Georgetown professor Yahya Hendi spoke at a gathering of Saudi Arabians yesterday, saying that Muslims are improving their image and position in society. The Washington Times picked up this Reuters news clip.

"Mr. Hendi said U.S. Muslims were working on 'nationalizing' Islam as part of the fabric of U.S. society, including cutting funding links to Muslim countries.

"Mr. Hendi, who met with President Bush days after September 11, said Muslims exhibited a tendency to shun political action such as voting and running for office because it was considered akin to surrendering to U.S. culture."

This position contradicts itself sorely. If Muslims want to integrate in our society, then they will have to realize that voting is a basic part of being a responsible citizen. And just for the record, that holds true for the 50 or so percent of eligible voters who do not exercise this right.

But seeing voting as a submission to U.S. culture is a fundamental flaw. Our forefathers died for the right to have a Constititutional Republic. Voting is not U.S. culture, it is basic freedom and liberty. And Muslims see this as weak and surrender, at least, according to Mr. Hendi.

Now, Mr. Hendi presents a rather tame image of Islam. However, the website Their Own Words presents a startling counterpart to this image. Ahmad Bahr, Acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council said on Sudan TV said, "America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain… Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today."

"We should have no conservatives in the media"

With liberals trying to resurrect the unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine, society has increased its scrutiny of the media. And while Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton attempt to censure conservative talkshow hosts, the liberal print and television media has gone mostly unmentioned.

News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch has drawn much attention recently. He finalized purchase of the Dow Jones company, including a much debated takeover of the Wall Street Journal. While DJI owners the Bancroft family fought off the Murdoch empire for several months, after much negotiation and haggling over editorial protections. the Wall Street Journal is now apart of the Murdoch machine.

Many journalists have decried the Murdoch takeover. Hopefully, he will provide one avenue in print media where conservatives can get a fair hearing. But that is exactly what liberals don't want - a fair hearing.

What, you say? Liberals want to censure conservatives? Absolutely.

Robert Licter, director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs said, "Murdoch brings together two things that many journalists think ruins their profession: money and conservatism."

Money ruining journalism, perhaps. But conservatism?

There you have it. From the horse's, or more appropriately, the donkey's mouth. The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with suppressing conservative freedom of speech.

Featured on WND.com

On Saturday, July 28, 2007, Worldnetdaily.com published my article "Our cotton-candy-fluffy-bunny news." Disgusted with the recent coverage of celebrity lawbreakers, I decided to write an article decrying the low standards of journalism, especially in television coverage.

"This was a full week for the world media: President Bush explained that insurgents in Iraq are tied to al-Qaida, Attorney General Gonzalez sparred with U.S senators, and the Dow lost 226 points. Yet, as I watched the headlines blur across my TV screen, it was clear the media had "Hilton syndrome." Lindsay Lohan's arrest dominated headlines and was the lead story on almost every news program. A nauseating reminder of the Hilton media frenzy, America confirmed its infatuation with the cult of the celebrity.

"A month ago, when socialite Paris Hilton managed to get herself a jail sentence, the media pushed aside world affairs for the opportunity to catch a glimpse of the blond heiress. Enamored with her looks, and nothing else, the media reached rock bottom in standards of coverage.

"To confirm the permanence of our society's deterioration, news of Lindsay Lohan, as well as the meltdown of Britney Spears, spread across TV screens Thursday and Friday like a bad virus on your computer. Yet these are these stories Americans want. We clamor for news about our favorite celebrities. Does she trim her nails herself? Did he have a weekend fling on the beach? Will they get married, or just continue living together for the next 12 years?
Why are we so shallow?"

Al Qaeda in Iraq

While liberals continue to tell America that Iraq is not apart of the war on terrorism, a revolutionary partnership has taken place in Iraq that confirms exactly the opposite. The Washington Times reported today that, "U.S. forces have brokered an agreement between Sunni and Shi'ite tribal leaders to join forces against al Qaeda and other extremists..."

Public Terrorist Number One is Al Qaeda, and it has terrorist cells in Iraq.

The rival tribes Suuni and Shi'ite have been warring factions for hundreds, or thousands of years. For these two groups to join forces is historic. It takes something pretty extreme to cause these rivals to halt their bloody feuding and take up arms against someone else. But Al Qaeda has enough of a presence in Iraq that it is the catalyst.

Iraqi President Talabani told President Bush earlier this year that, "We have serious problems with terrorism. The main enemy of Iraqi people is al Qaeda and terrorists cooperating with them."

So liberals, take a hint. We cannot accept anything except complete victory in Iraq.

A Less Hypocritcal Mexico

"It's very hard for Mexico to preach to the north what it does not do to the south," said Mexico's ambassador Artuor Sarukhan in a meeting with some editors and reporters at The Washington times yesterday. "Unless we correct the fundamental challenge of the violation of human rights o fLatin American or Central American migrants crossing the border into Mexciao, it's very hard for me to come up and wag a finger and say you guys should protect the rights of my citizens in this country."

Ironically, Mexico has created a situation where many Mexicans no longer want certain jobs because they can come to the US and get better jobs. The International Herald Tribune reported on this story last year in its article "Mexico worries about its own southern border."

"Here at Mexico's own southern edge, Guatemalans cross legally and illegally to do jobs that Mexicans departing for the north no longer want."

Former Deputy Foreign Minister Geronimo Gutierrez admitted in an interview with the New York Times last year that, "Mexico's immigration laws were 'tougher than those being contemplated by the United States,' where the authorities caught 1.5 million people illegally crossing the Mexican border last year."

I guess Mexico is starting to realize that it can't enforce its own immigration laws and ask the US to ignore ours. However, even if Mexico opened its southern border, we certainly shouldn't follow suit.

One Nation, Under Shiva?

“We meditate on the transcendental Glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky, and inside the soul of the Heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.”

These words were not the utterances of a priest at a pagan temple, nor were they the invoking of some New Age group. These were the opening words at the US Senate on Thursday. For the first time since the Senate was formed in 1789, a Hindu chaplain led the openings prayers in the upper chamber.

Guest Chaplain Rajan Zed, who directs interfaith relations at a Hindu temple in Reno, Nevada, prayed for peace and unity of spirit. He asked the “Deity Supreme” to, “Lead us from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality.” He continued to emphasize unity, enlightenment, and being in one accord.

Sorry Mr. Zed, but unity is one thing the Senate is not good at. And praying to the ambiguous god of the earth, or the sky, or the soul of Heaven probably won’t do much good.

It wasn’t Krisha, Ganesh, Shiva, Maya, or any of the other hundreds of Hindu gods that the Founding Fathers prayed to.

In a handwritten manuscript book, George Washington recorded this prayer.

“O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”

You’ll notice the lack of Hindu gods in George Washington’s prayer. Hiduism plays no role in America’s heritage. However, hundreds of books document the strong Christian foundation of this country. And it is this heritage that gives the Senate the tradition of opening up its proceedings with a Christian prayer.

John Quincy Adams, during a 4th of July celebration address, specifically tied the founding of this nation to the Christian faith.

“Why is it that, next to the birth day of the Saviour of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day? Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birth-day of the Saviour? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the corner stone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.”

The House Judiciary Committee took up the constitutionality of chaplains in Congress in 1854. In its findings, the committee specifically cited Christianity as vital to America.
“[W]hereas the great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it eminently becomes the representatives of a people so highly favored to acknowledge in the most public manner their reverence for God: therefore, Resolved, That the daily sessions of this body be opened with prayer and that the ministers of the Gospel in this city are hereby requested to attend and alternately perform this solemn duty.”

After guest chaplain Zed finished his prayer, Senator Harry Reid saw it fit to comment on the blessing. “I think it speaks well of our country that someone representing a faith of about a billion people comes here and can speak in communication with our Heavenly Father regarding peace,” he said.

It sounds like Senator Reid wasn’t listening to Mr. Zed’s prayer. If Senator Reid is referring to the God of the Bible when he says “Heavenly Father,” then he and the guest chaplain are talking about two different things. The Bible does not support the idea of a god who dwells in the earth, but also in the sky and heaven. (In fact, traditionally it is someone else who is in the “heart” of the earth.)

This idea of compatibility among all faiths is a myth. The world contains more Muslims than Hindus, but that doesn’t mean the Senate should invite Osama Bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give an opening prayer to Allah.

Our country has a specifically Christian heritage. And we should protect and preserve this heritage by continuing the tradition of Christian chaplains asking God’s blessing on the proceedings in Congress.

A Talking Polar Bear

I was riding the Metro in Washington DC the other day when I saw this advertisement on the wall. I found it quite ironic that organizations will put more time into protecting a polar bear than an unborn baby.

Instead of wasting money putting words in a polar bear's mouth, which I'm sure he would much rather have had a seal or a human in his mouth, this group should run an ad that says something along the lines of, "First you create a single-parent home for me. Now you want to kill me." (Yes, many children are born into wonderful homes, but almost half, if not more, of all babies are born into homes that have a less than optimal environment.)

Where did this organization get the idea that polar bears are mad about their ice melting? Even that first statement is dubious. Who says that the ice is the polar bears? I think the next ad in this hypothetical world should be a seal or sea lion to the polar bears, "First you eat my baby seal, now you eat me."

Obviously polar bears, seals, and every other predator does not believe in animal rights. They freely eat members of other animal species, and sometimes of their own species. A predator will often look for the weak, the sick or the young. Like I mentioned in my article about sea lions earlier this month, animal rights activists are mostly self-contradictory.

"One day the self-appointed protector of the environment decries humanity for encroaching on wildlife and crimping the mating habits of the deer mouse; and the next day the same environmentalist swears by the theory of evolution, praising the notion of survival of the fittest and natural selection.