Saturday, November 28, 2009

Dubai World hits a pothole

The little Emirate of Dubai has had colossal financial dreams of building a global financial empire utilizing the Muslim concept of Shariah Compliant Finance (SCF). Dubai has recently proclaimed the ultimatum of implementing a moratorium on its payment schedule for paying on interest debt which is HUGE.

The way I understand it (and financial understanding is not my forte) the Dubai Emirate (UAE) government is not the actual owner of DP World an Islamic financial corporation operating under SCF principles. Rather the Dubai Emirate has guaranteed all the finances of the Dubai conglomerate. With that said it is important to note that DP World was the corporation that the Bush Administration cleared to take over the port management of the major cities on the Eastern Seaboard. Fortunately a rare moment of bipartisan agreement stalled that DP World acquisition.

Gary H. Johnson, Jr. writes about the Dubai debacle to bring people like up to speed.

JRH 11/28/09

Friday, November 27, 2009

ElBaradei: Cannot Confirm Iran’s Peaceful Nuke Claim

John R. Houk
© November 27, 2009

Outgoing head of the International Atom Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohammed ElBaradei has proffered news that most intelligent people already knew. The information is that the IAEA cannot verify that Iran nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. ElBaradei did fail to make the next logical assumption: If Iran is stonewalling the IAEA on the validity of a peaceful nuclear program then Iran is operating a nuclear program for purposes of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

If you agree with the intelligent diagnosis then this statement from Glynn Davies should completely mystify you:

"The United States remains firmly committed to a peaceful resolution to international concerns over Iran's nuclear program," said Davies. "We also remain willing to engage Iran, to work toward a diplomatic solution to the nuclear dilemma it has created for itself, if only Iran would choose such a course, but our patience, and that of the international community, is limited." (VOA – 11/27/09)

This is an indication the Obama Administration is not one of the intelligent people. For one thing I find it doubtful that Russia and China as part of the international community will be on board for crippling U. N. Security Council sanctions that might actually work at this stage to force Iran at least into temporary compliance on a nuclear weapons program. Even if that international miracle would occur with Russia and China, the psycho-Shi’ite Twelver State of Iran may yet resist compliance from dar al-harb kuffar.

In which case that would leave to choices concerning a nuclear armed Iran:

    1. Passively allow Iran to acquire nukes hoping the psycho-mullahs will not make good on their threats to remove Israel from the global map. This would mean war that a reluctant Obama appeaser would be forced to join Iran or Israel militarily.

    2. Actively support an Israeli military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities as an independent free agent then backing America’s old friend which is the ONLY Western style representative democracy in the Middle East.

Intelligent people would realize the carnage would be lesser under choice two. Leftist appeasers such as are inherent in the Obama Administration probably would choose choice one because the carnage will appear to be lesser for the USA at first. The reality is that the carnage will be heavier under choice one. Choice one is the same path Neville Chamberlain chose in dealing with Adolf Hitler. Look how that turned out as far as carnage goes.

Check out an article originating from the NYT written by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad I found on The Wire blog of St Louis Today.

JRH 11/27/09

By News Services
New York Times
11.26.2009 8:31 pm
The Wire

The director of the U.N. nuclear watchdog declared in unusually blunt language on Thursday that Iran has stonewalled investigators about evidence that the country had worked on nuclear weapons design, and that his efforts to reveal the truth had “effectively reached a dead end.”

The comments by the official, Mohamed ElBaradei, came four days before he leaves office after 12 years at the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. His remarks refocused attention on Iran’s alleged work on weapons design at the moment that the West is considering moving to harsher economic sanctions on Tehran, after it backed away from a commitment it made in early October to temporarily ship much of its nuclear fuel out of the country.

ElBaradei’s remarks also came as Iran approaches President Barack Obama’s end-of-year deadline to reassess whether the United States should move toward what Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has termed “crippling sanctions” on Iran. Israeli officials, meanwhile, have said they would not consider taking military action until Obama’s deadline runs out, leaving hanging the suggestion — maybe the bluff _ that it was preparing for that possibility in 2010.

ElBaradei’s statement marked a sharp departure in tone, and a tacit acknowledgment that his behind-the-scenes effort to broker a deal have collapsed. In the past, he has privately talked about Iran’s refusal to answer the agency’s questions about weapons work, but has stopped short of rebuking the country in public for fear of shutting off any chance of future cooperation.

Those questions, posed by the agency over a period of years, go to the heart of suspicions that Iran has worked on nuclear weapons designs. Among them are queries about drawings, computer simulations and other evidence of work that could not plausibly be involved in civilian nuclear power programs. That includes documents obtained by the agency _ some provided by Western intelligence services, who say they were slipped out of Iran by scientists _ that appear to show that Iran worked on how to shape uranium into the kind of hemispheres used for nuclear cores, on conventional explosions needed to detonate a nuclear chain reaction, and simulations of a warhead detonation at about 2,000 feet, about the height at which the bomb was set off over Hiroshima in 1945.

“It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues,” ElBaradei said in remarks to the nuclear agency’s governors. “We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us.”

In the past, Iran has called the evidence “fabrications.” ElBaradei has complained that he has been prohibited by “member states,” including the United States and European nations, from letting the Iranians see the original evidence _ presumably for fear that it could reveal sources. On Thursday, he repeated his frustration on that point, telling the agency’s 35-member board that “it would help if we were able to share with Iran more of the material that is at the center of these concerns.”

It is unclear whether ElBaradei’s comments will help push Russia and China to vote in favor of a resolution condemning Iran for failing to tell the agency, until two months ago, about a uranium enrichment plant that it secretly built on a Iranian Revolutionary Guard base near the city of Qum. Iran later said that it kept the construction secret until recently because it feared that its known nuclear plants could be bombed.

But that delay violated its obligations to the United Nations, ElBaradei said, and his statements reinforced the sense that Iran has blocked inspectors from getting near what are known as “Project 110″ and “Project 111,” its suspected weapons-design work.

At Iran’s invitation, however, inspectors visited the underground plant at Qum last month, and confirmed it is in the final stages of construction, but not yet operational. It is supposed to house 3,000 centrifuges _ too small, experts say, to be useful for producing civilian nuclear fuel, but large enough to produce about two weapons’ worth of material each year.

American officials tried to use Iran’s concealment of that plant, and the possibility that there were related facilities built to produce nuclear material, to press Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and President Hu Jintao of China to join a new round of sanctions. Both have been reluctant, especially Hu, who said nothing about it during Obama’s trip to Beijing this month. Privately, American officials visiting China have told officials to weigh how a confrontation with Iran could interfere with China’s purchases of oil. China gets roughly 15 percent of its oil from Iran.
But the central issue through the Iran investigations has been the evidence suggesting that Iran conducted some level of research on weapons. An American intelligence estimate, published two years ago, contended that Iran ceased that work in 2003; intelligence agencies in Britain, France, Germany and Israel, examining the same evidence, have assessed that the work has resumed, or never stopped.

In October, parts of a confidential analysis written by senior staff members of the IAEA were leaked. The analysis concluded that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb. The report’s conclusions went beyond ElBaradei’s public positions, and even those taken by the United States and several governments.

The analysis drew a picture of a complex program, run by Iran’s Ministry of Defense, “aimed at the development of a nuclear payload to be delivered using the Shahab 3 missile system,” Iran’s medium-range missile, which can strike the Middle East and parts of southern Europe.

That analysis, and others like it, draw on years of clues and scraps of information gathered in Iran and from intelligence agencies around the world. For instance, atomic inspectors have found signs that Iran has done extensive research on high-voltage detonators, explosive lenses for bomb detonation, and re-entry vehicles for missiles that can cushion nuclear warheads as they streak earthward.

The inspectors also found evidence that a Russian scientist had helped Iran conduct complex experiments on how to detonate a nuclear weapon.

They believe he acted on his own as an adviser on experiments described in a lengthy document that the agency obtained. Officials have described the original, in Farsi, as a detailed narrative of experiments aimed at achieving the perfectly timed compression of nuclear fuel to order to squeeze it into supercritical mass, which initiates a nuclear blast.

In 2006, the agency released a report saying that Iran had obtained from the global black market a document “related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon components.” The previous year it told of the market offering to help Iran shape uranium metal into “hemispherical forms,” which Western nuclear experts say are needed to make nuclear bomb cores.

Also in 2005, European and American officials told of an Iranian laptop computer that held studies for crucial features of a nuclear warhead, including a telltale sphere of detonators to trigger an atomic explosion. The documents specified a blast roughly 2,000 feet above a target _ considered high enough for a nuclear detonation to maximize the damage below.


ElBaradei: Cannot Confirm Iran’s Peaceful Nuke Claim
John R. Houk
© November 27, 2009
About The Wire: receives wire stories from around the country and around the world. Here you will find stories that we couldn't fit into the Post-Dispatch, but thought you, the readers of St. Louis, would find interesting.

Founding Fathers Acknowledge the ‘great Lord and Ruler of Nations’

John R. Houk
© November 27, 2009

To all the Leftists who attempt to revise history and change the true meaning of the First Amendment I give you President George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1889.

(Hat Tip: Don Moore of Blind Conservative E-List)
George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

Here is the 1st Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Emphasis is mine)

The God of Christianity is not part of any “Established” Church in America for no Christian Church or religion may be designated the State religion. On the other hand Constitutionally the intent was NOT to prevent Christian morality or tenets from being a foundation for the rule of law and State institutions in America.

Another way to put it: No government or State management in the Christian religion, but a whole lot of influence by the Christian religion in government or the State.

JRH 11/27/09

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Suicide Pact

Oliver North writes about the delusion of the Obama Administration relating to political correctness on the Ft Hood Massacre, the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial idiocy and scheduled housing of 200 Islamic terrorists from Gitmo to a State Prison in Illinois.

JRH 11/25/09

Thanksgiving Demonstrates America’s Christian Heritage

John R. Houk
© November 25, 2009

Thanksgiving is tomorrow. Thanksgiving has become a day when friends and family get together for banqueting and (in my case) NFL football. In this day of effective Leftist propaganda and the Secular Humanist Agenda, most people forget why Thanksgiving exists.

I remember in grade school the Thanksgiving period was a time of learning early American history. Foremost in any lesson was why many of the first Europeans came to the North American continent was to escape religious persecution. In those days most European nations had a State religion which was either Roman Catholic or the then very Protestant strains emerging. The Protestants were mostly under the influence of Martin Luther or John Calvin. English Protestantism was a Catholic Church with Papal authority terminated. Hence the name Church of England (aka Anglican and Episcopalian) came into existence.

The thing is in the early 16th and 17th centuries if a Protestant strain did not have a royal protector, then it was often persecuted. Look at the French Huguenots as a prime example. The Huguenots were on their way to becoming the dominant form of Christianity in France; however the French King patronized Roman Catholicism. The Huguenots were ultimately slaughtered in France and reduced to irrelevance.

The Pilgrims of Thanksgiving fame was Englishmen fleeing religious persecution of King James I who considered non-compliance to the Church of England an act of treason. The Pilgrims wanted to dedicate their life to a Biblical view of Christianity. Persecution led the English Pilgrims to Holland. Unfortunately for the stalwart Pilgrims, the Dutch were a bit too lax in the Pilgrim view of Biblical morality. The Pilgrims feared the lax influence on their children with were adapting to the Dutch language and mindset. The concerned Pilgrims then determined to head for America. It was not an easy task. Without patronage they had led capital to finance such a journey. Eventually the capital was discovered through a deal. Hence the Mayflower embarked from Holland then to Plymouth, England then the long voyage to North America.

The Pilgrim journey was arduous. Nonetheless the Pilgrims stuck to the covenant of establishing a Biblical based government which is inherent in the Mayflower Compact.

Here is an agreed upon version of the Mayflower Compact as found in the journals of a couple of Mayflower Pilgrims (Apparently the original has been lost):

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

Notice the part which says, “Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith”. Yes friends this is an establishing of a Christian heritage in America by those who wished to escape religious persecution.

Many secularists in recent years have downplayed the actuality of a Thanksgiving among the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag Indians of less than a Thanksgiving and more of a harvest festival. The secularists legitimately point out that the Indians of the area and day commonly celebrated harvest festivals. The secularist even point out that there was an English tradition of harvest festivals as well. Due to the nature of the games and feasting involved on the occasion that America has chosen a time of Thanksgiving, I am certain there was an element of festival. However due to the nature of the reason for the Pilgrims fleeing England for religious liberty and departing Holland due to the lesser standards of Biblical morality on the Pilgrim offspring, I would have to say any festival participated by the Pilgrims involved giving thanks to the Almighty Creator. Indeed the Christian religious political structure set up in 1621 by the Mayflower Compact was the rule of law for the Plymouth colony until 1691.

History shows that from the time of President George Washington a national Thanksgiving occasionally occurred. Various States made a Thanksgiving State holiday. In 1863 President Abraham Lincoln instituted Thanksgiving as a national time of Thanks. President Franklin Roosevelt in 1941 established the current fourth Thursday in November as the actual day of Thanks.

Who are Americans giving thanks to? This is what Leftists are so hot to secularize Thanksgiving Day as Turkey Day. The thanks are given to God Almighty for peace and bounty among American citizens.

The inspiration for these thoughts actually is due to a Thanksgiving essay written by Newt Gingrich. The essay is entitled, “To Whom Do We Give Thanks?

JRH 11/25/09
To Whom Do We Give Thanks?

By Newt Gingrich
Human Events

On the south side of the Rotunda in the United States Capitol Building is a painting titled The Embarkation of the Pilgrims.

The painting depicts the deck of the ship as it departs from Holland for the New World in 1620. Look, and you will see that the pilgrims are praying. A rainbow rises on the left side of the painting, symbolizing hope and divine protection.

The faith in God that the pilgrims exhibited on embarkation from the old world became thankfulness to the same God on disembarkation in the New World.

This is the origin of the day of Thanksgiving we celebrate this week. We give thanks, not merely to one another, or to some undefined spiritual force, but to God.

It doesn’t mean we’re all Christians. It means we’re Americans; lucky citizens of a nation uniquely rooted in faith in our Creator.

Tomorrow We Give Thanks to the God of Washington and Lincoln

To whom will we give thanks tomorrow?

To the God whom George Washington, in the first national Thanksgiving Day proclamation in 1789, called on all Americans to “unite to render unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection.”

To the God to whom Abraham Lincoln looked in the midst of the Civil War as he made Thanksgiving an annual national holiday in 1863:

“No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.”

Tomorrow we give thanks to the Creator who is the source of our sovereignty.

We pause in gratitude to He who has endowed us with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And just as no government has granted these rights, no government can legitimately take them away.

This is the freedom the pilgrims prayed for, Washington fought for and Lincoln stood for.

As important as it is to give thanks tomorrow is to remember, as Americans have before us, to whom we give thanks.

May you and your family have a happy, healthy and blessed Thanksgiving.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich


Thanksgiving Demonstrates America’s Christian Heritage
John R. Houk
© November 25, 2009

To Whom Do We Give Thanks?
Mr. Gingrich is the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and author of "Real Change: From the World That Fails to the World That Works" and "Winning the Future" (published by Regnery, a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Making Israel disappear

It is looking more and more as if President Barack Hussein Obama could possibly the next Nebuchadnezzar in relation to the Jews of the Land of Israel.

BHO is in the Office which currently makes him the most powerful man in the world. How is BHO using that kind of influence?

He not only is railing against Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (aka West Bank), he is also railing about the building of habitations within the borders of Israel itself. The reason: Jewish accommodations in land that Arabs who call themselves Palestinians claim are theirs.

Vincent Carroll will enlighten you to what the real danger is in Israel as well as in Judea and Samaria. Here is a hint: Palestinian propaganda and Arab education.

JRH 11/23/09 (Hat Tip: ICJS Research)

Response to Alluded Accusation of ‘Hater’

John R. Houk
© November 23, 2009

I received this email from Burr Deming of Fair and Unbalanced (FU to their fans):

At, we devote a day to linking to interesting sites around the web. Yours usually makes the list, although often with a dissenting note.

Tomorrow, Sunday, a more critical than usual piece will appear. I notice that you often offer an analysis of opposing opinions with a direct link to encourage readers to compare for themselves. I hope you will see this as an attempt to follow your own good example.

Best wishes,


I am actually grateful that I am the subject of someone’s disapproval. It is an indication that fans and foes alike are reading my content.

In either case I will post Deming’s essay followed by my response.

Here is Mr. Deming’s criticism:


Violent Religious Fanatics

By Burr Deming
11/22/09 12:00:56 am
Fair and Unbalanced

As John Houk at SlantRight explains Islam to Muslims and those who hate them, the message is that Muslims are given instructions to show to all non-Muslims the face of violent intolerance.

Houk's logic is this: there are fanatically fundamentalist Muslims who have turned to violence as an expression of faith. And there are, to be found by diligent search, passages in the Qur’an which can be used to reinforce those actions. Most Muslims are peaceful, according to Houk and those he quotes, but they are merely deluded about the nature of their faith. Radical violent sects know the real faith, as does Houk.

Protests against such conclusions from Christian experts who bring up similar passages from the Christian Bible do not sway him. One example is the 108th Psalm, which offers a prayer for the death of an enemy of the faith and the discarding of his widow and children. That and other such scriptures, to Houk, merely represent occasional anomalies from the main thrust of love and peace. Passages in the Qur’an are to be taken seriously.

So the killing of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion activist is an exception to a peaceful rule, while the killer of military personnel at Fort Hood represents the future of Islam, even if most adherents disagree.

I can dismiss, as a lunatic fringe, death advocates such as Reverend Wiley Drake, who celebrates the killing of Dr. George Tiller. I am a little more concerned about his prayers for the violent death of the President.

Although I do not think they represent most Christians, I am concerned about the growing popularity among conservative radical Christians of Psalms 108, the prayer for violent death of the enemy. Tee-shirts and slogans link the violent passage to the President: "Psalm 109 8 prayer for Obama".

"I would like to be a Christian," a friend once remarked, "but I can't think of anyone I would like assassinated." The spread of violent fantasies directed toward the President and others is not itself shocking. That those violent wishes are accepted, endorsed, and advanced in Fellowship Hall each Sunday is shocking to those seeking to practice a religion of peace.

One concern is the effect of such violent sentiments on a few of the less inhibited among the unhinged. "There is no place for such prayers in any of our faiths," says Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on "and until we all stand up and say so, at least a little blood will be on all of our hands."

Another friend is sympathetic but remains outside any religious faith. "If there is a God, you have to think she'd support the separation of Church and Hate." As in all things, I'd like to stand with the Lord.

I'm for Separation of Church and Hate. Mr. Houk goes his own way.

- Deming of FU blog

So once again I have received the accusation of “Hate.”

Thus when Mr. Deming says he is for “Separation of Church and Hate” it is an obvious reference to my Christian and pro-life advocacy. It is also a back-handed (although it be polite) common Leftist accusation of Christian hypocrisy. The typical hypocrisy accusation runs something like this: If Christians are all about peace, love and tolerance why do they ignore violent references in the Bible as well as condemn alternate lifestyles (e.g. homosexuality and transgenderism) and the violence of Islam?

Before I begin a response let me shock (or in the critic’s mind confirm the hypocrisy accusation) the Left and Muslims. I also I am for “Separation of Church and Hate.”

Violence in the Bible when associated with the direction of God is prescribed against unrighteousness, i.e. people full of sin. It is in function with the purpose of securing land for the descendants of the child of promise. The descendants of the child of promise (today known as Jews) were to be an example to teach the world the way of God.

The violence of the Quran by contrast when associated with the direction of Allah is prescribed too violently and humiliatingly to conquer, subjugate, convert or kill all those in the entire world who do not submit to the will of Allah as voiced by Islam’s prophet Mohammed.

The descendants of the child of promise were not exempt from upholding the righteousness of God in the Old Testament version of the Bible. Indeed the non-Jewish/non-Hebrew Assyrians and later the Babylonians were used as an instrument of God to remove the Jews from their land due to forsaking the way of God for the way of the very people the Jews ejected for sin.

Christians have no business rendering evil for evil. If an abortionist murders unborn children, it definitely is NOT a righteous act to murder the abortionist. This is why the New Testament enjoins Christians to pray for those in authority. The implication of praying for those in authority is that punishment in the earthly realm is the province of earthly authorities which exists by the will of God. God judges a human being that will culminate in The Last Judgment when a human spirit’s life is read like a book hopefully through the filter of the Grace and Mercy inherent in the sacrificial Blood of Jesus Christ. Without the Blood of Christ a human is definitely in eternal trouble. Through the filter of Christ a human is under the measure of the Almighty God’s absolute understanding of the actual thoughts behind one’s actions – good or bad. There is no fooling the insight of God with persuasive arguments.

On the other hand it is a Christian’s duty to vocally share the Mind of Christ with others. The Mind of Christ is best discerned in the Word of God. Hence the moniker of Bible believing Christians as opposed to Progressive Christians. Progressive Christians (i.e. Leftist in nature) cherry pick the Scriptures adopting verses that validate humanistic thinking.

Bible believing Christians definitely are not perfect in interpreting Scripture; however there is more agreement than disagreement.

I always find it amazing when a Leftist or Progressive Christian calls one who asserts his Christian Bible faith a hater in criticizing homosexuality or Islam. It is also fascinating that followers of Mohammed’s Islam play the victim and cry hater toward those who know Islam’s history and are aware that Islam’s theo-political dogma has not officially changed since the day of Mohammed. Certainly there are Muslims who have become Westernized to the extent there is an enjoyment of Western Liberty and Freedom. Nonetheless it is doubtful that most of the Muslims who deem themselves moderate would renounce the words that Mohammed expressed as the word of Allah in the Quran or the authoritative traditions of the Hadith or Sira.

In the case of the Leftist and homosexuality: the Leftist uses the term “hater” against the Biblical Christian yet have no problem whatsoever in either maligning Biblical faith as irrelevant. Often times the Left vocally expresses anger against Biblical Christians wishing to express their faith in their community at public functions with the hyperbole of Separation of Church and State. The Separation of Church and State idiocy is merely a Leftist legal maneuver to prevent Christians the free exercise of the religion in public. This makes Christianity the Leftist’s favorite religion to hate. The Leftist propaganda is this: it is ok to promote Progressive (err … Leftist) propaganda in public (e.g. schools, City Councils, et al) but is offensive to Leftists for Christians to do the same. The Leftist cares little if Leftist ideology is offensive to Biblical Christians let alone if it stifles both Christian Free Speech and the free exercise of religion simultaneously. Now that is hypocrisy.

Then there is the odd co-habitation between Leftists and Muslims (also Muslim apologists) who seek the public acceptance of the free practice of Islamic theo-political religion even though the dogma of Islam if it ever becomes the legal standard would require the death of Leftists for insulting Mohammed, Allah and Islam. If you think that is stretch then look at the intolerance that exists in Muslim dominated nations.

In this perspective I am not a hater. Rather I am an advocate of Free Speech and Freedom of Religion. In respect to Islam I am an exposer of a theo-political doctrine (one might even say a cult) that wishes the destruction of American Free Speech and Freedom of Religion.

JRH 11/23/09


Response to Alluded Accusation of ‘Hater’
John R. Houk
© November 23, 2009
Violent Religious Fanatics
© 2008 (sic)

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Everything I ... I Read in “Going Rogue”

Here is an interesting editorial of praise for Sarah Palin which justifies traditional American values and castigates Leftist transformationalism as well as the purist vision (SA Here) of what is termed radical Islam.

JRH 11/21/09


As of 9:00 AM Central Time the parent site ( to SlantRight2.0 has seemed to disappear! As of this posting I have no idea what happened. I will be posting here to get the blog writing bug fulfilled. I have sent a message to my tech guy (which is actually my son). Hopefully I will get the situation resolved.

JRH 11/21/09

UPDATE: is back up.

Friday, November 20, 2009

SCOTUS Denies McComb’s Free Speech Rights

John R. Houk
© November 20, 2009

At the High School graduation of 2006 in Nevada the Valedictorian Brittany McComb was prevented from completing her honors speech to her class because she was offering credit for her success to her Lord Jesus Christ. With the backing of the ACLU the High School officials believed a reference to her Christian faith violated the erroneous concept of Separation of Church and State. When it became evident that McComb was going to give the uncensored version of her speech, the School Officials merely pulled the plug on her mike.

When I first heard about this outrage I posted about the hypocrisy of the government (particularly of Leftists) because the so-called Separation of Church and State paradigm did not seem to apply to Islam as far as public funds and public support are concerned.

The young McComb decided to fight for her First Amendment rights to Free Speech. That journey ended when the Supreme Court refused to hear McComb’s case. This refusal neither validates nor invalidates the Nevada High School officials; however the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear McComb’s case effectually keeps the last Court’s ruling in effect. Thus the Supreme Court has afforded Leftists the glee of stomping on the Christian faith in its culture war on Christianity.

JRH 11/20/09

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Shariah-Compliant Finance in America

Shariah Compliant Finance (SCF) is an insidious marketing practice which is an arm of Islam in its agenda of bringing Islamic Supremacism to the globe.

Gary H. Johnson, Jr. has written another remarkable essay entitled, “Shariah-Compliant Finance in America.” The essay proclaims that SCF is more than a mere ethical alternative to the Capitalist paradigm of Free Market economics as the aspired model in America. Johnson writes that the Islamic Supremacism inherent in SCF ultimately runs contrary to the Liberty and Rights that are the foundation the American experiment initiated by the Founding Fathers.

There is a bit of criticism to what seems to be the primary arm in America trying to expose the insidiousness of SCF. The organization criticized is ACT! For America. The criticism is not because Johnson disagrees with exposing SCF rather the criticism with ACT! For America’s methodology in exposing SCF.

After reading Johnson’s essay I sense a confirmation that there are elements of the theo-political religion known globally as Islam utilizes a Fifth Column element to undermine Western society and thus the American society of Liberty and Freedom.

JRH 11/19/09

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

A Brief History of Islamic Economics

Gary H. Johnson, Jr. has taken a theme of economics in Islam and has spun a remarkably easy to understand history of Islam that has led to what many today would call radical Islam. Johnson roughly begins before the birth of Mohammed and finishes in the present with a brief description of Shariah Compliant Finance.

Johnson brings clarity to the influence of Imam Taqi al Din Ahmad ibn Taymiya. Taymiya is the Muslim scholar most referenced by anti-jihadists who correctly expose the ultimate nature of Islam’s theo-political agenda. That nature is to spread an imperial cultural discipline globally securing compliance with the enforcement of Islam as superior to all ideology or religions that exist. To institute that superiority violence is the primary vehicle hence the aversion to Western civil rights.

Taymiya of the most conservative Islamic school of thought known as Hanbali is the major influence on an 18th century Muslim Arab Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al Wahhab. It is from al Wahhab that the term Wahhabi Islam has come into existence. Wahhabism is the Islam of Osama bin Laden and Saudi Arabia.

Johnson also provides the best explanation of the term Salafist as opposed Wahhabist I have ever read. Johnson’s essay is entitled, “A Brief History of Islamic Economics.” If you wish to understand about why Islam is inimical to the American Way, this essay is a fantastic first step.

JRH 11/18/09

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Brigitte Gabriel Blasts Political Correctness

Brigitte Gabriel slams political correctness. Political correctness has become so ridiculous that it is like a disease blinding the Left and MSM from correctly labeling the reality of Islamism. The political correctness is so virulent that Muslims like Nidal Hasan are given a pass for an Islamic murder spree designed to kill American non-Muslims (aka kafir).

ACT! For America summary:

ACT! for America Founder and President, Brigitte Gabriel delineates the disastrous effect Political Correctness is having on our leaders and citizens in the fight against Radical Islam in America. She lambastes its debilitating power to render government and the military impotent in fretting out those who wish us harm. She lays the killings at FT. Hood at the feet of the PC mentality world.

JRH 11/17/09

Obama Insults 9/11 Families and Our Troops!

Well it has happened. Islamic terrorist war criminals are going to receive the full American Constitutional rights in a Federal Court (not military or special war crimes tribunal). Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) will be taken from Gitmo to New York City to be tried for what? I haven’t delved into how KSM will be charged so I am guessing he is being prosecuted for multiple homicides. Let’s hope the he is not being prosecuted for conspiracy to commit homicide since KSM was not in any actual homicidal suicide missions that he orchestrated for 9/11. Maybe if KSM is not given a death sentence he can be sentenced to 183 more waterboardings. A sentence to hang out in a Federal Prison with Islamist Chaplains spoon feeding Quranic theo-political garbage is way too good for him.

JRH 11/17/09

Obama Insults 9/11 Families and Our Troops!
Brings Terrorist Mastermind to U.S. to Gain More Rights

Move America Forward
Email Sent: Tue 11/17/2009 7:31 AM

We can barely control our outrage that Barack Obama has decided to bring the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the United States to New York City for a civilian trial where he will get ALL of the rights of American citizens. Four other terrorists are coming with him.

Do you think we should have brought the Nazi war crimes trials to the U.S. so they could have had the full protection of the Bill of Rights? Of course NOT, and it is ridiculous that Obama is now treating these enemy combatants as common criminals.

We have heard from so many of our troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq who are just appalled that this can be happening. We already told you that morale is sagging in Afghanistan as the President refuses the military request for more reinforcements.

It took the horrific attacks of 9/11 for us to realize that we are in a war with Islamic terrorism. This isn’t a case of a criminal gang operating in Chicago. This is a worldwide network that is out to destroy every vestige of freedom we have. It is shocking and appalling that Obama and his left-wing Attorney General, Eric Holder, want to treat these murderous terrorists as common criminals with full constitutional protections.

Help us fight this horrendous decision and keep the terrorists under the jurisdiction of military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. Please contribute now to this fight:

Move America Forward Donation

Last week President Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, announced his intentions to take up the case of Khalid Sheik Mohammed in federal court in New York City, instead of the military commissions in Guantanamo Bay. Shockingly, this major announcement was made by the Attorney General while the President was dodging responsibility while heading out of town to Asia and practicing his bowing to the Emperor.

Obama’s administration hailed the decision as a triumph, saying these five men will “finally be brought to justice.” As former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said on Sunday, “Obama is soft on terrorism.” He is more concerned about placating liberals and protecting the civil rights of terrorists than he is in protecting American security. It is simply shameful.

Giuliani says Obama is “soft” on terrorism

Al Qaida would love nothing better than a show trial in New York City, where they will milk this for all it is worth. Let us not forget how Adolph Hitler, after the failed 1923 “Beer Hall Putsch” used his trial and subsequent incarceration as a recruiting tool for the Nazi Party in Germany. He wrote “Mein Kampf” while in prison and emerged from that whole ordeal even more powerful than before!

What about the rules of evidence? Our soldiers didn’t read these terrorists their rights when they were picked up in the Middle East. They didn’t dream that they would have to pass a constitutional test with a civilian trial. It is very possible that much of the evidence against these terrorists will not be allowed in federal court. Suppose they are then acquitted? Then what? The Justice Department says that they would never be released into the United States, but they would be deported. Deported? These murderous terrorists should be executed, not deported. Where has good sense gone?

The other big problem is that the defendants in civilian trials are entitled to all of the evidence, which means the terrorists will get to see how American intelligence officials have been able to piece together information on al Qaida. When the blind sheik was tried in New York for the first World Trade Center bombing, he obtained valuable U.S. intelligence. These documents were later found in a safe house raided by the U.S. military. Does it make any sense to allow terrorists to find out our means of tracking them down? This is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

Obama doesn’t seem to be all too worried about it, but Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City Mayor, recalled that after the 1993 bombing of the WTC, the subsequent trial cost “millions and millions of dollars” and he also said “Anyone that tells you this doesn’t create additional security problems isn’t telling you the truth.”

Obama’s decision to bring terrorists to U.S. soil puts American lives at risk by making New York a major target for terrorists again! Make a donation to Move America Forward, and let’s mobilize a national effort to oppose this decision!

Obama does not seem too bothered by the security risks. In fact he seems much more concerned with the welfare an of the terrorists> Why else would he try them in a city crawling with ACLU lawyers, where they will inherit special rights that they would not have if they were being tried in Gitmo?

NY Post Columnist Michael Goldwin says he doesn’t trust Eric Holder,

“We already know about Holder's fishy sense of justice. He OK'd the pardon of fugitive Marc Rich, is now investigating CIA agents who played hardball with terrorists, and wants to give those bloodthirsty maniacs rights they don't deserve.”

Obama and Holder are steering this country towards a strategy of appeasement, which we know will NEVER work. It’s pre-9/11 mentality; it’s the same kind of backwards thinking that led this nation down the path of vulnerability that resulted in 9/11 in the first place.

Make a donation now and put MAF on the warpath to stop Obama from allowing this trial to be brought to New York!

Move America Forward Donation

Monday, November 16, 2009

The Left Must Have FEAR of Sarah Palin

John R. Houk
© November 16, 2009

Leftists must certainly fear the charisma of Sarah Palin. They have already begun dissecting her new book catching discrepancies. One has to wonder why the MSM did NOT embrace the same scrutiny about President Barack Hussein Obama’s lies and/or deceptions about his protectiveness over his original birth certificate or his school records. This is not to mention his connection to racist spiritual leaders and avowed Marxists. Most of this stuff should have been met with transparency rather than paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for legal bills in clouding transparency.

Yet Sarah Palin has been vilified ever since she hit the national spot light via Senator McCain’s choice of running mate to entice Conservative Republicans to look away from some of the issues that instilled mistrust. It is part of this vilification that drove Sarah Palin from the Office of Governor of Alaska. Palin’s spot light did not include independent wealth or moneyed Leftist organizations (or individuals) to pay for the legal bills to fight back the Alaska State Congressional Dem inquisition to discredit Palin’s stature.

Incidentally the multiple ethics violation accusations have all been dismissed. The Alaska State Dems even failed to latch on to the most palpable scandal; viz. the firing of Alaska’s head of law enforcement. The sour grapes produced by being fired left recrimination for not going after the ex-husband of Palin’s sister. Evidently the sister’s ex-hubby was a wife abuser which included threatening the sister and their father. Palin’s reason for firing was is irrelevant since Alaska State enables the Governor the prerogative to dismiss. After the MSM did a great job of covering the opinion of the fired Chief, there was little covering of the Chief’s lack of substantiation.

Then there is President Obama. Only an idiot can believe the President has adequately participated transparent full disclosure as he promised in his deceptive campaign. The Left and the MSM still continue to ignore Obama and continue to plow the field of dirt to stick on Sarah Palin. The conclusion for Leftist examination of Palin can only be one thing. That thing is fear. The fear is Sarah’s stature will influence future voters as either a force to reckon with or perhaps even a potential Conservative Presidential candidate.

Thus there will be some excoriation of Palin’s book recently released: “Going Rogue: An American Life.”

JRH 11/16/09

A jihadist hiding in plain sight

Mark Stein hits the hammer squarely on the nail head in his slam of multiculturalism and diversity. Stein correctly fingers the two politically correct evils for allowing an obvious Muslim terrorist like Major Nidal Hasan to kill fourteen Americans on Ft. Hood army base in Texas. The signs were there but ignored even though terrorist watch government agencies actually flagged Hasan. Why was Hasan’s radical Islam not pursued to the point of removing him from being an army psychiatrist? BECAUSE it might offend the poor victim Muslims in America!

Oh by the way: in case you wonder the reason for my stating the death toll was fourteen instead of thirteen as reported by most MSM outlets. The reason is one of the murdered Americans was pregnant. As Stein correctly pointed out her murder was the death of two individuals not one.

JRH 11/16/09
A jihadist hiding in plain sight

By Mark Steyn
Nov. 15, 2009 / 28 Mar-Cheshvan 5770
Jewish World Review | Shortly after 9/11, there was a lot of talk about how no one would ever hijack an American airliner ever again — not because of new security arrangements but because an alert citizenry was on the case: We were hip to their jive. The point appeared to be proved three months later on a U.S.-bound Air France flight. The "Shoebomber" attempted to light his footwear, and the flight attendants and passengers pounced. As the more boorish commentators could not resist pointing out, even the French guys walloped him.

But the years go by, and the mood shifts. You didn't have to be "alert" to spot Maj. Nidal Hasan. He'd spent most of the past half-decade walking around with a big neon sign on his head saying "JIHADIST. STAND WELL BACK." But we (that's to say, almost all of us; and certainly almost anyone who matters in national security and the broader political culture) are now reflexively conditioned to ignore the flashing neon sign. Like those
apocryphal Victorian ladies discreetly draping the lasciviously curved legs of their pianos, if a glimpse of hard unpleasant reality peeps through we simply veil it in another layer of fluffy illusions.

Two joint terrorism task forces became aware almost a year ago that Maj. Hasan was in regular e-mail contact with Anwar al-Awlaqi, the American-born but now Yemeni-based cleric who served as imam to three of the 9/11 hijackers and supports all-out holy war against the United States. But the expert analysts in the Pentagon determined that this lively correspondence was consistent with Maj. Hasan's "research interests," so there was no need to worry. That's America: Technologically superior, money no object (not one but two "joint terrorism task forces" stumbled across him). Yet no action was taken.

On the other hand, who needs surveillance operations and intelligence budgets? Maj. Hasan was entirely upfront about who he was. He put it on his business card: "SOA." As in "Soldier of Allah" — which seems a tad ungrateful to the American taxpayers who ponied up half a million bucks or thereabouts in elite medical school education to train him to be a Soldier of Uncle Sam. In a series of meetings during 2008, officials from both Walter Reed and the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences considered the question of whether then-Capt. Hasan was psychotic. But, according to at least one bigwig at Walter Reed, members of the policy committee wondered "how would it look if we kick out one of the few Muslim residents." So he got promoted to major and shipped to Fort Hood, Texas.

And 13 men and women and an unborn baby are dead.

Well, like they say, it's easy to be wise after the event. I'm not so sure. These days, it's easier to be even more stupid after the event. "Apparently, he tried to contact al-Qaida," mused MSNBC's Chris Matthews. "That's not a crime to call up al-Qaida, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?" Interesting question: Where do you draw the line?

The truth is, we're not prepared to draw a line even after he's gone ahead and committed mass murder. "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy," said Gen. Casey, the Army's chief of staff, "but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here." A "greater tragedy" than 14 dead and dozens of wounded? Translating from the original brain-addled multicult-speak, the Army chief of staff is saying that the same fatuous prostration before marshmallow illusions that led to the "tragedy" must remain in place. If it leads to occasional mass murder, well, hopefully it can be held to what cynical British civil servants used to call, during the Northern Irish "Troubles", "an acceptable level of violence." Fourteen dead is evidently acceptable. A hundred and forty? Fourteen hundred? I guess we'll find out.

"Diversity" is one of those words designed to absolve you of the need to think. Likewise, a belief in "multiculturalism" doesn't require you to know anything at all about other cultures, just to feel generally warm and fluffy about them. Heading out from my hotel room the other day, I caught a glimpse of that 7-Eleven video showing Major Hasan wearing "Muslim" garb to buy a coffee on the morning of his murderous rampage. And it wasn't until I was in the taxi cab that something odd struck me: He is an American of Arab descent. But he was wearing Pakistani dress — that's to say, a "Punjabi suit," as they call it in Britain, or the "shalwar kameez," to give it its South Asian name. For all the hundreds of talking heads droning on about "diversity" across the TV networks, it was only Tarek Fatah, writing in The Ottawa Citizen, who pointed out that no Arab males wear this get-up — with one exception: Those Arab men who got the jihad fever and went to Afghanistan to sign on with the Taliban and al-Qaida. In other words, Maj. Hasan's outfit symbolized the embrace of an explicit political identity entirely unconnected with his ethnic heritage.

Mr. Fatah would seem to be a genuine "multiculturalist": That's to say, he's attuned to often very subtle "diversities" between cultures. Whereas the professional multiculturalist sees the 7-Eleven video and coos, "Aw, look. He's wearing … well, something exotic and colorful, let's not get hung up on details. Celebrate diversity, right? Can we get him in the front row for the group shot? We may be eligible for a grant."

The brain-addled "diversity" of Gen. Casey will get some of us killed, and keep all of us cowed. In the days since the killings, the news reports have seemed increasingly like a satirical novel that the author's not quite deft enough to pull off, with bizarre new Catch-22s multiplying like the windmills of your mind: If you're openly in favor of pouring boiling oil down the throats of infidels, then the Pentagon will put down your e-mails to foreign jihadists as mere confirmation of your long-established "research interests." If you're psychotic, the Army will make you a psychiatrist for fear of provoking you. If you gun down a bunch of people, within an hour the FBI will state clearly that we can all relax, there's no terrorism angle, because, in our over-credentialized society, it doesn't count unless you're found to be carrying Permit #57982BQ3a from the relevant State Board of Jihadist Licensing.

Ezra Levant, my comrade in a long battle to restore freedom of speech to Canada, likes to say that the Danish cartoons crisis may one day be seen as a more critical event than 9/11. Not, obviously, in the comparative death tolls but in what each revealed about the state of Western civilization. After 9/11, we fought back, hit hard, rolled up the Afghan camps; after the cartoons, we weaseled and equivocated and appeased and signaled that we were willing to trade core Western values for a quiet life. Watching the decadence and denial on display this past week, I think in years to come Fort Hood will be seen in a similar light. What happened is not a "tragedy" but a national scandal, already fading from view.

[SlantRight: Bill O’Reilly on Ft. Hood Massacre]

Stein’s book: “America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It.” From the book description: In this, his first major book, Mark Steyn--probably the most widely read, and wittiest, columnist in the English-speaking world--takes on the great poison of the twenty-first century: the anti-Americanism that fuels both Old Europe and radical Islam. America, Steyn argues, will have to stand alone. The world will be divided between America and the rest; and for our sake America had better win. It’s the end of the world as we know it… Someday soon, you might wake up to the call to prayer from a muezzin. Europeans already are. And liberals will still tell you that "diversity is our strength"—while Talibanic enforcers cruise Greenwich Village burning books and barber shops, the Supreme Court decides sharia law doesn’t violate the "separation of church and state," and the Hollywood Left decides to give up on gay rights in favor of the much safer charms of polygamy. If you think this can’t happen, you haven’t been … READ ALL.

JWR Steyn Archives

© 2009, Mark Steyn

Saturday, November 14, 2009

OOPS … ‘450 Bride’ Story Inaccurate, BUT Not Off Base

John R. Houk
© November 14, 2009

Hmm … Stinger it may appear that indeed the reporter Tim Marshal writing the eye-witness article entitled, “Islamophobia. Ignorance Or Propaganda?” is telling the truth about the 450 Muslim child brides not being brides but nieces and/or sisters to prospective grooms. Mr. Marshal even admits that the Hamas organization is a terrorist – murdering organization. Then Mr. Marshal moves on to say that the Muslims of Gaza(stan) are just regular people like you and me:

Sure Hamas have cold blooded killers among them, sure they support the murder of children in Israel, sure they are cracking down on women's rights, but many of their supporters are just ordinary people. And they need a break.

They what!? “Need a break”!

The British rag Guardian reported in February 2009 that Hamas went on a rampage even among its own people murder Muslims who were simply thought to have collaborators with Israel or were critical of Hamas. So Hamas is not just bloodthirsty killers of Israeli Jews and against women’s rights but the Islamic terrorist organization utilizes murder of its own to keep the “ordinary people” under control.

There seems to be a discrepancy in reporting among MSM outlets. In late January 2009 a Wall Street Journal article claims the “ordinary people” were behind Hamas more than ever because of the Israeli invasion caused by being fed up with Hamas missiles being sent to Israeli cities.

I know it sounds unrelated to the “450 child bride” accusation of Gaza Muslims; however the point is the “ordinary people” of Gaza are indeed supporters of Hamas. This means the “ordinary people” subscribe to the same form of Islam that Hamas promotes. THAT is not so ordinary.

What kind of Islam does Hamas and their supporters follow?

Here is a glimpse of Hamas’ Islam as quoted from Hamas overall leader Khaled Mashal:

We say to this West... By Allah, you will be defeated. You will be defeated in Palestine, and your defeat there has already begun. True, it is Israel that is being defeated there, but when Israel is defeated, its path is defeated, those who call to support it are defeated, and the cowards who hide behind it and support it are defeated. Israel will be defeated, and so will whoever supported or supports it.

Tomorrow, our nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment of the imagination, but a fact.

They do not understand the Arab or Muslim mentality, which rejects the foreigner.

The stated goal of the murdering Islamic thugs controlling little Gaza Strip is the destruction of Israel, world domination and a global Caliphate.

This is the traditional path as interpreted by Conservative-Salafist-Wahabi Muslims that believe the Quran as delivered by Mohammed to be the exact word of Allah and the reliable Hadith and Sunnah as factual. In the case of the “450 brides” it is easy to surmise the child-girls walking with the 450 grooms were indeed brides and not just nieces and sisters. Old Mohammed married his favorite wife when she was 6 (or 7) and consummated that marriage when the favorite wife was NINE.

This is why the link to the story that I used to the Last Crusade utilizes Mohammed’s pedophilia to assume the little girls were brides. Is the story inaccurate due to the mistrust of Islam’s concept of dawa culminating in jihad? If we take Tim Marshall’s word for it then yes, the “450 bride” story is inaccurate. On the other hand because of the principles of Islam the story DEFINITELY was not off base.

JRH 11/14/09

The Dangerous Idea of Protecting Religions from “Defamation”

Here is some specific criticism on the United Nations’ goal of making Islam impervious to criticism thus eliminating Free Speech.

JRH 11/14/09 (Hat Tip: Ben’s Blog)

Friday, November 13, 2009

Free Speech Threatened by UN General Assembly

John R. Houk
© November 13, 2009

The United Nations General Assembly has passed numerous non-binding (i.e. so far) resolutions pertaining to the UN vie and the OIC view of Defamation of Religions. This if adopted by any nation including the USA, will terminate freedom of speech. The deception behind the UN General Assembly resolutions ostensibly is to promote freedom of religion. The irony is that the primary supporters of the resolutions are despotic and/or Muslim nations in which neither freedom of religion or freedom of speech are hallmarks of their legal imperative.

It is time to consider to depart from the UN. At first this may seem politically disastrous for it would empower the anti-American nations politically and militarily. So steps would need to take place to fend off geopolitical power moves against the National Interests of America.

One such bold move by a real leader in America would be to take the coalition of the willing concept and form a competing organization to the UN that would require more than merely being a sovereign nation to join. Such a geopolitical organization would profit its international members by promoting Free Speech, Freedom of Religion and various unalienable rights as well as economic and military security that has made America synonymous as the paradigm for Western freedom.

JRH 11/13/09
Legal Project Part of Chorus of Opposition to UN Resolutions Banning Defamation of Religion

Middle East Forum
November 12, 2009

PHILADELPHIA – The Legal Project has joined the Becket Fund for Religious Freedom and over 100 other non-governmental organizations from around the world, in a joint statement decrying the danger to free speech rights posed by a series of pending UN resolutions prohibiting defamation of religions.

On October 29, 2009, Syria, along with Venezuela and Belarus, proposed a resolution entitled "Combating defamation of religions" to the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. Among other things, the resolution condemns any organization "perpetuating stereotypes about certain religions." In particular, it avers that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with … terrorism" and proceeds to "reaffirm the obligation of all States to enact the necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of … incitement to discrimination" which would include, for example, suggesting the "profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001." While non-binding, the resolution is just the latest in an ongoing effort by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to criminalize criticism of Islam globally and, if adopted, would lay the groundwork for a binding version proposed by Pakistan as a treaty amendment earlier this year.

As the joint statement notes, "[u]nlike traditional defamation laws, which punish false statements of fact that harm individual persons, measures prohibiting the 'defamation of religions' punish the peaceful criticism of ideas."

Legal Project Director Daniel Huff called the resolution a "brazen attempt to curb criticism of radical Islam, cynically disguised as a pious affirmation of fundamental freedoms. In tenor and purpose it runs contrary to the bedrock principle of American First Amendment jurisprudence that 'debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.'"

The Legal Project of the Middle East Forum is dedicated to protecting authors and researchers from predatory lawsuits designed to stifle dissemination of information related to terrorism and its sources of funding. It assists targets of such suits with litigation costs, arranges for pro bono counsel, works with policy makers to publicize and address this growing threat.


Free Speech Threatened by UN General Assembly
John R. Houk
© November 13, 2009
Legal Project Part of Chorus of Opposition to UN Resolutions Banning Defamation of Religion

For further information contact: Daniel Huff at
This text may be reposted so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

©1994-2009 The Middle East Forum.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Ben’s Blog about the Obvious Concerning Islam

Jihad Denial Syndrome is still rampant among the MSM. Ben’s Blog does an awesome job in refuting the syndrome.

JRH 11/12/09

Here I Go Riling Leftists Again

John R. Houk
© November 12, 2009

Typically Leftists get upset when I accuse multiculturalism of destroying America rather than uniting it. Here is a comment to a picture I posted at my VOX blog:

Disuniting with multiculutral (sic) change.....I'm not sure I know what that means.

I'll guess that in your America, a melting pot is out and by "Accept American values" you mean that we just blindly agree with everything you say. Oh and Arabs will be deported. Am I on track?


Lack of unity.


ADJECTIVE: 1. Of, relating to, or including several cultures.
2. Of or relating to a social or educational theory that encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture.



1. a) To cause to be different: change the spelling of a word.

b) To give a completely different form or appearance to; transform: changed the yard into a garden.

2. To give and receive reciprocally; interchange: change places.

3. To exchange for or replace with another, usually of the same kind or category: change one's name; a light that changes colors.

4. a) To lay aside, abandon, or leave for another; switch: change methods; change sides.

b) To transfer from (one conveyance) to another: change planes.

5. To give or receive the equivalent of (money) in lower denominations or in foreign currency.

6. To put a fresh covering on: change a bed; change the baby.


1. To become different or undergo alteration: He changed as he matured.

2. To undergo transformation or transition: The music changed to a slow waltz.

3. To go from one phase to another, as the moon or the seasons.

4. To make an exchange: If you prefer this seat, I'll change with you.

5. To transfer from one conveyance to another: She changed in Chicago on her way to the coast.

6. To put on other clothing: We changed for dinner.

7. To become deeper in tone: His voice began to change at age 13.


1. The act, process, or result of altering or modifying: a change in facial expression.

2. The replacing of one thing for another; substitution: a change of atmosphere; a change of ownership.

3. A transformation or transition from one state, condition, or phase to another: the change of seasons.

4. Something different; variety: ate early for a change.

5. A different or fresh set of clothing.

Disuniting with multicultural change means: Lack of unity with many cultures changing (i.e. altering, substituting, transforming or making different) the design of the mainstream culture in America.

It is not my vision. Mainstream culture provides cohesion while the confusion of many cultures destroys the fabric of society. Leftists have utilized the Constitutional tools of a Representative Republic (Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) to tear the societal fabric. The good intentions of an altruistic Leftism will guide the Leftists further and further from the mythic utopia they seek. The concept of many cultures will NOT form a cohesive unified nation. The secret of America’s melting pot used to be that immigrants conform to the American culture and learn English.

I am willing to bet that the majority of Americans with an Italian, German, Swedish, Norwegian, Dutch, or whatever language/culture that formed the bulk of the American melting pot in the 19th and the 20th centuries (until approximately the 1960’s) eschewed their European dialects for English and the American dream began by the Founding Fathers. Leftist propaganda, political clout and money has depreciated American morality so much that homosexual, transgender and open hedonism is practiced so much that people are not shocked when two males or two females are in lip-lock groping each other in public. Adultery is merely irreconcilable differences. Unwed mothers is nearly a societal rule rather than a frowned upon exception. Teen pregnancies are huge today even though the American Left has enabled birth control via baby murder (Leftists call it termination of a fetus). School children in primary and secondary schools are concerned enough about guns and knives on a school campus that metal detectors or armed guards are there for protection. If the metal detectors or guards are lacking than a kid might go Columbine on his or her fellow students.

To be fair to the Left, their existence has brought some good changes to America. For example more legal equality for women including the right to vote (though women still fight the boys club today). Another example is giving the right to vote to young men and women that are eligible to be placed in a combat situation in the American military. Most importantly legalized racism has been terminated. The Civil Rights Movement has brought American Rights to African-Americans so that segregation has been swept from American culture.

On the other hand I can see you don’t agree with a vision of a moral fabric creating a unified mainstream culture to roll back the evils of diversity.

JRH 11/12/09