.  So our media and leaders’ silence could actually help the Brotherhood take power and implement Sharia.

Brotherhood leadership could mean the destruction of Egypt’s relations with Israel and even the death of moderate voices in a once moderate Egypt.  So why doesn’t the media and government shout this news from the mountain tops?  Because they don’t want to  be shown for being wrong – even if it means being dead wrong.

I do career mentoring in my town with high school kids.  It’s kind of like Big Brother, Big Sister. A year ago I let my 16-year-old mentee, who had a driver’s permit, drive my car from the school to my house while I was in the passenger seat.  He was doing great until it was time to park in the garage.  As he pulled in he suddenly hit the gas and was head toward a wall that would lead into my living room.  Not wanting him to put a car through my house, I screamed for the kid to slam on the brakes and he did at the last possible second.  We avoided near disaster but the car had wicked damage along the side from him scraping up against an A/C unit in the garage.  That was the last day I let him drive my car.

I was dumb enough to let someone unskilled drive my car.  The Obama administration is insane enough to let someone unskilled drive a war in Libya. And the damage is getting worse and worse.  The latest wreck in the battle against Qaddafi involves airstrike last Saturday morning on a completely non-military target.

Early in the morning, thankfully before disabled children showed up for school at the Libyan Down Syndrome Society, NATO pilots sent missiles into the school building.  The attack destroyed a much-needed facility for disabled kids.  The founder of the school, and a parent of a disabled teenager were shocked.

I felt sad, really. I kept thinking, what are we going to do with these children?  This is not the place we left on Thursday afternoon.

NATO has not explained who their actual target was.  The Libyan government claims NATO planes were trying to hit Qaddafi who was doing a nearby interview at a television station that morning.

‘They maybe wanted to hit the television. This is a non-military, non-governmental building.’ -Mohammed al-Mehdi, head of the civil societies council.

Imagine what the press would have been if this building had been filled with children.  Around 60 kids could have been killed and everyone involved, including our government, would have held responsibility.  I can’t guarantee it, but I tend to think if U.S. military forces were allowed to take charge, this mistake would have never happened.

I know President Obama appears to be untouchable right now after killing Osama bin Laden, but Libya is still a serious problem that needs a serious change of policy.  We cannot be in a war but then refuse to lead it and refuse to even call it a war.  (Recently the administration rejected the word “war” for “kinetic military action”.)  We simply do not have all three of the familiar options of lead, follow, or get out of the way.  We either need to lead or get out of the way.  Following the lead of others gets schools for disabled children blown up.

The school is for kids up to age 6.  How can we say we are in Libya to protect citizens but supporting military action that almost killed 60 preschoolers with disabilities?  I understand collateral damage, but that is ridiculous.  If we aren’t in the driver seat on this thing, we need to jump out of the car and take the keys with us.

So far we’ve only scraped the side of the vehicle.  I’m afraid any day now the car is going right through the garage wall and into the living room.

This popular post was first published here on April 27, 2011.

I was in the middle of nowhere.  I found myself loaded up in an SUV with about 8 other American seminary students as we entered a village in the middle of some woods outside of Jakarta, Indonesia.  I tensed up as we passed a Muslim training facility where we were told they train children in two things: the Koran and terror.  The ethnic group in that part of Indonesia rejects all education but the Koran and radical Islam.

It makes their children ripe pickings for terrorist organizations.

That day was probably the scariest in my life. But I was more than just scared, I was also sad.  I was heartbroken that the children of that village and in that area were getting no education but the Koran. None of them even understood Arabic, but they could mindlessly read the Koran.  And the children grew up with radicals telling them what it means to truly follow God.

Most thoughtful people would have a similar reaction to the scene I witnessed. But not the political Left. They are so convinced of the beauty of the spread of Islam, that they are now applauding Koran-only education. I know we always thought progressives were pro liberal education, but that has now been proven wrong with the reaction by many on the Left to a new documentary film called “Koran by Heart.”

Esteemed documentary filmmaker Greg Baker premiered his film last week at the Tribeca Film Festival to standing ovations and joyful applause. The film follows young Muslim children in the annual 2009 International Holy Quran Festival held in Cairo, Egypt.  The competition pits 110 contestants ranging in age from 7 to 20 against each other in the ability to memorize all 600 pages of the Koran.

The movie reveals that most of these kids have devoted their lives to this memorization. Surprisingly, the pro-Muslim film doesn’t hide the fact that some of these children learn nothing else, and most of these children don’t understand any of the words they are reciting.  Salon.com, in a glowing review, points out:

One of our stars is a 10-year-old kid from Tajikistan named Nabiollah, an angelic, big-eyed moppet who can recite the entire Quran from memory in an astonishingly pure boyish soprano, with remarkable command of melody and intonation. He’s like the Justin Bieber of Quran recitation, and judges at the Cairo event seize on him as an amazing gift from Allah. But memorizing the Quran (in Arabic, which he does not otherwise speak or read) at a rural madrassa has nearly been Nabiollah’s entire education; he is functionally illiterate in Tajik, his own language.

How does the Left respond to clear anti-education?  They are a bit uncomfortable, but still manage to rise to their feet and applause this pro-Islam film.  In the conflict of education versus Islamic propaganda – Mohammad wins every time.

Salon.com summarzied the film this way:

It’s “Spellbound” plus a poetry slam. Plus Islamic fundamentalism…but if you’re open to the possibility that Islam in practice is an incredibly diverse spiritual and social movement that embraces 1.6 billion human beings and a lot of internal discussion and disagreement, and that the more we know about it the better, then “Koran by Heart” is a movie you’ve got to see.

This popular post was first published here on April 29, 2011.

In Turkey last week, police wanted to check to see how gullible their citizens were.  So they tested them by knocking on doors and screaming: “I’m a thief who has come to rob you. Now open your door.” The police were shocked to find that the vast majority of people actually opened their doors anyway. The police then warned the foolish people to be more cautious.

Ron Paul would have opened his door and invited the thief in. Paul wouldn’t have called the police, instead he’d invite the thief in to have a verbal battle over ideas. That’s basically what Ron Paul told Sean Hannity this Wednesday on Fox News. Except Paul said if he were President, and Sharia enforcers came knocking, he’d open the doors of America for a friendly debate over ideals. Opening your door to a thief is stupid and dangerous for one house. Opening America to Sharia is stupid and dangerous for an entire nation.

When Hannity asked Paul about the spread of Sharia in America, Paul initially downplayed the possibility but then said America is to blame if it happens. (Video here):

Hannity: Do you not agree there is a desire among Islamic extremists to have an Islamic Caliphate, Sharia Law and conquering the world?  ‘Cause that’s their stated goal. I mean that’s what they say they want.

Paul: I think it would mean this many (hold up fingers to show small amount) but because we’re over there their numbers grow. You have radicals in all religions. And if there is some way to incite them, their numbers will grow. So their numbers have grown, but they use us to do that…

So Ron Paul says Sharia won’t spread but then blames America if it does. I’m not sure if he realizes he is contradicting himself with such a response.  Not only that, but Paul sounds like the lunatic Left when he infers all religions have equal amounts of radicals in them who do equal harm to societies. But what other world religion has standard teachings that allow beating your wife, raping young girls you claim as your wives, death to homosexuals, and killing family members who convert to other faiths? These aren’t views of a small percentage of radicals, such views are proclaimed in the Koran and other parts of Sharia law. These ideals are widely held by devout Muslims in much of the Islamic world.

Later Hannity asked about the Ground Zero Mosque issue (video here):

Hannity: The Imam…wants America to be Sharia compliant. That is the antithesis of everything we believe in…

Paul:  But that’s not coming here. We have to defend our principles…That goes on in Saudia Arabia.

Hannity: Isn’t that opening the door for somebody who wants to overthrow America into a system that is contrary to our fundamental beliefs?

Paul: No, I think you are closing the door to what makes America great.

Again, Paul sounds like the blind Left in our country who ignore the clear spread of Sharia all throughout Europe and now making inroads in America.  He  purposefully closes his eyes to the facts on the growth of Sharia, and admits he is willing to open the door to it.

Not that a President Paul would want America to be an Islamic nation. Of course he doesn’t. But Paul thinks America should foolishly allow Sharia to slip in to our culture, so it can compete with more classic Judeo-Christian principles.

Does Sharia deserve an equal chance to take hold of America as our principles of liberty once had? Does freedom of religion mean equal opportunity for people to push laws that would kill homosexuals and allow the beating of wives?  Or is Sharia law so anti-American that we should immediately shut Sharia down anywhere it sticks out its ugly head? A President Ron Paul would say let it grow and spread but try to defend against it simply by putting forward American ideals.

I know Ron Paul is beloved by a passionate minority in the Republican party and by some independents. His views on the economy are strong and conservative for the most part. But if you have any regard for the safety of America, as we are being attacked on multiple fronts in this war on Terror, you have to realize a President Ron Paul would unwittingly harm America by opening doors to Sharia.

Let’s shut those doors – nail them shut even.  And if Ron Paul doesn’t change his tune, let’s shut the door on the idea of Ron Paul as our next president.

In Turkey last week, police wanted to check to see how gullible their citizens were.  So they tested them by knocking on doors and screaming: “I’m a thief who has come to rob you. Now open your door.” The police were shocked to find that the vast majority of people actually opened their doors anyway. The police then warned the foolish people to be more cautious.

Ron Paul would have opened his door and invited the thief in. Paul wouldn’t have called the police, instead he’d invite the thief in to have a verbal battle over ideas. That’s basically what Ron Paul told Sean Hannity this Wednesday on Fox News. Except Paul said if he were President, and Sharia enforcers came knocking, he’d open the doors of America for a friendly debate over ideals. Opening your door to a thief is stupid and dangerous for one house. Opening America to Sharia is stupid and dangerous for an entire nation.

When Hannity asked Paul about the spread of Sharia in America, Paul initially downplayed the possibility but then said America is to blame if it happens. (Video here):

Hannity: Do you not agree there is a desire among Islamic extremists to have an Islamic Caliphate, Sharia Law and conquering the world?  ‘Cause that’s their stated goal. I mean that’s what they say they want.

Paul: I think it would mean this many (hold up fingers to show small amount) but because we’re over there their numbers grow. You have radicals in all religions. And if there is some way to incite them, their numbers will grow. So their numbers have grown, but they use us to do that…

So Ron Paul says Sharia won’t spread but then blames America if it does. I’m not sure if he realizes he is contradicting himself with such a response.  Not only that, but Paul sounds like the lunatic Left when he infers all religions have equal amounts of radicals in them who do equal harm to societies. But what other world religion has standard teachings that allow beating your wife, raping young girls you claim as your wives, death to homosexuals, and killing family members who convert to other faiths? These aren’t views of a small percentage of radicals, such views are proclaimed in the Koran and other parts of Sharia law. These ideals are widely held by devout Muslims in much of the Islamic world.

Later Hannity asked about the Ground Zero Mosque issue (video here):

Hannity: The Imam…wants America to be Sharia compliant. That is the antithesis of everything we believe in…

Paul:  But that’s not coming here. We have to defend our principles…That goes on in Saudia Arabia.

Hannity: Isn’t that opening the door for somebody who wants to overthrow America into a system that is contrary to our fundamental beliefs?

Paul: No, I think you are closing the door to what makes America great.

Again, Paul sounds like the blind Left in our country who ignore the clear spread of Sharia all throughout Europe and now making inroads in America.  He  purposefully closes his eyes to the facts on the growth of Sharia, and admits he is willing to open the door to it.

Not that a President Paul would want America to be an Islamic nation. Of course he doesn’t. But Paul thinks America should foolishly allow Sharia to slip in to our culture, so it can compete with more classic Judeo-Christian principles.

Does Sharia deserve an equal chance to take hold of America as our principles of liberty once had? Does freedom of religion mean equal opportunity for people to push laws that would kill homosexuals and allow the beating of wives?  Or is Sharia law so anti-American that we should immediately shut Sharia down anywhere it sticks out its ugly head? A President Ron Paul would say let it grow and spread but try to defend against it simply by putting forward American ideals.

I know Ron Paul is beloved by a passionate minority in the Republican party and by some independents. His views on the economy are strong and conservative for the most part. But if you have any regard for the safety of America, as we are being attacked on multiple fronts in this war on Terror, you have to realize a President Ron Paul would unwittingly harm America by opening doors to Sharia.

Let’s shut those doors – nail them shut even.  And if Ron Paul doesn’t change his tune, let’s shut the door on the idea of Ron Paul as our next president.

I was in the middle of nowhere.  I found myself loaded up in an SUV with about 8 other American seminary students as we entered a village in the middle of some woods outside of Jakarta, Indonesia.  I tensed up as we passed a Muslim training facility where we were told they train children in two things: the Koran and terror.  The ethnic group in that part of Indonesia rejects all education but the Koran and radical Islam.

It makes their children ripe pickings for terrorist organizations.

That day was probably the scariest in my life. But I was more than just scared, I was also sad.  I was heartbroken that the children of that village and in that area were getting no education but the Koran. None of them even understood Arabic, but they could mindlessly read the Koran.  And the children grew up with radicals telling them what it means to truly follow God.

Most thoughtful people would have a similar reaction to the scene I witnessed. But not the political Left. They are so convinced of the beauty of the spread of Islam, that they are now applauding Koran-only education. I know we always thought progressives were pro liberal education, but that has now been proven wrong with the reaction by many on the Left to a new documentary film called “Koran by Heart.”

Esteemed documentary filmmaker Greg Baker premiered his film last week at the Tribeca Film Festival to standing ovations and joyful applause. The film follows young Muslim children in the annual 2009 International Holy Quran Festival held in Cairo, Egypt.  The competition pits 110 contestants ranging in age from 7 to 20 against each other in the ability to memorize all 600 pages of the Koran.

The movie reveals that most of these kids have devoted their lives to this memorization. Surprisingly, the pro-Muslim film doesn’t hide the fact that some of these children learn nothing else, and most of these children don’t understand any of the words they are reciting.  Salon.com, in a glowing review, points out:

One of our stars is a 10-year-old kid from Tajikistan named Nabiollah, an angelic, big-eyed moppet who can recite the entire Quran from memory in an astonishingly pure boyish soprano, with remarkable command of melody and intonation. He’s like the Justin Bieber of Quran recitation, and judges at the Cairo event seize on him as an amazing gift from Allah. But memorizing the Quran (in Arabic, which he does not otherwise speak or read) at a rural madrassa has nearly been Nabiollah’s entire education; he is functionally illiterate in Tajik, his own language.

How does the Left respond to clear anti-education?  They are a bit uncomfortable, but still manage to rise to their feet and applause this pro-Islam film.  In the conflict of education versus Islamic propaganda – Mohammad wins every time.

Salon.com summarzied the film this way:

It’s “Spellbound” plus a poetry slam. Plus Islamic fundamentalism…but if you’re open to the possibility that Islam in practice is an incredibly diverse spiritual and social movement that embraces 1.6 billion human beings and a lot of internal discussion and disagreement, and that the more we know about it the better, then “Koran by Heart” is a movie you’ve got to see.

Our mainstream media  and political leaders rolled the dice on Egypt and the Middle East by backing the overthrow of the Mubarak government.  They didn’t gamble with their own money though, they gambled with the lives of innocent people throughout the region.  Now their recklessness  has proven dangerous as the Muslim Brotherhood has finally admitted they are aiming to bring violent extremes of Sharia to the people of Egypt and a sure destruction to relations with Israel.

How many times were we told not to worry about Egypt?  How many times were we told that the Muslim Brotherhood wasn’t so bad?  How many times were we told we were watching a pro-democracy movement in Egypt that had nothing to do with the spread of radical Islam?  How many times were we told that Israel and America had nothing to fear by an Egyptian leadership change?  Well the mainstream media, the Left, and the like were all wrong.  They were dead wrong and now we know it.

The independent news source Al-Masry al-Youm reported last week that Muslim Brotherhood leaders have finally admitted to wanting Egyptian government to be based on Sharia law:

Mahmoud Ezzat, the Muslim Brotherhood’s deputy Supreme Guide, said in a forum held in the Cairo district of Imbaba on Thursday that the group wants to establish an Islamic state after it achieves widespread popularity through its Freedom and Justice Party. Meanwhile, Brotherhood leader Saad al-Husseiny, said at the forum that the group aims to apply Islamic legislation and establish Islamic rule.

The reaction by moderates and Coptic Christians is near panic.  Even some of them had been convinced or at least hoped that the Brotherhood had changed its ways.  With these recent revelations, Christian groups in Cairo are canceling Easter service invitations to Brotherhood members.  Abdel Maseeh Baseet, the pastor of the Church of Saint Marie in Mostorod, Egypt said we now know the true plans of the Brotherhood and it’s time for the rest of us to realize it:

This way of thinking is rejected both locally and internationally. The world is not ready for a Taliban-style state.

Maybe not surprisingly, but sadly, some on the Left continue to defend the Brotherhood regardless of recent revelations.  They are ignoring moderate and Coptic Egyptians and blaming America instead.

The Brotherhood is more likely to remain moderate if the U.S. takes what is perceived in Egypt as a reasonable stance on the Israel-Palestine question.  We push the Egyptian public toward fundamentalism with actions like our recent veto in the U.N. Security Council of a draft resolution that would have criticized Israel for its civilian settlements in the Palestinian territory… – John Quigley, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

So the Brotherhood, according to the Left, is actually moderate, but if they become radical it is because America has pushed them to it.  Why?  Because we have the audacity to support Israel.  Exactly how different are such views from Jeremiah Wright claiming that 9-11 was America’s chickens coming home to roost?  I guess when the true Left discovers they are wrong they just double down on anti-America and anti-Israel speech.

The Brotherhood’s deputy Supreme Guide Ezzat also said that “enforcement of Sharia punishments will need time and will only come after Islam is planted in every heart and masters the life of the people.”  Such comments should awaken all in the so-called liberal and progressive world to the real mindset of Islamists.  They don’t simply want freedom of religion.  Devout and committed Muslims want Islam to be “planted in every heart” and for us to accept our slavery to Allah.  (That goal is not limited to Egypt or the Middle East, that is the Islamists’ desire for the entire world – including America.)

The good news is that these statements by the Brotherhood are waking up some in Egypt who previously thought the organization should get at least some power in government.  If enough people find out about the Brotherhood’s comments then they may lose a chance at power (which is why the Brotherhood now claims the press misrepresented their comments).  Of course, the problem is that these statements are being ignored by much of the press.  So our media and leaders’ silence could actually help the Brotherhood take power and implement Sharia.

Brotherhood leadership could mean the destruction of Egypt’s relations with Israel and even the death of moderate voices in a once moderate Egypt.  So why doesn’t the media and government shout this news from the mountain tops?  Because they don’t want to  be shown for being wrong – even if it means being dead wrong.

This list post was first published on April 14 here.

Every speaker knows there will be critics.  Perhaps you’ve heard of the guy who gave his first speech in a public speaking class.  His teacher said, “The speech has three major problems.  1. You read your speech.  2. You didn’t read it well.  And number 3: It wasn’t worth reading.”

That teacher’s critique is probably similar to what most conservatives would say about President Obama’s deficit speech he gave on Wednesday afternoon.  But what about the Left?  Last week the Left came unglued when Obama made the 2011 budget deal with congressional Republicans that cut spending $38 billion.  They feared Obama was moving to the middle like Clinton did before his reelection campaign in 1996.

Obama’s speech relieved some of the fears of so-called liberals, but there was still a lot they weren’t happy about.

Before we hit the things the Left hated about the speech we should first admit there is one big thing in it that the tax and spenders loved:  Massive tax increases.

Rachel Maddow spoke for some on the Left when she kicked off her Wednesday show with gushing joy over Obama’s tax hikes on the wealthy.  Maddow’s past worrisome whining about Obama going moderate melted away into celebration that Obama will stay on the wealth redistribution course.  She ended her comments with guarded optimism by saying:

Today…if this is how Obama is gonna run for reelection…then, as a liberal, I am less worried then I was.

But aside from the tax increases, the angry Left did find many other problems with Obama’s speech.  Here are the five biggest ones that keep them worrying about Obama.

5. The debt fail-safe trigger is dumb.

One of the odder parts of Obama’s plan was his push for some unexplained fail-safe debt trigger.

Just to hold Washington – and me – accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt fail-safe. If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code.

Basically Obama is saying I promise that if we don’t do what we promise now, we’ll make sure we do it in the future. Of course that means he’s kind of promising to do nothing.  The president has given himself an out.  Moreover, he can’t possibly hold future congresses accountable in 2014.  Hopefully he won’t even be president in 2014.

Some on the Left caught how empty and clueless this part of Obama’s plan was.

This debt failsafe is pretty silly…You can’t bind future Congresses. But the idea that you should is pretty stupid. You can’t talk about 2014 and forced spending cuts unless you know what the economy looks like in 2014. – David Dayden, firedoglake

Another blogger simply pointed out: “It’s all just so ridiculous.”

The Washington Post editorial staff found the debt-fail idea “intriguing” but then said,

the president threatens to undermine the effectiveness of his own trigger by exempting Medicare and Social Security from any cuts. The history of such enterprises suggests that the more holes are carved out, the less effective the trigger becomes.

Basically Obama threw out an idea only the uninformed believes has any real value.  It gives the facade that the President is holding himself accountable, which of course, he really isn’t.  At least a few on the Left were smart enough to call him out on it.

Number Four: Evil is going unchecked…

Every speaker knows there will be critics.  Perhaps you’ve heard of the guy who gave his first speech in a public speaking class.  His teacher said, “The speech has three major problems.  1. You read your speech.  2. You didn’t read it well.  And number 3: It wasn’t worth reading.”

That teacher’s critique is probably similar to what most conservatives would say about President Obama’s deficit speech he gave on Wednesday afternoon.  But what about the Left?  Last week the Left came unglued when Obama made the 2011 budget deal with congressional Republicans that cut spending $38 billion.  They feared Obama was moving to the middle like Clinton did before his reelection campaign in 1996.

Obama’s speech relieved some of the fears of so-called liberals, but there was still a lot they weren’t happy about.

Before we hit the things the Left hated about the speech we should first admit there is one big thing in it that the tax and spenders loved:  Massive tax increases.

Rachel Maddow spoke for some on the Left when she kicked off her Wednesday show with gushing joy over Obama’s tax hikes on the wealthy.  Maddow’s past worrisome whining about Obama going moderate melted away into celebration that Obama will stay on the wealth redistribution course.  She ended her comments with guarded optimism by saying:

Today…if this is how Obama is gonna run for reelection…then, as a liberal, I am less worried then I was.

But aside from the tax increases, the angry Left did find many other problems with Obama’s speech.  Here are the five biggest ones that keep them worrying about Obama.

5. The debt fail-safe trigger is dumb.

One of the odder parts of Obama’s plan was his push for some unexplained fail-safe debt trigger.

Just to hold Washington – and me – accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt fail-safe. If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code.

Basically Obama is saying I promise that if we don’t do what we promise now, we’ll make sure we do it in the future. Of course that means he’s kind of promising to do nothing.  The president has given himself an out.  Moreover, he can’t possibly hold future congresses accountable in 2014.  Hopefully he won’t even be president in 2014.

Some on the Left caught how empty and clueless this part of Obama’s plan was.

This debt failsafe is pretty silly…You can’t bind future Congresses. But the idea that you should is pretty stupid. You can’t talk about 2014 and forced spending cuts unless you know what the economy looks like in 2014. – David Dayden, firedoglake

Another blogger simply pointed out: “It’s all just so ridiculous.”

The Washington Post editorial staff found the debt-fail idea “intriguing” but then said,

the president threatens to undermine the effectiveness of his own trigger by exempting Medicare and Social Security from any cuts. The history of such enterprises suggests that the more holes are carved out, the less effective the trigger becomes.

Basically Obama threw out an idea only the uninformed believes has any real value.  It gives the facade that the President is holding himself accountable, which of course, he really isn’t.  At least a few on the Left were smart enough to call him out on it.

Number Four: Evil is going unchecked…