DONATE

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

U.S. Muslim Jurists Association Sanctions FGM

ACT for America sent an email highlighting an Andrew Bostom post about the recognized problem of female genital mutilation. The same problem that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been using Legal Jihad (aka Lawfare) methods to prevent the Honor Diaries to be shown on College Campuses across the American nation AND even has exerted its Legal Jihad muscles to prevent one of the producers (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) of the Honor Diaries from receiving an honorary degree from Brandeis University and prevent from speaking at the same University’s graduation commencement.


JRH 4/16/14
*******************************
U.S. Muslim Jurists Association Sanctions FGM

Sent by ACT for America
Sent: 4/15/2014 8:20 AM

Mainstream U.S. Muslim Jurists Association Sanctions Female Genital Mutilation

According to the World Health Organization, more than 125 million girls and women alive today have been subjected to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

The African Women’s Health Center of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, report that approximately 228,000 women and girls in the U.S. have either suffered the procedure or are at risk of having it done to them. Many of these young girls are subjected to FGM when they vacation in a country that sanctions the practice. In other cases, circumcisers are brought into the U.S. – even though FGM is illegal in this country.

ACT! for America has been working diligently at the state level to see legislation passed so that no girl ever suffers the horrors of FGM – either on U.S. soil or elsewhere.
___________________
Mainstream U.S. Muslim Jurists Association Sanctions Female Genital Mutilation

By Andrew Bostom
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2014/04/10/mainstream-u-s-muslim-jurists-association-sanctions-female-genital-mutilation/

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America’s (AMJA
[1]’s) mission statement maintains the organization was,

…founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America…AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities…

A report in The Muslim Observer [2] published October 21, 2010 highlighting AMJA’s “seventh annual American conference of imams,” confirmed that the organization is accepted [2] as such by the mainstream American Muslim community. AMJA and its “training” conference for American imams were described [2] in these banal terms:


The organization AMJA (Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America) has a list of scholars associated with it which stretches from Al-Azhar University to Virginia’s Open University, and back across the ocean to the professors at Saudi universities. Its website, amjaonline.com, provides fatawa on many issues and promises 24-hour access to scholars who can give legal opinions on the issues people face. AMJA focuses on providing fatwas to Americans, and believes it is able to provide culturally appropriate fatwas although many of their scholars are not American–because they have some American scholars and because of the technological ties that bind AMJA’s American scholars with those abroad. AMJA just had, in Houston, its seventh annual American conference of imams, and two local Michigan imams attended, namely Imam Musa of Bloomfield’s Muslim Unity Center, and Imam Ali of MCWS. Mr. Sadiqul Hassan of AMJA explained that “the event was the 7th annual imam workshop…” Mr. Hassan said that AMJA is “a fiqh council basically,” with “scholars who live abroad and inside the US; we have experts in different fields to educate about life in the US–fatawa are based on life in the US.”


AMJA rulings also support the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), which the United Nations has called [3] “a dangerous and potentially life-threatening procedure that causes unspeakable pain and suffering.” Fatwa #1639 [4] from Dr. Hatem al-Haj justified the horrific practice, by citing the canonical hadith [5] in which Islam’s prophet Muhammad endorsed its practice, stating:


[…] Some extremists from the west and their devout followers in the Muslim world like to brand all circumcision as female genital mutilation (FGM). For those, we say, why is male circumcision not MGM? Male circumcision is widely practiced in the west. Yet it would be considered by the Chinese MGM (Male Genital Mutilation).

The benefits of male circumcision are beginning to be more recognized in the medical societies, even though still contested by a few. Fifty years ago, no one knew that male circumcision has medical benefits. The same could be true with female circumcision. They may figure out the benefits of the practice in fifty or five hundred years. […]

Al-Haj then went on to implicitly sanction [4] the practice of taking a Muslim female outside of her American milieu to have the procedure performed—in violation of the US “TRANSPORT FOR FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION [6]” act.


The question is not to ban female circumcision because of the position of certain nations, but How do we regulate it as Muslims? What should we -western Muslims- do? For Muslims who live in the west, since it is not mandatory and it is at the same time illegal in the west, and would bring about harm to the people who practice it, I wouldn't advise having it done, as long as you are a resident/citizen of the west. We however should never doubt anything in our religion because of the bad publicity the media creates about it.


A concordant fatwa [7] issued in Arabic (translation by Al-Mutarjim [8]) on the website [9] of the Secretary-General of AMJA and the chief member of its Resident Fatwa Committee, Dr. Salah Al-Sawy, declares that FGM is “an honor” for women, Al-Sawy also acknowledges that the procedure—in accord with a continuum of Islamic rationale [5] from al-Jahiz in the mid-9th century, to former Muslim Papal equivalent, i.e., Al-Azhar University Grand Imam Jad al-Haq through 1996—is explicitly implemented to reduce a woman’s otherwise unbridled “concupiscence,” i.e., lust:


But for the woman, the purpose [of circumcision] is the benefit that it has in lessening her lust, which is a wholesome request. There is no harm in removing it. In short, female circumcision is an honor (which) does not rise to the level of a duty, in clear language. Stated another way, it is neither forbidden nor required.
__________________________
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

What does Islam Hide that A. Hirsi Ali would Expose?

A. Hirsi Ali Quote - Exposing Islam not Self-Hate but Reality
Again Dajjal is sharing his insight on Islam. This insight was both a comment to a NCCR blog post and a post on the blog Freedom Ain’t Free and Take Our Country Back. The post Dajjal commented on was “CAIR and Brandeis U, the True Haters”. Dajjal’s post on Freedom Ain’t Free … has the same title because Dajjal used his thoughts as a reblog from the NCCR post.

I can’t help it, I am going to arbitrarily issue a unique title to distinguish Dajjal’s thoughts from my blog post.

JRH 4/16/14
*******************************
What does Islam Hide that A. Hirsi Ali would Expose?

By Dajjal
April 12, 2014
Edited by John R. Houk
Edited version posted April 16, 2014

What’s all the fuss? Why the pissing match & cat fight? What does Islam have to hide that Ayaan Hirsi Ali would expose?? I have a clue for you: it has to do with the status of women in Islam.

According to Islam, women are deficient in intelligence and religion. Their testimony is worth half that of a man. And they cannot approach the mosque or fast while menstruating. They curse excessively, are ungrateful to their husbands, and will comprise the majority of the dwellers of Hell. Do not take my word for this, look it up for yourself.


Impossible, right? And that stuff about wife beating must be a lie invented by Jews. Yeah, right. Check out Moe’s last sermon. I will give you excerpts from two sources. Read’em and weep. Go to Amazon and buy hard copies of The Life of Muhammad and Volume 9 of Tabari’s History to see this slice of Islam in all its glory. Women are the prisoners, slaves or domestic animals of their husbands, having no possessions of their own and no control over their lives. Their husbands purchased perpetual use of their reproductive organs with their mahr*.

[* Blog Editor: Since I didn’t have a clue to what “mahr” meant, I am going to assume most readers do not know either. Here is a Wikipedia excerpt explaining the meaning:

In Islam, a mahr (in Arabic: مهر‎; also transliterated mehr, meher, or mahrieh) is a mandatory payment, in the form of money or possessions paid by the groom, or by groom's father, to the bride at the time of marriage, that legally becomes her property.[1] While the mahr is often money, it can also be anything agreed upon by the bride such as jewelry, home goods, furniture, a dwelling, some land. Mahr is typically specified in the marriage contract signed during an Islamic marriage.

Mahr is similar in legal enforceability to donatio propter nuptias of Eastern Roman law, except some critical differences.[2]Donatio propter nuptias was optional and voluntary, while mahr is mandatory and required for all Muslim marriages. Mahr is not an optional gift.[3][4] The other difference was that donatio propter nuptias was a security the groom delivered to bride or registered in her name, at the time of marriage, in exchange for dos (dowry) that came with the bride.[5][6] Mahr is a religious requirement according to Sharia.

The terms "dowry" and "bride price" are sometimes used to translate mahr, but these are misleading. The term dowry (Latin, dos dotis) is inaccurate, as it is the money, goods, or estate that a woman brings forth to the marriage, usually provided by her parents or family. In Islamic marriages, such assets brought into the union by the wife may only be accepted by the husband after the mahr has been paid by him to her.[citation needed]

In the event the marriage contract does not contain an exact, specified mahr, the husband must still pay the wife an equitable sum.[7] The requirement of a mahr is mentioned several times in the Quran and Hadith.[8]

The mahr is READ THE REST]


http://archive.org/download/IbnIshaq-SiratuRasulAllah-translatorA.Guillaume/IbnIshaq-SiratRasulAllah.pdf#page=350 [Blog Editor: This is an 800-plus page PDF photocopy – could be a long download]
“You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you. You
have the right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms and to beat them but not with severity. If they refrain from these things they have the right to their food and clothing with kindness. Lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are prisoners with you having no control of their persons. You have taken them only as [a] trust from God, and you have the enjoyment of their persons by the words of God, so understand (T. and listen to) my words O men, for I have told you. ”

Now then, O people, you have a right over your wives and they have a right over you. You have [the right] that they should not cause anyone of whom you dislike to tread on your beds; and that they should not commit any open indecency. If they do, then Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain from [evil], they have the right to their food and clothing in accordance with the custom. Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves. You have taken them only as a trust from Allah, and you have made the enjoyment of their persons lawful by the word of Allah, so understand and listen to my words, O people. I have conveyed the Message, and have left you with something which, if you hold fast to it, you will never go astray; that is, the Book of Allah and the sunnah of his Prophet. Listen to my words, O people, for I have conveyed the Message and understand [it]. Know for certain that every Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, and that all Muslims are brethren. It is not lawful for a person [to take] from his brother except that which he has given him willingly, so do not wrong yourselves. O Allah, have I not conveyed the message?

Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, pp. 112-113

Well, honoricide ain’t in the Qur’an. So it must be cultural, not ‘religious’; not a part of Islam. Yeah, right. It is in the most authentic hadith collection and it damn well is in the Qur’an and Shari’ah. Suck it up, schmucks!

As Moe tells the story, Moses and a supernaturally instructed traveling companion met a young boy whom the companion murdered. Moses questioned the act and was told that the boy was an infidel who would dishonor his parents. Allah would give them a better replacement for him. In Islamic law, there are several acts not subject to retaliation. A Muslim cannot be executed for killing his child or grandchild.

18:74. Then they both proceeded, till they met a boy, he (Khidr) killed him. Mûsa (Moses) said: “Have you killed an innocent person who had killed none? Verily, you have committed a thing “Nukra” (a great Munkar – prohibited, evil, dreadful thing)!”

18:80. “And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief.

18:81. “So we intended that their Lord should change him for them for one better in righteousness and near to mercy.

01.2 The following are not subject to retaliation: …

(4) a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring;

That leaves female genital mutilation, which is not in the Qur’an, but is in the hadith and Shari’ah.

Sinan Abu Dawud Book 41, Number 5251:

Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah:

A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.


e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (0: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)

Muslims must silence Ms. Ali because she might expose these facts which, if widely known, would be fatal to Islam.
_________________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Much of the editing admittedly was a guess, where there was complete uncertainty on my part I left it alone.

© Dajjal

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Theopolitical Symbolism of Hijab and Comments Following

Nun-Devoted Hijab-Oppressed

An Intro by John R. Houk
© April 15, 2014

Dr. Bill Warner (PhD) is a Counterjihad author and speaker that has a blog called Political Islam and operates a website called Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) which is a publishing house for Bill Warner’s writings. Many of those writings are free or low cost and can be found in a PDF format. I have no explanation as to why; however Warner lately has not been posting on the Political Islam main page lately BUT has been posting little mini-seminars in the Youtube format that Political Islam subscribers are notified about.

I am cross posting one of these videos in which Dr. Warner talks for a little over 7 minutes on the significance of the symbolism of the hijab worn by Muslim women dedicated to Sharia Law. You will find that interesting.

Then after the video I decided to cross post the comments that have been posted up to the time of today’s reading which is April 15, 2014. Most comments are short and appreciative of the mini-video seminar. However you will get to a person who calls himself John Islam. I tried to see if there was a significant Muslim apologist by that name but discovered that there are people with that name ranging from business in the UK and everyday social sharers on Facebook and Twitter some from nations other than the USA. I did find one person on Blogger with that name but his interest appears to be in Motocross and I had the impression he had passed away. None of those John Islams appeared to be an activist Muslim apologist.

The John Islam that leaves a comment on Dr. Warner’s video is critical of his analysis followed by some Youtube links which I will post but not the actual videos. You’ll have to check on the message of those Youtube links on your own.

Then there are to commenters that are critical of John Islam’s criticism (Éamonn Gavin and person going by Lidia). Lidia provides the most pointed criticism to John Islam.

I’ll finish with an about page pertaining to Dr. Bill Warner from the Political Islam blog.

JRH 4/15/14
******************************
The Political Side of the Hijab

By Bill Warner
April 7, 2014


++++++++++++++++++++
COMMENTS

"I attended your lecture in Bartlett, TN. I certainly found it enlightening. Thank you for your efforts against this onslaught against our country."

Sharon Story — April 7, 2014 @ 9:28 PM
_________________
"Thanks Bill for the great message, absolutely agree with all your words, have good experience living in Muslim country and seeing the problems you described. Somehow we should bring all these issues described in this web to our government for taking action now otherwise it will be too late.

European countries are almost lost and I don’t think they have any chance or possibility to change anything now or in the future, United State is a next victim."

Garry — April 8, 2014 @ 2:52 AM
_____________________
"Bill Warner's claim that the hijab is the equivalent of a statement of fanaticism is proved in the following video. Hijab-wearing women are asked a simple question: "Is Sharia BARBARIC?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1QIXCNbD_xk#t=197

democracyistheanswer — April 8, 2014 @ 6:06 AM
__________________________

democracyistheanswer — April 8, 2014 @ 6:10 AM
___________________________
"Another foolish statement by BILL WARNER….

Hijab is too distinguished between Kafir and the Pious Muslim called Muslimah.

When we are the majority, those women that are not covered according to Islamic Sharia LAW will be rape and be humiliated. So a Muslimah will be spared if she wears the Hijab. It is also designed for all Muslim man to be suppressed sexually as we cannot touch or try any means to direct a MUSLIMAH for sex.

Thus ALLAH came out with this grand solution that we can now look for kafir woman for rape and sodomy and all sort of sexual pervasion before on the kafir. This is sanctioned and approved in our Hadith and Koran. In our OIC country, we are having can rape any kafir and sanction in all OIC country.

We Muslim give thanks o ALLAH for allowed us MUSLIM to rape all white European women all over Europe from Sweden to Denmark and THERE IS NOTHING you can do.

[Blog Editor: This makes Islam a sick perverted religion. The God in the Judeo-Christian Bible never encourages rape because unbelievers deserve it!]

John Islam — April 8, 2014 @ 7:20 AM
___________________________________
"John Islam", I am sure that at the back of it all you are something basically resembling a human being. It's just a pity that that is not what presents itself in your writings. It is very sad that humanity has to deal with your sort. However, make no mistake about it - deal with you and your sort WE WILL!!!

Éamonn Gavin — April 8, 2014 @ 9:37 AM
______________________________________
Hi Dr. Bill Warner,

Thank you for your video. We are with you to crush these Islamic Demons.

THE TRUTH SEEKER — April 9, 2014 @ 3:07 AM
__________________________
Hi Bill,

I don't have a problem with hijab if the woman is truly wearing it for cultural or religious reasons. Hijab sort of reminds me of the babushka. If the hijab is forced upon a woman or girl by her husband or family, that is wrong. Especially in a free civilized world. What really bothers me are the burkas/abayas with the hoods/full face covering. It looks very scary to me (in a spiritual sense). I think over 90% of muslim women would prefer not to wear them. I would rather they wear the hijab then the burkas/abayas. I believe burkas/abayas should not be worn in a free civilized world. I can understand why they wear it in third world countries. They are surrounded by men who will find any excuse to beat and rape them. It protects the woman from harm. It's kind of sad. If you do see burkas/abayas worn in the West, it's most likely forced upon them by their husbands who are using it for political reasons. Bill, you are right about that.

Remember Adam and Eve walked around naked in the Garden of Eden. When the devil deceived them, what was the first thing they did? They put on clothes. God was wondering why they had clothes on. Interesting isn't it. Burkas/abayas with the hoods that have the full face covering are totally opposite of what God truly wants for us. I'm pretty sure he wants to see our beautiful faces in the sunlight.

As for John Islam who thinks Muslims should give thanks to Allah for allowing the rape and sodomy of all white European women and says there is nothing we can do about it. There is something we can do about it. In a civilized world, it's called prison and deportation. It is happening everyday. For example, there was a Somalian man who raped a dying woman in Sweden. He was accused and then deported. It is cheaper to deport an immigrant than to put them in prison. It's a better option, economically speaking. That goes for any immigrant, not just Muslims, who do not follow the laws of the host country they live in. And in the future, the Great King Henri de la Croix (the Cross) (aka Great Monarch, King of France, King of Europe) and his powerful army will eliminate from the face of the Earth all those murderers and rapists. He will be called, "Good King Henry." John, Europe is not gone. You and your kind will be!

VIVE LA FRANCE! VIVE LA FRANCE! VIVE LA FRANCE! VIVE LA FRANCE! VIVE LA FRANCE!

Lidia — April 9, 2014 @ 11:50 AM
_____________________________
"Thank you Dr. Bill Warner for exposing the true Islam. I only hope and pray that the West will wake up soon before it is too late to face a nightmare, in the likes of john islam.

michael — April 12, 2014 @ 11:14 PM
_________________________
Theopolitical Symbolism of Hijab and Comments Following
An Intro by John R. Houk
© April 15, 2014
______________________________
The Political Side of the Hijab

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.

www.politicalislam.com

© 2007-2014 Political Islam

Bill Warner:

Bill Warner holds a PhD in physics and math, NC State University, 1968. He has been a university professor, businessman, and applied physicist.

He was a Member of the Technical Staff in solid-state physics at the Sarnoff Princeton Laboratories in the area of integrated circuit structures. During the energy crisis of the 80's he founded and ran a company that specialized in energy efficient homes. For eight years he was a professor at Tennessee State University in the Engineering School.

Dr. Warner has had a life-long interest in religion and its effects on history. He has studied the source texts of the major religions for decades. Even before the destruction of the World Trade Center he had predicted the war between Islam and America. The day after 9/11 he decided to make the source texts of Islam available for the average person.

Dr. Warner's training in scientific theory and mathematics shaped how he analyzed Islamic doctrine. The first step was realizing that the Islamic texts had been made deliberately difficult to read and comprehend. A program, the Trilogy Project (see below), was created to strip away the confusion in the texts. It became clear that Islam is not constructed on the same civilizational principles as the rest of the world. Simple statistical methods revealed that dualism and submission were the foundational principles of Islamic doctrine.

Statistical methods applied to the Islamic texts showed that:


-- Islam is far more of a political system than a religion.

-- There is no unmitigated good in Islam for the Kafir (non-Muslim).

-- Islam's ethical system is dualistic and is not based on the Golden Rule.

-- Islamic doctrine cannot be reconciled with our concepts of human rights and our Constitution.

-- The great majority, 96%, of all Islamic doctrine about women subjugates them.

-- The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is more important than the Koran in a Muslim's daily life.


Dr. Warner coined the term, Foundational School of Islamic studies, which holds that Islam is found in the Trilogy of Koran, Sira and Hadith. All evaluation of Islamic history and current activity is caused by the doctrine found in this Trilogy. Therefore, it is impossible to READ THE REST

Monday, April 14, 2014

Let’s Call it GOOD McCarthyism for a Good America

Leftists Keep Changing the Name
John R. Houk
© April 15, 2014

Senator Joe McCarthy led a campaign to expose Communists in the U.S. government and influential people in the private sector. Today that campaign is used as a pejorative phrase to paint a picture of modern day witch-hunts.

Senator McCarthy began his campaign in the early days of Soviet expansionism just after WWII during an era that history has marked as the Cold War. Essentially the Cold War was U.S. Free Enterprise Liberty vs. USSR Leninist-Stalinist Communist visions for life on planet Earth. American Constitutionalism regardless of some historical flaws had proven to be a success while Soviet Communism was proving to be dictatorial totalitarianism in which personal liberties were trampled upon to force conformity to a State imposed way of life. People were lied to which would bring about some kind Karl Marxian socio-political mythological utopia for the betterment of humankind.

The difference is that American Liberty proved to be innovative in science, technology and particularly commerce that brought so much prosperity to American citizens that even the American working poor fared better for individuals than anywhere else in the world – particularly better than citizens under the thumb of Soviet Communism.

And yet the Soviet government propaganda machine was convincing that the People’s Soviet Socialist Republics lived in a paradise of equal benefits for all its citizens. And even though it was a lie there were a significant amount of American citizens that fell for the lie promised after the success of the Bolshevik Revolution that ended Czarist Russia. So even prior to WWII there were Communist sympathizers in the USA that had no problem with believing Marxist-Socialist ideals would make a better America. I have no doubt that the decade labeled The Great Depression between 1929 and a significant amount of the 1930s began to add to that Marxist mystique. Couple that with Stalin’s Soviet survival of the Nazi onslaught that made its way all the way to Moscow before American military aid enabled the Red Army to stiffen and begin repelling the Nazi war machine. To Soviet credit it has to be admitted that no direct Western military units were involved in the Soviet military victories of WWII. We provided military aid and a Western Front and the rest was up to Stalin to create a viable Eastern Front to place Hitler’s Nazis in the wedge of the Allied vice.

Suspicions arose almost immediately in the post WWII world between American military might and the cancerous Soviet agenda to infect the rest of the world with Soviet Communism. The Soviet establishment of Communist puppet States being set up in Eastern Europe including one-third of the Red Amy occupied Eastern Germany solidified antagonism between the USA and the USSR. The free Western Europe confronted Soviet military aspirations evidenced by the “Eastern Bloc” Communist puppet states with the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO provided a Western Europe united front against the USSR with the American military machine acting as a prince among equals. A historical Turkey-Russia rivalry led to a NATO invitation to Turkey (probably much to Greece’s displeasure).

The Cold War then was a clash political visions that spilled outside the boundaries of historical European conflicts. The boots on the ground military clashes never directly occurred between NATO and the USSR; however there were plenty of global clashes between client states that received U.S. and/or Soviet support based on the National Interests of the Cold War adversaries. Mao Zedong ultimate victory on Mainland China can be traced to Soviet support, the Korean War was a Cold War conflict, the Vietnam War was a Cold War conflict, and Third World nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America revolutions and counter-revolutions were a Cold War conflict and so on.

In the midst of all this Senator Joe McCarthy from Wisconsin took it upon himself to expose Communists in government, scientists functioning in sensitive classified areas, influential people in Hollywood and so on. Admittedly the First Amendment entitles Americans to embrace Marxist-Communism as long as there is no threat of armed rebellion against the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution actually provides a path to amend itself or toss the whole document out peacefully to design a new Constitution for the rule of law in the United States of America. Joe McCarthy’s exposé campaign rang a bell in American hearts and minds because WWII adversaries in the Nazis and the brutal Japanese brought righteous indignation to the surface on a national scale. Although Americans were war weary with WWII vanquishing the enemies of the American way of life was a relief. Nuclear weaponry and the totalitarian nature of the Soviet government reawakened a sense of righteous indignation that there was a threat to Liberty. This time the threat was the fear of an atomic blast. America ended WWII by unleashing two atomic blasts on Japanese soil. By the 1950s both the USA and the USSR had the missile capability to unleash nuclear blasts on each other’s homeland. If we did it before why wouldn’t the Soviets do it now? The American view of Communist Ruskies was that of ideological psychopaths. Hitler was an ideological psychopath that unleashed a 12 MILLION strong Holocaust of which about half were Jews. The Japanese didn’t use death camps like the Nazis but their Asian invasions were brutal that resulted in the deaths of millions of civilians which included the brutal rapes of women.

With this mindset in Americans in the 1950s, Joe McCarthy’s Communist hunting made him an initial hero as a defender of the American way of life rooting out traitors that would transform our beloved America into a Communist nation. Senator McCarthy began to run into a problem in the Communist hunt. He began to focus too close to powerful men in government. So when it was discovered his list of Communist agents in government was a bit inflated, McCarthy’s credibility began to sink meteorically. Instead of warning McCarthy to tone down his vocal rhetoric to that which he could actually prove, Liberals in Congress began to excoriate and humiliate Joe McCarthy as a paranoid egotistical man who cared more about fame than about exposing real Communist threats to America. Senator Joe McCarthy became so discredited that today the word McCarthyism denotes an evil witch-hunter turning good people into the picture of an evil that is not there.

Here is an excerpt of a book review of M. Stanton Evans biography on Joseph McCarthy that I cross posted on my original SlantRight.com website (The original Intellectual Conservative book review by Bernie Reeves is no longer available):

In 1995, the NSA and CIA turned the wheel of history toward the truth by declassifying the Venona files, intercepted messages from Moscow to their American agents from 1942 until 1964. And lo and behold there they are: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Lachlan Currie and hundreds of other American Soviet agents working for the US government – code names and all. Not only were these alleged victims guilty, they and their apologists made fools of us all. Yet, what followed in the national press after Venona was resounding silence.

After Venona sank in, despite violent opposition by the usual suspects, some of the more rational members of the intellectual Left – such as the venerated historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. – opined that McCarthy may have been right after all, but he was a bad person and he did great harm to innocent people. Then it was back to the same shopworn clichés, such as “McCarthy didn’t uncover one communist.” Actually, according to Venona, he was way short in his estimations, but the anti-McCarthy propaganda machinery churned on to be sure history goes their way. Recently, George Clooney’s nifty propaganda stunt in the film Good Night and Good Luck was an example of the conspiracy to continue to malign McCarthy in the light of Venona, allowing the smug anti-McCarthy fellow travelers to sweep the facts under the rug and move on in their obsessive manipulations to protect their own.

Final Verdict

And that’s where things stood until November 2007 with the publication of Blacklisted by M. Stanton Evans, columnist, editor and former director of the National Journalism Center in Washington, DC. Drawing on previously classified FBI and governmental files – and new information available from Venona – Evans upends the McCarthy myth and turns the tables on the real guilty parties: Presidents Truman and Eisenhower; a majority of Congress; heads of several government agencies; lawyer Joseph Welch (who hurled the famous words at McCarthy: “have you no shame”); and …


… If the evidence was made available, McCarthy would be a hero rather than a pariah "blacklisted by history." Instead, as is usually the case, history was manipulated and public policy stained due to the intelligence community’s obsessive desire to keep their secrets – no matter the consequence to the well-being of the nation. (From post: The Truth Be Told: The Real Story Of Joe McCarthy; By Bernie Reeves (Intro by John R. Houk); SlantRight.com; 1/9/08)

Now I say all this about Joe McCarthy because Communism is again backdooring its way into American government with America’s actual Manchurian Candidate in President Barack Hussein Obama. Now-a-days the harbinger of Soviet nuclear war threatening to impose a Communist state on the American way of life is no longer overtly there. Russia is again beginning to arise as a competitor to American National Interests however that emerging threat is not Communism but rather Putin inspired Nationalism to make Russia a respected super power to be reckoned with again.

The irony of today’s current Marxist-Communist threat to America is happening via political manipulation through Dem Party lies and propaganda promising, what? It is a promise of a new transformed America that will make Americans better people experiencing a better way of life. The great deception here is that the Dems running this transformation are not telling American voters that this new transformed American utopia is a State managed society notifying us what to believe, think and own. Christianity is attacked watering down morality. Diverse cultural thinking is being imposed to water down American Liberty and traditional Christianity. Homosexuality and transgender freaks are now normal by Judicial fiat, the real Islam is being obfuscated to Americans as a religion of peace when its own theology promotes violence to confront non-Muslims and Muslims that stray from Sharia AND encouraging immigrant cultures to be retained rather than insisting on assimilation to the culture that brought our successful American constitutional experiment to the world.

All these Dem Party moves are intended to use the Constitution to dilute the Original Intent into meaninglessness or eventually just do away with the heritage of our historical documents which define what an American is. Why? Because those Dems desire to transform (Obama’s Change) into a Marxist-Socialist new America rendering Liberty, Free Enterprise, Ownership and the Christian faith into interesting footnotes in history.

In case you have come this far and you are lost because we all know that I am not an erudite writer, let me spell it out socratically. Do you want to live in an America in which individual Liberty is trumped by government-speak telling you what to believe? Do you want to live in an America that begins to intrude unjustly and oppressively on how you worship or do not worship? Do you want to live in an America that imposes excessive taxes to fund programs that intrude in American lives more than promoting the general welfare? Do you want to live in an America that allows the murder of an unborn person because that person is considered a slave as an appendage to a female body?

You should recognize most of the answers to these questions are actively in this present time are already a “YES”. America’s Founding documents from the Mayflower Compact, on to the Declaration of Independence and our United States Constitution had supporters that would have answered “NO”.

Now … If you read this blog you probably know that I am not what people would label as an original thinker. Typically my own thoughts are written down due righteous indignation of the moment. This is what caused the above thoughts.

I read an article that is a synopsis of a Trevor Loudon speech that was posted by the initials TMH which was authored by the pseudonymous person going by the name Bookworm on the blog NoisyRoom.net. Personally I find all the anonymity annoying but I know some people just don’t want to be bugged in this world where Internet harassment is too often a fact of life. The article is entitled, “A Revolutionary Idea To Win The White House And Save The World”.

The author writes about Communists in government and Loudon’s revolutionary solution to change the transformation strategy of Dem Party closet Communists. It is a good read. I’ll give a bit of a spoiler that should inspire you to read the whole thing.

Loudon surmises correctly the Republican Party consists of Conservatives that gravitate toward their pet interests. For example: GOP Establishment, Tea Party Conservatives, Libertarians, Social Conservatives, Pro-Lifers and Evangelicals. Loudon’s solution to reverse the curse of Marxist-Dems transforming our American heritage is a dream team Republican ticket including a pre-announced Cabinet. Loudon implies this dream team would be unbeatable and the Dems would lose their political clout.

JRH 4/14/14
*****************************
A Revolutionary Idea To Win The White House And Save The World
Posted by TMH

Last night, I got to hear Trevor Loudon, the New Zealander who believes, as Ronald Reagan did, that America is truly a shining city on a Hill and the world’s last, best hope against global totalitarian rule. It is this belief that has taken Trevor from his once quiet life in New Zealand to America, on an endless round of research and talks, all aimed at convincing ordinary Americans that their country is at risk (as is the world’s security), but that Americans can turn it around and revitalize a constitutional America.

Trevor’s talk was eye-opening and exciting. He devoted the first quarter of his talk to detailing how significant numbers of Congress people are currently members of communist organizations or were once open communists (who, significantly, have never repented and reformed). In the second quarter of his talk, Trevor explained the communist long game, one that started in the 1960s or before, which enabled communists to infiltrate and co-opt American institutions. In the third quarter, Trevor got started on amnesty, which is the Left’s single most important initiative. Finally, when we were all completely depressed, Trevor offered the most revolutionary idea I’ve ever heard for winning the White House in 2016 (but we have to start working on it now, or maybe yesterday.)

I’ll never be able to replicate Trevor’s passion, knowledge, or oratorical brilliance, but I can offer you a short summary of each part of his talk. I urge you to read this entire post, because it will inform you and inspire you in ways you may not have previously imagined. If you can’t wait to see what the idea is, just scroll down, because I’ve marked clearly where I’ve spelled out Trevor’s revolutionary idea for re-taking the White House.

The communists in Congress: It’s become fashionable of late to deny that communism still exists (“Communists? Hah! It’s just a handful of Russian KGB agents and a few old hippies in San Francisco. Even China isn’t communist any more.”)

Alternatively, scoffers will acknowledge that communism is still around, but assure people (especially ignorant, vulnerable young people) that it’s essentially harmless. This latter argument effectively erases the 20th century, along with the murder and enslavement of tens of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain, in China, in Vietnam, in Cambodia, and in Cuba, not to mention large swathes of Latin America and Africa. Modern communists, we’re told, are just nice people who want to save us from the economic depredations of capitalists as well as the moral and social slavery of traditionalists, especially religious traditionalists.

Because we’ve been told for the past four decades that American communism is a harmless chimera, we currently have 51 House members and 14 Senators all with strong, documented Communist ties. As Trevor said, while these people couldn’t pass the FBI investigation necessary to become a janitor at Fort Hood, the fact that they won an election (often through fraud and voter manipulation), means that they were able to walk right through the front door of our government. They now hold the levers of power controlling taxes, the military, national security, the border, education, etc. They dictate government policy and their goal is antithetical to the America created under the Constitution. Rather than being a government of limited powers, they are working to create a government of absolute powers.

Many of the names Trevor recited will be familiar to you because the media routinely gives them a lot of airtime to explain why Progressive plans (which are just re-labeled communist ideas) are good for America: Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Charles Rangel, Sheila Jackson Lee, etc. — they’re all on the list. You can read about these people in Trevor’s newest book, THE ENEMIES WITHIN: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress. There, Trevor provides detailed evidence documenting Congress peoples’ ties to communist groups, communist front groups, communist individuals, and communist liaisons.

Even Trevor acknowledges that it makes one sound like a conspiracy theorist to call all these serving members of Congress communists or fellow travelers, but the documentation is there. This isn’t a case in which Trevor is trying to convince a room of people wearing tinfoil hats that “Nancy Pelosi was in San Francisco on July 7, 1967, a mere four days after Mr. Communist Bigshot gave a speech in Minneapolis in which he said, ‘July is a great month in San Francisco, because it’s not so hot,’ which was clearly a coded reference telling her to subvert more of America’s youth by selling acid in Haight Ashbury.” That kind of imaginary dots connecting invisible lines is true conspiracy stuff and Trevor doesn’t traffic in that garbage.

Instead, what Trevor offers are verifiable facts: Membership records and newsletters from openly communist organizations or communist-front groups, decades-long close associations between Congress people and open members of the Communist Party, etc. No imaginary dots or invisible lines here. These are cold, hard, very unpleasant facts. So yes, more than a quarter of the American Senate has strong and documented communist ties, and these Senators, because the Democrats control the Senate, hold powerful positions in our country.

The communist long game: None of what’s happened since 2008, says Trevor, is a coincidence. Every single part of the current Democrat agenda originated, not in small town, old-fashioned American Democrat Party outposts, but, instead, in hardcore communist circles. For example, Quentin Young, who died recently at around age 90, was a physician and an open communist. Indeed, he was so open that, during the Vietnam War, he traveled to North Vietnam and offered his medical services to the Vietcong (those would be the same Vietcong who were killing American soldiers and torturing American POWs). Young was also Obama’s next door neighbor and his personal physician. Young was also Obama’s adviser on Obamacare. Kind of makes you think, doesn’t it?

The most significant example of the communist long game is America’s unions. Up until the 1990s, the AFL-CIO, America’s most powerful private sector union, was headed by rabidly staunch anti-communists. The AFL-CIO’s platform specifically stated its opposition to communism. That all changed in 1995 when Thomas Donohue took over the AFL-CIO’s presidency from Lane Kirkland. The anti-communist platform went out the window, and the AFL-CIO was suddenly inundated by openly communist members. With that membership change came a push to get communist or communist-friendly people into government.

With the AFL-CIO’s reversal on communism, and its open-door policy for communists, something happened that we oldsters never saw before the mid-1990s: Unions became integral parts of the Democrat election process. More money than ever before went from unions to politicians. Union works devoted themselves to “get out the vote” efforts, handling everything from registering voters (living or dead), to canvasing, to getting people to polls (legal or illegal), and to staffing polls. What this meant was that every Democrat elected due to union efforts owed the unions big time — and what the union leaders demanded were political acts entirely consistent with demands that communist had been making for decades: socialized medicine, socialized student loans, socialized banking, etc.

Amnesty: Today’s communists are interested in socializing this and that, but they actually have one absolutely overriding goal: amnesty. It’s not because communists (aka Progressives aka socialists aka leftists) love Latin Americans more than the rest of us do. Heck, it’s not about love at all. It’s about creating a permanent Democrat majority. Texas is the pivot point: If Democrats can turn Texas blue (which also means that Arizona and New Mexico and other still-reddish Southwestern states will turn solid blue), it will become numerically impossible for Republicans to take the White House, not just in the short term, but in the long, long term . . . maybe forever, because a solid Democrat majority will change the rules to preclude anything but a one-party White House and, if possible, Congress.

Again, this is not a conspiracy theory. Trevor detailed speeches and writings from people involved in the amnesty movement (including Antonio Villaraigosa, the L.A. mayor who turned LA into an illegal refuge), boasting about the 8 million new voters they are planning on having in order to change forever America’s political identity.

When conservatives oppose amnesty, it’s not because they hate Latinos, anymore than the Democrats love them. It’s because conservatives understand that the point behind amnesty isn’t to reward “acts of love” or to be charitable or to preserve human rights or to prove we’re not racists. Instead, it’s our recognition (based on Democrat admissions) that amnesty is dedicated to a single goal: destroying America’s two-party system through a tidal wave of newly legal, permanently-Democrat-Party voters. Opposing amnesty is about preserving constitutional government, not about discriminating against the illegal aliens that the Democrats (with the president’s cheerful collusion) are inviting into America and into the voting booth.

But . . . but . . . what about the Republicans who are supporting amnesty (a group that includes most of the Republican leadership)? Surely amnesty can’t be so bad, given that it’s not reasonable for these people to commit political suicide, right? Wrong. The Republican leadership owes as much to the American Chamber of Commerce as the Democrat Party owes to the unions. The Chamber of Commerce doesn’t care about Left or Right, constitution or totalitarianism. It cares about the bottom line, and the bottom line is always better if labor is cheap.

I am absolutely not calling Chamber of Commerce members Nazis, but it’s worth [it to] remember from a political, not genocidal, perspective, that one of the reasons German industrialists supported the Nazis was that they got free slave labor and they got to keep their profits. The cheapest labor in America is the illegal alien or newly legalized citizen with no English and no skills. Trevor says that it’s no coincidence that the most pro-amnesty Republicans are the ones who receive the most money from the Chamber of Commerce.

That explains the RINOs and GOP’s support for amnesty? But what about the fanatical, hysterical union support for amnesty? Doesn’t illegal immigration and amnesty hurt union members for the same reason that the Chamber of Commerce likes it, by lowering wages? Yes. And the unions, both leadership and members, understood that right up until 1995. The old leadership’s opposition to communism wasn’t just ideological, it was pragmatic. Open borders lowered wages and otherwise depressed working conditions for ordinary Americans.

The new union leadership, though, doesn’t care about its members’ well-being. Members are merely cash cows subject to mandatory dues that ultimately pay for the union members’ own slaughter.

There is hope for the future: By the time Trevor finished the first 3/4 of his talk, all of us listening were depressed. I looked around and saw slumped bodies and sad faces. Not to despair, though, since Trevor held out hope and, as I said, offered a revolutionary idea for a Republican comeback. He broke this last part of his talk into three segments: the Tea Party, Reagan’s victory, and what we can do.

The Tea Party: In 2008, all the ducks were in a row for a complete, irreversible Leftist takeover of America’s political system. What stopped it, Trevor said, was something unforeseeable, and that black swan was the Tea Party’s organic and meteoric rise.

Thanks to the Tea Party, the Democrats only got 2 years of legislative victories and, since then, they’ve been on the defensive. At every level — local, state, and national — Tea Partiers roared out their disapproval at this, the greatest flowering of the American communist party.

No wonder that the backlash was so immediate and so vicious (racist, racist, war on women, Islamophobic, homophobic, racist, racist). The Tea Party had to be destroyed and quickly too. Trevor attended a major socialist/communist party event and said it was dead boring. All they did was talk about how terrible the Tea Party is and how it could be destroyed.

Trevor said that we in the Tea Party are feeling demoralized now, since Obama took back the White House in 2012. What he says we’re missing, perhaps because we’re too close to things (unlike a New Zealander, who gets a long view), is how big our victory was. We’re like “Baby Supermen,” he said, because we don’t realize the type of power we have. Instead, we focus on our losses and then retreat to lick our wounds, yielding the floor once again to the indefatigable left.

Tea Partiers also have a problem with the GOP itself, which bitterly resents the upstarts who disagree with the GOP’s “go along to get along” policies and, most especially, with its Chamber of Commerce-funded press for amnesty, cheap labor, and a permanent Democrat majority. There is hope, though.

Reagan: Trevor reminded us that, when Reagan emerged from California in 1976 and strode onto the national scene, the GOP hated him. The Ohio GOP refused to let him speak there. Essentially, the Grand Old Party, which Reagan later owned, blackballed him, denying him the 1976 primary, which went to Gerald Ford. Reagan, however, spent the next four years coalition building like mad. With his sunny personality; his gift for taking complex subjects and presenting them in simple, but not simplistic, terms; and his unabashed love for America, he brought everyone under his umbrella. He won by a landslide that originated with his newly cohesive base, revitalizing America.

Trevor acknowledged that things are different now. Obama and his team will have had eight, not just four, years to pursue their agenda (even with the Tea Party operating as a counterweight and drag). The news and entertainment media are intractably in the bag for the Left and will throw themselves into the breach in 2016, especially for a Hillary/Michelle ticket. And we’re having conservative civil war headed by the GOP’s desire to destroy the Tea Party.

Ah, that GOP. That nasty, weak, corrupt, amnesty-loving GOP. We Tea Partiers would like to see it gone, just as the GOP would like the Tea Party to vanish. There’s an unpleasant reality, though, that Trevor says the Tea Party must acknowledge: We don’t have the time — just 2.5 years until 2016 — to put together the election infrastructure that the GOP already has. Moribund and corrupt though it may be, the GOP is the only game in town for winning elections. The task, then, is to preempt and co-opt the GOP, just as Reagan did.

The Tea Party also needs to stop trying to convince independents to get on board. Trevor pointed out what we all know: You don’t win elections by getting lukewarm support from fundamentally disinterested people. You win elections when your base is incredibly excited and the lukewarm people want to join in the fun (as happened for Obama in 2008). The GOP, Trevor added, will also want to join the fun, primarily because the institution cannot afford to walk away from the seat of power. It happened in 1980 with Reagan and it can happen again.

The main problem the conservative base has is this fragmentation and internal hostility, which extends beyond the GOP versus Tea Party fight. Libertarians, social conservatives, and Evangelicals are also part of this cranky, disparate mix of people who are definitely not statists, but still can’t hang together enough to create a political wave advancing constitutional freedoms. The big question, then, is How can we bring these disparate groups together, enthusiastically, to win in 2016, which will be our last chance at wresting the country from the communist-backed Democrats?

Here’s Trevor’s revolutionary idea

Trevor has what I think of as a brilliant, inspired, out of the box, crazy, entirely possible idea. To build a coalition, you need to promise something to everyone. That seems impossible when you consider how the various conservative groups have such vastly different issues. One person cannot possible be all things to all conservative voters. TREVOR SAYS THAT ONE PERSON DOESN’T HAVE TO BE ALL THINGS. The next Republican candidate should identify his running mate and cabinet now, to make sure that the GOP doesn’t suck all the money out of the system by 2015 and then funnel it to Romney (part II) or Christie, neither of whom can excite the base and, therefore, neither of whom can win.

Here’s as much of Trevor’s dream ticket as I can remember. It should be promoted, in its entirety, from the get-go (say, starting next month, or maybe yesterday):

o   President: Ted Cruz, a committed conservative who can talk brilliantly (and a man who happens to be Hispanic).

o   Vice President: Allen West, a committed conservative, a military commander (and a man who happens to be black and I adore him).

o   Treasury Secretary: Rand Paul (Tea Partiers and libertarians get their fiscal conservatism)

o   Secretary of State: John Bolton (the neocons get their national security)

o   Energy Secretary: Sarah Palin (Tea Partiers — and most Americans — get their cheap energy)

o   Labor Secretary: Scott Walker (Right to Work across America)

o   Attorney General: Mark Levin or Trey Gowdy, deeply committed constitutional conservatives

o   Education Secretary: A strong supporter of homeschooling


And so on, down the line, with the Republican ticket being fully formed from top to bottom. Every conservative will know heading to the voting booth that the Republican ticket offers something to him or her personally. That gets out votes.

Someone pointed out that the obvious problem with this list, which is the fact that all of these people want to be president themselves, and will not want to be subordinated to Cruz or West. Instead of joining forces, they’ll simply form the same circular firing squad that they formed in 2008 and 2012, and mow each other down again, with the Democrats cheering them on from the sidelines.

Yes, Trevor, acknowledged, some people are going to have to sacrifice their immediate presidential dreams in favor of presenting a strong united front. While the notion of self-sacrifice isn’t usually high on a politician’s list, perhaps they can be brought to see that a little self-sacrifice now provides long-term selfish benefits in the future. By following his radical campaign plan, all these talents and egos can win in some way in 2016, setting the template for each of them to strike out on his or her own in 2024. Alternatively, they can selfishly commit political and party murder-suicide in 2016, forever ending any possibility that a Republican will take the White House.

Trevor emphasized repeatedly that this revolutionary idea — running a president, veep, and entire cabinet in one fell swoop — must be done now. Any delay means conservative money is gone, the circular firing squad forms, GOP money rescues Romney or Christie from the bloodbath, the base stays home, the independents stay home, the Democrats win again, and America becomes a permanent socialized state that has abandoned all of its allies around the world, and serves as a materials-supplier to the world’s dictators.

If you think this is a good idea, act on it: Share it with your local conservative groups, put it out on Facebook, make clever posters, contact conservative leadership. Do whatever you can do. We have a very small window of time, and very limited resources, to reverse a trajectory that, if not changed by 2016, will be fixed forever.
______________________________
Let’s Call it GOOD McCarthyism for a Good America
John R. Houk
© April 15, 2014
________________________________
A Revolutionary Idea To Win The White House And Save The World

© 2014 NoisyRoom.net

[Blog Editor: Information enclosed in brackets are added by the Editor]