Category Archives: Stupid Liberals

Islamic Carnage and 12 Kinds of Liberal Complicity

The liberal position on Islamic terrorism, unchallenged by the media, and shared not only by most on the political left but also by some on the right (including Republican “moderates”), relies on the following arguments:

1. Islam (as practiced by the vast majority of Muslims) is a peaceful religion.

This is a logical fallacy, known as missing the point.  Basically, even if correct, this conclusion is completely irrelevant because it fails to address the actual issues.  Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if 99 percent of the world’s (estimated) 1.8 billion Muslims opposed acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islam, there still would be (approximately) 18 million Muslims who supported terrorism.  And in reality, the number is much higher; reputable polls have repeatedly shown that 10 percent to 40 percent of Muslims from various nations in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa support terrorism.  In the United States, nearly 10 percent of Muslims have consistently said that suicide bombings against civilians are justified “often” or “sometimes.”

2. Islamic terrorists are reinterpreting the Koran.

This is demonstrably incorrect.  The Koran not only instructs Muslims to engage in Jihad and fight nonbelievers until Islam is supreme, but also promises eternal paradise to Muslims for killing, and being killed, in this fight.  Therefore, after the Koran was revealed in the 7th century, Muslims waged “holy war” against nonbelievers, spreading Islam — with violence — across the Middle East, northern Africa, and southern Europe.  In short, the Muslims (and particularly the Islamic terrorists) who are waging holy war against the United States and other nations today are following the Koran according to both its literal interpretation and its original interpretation by Muslims in the 7th century.  (For fighting nonbelievers, see Koran 2:216; 4:76; 9:5.  For Islamic supremacy, see Koran 8:39; 9:29; 61:9.  For eternal paradise, see Koran 9:111.  For holy war, see Sahih Muslim 19:4294; Sahih al-Bukhari 53:392.)

3. Like the Koran, the Bible also contains violent passages.

This is a false analogy.  To repeat, the Koran (specifically, Allah, the god of Islam) instructs Muslims to fight nonbelievers until Islam is supreme; the instructions apply to past, present, and future Muslims.  The Bible simply does not contain any comparable instructions to present or future Christians; the Koran’s timeless instructions to Muslims are fundamentally different from the Bible’s description of events where people (Israelites) of a past era, under the command of God, engaged in violence, or where God (in judgment of people) inflicts or threatens violence.

4. Like Muslims, Christians also have engaged in violence.

This is another false analogy.  Again, the Muslims who are committing acts of violence in the name of Islam are interpreting passages of the Koran (instructions from Allah) according to both their literal and original meanings.  In contrast, Christians who committed acts of violence in the name of Christianity disregarded the words of Christ; both their literal and original meanings.  The early Muslims engaged in violence, spreading Islam by attacking non-Muslims, whereas the early Christians endured violence, including being thrown to the beasts (wild animals) by non-Christians (Romans).

5. Like the Islamic world, the West also has produced terrorists, including the United States, which has produced domestic terrorists (both left wing and right wing).

This is a “red herring,” a separate argument that liberals introduce to divert attention from the actual issues.  Among other things, domestic terrorists from any one nation, by definition, are only a threat to the people in that nation, whereas Islamic terrorists are posing a threat to the people in many nations.  Therefore, domestic terrorism in one nation does not require a response by any other nation, whereas Islamic terrorism requires a response by many nations.  Additionally, as a result of the decades-long influx of Muslim immigrants and refugees to non-Muslim nations, Islamic terrorists are increasingly also domestic terrorists in non-Muslim nations.  Yet liberals support policies (such as continuing to accept immigrants and refugees from Muslim nations) that prevent the United States, and Western nations in general, from effectively dealing with the Islamic threat.

6. An underlying cause of terrorism is the failure of Muslim nations to provide Muslim youth with alternatives to Islamic groups like al Qaeda and ISIS.

This is an unfounded assertion.  The premise is that certain factors in Muslim nations (such as poverty, injustice, and instability) are root causes of Islamic terrorism.  However, in other regions of the world, non-Muslims also live under these kinds of severe conditions, and they have not responded with this kind of terrorism.  Ultimately, the Koran, the collections of hadith (the reported words and conduct of Muhammad, the last prophet of Islam), and Islamic history are the root causes of Muslims waging holy war against nonbelievers today in what is a timeless struggle to make Islam supreme.

7. Another underlying cause of terrorism is the use of military force by Western nations in the Middle East and northern Africa.

This is a classic example of a “half-truth.”  Indisputably, there have been, and still are, Muslims motivated by the actions of the West, but this is a secondary, not underlying, cause of Islamic terrorism, which is a crucial difference.  With regard to policy, the West cannot successfully use military force to change people who have resisted change for over a thousand years, but the West can successfully use military force, in targeted operations, when necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks.  Nevertheless, there is a lack of consensus among both the political left and right on when military force is necessary; most recently, some opposed, while others supported, the use of military force by the West in Syria.  Furthermore, even the use of military force, limited to targeted operations, only when necessary, will still provoke Muslims.  Every possible course of action or nonaction by the West will have consequences, and liberals offer criticisms, not solutions.

8. Yet another underlying cause of terrorism is the failure of Western nations in Europe to provide social and economic opportunities to Muslim immigrants, refugees, and their descendants.

This is pure speculation.  The facts tell a different story.  In Europe, large blocs of Muslims, concentrated in cities, have chosen to isolate themselves, by refusing to adopt their European nation’s culture, and instead adhering to Islamic culture.  In the end, the main problem is that many practices and principles of Islam are incompatible with Western civilization.

9. The threat of terrorism increases when Western nations implement policies that are directed at Muslims.

This is a revealing assertion.  The premise is that certain policies (such as the surveillance of activities at mosques, the enhanced screening of Muslims at airports, or a travel ban on foreigners arriving from Muslim nations) incite, or will incite, so-called “moderate” Muslims to join Islamic groups like al Qaeda and ISIS.  But what type of person (moderate person, no less) can be incited by such policies to savagely attack other human beings?  The answer, following liberal reasoning, is a person already predisposed to violence; namely, a moderate Muslim.

10. Opposition to Islam is based on fear and hate; the individuals who oppose immigration from Muslim nations or who oppose accepting refugees are Islamophobic.

This is a blatant lie that also employs a personal attack.  Like opposition to communism and fascism, opposition to Islam is based on knowledge, not fear or hate; like communism and fascism, Islam is a belief system with principles that violate the rights of individuals.  Opposition to the beliefs and actions of an individual or group is not a phobia; such opposition is legitimate.

11. We cannot allow the terrorists to divide us.

This is a raw appeal to emotion.  If worded honestly, this statement would assert, “We cannot allow the terrorists to wake the public up to either the dangers or injustices of multiculturalism.”  Essentially, what liberals want is for people from all cultures and regions of world, no matter how incompatible their belief systems, to live together, in the same nation, right now.  And if the result is carnage, so be it.  The slaughter of civilians, including children, by Muslim immigrants, refugees, or their descendants is a price that liberals are willing to pay: a sacrifice at the altar of multiculturalism, faithfully suffered in the name of such ideological concepts as diversity, openness, and tolerance.

12. The terrorists will never win; our values and our way of life will prevail.

This is rhetoric.  Often, when used by politicians, “our values” means, first and foremost, the liberal value of multiculturalism, and “our way of life” means aliberal way of life in a multicultural society.  Indeed, the way of life enjoyed in the West since the close of World War II has already deteriorated in sections (controversially described as “no-go zones“) of numerous cities in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, and other European nations, while politicians have been working to lull the public into a passive acceptance of this (entirely avoidable) decline, by saying things like terrorism will be “part of our daily lives” and “we should learn to live with terrorism.” And in the United States, the federal government’s policies of the last several decades, especially on immigration and refugees, have the American way of life set on this same downward course.

Paul Pauker is the author of Morality and Law in America. He also runs asite dedicated to advancing the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

Advertisements

San Diego: Ground Zero for Islamic Indoctrination in American Public Schools

With a decade-long history of yielding to Islamic demands and recent, more alarming submissions, San Diego city schools appear to be ground zero for Islamic indoctrination within American public schools.  The current capitulation includes an Islam-centric curriculum with input and resources from a Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organization, which raises First Amendment issues as well as serious concerns of favoritism toward Muslims students over students of other faiths.

The San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) history of accommodation to the demands of Muslim students began in 2007.  That year, Carver Elementary School in East San Diego ignited controversy when 100 Somali Muslim students transferred from a closed charter school.  To accommodate these new students, the school rescheduled its recess periods to allow a 15-minute break each afternoon for Muslim prayer.  The school also added Arabic to its curriculum and removed pork and other non-halal food from the cafeteria.  The outcry forced the school to rescind the break, but it simply shifted the lunch hour to accommodate Muslim prayer.  SDUSD wasn’t as accommodating to a Christian student in 1993 and was successfully sued when it denied a high school student’s request for a lunchtime Bible study group.

This past week, SDUSD, in collaboration with the Council on American Islam Relations (CAIR), instituted an anti-bullying campaign aimed specifically at protecting Muslims students.  In launching the initiative, SDUSD cited an unsubstantiated study by CAIR claiming that 55% of American Muslim students surveyed in California said they were bullied because of their religion.  The new program will include adding lessons on Islam to the social studies curriculum that emphasize prominent Muslims in history, creating Muslim-only “safe spaces,” adding Muslim holidays to the school calendar, and providing support and resources for Muslim students during Ramadan.

According to Stan Anjan, SDUSD’s executive director of family and community engagement, the new program will focus on promoting a positive image of Islam.  Special disciplinary measures will also be created for the so-called bullying of Muslims cited by CAIR.  Instead of detention, the school plans a “restorative justice” program in which students dialogue with each other about perceived bullying words or actions.  Educational materials on Islam and resource listings will be provided to parents and school personnel as well.

CAIR, “a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas,” according to terrorism expert Steve Emerson, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror-funding case brought by the Justice Department in 2007.  CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce terrorist groups Hamas and Hezb’allah, and several CAIR executives have been successfully prosecuted and incarcerated for terrorist activities.  CAIR was designated as a terrorist group by the UAE in 2014.

In 2015, Kevin Beiser and Michael McQuary, two members of the SDUSD Board of Education, issued a formal proclamation in support and recognition of CAIR San Diego, citing ten years of “constructive civic engagement” in San Diego and Imperial Counties.  They praised the organization’s work to “promote not only religious and cultural tolerance and understanding but also justice and equality for all who live in the United States.”

CAIR director Hanif Mohebi was specifically complimented for his commitment to “promoting equitable educational opportunity for all students and preparing them to succeed in a culturally diverse society.”  The trustees recognized a community partnership with CAIR in mediating school situations involving “discrimination and other behavioral issue[s]” and announced CAIR’s upcoming tenth anniversary banquet, centered on the theme “Strengthening Our Voices, Advancing Together.”

CAIR, billing itself as a benign Muslim civil rights organization, has long been at the forefront in pressuring schools and businesses to accommodate the special needs of Muslims.  In 2009, CAIR complained of favoritism when Christian students in Roseville, a Detroit suburb, were given permission slips to attend off-site Bible study classes.  Yet CAIR pushed in 2012 for Dearborn public schools to accommodate Muslim prayer on school grounds and early Friday dismissals for Jumu’ah prayers.  The organization has pressured schools to have a say on textbook selection and to feature its own lecturers for school assemblies.  When a public school teacher in Concrete, Washington referenced the Taliban and Hamas while citing examples of the use of violence to bully people, CAIR cried “racism” and called for a federal investigation, saying the teacher had veered off topic to make anti-Muslim statements.  The school district responded that the teacher’s comments were taken out of context.

Mohebi, the head of CAIR San Diego, has been pushing the “anti-Islamophobia” program.  He recently tried to prevent the San Diego Police Department from attending a training session on Islamic terrorism featuring Ryan Mauro, national security analyst for the Clarion Project, a nonprofit dedicated to exposing the dangers of Islamic extremism.  Mohebi said officers would be learning “conspiracy theories” from Mauro.  Further, Mohebi importuned that no taxpayer dollars should pay for the training and that the SDPD should not confer continuing education credits for attendance.  In a further attempt to control police training on Islam, Mohebi requested the ability to monitor police training to vouch for its accuracy and to provide clarifications throughout the session.

CAIR’s recent activity and its incursion into the San Diego schools’ curriculum has been criticized by Charles LiMandri, president and chief counsel of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF).  LiMandri said the San Diego program represents a “wholesale realignment of school curricula and the students’ learning environment to the recommendations of a religious organization whose stated mission is to “enhance the understanding of Islam” and “empower American Muslims.”

The FCDF maintains that the First Amendment prohibits a government agency from attempting to effect a secular goal by the propagation of religious concepts.  LiMandri points out the litigious pitfalls of a curriculum which could easily be construed as a governmental endorsement of a religion.  He also cautions that CAIR’s interpretation of the term “bullying” could extend to the stifling of criticism of Islam, further impinging on First Amendment protections.

Citizens for Quality Education San Diego, a non-partisan group of citizens concerned about public education, voiced their opposition to the new Islamic-friendly curriculum and characterized it as an attempt to implement at local schools “anti-American sharia law,” incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.  The group criticized the blatant singling out of the Muslim religion for special accommodations and demanded that the policy be rescinded.  Despite widespread community outcry, the district seems to be moving ahead.

If allowed to stand, the SDUSD anti-bullying program – geared specifically to the CAIR-identified needs of Muslim students – could mark a dangerous departure from treasured constitutional principles and First Amendment protections.  This case warrants serious attention, as it has grave implications for the direction of education and the supremacy of Islam in the nation.

A Justified Intolerance of Islam

islam-0

Progressives and liberals do not tolerate beliefs or actions they consider unjust, yet they demand conservatives do so.  Nearly every criticism of Islam is met with a chorus of condemnation from Democrats (and distress from some Republican “moderates”).  This is not only wrong, but highly irresponsible.

Opposition to Islam is no different than opposition to communism, or fascism, or any other belief system that seeks to control human conduct.  Every American (indeed, every human being on Earth) has basic human rights — the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property — and every belief system with principles that violate these rights is unjust.  In short, anti-communism, anti-fascism, and anti-Islam are the logical, fact-based positions for every rational person seeking justice, whether in America or anywhere else in the world.

Nevertheless, Progressives and liberals personally attack the critics of Islam, vilify them, and falsely accuse them of “Islamophobia.”  Clearly, this accusation is nonsense.  Opposition to the beliefs held by an individual or group is not a phobia, nor is opposition to the actions of an individual or group, including the customs followed by people.

Progressives and liberals, though, insist that opposition to Islam is based on fear, or hate, or both.  Again, this is nonsense.  Opposition to Islam is based on knowledge, not fear or hate.

Ultimately, claiming that people who oppose Islam are “Islamophobic” is as ridiculous as claiming that people who oppose Marxism and Nazism are “Marxophobic” and “Nazophobic.”

Now, while many Progressives and liberals refuse to address the legitimate reasons why people oppose Islam, some take a different approach; basically, they acknowledge the dangers and injustices of Islam, but they also invoke the Protestant Reformation that occurred in the 16th century, and they argue that people in the West must wait — however long it takes — for some version of an Islamic reformation.  But this argument is false on many points; two in particular.

First.  The Protestant Reformation was marked by a rejection of relatively newdevelopments in Christianity; it did not involve a reinterpretation of Christ’s teachings.

Second.  The central text of Islam, the Koran, claims to be the final word of god.  So, while some Muslims have been trying for years to reinterpret the Koran and “reform” Islam, true believers have never and will never accept such a change because it would represent a rejection of their god.

The Koran simply cannot have a single error and still honestly be called the word of god, and the Koran’s original meaning (which also was its continued meaning, for century after century) cannot be erroneous, if Islam is true.  To clarify, Islam has always held that an angel (Gabriel) revealed the word of god (the Koran) to a prophet (Muhammad).  And indisputably, god would not have allowed either the angel or the prophet to make a mistake and then — in the name of god — spread a false message to the people of the world.

Notably, Christianity does not have this burden.  For example, the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) as written have been dated many decades after Christ’s resurrection, and none of the authors were prophets.  Therefore, for the sake of argument, it logically is possible for a Christian to believe that some of the specifics in the various Christian texts (written by men and not finally agreed upon by the church until centuries later) could be erroneous, while still believing (like the earliest Christians) that Christ is the Lord.

As for Islam, the Koran instructs Muslims to violate the most basic of human rights.  For example, among other things, the Koran instructs men to hit women, and not in the context of self-defense only when necessary, but merely for disobedience.  (See Koran 4:34.)  Additionally, Sharia law — derived from the Koran (and from the words and conduct of Muhammad) — imposes severe injustices.

With regard to relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, the Koran instructs Muslims to engage in jihad, which imposes a duty to fight nonbelievers (see Koran 2:216; 4:76; 9:5), and to continue fighting until Islam is supreme (see Koran 8:39; 9:29; 61:9).  Consequently, after the Koran was revealed in the 7th century, Muslims spread Islam with violence — by waging “holy war” against nonbelievers — throughout the Middle East, northern Africa, and southern Europe.  (For holy war, see Sahih Muslim 19:4294 and Sahih al-Bukhari 53:392.)

Furthermore, the Koran promises Muslims eternal paradise for killing, and being killed, in the fight against nonbelievers for Islamic supremacy.  (See Koran 9:111.)  This promise is a key source of the Islamic terrorism plaguing the world today.  Essentially, these Muslims are waging holy war against the United States and other nations in the 21st century, and they are doing so following the Koran as it had originally been interpreted by Muslims in the 7th century.

There was a time when some on the political left understood the dangers of Islam.  For example, Samuel P. Huntington, a highly-respected political scientist and lifelong Democrat, served in the administration of President Jimmy Carter.  In his 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Huntington wrote, “Some Westerners, including President Bill Clinton, have argued that the West does not have problems with Islam but only with violent Islamic extremists.  Fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate otherwise.”  He added, “The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism.  It is Islam.”  And he concluded, “Wherever one looks along the perimeter of Islam [Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa], Muslims have problems living peaceably with their neighbors.”

In the years since Huntington provided the West with that warning, the situation has become even worse, especially in Europe.

Unfortunately, the current Progressive-liberal positions on Islam are not based on reality.  History has shown that when people wait too long before facing unpleasant facts, the consequences are deadly.  In the 1930s, as the Nazis in Germany were preparing for conquest, the leaders in the United Kingdom and France adopted policies of appeasement, based on their hope for peace and their belief that confrontation would provoke the fascists into committing further injustices.  One voice of reason, Winston Churchill, repeatedly spoke in favor of the United Kingdom taking strong measures to counter the dangers of fascism.  For several years, though, Churchill was denounced by the political establishment, the media, and the public.  However, time proved Churchill right and his detractors wrong.

A key lesson from history for dealing with an unjust belief system like communism, fascism, or Islam is the importance of describing the system with complete honesty and developing policies based on that honest description.  During the Cold War, roughly one-third of the world was communist, yet that did not stop Ronald Reagan from labeling communism a disease, and then as president, labeling the Soviet Union an evil empire.  Reagan was denounced by Progressives and liberals who claimed that such comments were endangering America by making communists more hostile than ever.

Today, when attacking the critics of Islam, Progressives and liberals are using (with slight variations) many of the arguments that were used against Churchill and Reagan.  Moreover, President Trump’s efforts to date have been met with protests and the use of slogans like “hope over fear” and “love trumps hate.”  But hope is not a policy.  Neither is love.  And to repeat, opposition to Islam is based on knowledge, not fear or hate.

The clock is running; the time to accurately describe Islam and develop policies accordingly is long overdue.

Paul Pauker is the author of Morality and Law in America. He also runs asite dedicated to advancing the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.