DONATE

Sunday, February 28, 2010

GWOT News from Afghanistan



There is a Global War on Terror. In spite of President Barack Hussein Obama’s denial of a war he has at least sent his version of a troop surge. Here is some info from the AP that starts out writing about victory in Marjah, Afghanistan. The article writes about the strategy of “clear, hold” and “build.”

Following the victory story the author injects some reality of war. I doubt the purpose of the reality info is used to build an American affinity for our troops and other NATO troops, rather I suspect the info is used to confirm that Leftist appeasement encourages America to abandon Afghanistan without an impact of victory. Not that a Western minded America will ever have the cajones to subdue Islamic terrorism properly, yet a goal of “building” is a good one. This is so even if Islamic rules of law (the dreaded Sharia Law) are prevalent. “Building” should mean building an alliance whether it is a pseudo-democratic nation or despotic pro-American elite.

The bad news is homicidal-suicide Islamic terrorists are infiltrating into NATO/Afghan government controlled areas killing people to terrorize them into supporting Taliban/al-Qaeda style Islam.

JRH 2/28/10

AFTAH and Hackers



Homosexuals continue to attack Christian Morality website Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH).

JRH 2/28/10 (Hat Tip: SolidSnake)

Friday, February 26, 2010

Myrick the Bold VS Saracens in America



John R. Houk
© February 26, 2010


Isn’t it interesting that Muslim-American organizations or Islamic apologists use the race card or the hate speech card when an ex-Muslim or one who exposes the violence in Islam on an educational basis?

Representative Sue Myrick (R-NC) has been an outspoken critic of the dangers of Islamic infiltration in America with the goal of subverting core beliefs and way of life.

In a story published February 25, 2010 in the Charlotte News Observer from the AP wire quotes a State legislator from North Carolina attempting to silence Myrick with the typical Islamic apologist mode. O yeah both legislators are democrats that have Muslim constituents. Here is the quote:

“Some conservatives have applauded her views, but some Muslims said they fear Myrick's tone endangers their community.

"It's looking like she's taking on a tinge of McCarthyism, and this is dangerous," said state Sen. Larry Shaw, D-Cumberland. "She's becoming a hatemonger. And that's sad. This is an intelligent woman, and I think she's a good woman."

Shaw is national chairman for the Council of American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights group Myrick has accused of planting spies on Capitol Hill by trying to get Muslim interns hired in congressional offices. (Emphasis is mine)


When racism and hate-speech don’t convey the point of a Democrat or Muslim apologist, the next level is to use the McCarthyism card. Old Senator Joe McCarthy from Wisconsin made it his political crusade to expose Communists and Soviet sympathizers in American government in the 1950’s.

In the beginning of McCarthy’s crusade he was hailed as an American patriotic hero protecting the American way of life. However, as McCarthy began to get closer and closer to the power elites of the American government in and out of power, a political push back began to occur. McCarthy either had difficulty proving the possession of names in government or exaggerated the names in his passionate zeal to reveal a fifth column in America. Ironically unclassified documents from America and Russia were more correct than in error.

Between the Press and the effective political push back against McCarthy, the profile of an insane witch hunter began to emerge. As McCarthy’s negative profile grew and grew amongst the reporting Mainstream Media of the day, his popularity and credibility became ruined. The lack of credibility led to censure and alcoholism for a broken Senator Joe McCarthy.

You can see the seriousness of the public ridicule of McCarthyism ascribed to Rep. Myrick. McCarthyism is an epithet to imply a wild-eyed witch hunter that should not be taken seriously. There is the rub! There is plenty of evidence. The evidence is whitewashed by Western Leftists and Muslim apologists in the name of multiculturalist diversity. In America multiculturalism tends to exclude Christianity, hence the Leftist affinity for defending Islam as a religion of peace.

ACT for America sent an e-alert about this disparagement of Rep. Sue Myrick. The e-alert included the Charlotte News Observer story of Myrick. When I checked the link to the story I discovered the story was sanitized to eliminate State Senator Shaw’s epithet of “McCarthyism” and “hate-monger”.

I don’t know if someone from Myrick’s office complained or if the chief publisher thought it in bad taste to assign a Federal Representative to Congress such negative epithets.

Below I am going to cross post the e-alert article captured by ACT for America. You can check out the updated link at the Charlotte News Observer if you so choose.

JRH 2/26/10
********************************************
Muslim leader slings 'McCarthyism' slur at Congresswoman

Sent by: ACT for America
Sent: February 26, 2010 10:37:47 AM


U.S. Representative Sue Myrick, co-founder of the House Anti-terrorism Caucus, is a courageous public servant and passionate defender of our national security. She understands the multiple ways in which radical Islam threatens America and she has been willing to speak out about this threat.

ACT! for America was privileged to have Rep. Myrick address our legislative briefing last year in Washington, at which we were honored to present her with our 2009 Patriot Award.

But public servants like Rep. Myrick receive other “awards” as well, such as the name-calling and smear tactics that distinguish the propaganda playbook of Islamists and their apologists.

Thus, in the story below, North Carolina State Senator Larry Shaw trots out….drum roll please…the tired epithet of “McCarthyism.”

Mr. Shaw is identified below as the national chairman of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations—the unindicted co-conspirator organization whom the FBI severed official ties with a year ago.

This June 27th to 29th, you will have the opportunity to meet and hear from courageous and informed Members of Congress like Sue Myrick, at our National Conference and Legislative Briefing in Washington, DC.

But as we noted when we announced the conference on Monday, we urge you not to wait too long to register, as space is limited. In fact, in just four days we have already booked over 15% of the available registrations.

To print out a flyer with details about the conference, please click here.

To register, please click here
.
________________________________________

US Rep. Myrick meets NC Muslims, warns of dangers

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/02/25/357589/us-rep-myrick-meets-nc-muslims.html?storylink=misearch


CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- After months of warning that Islamic radicals are infiltrating mainstream groups, U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick was to meet Thursday with Muslim constituents to explain her position.

Myrick, R-N.C., has said Islamic extremists are working their way into U.S. Muslim communities, infiltrating government institutions and influencing American citizens to attack their own country, The Charlotte Observer reported.

"I want people to be aware of the fact that it does exist and it is a threat to our national security," said Myrick, who serves on the House Intelligence Committee. "It could be an American citizen that could be radicalized by one way or another."

Jibril Hough, spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte, said he hopes Thursday night's town hall meeting is the first of many between Myrick and the Muslim community.

Myrick said she wants constituents to understand that her concerns aren't about the rising visibility of the Islamic faith.

"We live in the United States of America, where we have freedom of religion for everybody," Myrick said.

Instead, the former Charlotte mayor said her view was strengthened by top-secret briefings from U.S. intelligence officials that she said she could not discuss.

"There's a threat out there to our security," Myrick said. "It's worse than I thought."

She has proposed fighting Islamic radicalization by cutting off exchange programs and weapons sales with Saudi Arabia, passing legislation that would make it a treasonous offense to call for the death of American citizens and investigating the selection of Arabic translators.

Some conservatives have applauded her views, but some Muslims said they fear Myrick's tone endangers their community.

"It's looking like she's taking on a tinge of McCarthyism, and this is dangerous," said state Sen. Larry Shaw, D-Cumberland. "She's becoming a hatemonger. And that's sad. This is an intelligent woman, and I think she's a good woman."

Shaw is national chairman for the Council of American-Islamic Relations, a civil rights group Myrick has accused of planting spies on Capitol Hill by trying to get Muslim interns hired in congressional offices.

Last fall she wrote the foreword to a new book, "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Seeking to Islamize America," which accuses CAIR of conspiring to support international jihad against the United States.

Myrick has said her fears about infiltration were realized in November, when Army Maj. Nidal Hasan killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas. Hasan, a psychiatrist, had trained colleagues on how to handle Muslims in the military. The FBI had been monitoring contact between Hasan and a radical Yemeni-American cleric.

Some experts disagree with Myrick's view that radicalized Islamic Americans present a growing terrorism threat. A study released last month by researchers at Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found 139 Muslim-Americans involved in alleged or confirmed terrorism incidents since Sept. 11, 2001, out of a national Muslim-American population of more than 3 million.

"We have a problem," said David Schanzer, lead author of the study and director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. "It's important to keep it in perspective in its size and dangerousness, which I think are generally overblown."

____________________________
Myrick the Bold VS Saracens in America
John R. Houk
© February 26, 2010
________________________________________
Muslim leader slings 'McCarthyism' slur at Congresswoman
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.
_________________________________

US Rep. Myrick meets NC Muslims, warns of dangers


Thursday, February 25, 2010

Sovereign Self-Defense is a Machiavellian Path




John R. Houk
© February 25, 2010


I initiated this post as a lead up to an article entitled,
Israel’s Right to Self-Defense.” As I got into the prologue I realized that I was writing an ever so small essay on Israel’s modern emergence. That is nothing novel at any of the blogs I write on. One could probably search those blogs and find many posts of similar content. This should signify my passion as a Christian Right/Zionist believer that Israel must exist for the return of our Messiah the Lord Jesus Christ.

Honestly I don’t know the specifics of Christian Zionism other than its support for the nation Israel. My position is God Almighty gave the Land to Abraham and was initially possessed by the Hebrew Tribes by Moses and his successor Joshua son of Nun. The promised possession to the Jews is for perpetuity and was based on the Chosen People’s faithfulness to Yahweh. The various Jewish Diasporas (Assyrian expulsion, Babylonian expulsion and Roman expulsion) are evidence the Jews (or at least its ruling elites) stepping into faithlessness. The Promise was and is always for a Divinely protected return culminating with the House of David being returned to the throne of Israel. The Christians believe that is the Second Coming of Christ. Now the eschatology of how Christ returns to reign may differ among various Christians; nonetheless the centrality of it all is that the Resurrected Jesus Christ returns to ultimately rule and reign of the new earth and the new Heaven with the New Jerusalem as the capital city. Hence there is the importance of a restored Jewish homeland.

A Jewish homeland is a right for Jewish people. The land designated as the Palestine Mandate after the Allied victory in WWI in which the primary powers Britain, France and later the U.S. defeated the Germany of Kaiser Wilhelm, Austro-Hungary Empire and Ottoman Turkey. Basically the Brits and the French carved up the non-Turkish part of the Ottoman Empire which included the land which became known as the
British Mandate for Palestine in 1920.

The Brits actually
expelled Ottoman troops from Palestine (or at least Jerusalem) Dec. 17, 1917. The Brits expecting victory combined with prominent Jewish resources in Britain pronounced the Balfour Declaration in November 1917. Regardless of the intent of the Balfour Declaration, the effect was to create a national homeland for Jews who had been the butt of European persecution for hundreds of years. Take note this is a little over thirty years before Hitler’s Nazis gave a genocidal meaning to the word Holocaust by exterminating about six millions Jews (and about that many more of races and disabled people not fit for the conceived German master race).

It is obvious that international guilt found its way to the victorious Allies of WWII after the full measure of the horror of the Nazi directed Holocaust became public knowledge. The guilt sealed the deal of a Jewish National Homeland even though the Brits had taken some steps back from promises made out their own National Interests. The ever shrinking Empire of the British needed economic allies to offset the evaporating wealth that British Empire administration provided. When it became evident the desert sands and barren lands controlled by Muslims possessed petroleum, British moral obligations were overridden by British National Interests.

Zionist Jews of the British Mandate still had an inside track to nationhood; however British administration kept finding excuses to aid the now jealous Muslim-Arab inhabitants of the British Mandate. Initially Transjordan (today’s Jordan) was to contain Muslims and the eastern Palestine part was to contain Jews. The problem for the Jews is the land envisioned between the League of Nations and finalized (in writing anyway) by the newly created United Nations shrank immensely. The Palestine promised to Jewish Zionists would further be subdivided with the larger portion of Palestine becoming Arabic (mostly Muslim) next door to the already sovereign nation of Transjordan.

Greedy Muslim nations carved into existence by Britain and France surrounding Palestine would not even accept the tinier sliver Palestine intended for a Jewish homeland. The Brits pulled out unconditionally to let the cards fall where they may. The surrounding Muslim nations attacked the Jewish National Homeland portion of Palestine. The Jewish-Zionists declared the independent nation of Israel while the Brits were leaving and the Arabs were invading all in 1948.

The point is Israel has the right to exist and to self-determine their future without international pressure. Take note the Jews were as much Palestinians as the Arabs were. The invading Arab nations and independent Arab armies had taken upon themselves to once again eradicate Jews from their ancestral homeland.

The miracle of 1948 is that multiple Jewish militias united to defeat the invading Arab armies. Unfortunately in 1948 a
British General led Transjordan’s army to the heart of Jerusalem dividing the Holy City between Israel and Transjordan. The land occupied by the Transjordanian army was eventually unilaterally annexed. Transjordan became Jordan and called their original land east of the Jordan River the East Bank and the annexed occupied land west of the Jordan River the West Bank.

The Arabs that were encouraged to flee the Jewish Homeland prior to the Muslim invasions mostly congregated in Jordan occupied West Bank. Jordan accepted citizenship of some those Arabs but for the most part these Arab refugees and their current descendents were held Stateless as an excuse to eradicate Israel.

In one of the Arab invasions to destroy Israel, Jordan lost handily. Israel thus in 1967 regained old Palestine Mandate land occupied by Jordan in 1948. This included the re-uniting of the Holy City Jerusalem.

Today these highly propagandized Stateless Arabs have adopted the name Palestinians with the continued goal to eradicate Israel.

Israel has attempted time again to be generous to allow a creation of a Palestinian State in the midst of their ancestral land with the ruling terrorist elites of the Palestinians shooting down nationhood on terms that would provide security for Israel. I believe God was in that, for the Palestinian Muslims have become propagandized in Jew-hatred there is no way for a peaceful co-existence of two States – one Jewish and one Muslim.

And yet military and economic powers of the West are forcing this Two-State Solution upon Israel even though a Palestinian State will be an existential threat to Israel.

Just as during independence in 1948, Israel has the right to self-defense in 2010 or anytime in the future. Palestinians have used terrorism effectively against Jewish civilians at least since the days Yasser Arafat came on the scene in the 1960’s. Some might even argue Muslim-Arab terrorists were very active before 1948 at the instigation of
Arafat’s uncle Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Al-Husseini had personally hooked up with Adolf Hitler as a partner in the extermination of Jews. Al-Husseini even organized some Slavic Muslim Nazi SS units to aid the Holocaust effort of Hitler.

Israel has developed a tactic to bring justice to Islamic pseudo-Palestinian terrorists who are either Stateless, protected by terror supporting rogue nations or are a citizen of a Muslim nation (the later is the lesser case). That tactic is the assassination of Islamic terrorist leaders who have orchestrated terrorist attacks in Israel or against Israeli Jews abroad.

The tactic is controversial among Western hypocrites yet typical among Muslims themselves in Islamic nations. Israel has owned up to some assassinations and not to others. Since the Israel does dispense justice to Islamic terrorists, arrogant Muslims (terrorist or government) have often placed the blame on Israel to stave off the blood libel retribution that is typical between Muslim clans and organizations.

One
such case is the assassination of Hamas terrorist Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai and Hezbollah terrorist Imad Moughniyeh in Damascus, Syria.

In the West, should assassination become an accepted path to dispense justice to elusive Islamic terrorists or political big dogs protected by the official sovereignty of a nation? Twenty or less years ago the American government would officially deplore assassinated executions as acts morally above the rule of law. The reality is America assassinates the elusive just like Israel. America might limit publicly acknowledged assassinations of Islamic terrorists to taking a wide swath shot of a protected Islamic terrorist under a situation of war which may have collateral damage. An example of this are the unmanned drones used to take out a dwelling or village to get the enemy. I suspect the CIA or similar American Covert organization unofficially also exacts specific targeted assassinations just as Israel does.

If you ignore the filter of ethics geopolitically, why would America assassinate an elusive terrorist? The obvious answer the individual terrorist is proven to have committed acts of terrorism or murder in America or to Americans abroad. The hypocrisy of the lack of adherence to international legal protocols might inspire a covert action toward justice in which the physical evidence would never see the light of day in a court or a military tribunal. In other words America would be defending itself via means possible.

The American Leftist would whine that Machiavellian means do not justify the ends. In a black and white utopia a Leftist would be absolutely correct. Today’s 21st century politics does not match Leftist idealism. This is particularly the case that regimes associated as Leftist would not hesitate to utilize Machiavellian means to achieve a planned end. Islamic terrorism has molded the
use of Machiavellian means of the geopolitical reality submerging the utopian idealism of human protocols of the rule of law. When it comes to humanity the only thing that is absolute is the Will of God and the divine law of sowing and reaping.

If America does not limit its means of self-defense, then why should America or the West impose geopolitical solutions on Israel that
limit its means at self-defense?

JRH 2/25/10

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

John Bolton on President Obama's New International Order

Plain speaking John Bolton telling like it is minus the blight of political correctness. The theme is President Barack Hussein Obama’s new international order.

JRH 2/23/10


Thoughts on Chosen OIC Envoy Rashad Hussain



John R. Houk
© February 23, 2009


If you pay attention to any kind of international news or geopolitics keep your eyes on an international body that is second in size only to the United Nation. This international body is a loose confederation Muslim majority (or at least in power) nations (57) that call themselves the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

According Discover the Networks the OIC’s purpose is to show a positive light concerning Islam and strenuously fight any criticism of Islam.

OIC's manifold purpose is to promote Islamic values, revitalize Islam's pioneering role in the world, strengthen and enhance the bond of solidarity among Muslim states, support "the Palestinian struggle," and defend Islam generally. OIC's charter professes a commitment to promoting peace and tolerance on the one hand, and to fighting terrorism on the other.

The organization's actions, however, are dissonant with these stated aims.

For many years, OIC has been pushing incrementally toward its ultimate goal of outlawing, everywhere in the world, any and all criticism of Islamic people, practices, legal codes, and governments.


Hence if one can see through or beyond the Islamic smoke and mirrors, the OIC promotes a Muslim Brotherhood/Salafist/Wahhabi version of Islam. Any criticism of said version of Islam will be dealt with vehemently via geopolitics or Lawfare (Legal Jihad). As far as Western nations should be concerned, the OIC is a nefarious international body that will utilize deception to perpetuate the myths of a religion of peace.

Now after the above leery tidbit of information on the OIC, American citizens should be aware the U.S. Government sends a Special Envoy to represent American interests to the OIC. It is sort of an ambassadorial and international lobbyist position designed to express American Interests in a clear yet diplomatic way.

President Barack Hussein Obama has appointed a young (and I do mean YOUNG) lawyer promoted fresh out of the Legal Counsel Office to represent the Obama Administration ergo America. That person is Muslim-American Rashad Hussain.

Like most of BHO’s Constitutional and Extra-Constitutional Appointees Hussain is generating controversy. The man is thirty-one years old. He is barely out of Harvard. His Harvard academics associate him with anti-American, anti-Israeli and pro-Palestine terrorists of the caliber known as radical Islam. He has even made pro-Sami al-Arian statements. Al-Arian was a Muslim Academic working at an American University while supporting Palestinian terrorism on the side. Al-Arian was convicted and deported. Hussain took umbrage with the conviction publicly. When the BHO Appointment to the OIC came up, Hussain denied any such support for al-Arian. But oops … Hussain was count on tape making his statement. Hussain supporters say his memory lapsed and Hussain dissenters say he lied.

Americans in the recent past have mysteriously been convinced to look the other way concerning a person’s character after associating most of his adult life with hate-America Leftists or hate-America Black Liberation theologians. I believe because of the ‘race’ card most American voters bought into the ‘past associations’ are irrelevant’ thinking. I suspect the BHO Chicago-style political machine will pull the ‘race’ option out of his Gramsci-esq political playbook to label Hussain dissenters as bigoted Islamophobes (as if that is equal to racism).

You can Google Rashad Hussain to read about a host of his dissenters however there an interesting essay by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross who is an ex-Muslim anti-jihadist who writes in support of Rashad Hussain. Gartenstein-Ross attempts to go out of his way to distance his defense after the full disclosure of knowing Hussain as a friend back in the day of being fellow-Muslims and his continued friendship in his post-Muslim experience. Gartenstein-Ross actually takes a good shot at the defense however I am not convinced his friendship with Hussain is not filtering that defense.

Paul Mirengoff writing for Power Line ever so gently probes Gartenstein-Ross’ defense of Hussain. Whether one is blunt or nice the math all derives from associations in the realm of politics. Hussain’s associations and own words derive a sum that does not add up to supporting American National Interests.

Gary H. Johnson, Jr. of The AfPak Gazette chimes in with a sentiment that is closer to my thoughts.

JRH 2/23/10

Monday, February 22, 2010

Don’t be Embarrassed! It is Time for a Western Crusade AGAIN!



John R. Houk
© February 22, 2010


Ted Belman of Israpundit discovered a Diana West article which was a publication of an exchange of email between herself and an American soldier. West links to her three part series on “The Surge” which by all accounts in America has been displayed as a success story.

West publishes the soldier’s response wisely without a name. The soldier’s response definitely is not politically correct and can ruffle feathers in his chain of command, Conservatives and undoubtedly Leftists.

Belman titled the article How Muslims Defeated the United States and posted it on February 20.

West titled her article The Death of a Grown-Up: A Soldier Speaks Out on Iraq, from Iraq and published it on January 25, 2010.

I would say it is a pretty good guess many have read this already. For those of you who have not read the soldier’s essay as published by Diana West it is thought provoking. It will remind you of a time when America entered into war for victory rather than to smooth over a politically correct Mainstream Media sympathetic to Leftist idealism. It is a Leftist idealism that is enabling the proponents of Islam (Mohammedanism) to win a war they initiated against the West and America in particular with Israel as the bait.

As long as Leftist Idealism is in denial that Islam is at war with the West then the West will become submerged to the repressive and intolerant tenets of Mohammed’s religion known as Islam.

The soldier’s account of his Iraq experience brings to mind the speech of Pope Urban II that initiated the Crusades so reviled by Muslims to this day. Those Crusades are not reviled for their brutality for Islamic brutality was certainly no less savage. Rather Islamic reviling of the Christian Crusades slowed down Islamic conquest of Western Europe long enough for Western Culture to develop technologically to overshadow Islamic culture intellectually and militarily rendering the Theo-political cult irrelevant until the springboard of the modern global economy was discovered under its otherwise barren sands – petroleum.

Petroleum has re-awakened a dormant militaristic evil that wishes nothing but global hegemony under the liberty intolerant aegis of Mohammedanism.

Listen to the American soldier and heed his words!

JRH 2/22/10

Sunday, February 21, 2010

America Does NOT have to Accept Homosexuality



John R. Houk
© February 21, 2010


If you have ever visited my blogs in the past you would be aware that I believe the practice of homosexuality to be one of the most heinous stains on Western and America society. Homosexuality is ungodly and unnatural. It is mere propaganda when you hear or read a homosexual apologist adhere to the stand that homosexuality is both Biblically godly and natural. That is pure propaganda that has been used by the homosexual agenda for years with unfortunate success.

Having used these strong words, I need to assert no man or woman should utilize violence to attack the vile alternate lifestyles. This is a moral issue in which humanity is accountable to God Almighty. Humanity’s portion is to match the rule of law to match God’s morality. This means NOT to provide privileges that do not morally exist. Violence against individuals is already codified into the law with assault, battery and murder laws. The laws should be enforced equally.

Codifying privileges to homosexuals validates their lifestyle which is already is already a stain. Ramming homosexual propaganda into our children in school in the name of multicultural diversity is wrong. Even the Deist members of the Founding Fathers asserted Christian principles should be the mainstay of education. Which was the case in most of the nation until someone talked an activist slanted left SCOTUS to codify anything to do with Christian prayer to be left out of the Public Schools, even on a voluntary basis.

Now there is a Leftist push to expand the homosexual agenda into the American military. President Clinton tried to push the agenda during his Presidential Administration. The majority of the military brass was against and a strong Republican Congress would not allow it. The only caveat was to withdraw the question, “Are you a homosexual?” from the paperwork. Hence the military term “Don’t ask, Don’t tell.” If a homosexual is discovered in the military, they are discharged.

Now we have Über-Leftist President Barack Hussein Obama taking up the cause of the homosexual agenda for the military. BHO has a two-House majority in Congress. There is the real danger that Congress will codify homosexuality in the military. Do you think any Federal Judge at any level will rule such a law unconstitutional? NO! Do you think once the Left codifies homosexuality in the military, that any Federal Judge will allow a future Republican Congress to de-codify a homosexual military? NO!

Thank God there are organizations like the Liberty Counsel (LC) that are willing to take a stand against the homosexual agenda. I receive and e-news alert from LC addressing this issue about a homosexual military. It includes links to a petition to sign. I encourage all my fellow Slanted Right and Christian friends to sign it and pass it around. If you find another organization taking a stand against a homosexual military, support them as well.

JRH 2/21/10
*****************************************
Homosexual agenda threatens national security

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Sent: February 18, 2010 7:56:54 PM
Liberty Counsel


I have been deeply shocked by hearing the unvarnished truth
about the radical push to allow openly active homosexuals
to serve in our military. This proposed change will severely
impact every one us! Please read my message below - Mat.


This past weekend, Liberty University School of Law hosted a conference addressing how the homosexual agenda threatens our freedom. Even though I convened the symposium as Dean of the law school, I was shaken to the core by what I heard.

Most shocking was the presentation by Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, regarding the impact on our military if legislation is passed to repeal what is commonly called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT).

John, President Obama's proposed new policy (which he dramatically forced down our throats in the recent State of the Union address), would forbid any discrimination based on "homosexuality or bisexuality whether the orientation is real or perceived."


    I can't emphasize this strongly enough: This is a potentially disastrous policy change that simply must not be allowed!



Today, as a part of this year's CPAC convention in Washington, DC, I joined many conservative leaders in strongly rejecting the President's plans for a new "LGBT law" (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transsexual) for our armed forces. I just recorded a special audio message about the crucial news release from this very important meeting I want you to hear...

Click here to listen to this urgent audio message:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=25242&RID=22306845

++"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is totally mislabeled.

This may surprise you, but the DADT policy is in reality a misleading "catch phrase." Contrary to what many currently believe, in 1993 Congress overwhelmingly REJECTED President Clinton's proposal and passed a law clearly stating that practicing homosexuals ARE NOT ELIGIBLE for military service.

The only compromise made in the bill was to drop the question about homosexuality that appeared in military induction forms. Thus, the phrase "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" remained as a popular moniker.

That 1993 law codified a long-standing DOD policy recognizing the military as a "specialized society" that is "characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy." The law was designed to PROTECT "high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

++In time of war, military readiness is paramount

The discussion of this uniquely military issue must NOT begin with questions of individual civil rights or "equality" for practicing homosexuals. And it most certainly CANNOT include political considerations or begin with an intent to appease the homosexual community and its hideous agenda!

The dialogue should begin with, "What is in the best interest of our military community, which is now engaged in two wars?" We MUST begin with their readiness, their morale, their discipline and their effectiveness as a "specialized society."

We are at a crossroads regarding our U.S. military's effectiveness in this time of war. To disrupt their mission with a major policy change on such a sensitive issue for political purposes would be absolutely wrong on many levels.

That's why I want you to sign our petition calling for Congress to reject ANY legislation enacting a pro-homosexual policy change at this critical time for our nation's military.

Click here to sign:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=25242&RID=22306845

++The "slant" the liberal media wants you to believe

Chances are you've heard that a key Navy Admiral has very publically endorsed the repeal of the law prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military.

But you may not have heard that over 1,164 high-ranking retired Flag and General Officers personally signed a statement expressing great concern that repeal of the law would undermine unit cohesion, discipline and combat effectiveness!

Further, the main stream media is not reporting that a Military Times poll showed that 58 percent of military respondents oppose repeal of the law. They also conveniently overlook the fact that military associations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars strongly oppose any such change of policy.

++The devastating impact on retention rates

The Obama Administration and pro-homosexual lobbyists like to cite specific, isolated cases to tug at your heartstrings. The President's language in his State of the Union message was that we ought to allow homosexuals who love their country to serve.

But the Military Times poll says that a full ten percent of respondents would not reenlist if the DADT law is repealed!

That equates to over 228 thousand of our trained military personnel leaving their units in a time of war - which is greater than the size of our current U.S. Marine Corps manning level.

Perhaps even worse, another 14 percent of the poll respondents said they would consider ending their careers through retirement if DADT is repealed!

Imagine the impact on national security and our battlegrounds if that many of our dedicated soldiers, marines, seamen, and airmen decided to leave.

But there is SO MUCH MORE to this issue to be considered...

* Housing & living quarters

* Same sex "partner" benefits

* Civil unions

* Child custody disputes

* Sexual misconduct allegations

* Diversity training

* Military social events

* Transsexual "special needs" to use the restroom of their choice

* Many, many more social and physical concerns.

Please consider this joint statement by the 1,164 high-ranking officers I mentioned earlier:


"We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting, retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse affects on the willingness of parents who loan their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Voluntary force."



I can't say it any better than that.

++Support our Troops!

This is what I'm asking you to do: Sign our petition opposing Rep. Patrick Murphy's (D-PA) proposed legislation (H.R. 1283) - or any other legislation by the 111th Congress - that would lift the ban on openly active homosexuals serving in our military.

Click here to sign...

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=25242&RID=22306845

++President Obama has totally politicized this crucial issue

Right now, legislators and military leaders are conducting meetings to further study the effects of repealing DADT. But even before the study is complete, dozens of legislators have rallied to the President's call for new legislation to change the policy.

Of course, there is tremendous pressure from radical homosexual groups and lobbyists to repeal the law. And, as usual, the liberal media is slavishly catering to the homosexual agenda, so all you'll likely hear are the opinions and voices of those who support this misguided new policy.

For our part, Liberty Counsel will continue to confront these groups and has renewed our deep commitment to support our military men and women on this crucial issue. I'm asking you to stand with us.

Click below to sign the petition. And please don't forget to listen to my special audio message. I assure you, we have learned how to amplify your views with the media and strategically impact our elected officials with special petitions like this one:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=25242&RID=22306845

We must stand as a voice of reason on this vital issue! Our men and women in uniform are counting on us to take the time to support them - as they do every
day for us. Please sign this petition and join Liberty Counsel in reassuring them that you and I are looking out for their best interests.

Thank you in advance for your support!

God bless you,

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

P.S. Remember, this vital petition campaign is not about opposing any individual's civil liberties or condoning "hatred" against any group of people. This is solely about national security, military readiness and morale in a time of war. Please sign our petition and listen to my special audio message:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=25242&RID=22306845

Again, thank you, and God bless the United States of America!

______________________________
America Does NOT have to Accept Homosexuality
John R. Houk
© February 20, 2010
_______________________________

Homosexual agenda threatens national security
Liberty Counsel, with offices in Florida, Virginia and Washington, D.C.,
is a nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to
advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the
traditional family.

Liberty Counsel. PO Box 540774. Orlando, FL 32854.
800-671-1776

Friday, February 19, 2010

Islam is Peaceful, Ask your Public School



John R. Houk
© February 19, 2010


I have long been against the revisionist and multicultural propaganda that is embedded in America’s public schools courtesy of a Secular Humanist agenda. I have been disturbed that homosexuality is taught as a valid alternate lifestyle even though that lifestyle runs absolutely against the grain of God’s Holy Word. Now I am discovering that Islamic multiculturalist are coming as speakers to our public schools to propagandize that Islam is a religion of peace.

Not only are Muslim speakers educating brainwashing our children and youth about Islam but some of the speakers are what would be termed as radical Muslims.

It turns out radical Muslims Othman Shibly and son Hassan Shibly have been speakers at America’s public schools. These two at one time (maybe still, I don’t know) worked for Bridges TV in Buffalo, NY. There is a reason why this is significant. Bridges TV was part of a Saudi financed effort to propagandize Americans in the Buffalo area that Islam is peaceful and not hateful as is reported honestly by anti-jihadists and the few images that can’t help but make the news in the Mainstream Media (MSM).

At one time the managing executive of Bridges TV was one Muzzammil Hassan. Hassan decapitated his wife in an honor killing for her effort to leave her husband. Mr. Hassan was not as moderate as he pretended. Neither are the Shiblys.

So I have to ask the ACLU and anti-Christian sentiments in the Public Schools a question. Why are not Christian speakers allowed to speak about how Christianity influenced America’s foundations and growth?

Nonie Darwish writing for FrontPage Magazine used the Shiblys as an example of how Islamic propaganda is used in America’s public schools.

I will post Darwish’s expose of Islamic propaganda here at SlantRight.com. Since I made aware of Darwish’s article by ACT for America I will also post the obligatory email appeal for donations. ACT is a fantastic grassroots ‘tell the truth’ about Islam organization. Although ACT’s email included the Darwish article I am going to use the FrontPage Magazine format couple with ACT’s highlighted areas.

JRH 2/19/10.


Thursday, February 18, 2010

Ahmadinejad: 'Yep, I'm Nuclear'



Apparently it takes a new IAEA chief to admit the truth. Mohamed ElBaradei is gone and Yukiya Amano is the new Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA has leaked info that Iran has enriched enough uranium to build a nuclear warhead. Being the good Islamophobe that I am I have to wonder if suspicions were at the IAEA during ElBaradei’s tenure but his faith in Islam is supreme and that the West is evil might have at the very least not connect the dots publicly concerning a nuclear Iran.

At any rate Iran still claims it has a halo (Is that possible with a Muslim nation?) over its head the enrichment is for peaceful purposes.

Ann Coulter properly utilizes the leaked information to castigate the Left and the Intelligence idiots of the NIE Report. If you are a good Slanted Right reader, Coulter will vent for you.

JRH 2/18/10

Thompson: Spreading the Incompetence



Jeri Thompson the wife of former Presidential candidate Fred Thompson points the latest in questionable appointees from President Barack Hussein Obama. (Yes I was a Fred Head)

JRH 2/18/10
*********************************************
Thompson: Spreading the Incompetence

Jeri Thompson
Sent: Feb 17, 2010 at 4:37 PM
Sent by WashingtonNewsAlert.com

Originally: The American Spectator

    WNA Editor's Note: In the following featured commentary from Jeri Thompson, as published at the American Spectator, Barack Obama's decisions ranging from "stimulus" to his partisan health care strategy to his appointments show that no matter how much he promises to "change," for him, it's more of the same ol' Chicago way:



You know the old fable about the scorpion and the frog, and how the frog is nice enough to help the scorpion cross the river on its back even though it's certain the scorpion will kill him, and the scorpion promises that he won't so the frog does it, and the scorpion does poison the frog midstream and they both drown, and the scorpion apologizes by saying that he couldn't help himself because it was just his nature?


Well, that's just a long-winded way of saying that no matter what President Barack Obama says, he's like the scorpion. He might say he's seen the light and believes the American economy is his Number One priority. He might say he's learned his lesson and that he's going to end partisanship on health care "reform." He might even start reading notes off his hand instead of his Teleprompter. But in the end, he's still Barack Obama, a politician from Chicago who knows only one way of doing business.


Take the economy. The United States is now in the 27th month of an economic recession that has cost our nation more than 8 million jobs -- and trillions of dollars worth of government spending has failed to turn things around.


If Obama has seen the light, you'd assume he'd turn away from his Keynesian playbook, and maybe consider going to the policies that pulled our nation out of the last economic ditch we were in: lower taxes, fewer regulations, and less government. But instead it's more of the same.


But as with so much of Obama's worldview, the policies are only half the problem. The other half is the people he puts in place to put those policies into action. Remember Van Jones of environmental policy fame? How about Susan Crawford of Internet policy fame? Well guess what? Obama hasn't learned his lesson, and he's putting the same kind of people in place to "work" on the economy.


Nicole Lamb-Hale, for example, was recently confirmed as Obama's Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing. Ms. Lamb-Hale's job is to represent U.S. manufacturers to the world -- although as a bankruptcy attorney she has no real experience in the manufacturing industry. In fact, her primary qualification appears to be that she went to law school with the President.


According to the National Association of Manufacturers, this vital segment of our economy lost nearly 2 million jobs over the 19-month period between December 2007 and July 2009, with additional job losses forecast for 2010.


Given the immense challenges U.S. manufacturers are facing, what kind of message does a President send when he puts a bankruptcy lawyer in charge of the manufacturing sector? It's comparable to appointing a tax cheat to run the Treasury... oh... wait... never mind. In fact, the Lamb-Hale hire is about as nonsensical as a plan to levy during this great period of economic uncertainty an additional half-trillion dollars in corporate taxes -- which is what Obama's budget proposes.


Speaking of taxes, Obama's appointment of Mary L. Smith as Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice's tax division is another troubling choice. Smith has been nominated for one of the most important tax policy positions in Washington -- despite the fact that she has no prior experience in tax law. Not only does Smith lack a degree in her field and relevant experience with IRS tax cases, she admitted during her Congressional testimony that she personally hasn't tried a tax case in her life -- ever. Smith also acknowledged under questioning that she hasn't taken any continuing legal education classes on tax-law issues, either. This is the person who is supposed to head up the Justice Department's tax division?


It's these kinds of hires -- and there are plenty more in the confirmation cue waiting for their chance to do Obama's bidding -- that just confirms Obama's true character. In all things he does it's the Chicago way: just "Rahm" like-minded cronies and acolytes through the process no matter what the cost, and hope the American people don't notice the damage that results.


If President Obama has truly seen the light and understands that jobs and the economy are what matters most to the American people, he'll at least make an effort to allow the free market to provide some of the solutions to lift the United States out of its economic troubles. And as for jobs? Well, first he can put in place some policies that allow the private sector to create real jobs in real communities across America. After that, putting a lot more of his Administration's hires and prospective hires like Lamb-Hale and Smith out on the street looking for new jobs of their own, wouldn't hurt either.

____________________________
Washington News Alert is underwritten by Americans for Limited Government, a non- partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free market reforms, private property rights and core American liberties. For more information on ALG please call us at 703-383-0880 or visit our website at www.GetLiberty.org.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Anti-Semitism in UK and America



Inspired by Ari Bussel

John R. Houk
© February 16, 2010


Ari Bussel writes an appropriately scathing essay of anti-Semitism – nay outright hatred of Jews – that has occurred at University settings in the United Kingdom and the United States.

In both incidents an organized illustration of Islamic hatred toward Jews is focused on speakers representing the Israeli government.

At the Oxford Union in the United Kingdom (UK) Noor Rashid shouted in Arabic in which the English translation was taken to mean “slaughter the Jews”. Rashid and Muslim apologists have since claimed the Arabic was misunderstood no doubt to avoid hate-speech prosecution (as if the Brits would prosecute a Muslim for hate-speech).

Rashid’s story is he spoke in the ancient Arabic of the Quran with the English meaning, Khaybar, O Jews, we will win. The reference is to an Arab/Jewish battle in which the Arabic yet Jewish tribe of Khaybar was defeated by Mohammed in 629 AD. Rashid and British apologist for Islam George Galloway claim the epithet merely was referencing a historical battle in which Mohammed had won. The claim is classic Islamic taqiyya (deception). Let us look more closely at the result of the battle of Khaybar.

Mo came upon the Khaybar Jews of Medina in an unprovoked attack for no other reason than to expropriate Jewish wealth and treasure. Mo’s alleged lesser army went on to defeat the Khaybar Jews in a so-called retaliation. So what is a Muslim retaliation orchestrated by Mohammed? The Jews of Khaybar were slaughtered and their women enslaved.

You have to agree that excuse given by Rashid and Galloway was a bold faced lie to mislead the readers of the British (and international) media!

Incredibly American Universities are becoming hotbeds of Islamic influenced hatred of Jews. Ari Bussel attended the speaking engagement of Ambassador Michael Oren from Israel. Apparently most of the audience was Jews outside of the academic realm of the University of California Irvine (UCI). Then there were a significant number of non-Muslim students and significant amount of Jew-hating Muslims doing all they could to disrupt the speech with epithets against Jews and Israel. After the speech eleven Muslims found themselves arrested on minor charges. At the very least every Muslim involved with the obvious hate-speech should be expelled from UCI. I am fairly certain nothing of the sort will happen. I have only read the Muslim students were going to be disciplined. What does “disciplined” mean? From my experience in college days long ago “disciplined” means a warning citation and a miniscule fine ($5 for underage drinking in my day).

If the discipline is actually made public I am betting no major Mainstream Media outlets will report it. That is of course unless UCI man’s up and actually expels the haters. Then the MSM coverage will be significant deploring that Muslims in America are their First Amendment rights of free speech infringed upon. After all the First Amendment does protect independent thought and speech, right?

Of course the First Amendment protects and mandates as the rule of law freedom of speech. However the venue where free speech occurs also must keep in mind property rights. If the Muslims were American citizens it does not mean they or any American owns UCI and thus can do as they please. Actual ownership is the taxpayers who invest management authority in Federal and State government. To believe the government on any level would approve of disruption of meetings on University property of invented or approved guests is ludicrous.

Is the Leftist agenda to diversify America multiculturally so invested that we Americans must look the other way when such hatred is spewed? What if it was the KKK interrupting a Jewish or African-American speech? I have seen the ACLU protect the rights of American Nazis to march in Jewish neighborhoods (May need to register to view citation – its free) around Chicago years ago. I saw the news images of Jews rightfully demonstrating their dislike for such event. Is this the same as disrupting a speaker in a University building?

I think not. The Nazis were in the open outdoors and the protesting Jews would have been either on their own property or public sidewalks as the Nazis performed their superior race march. And still the Mainstream Media reported the free speech rights of the Nazis as a huge slap in the face of the American way of Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

America please speak to me that you are not becoming anti-Semitic by believing the effective propaganda of Islamic terrorists, particularly the Islamic terrorists who have falsely adopted the name Palestinian?

JRH 2/16/10
******************************************
Coming Soon to a University Near You

By Ari Bussel
Sent: February 16, 2010 8:49 AM


    GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS - PRESS RELEASE On Monday night, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon was invited by the Oxford Union to speak at an event at the university. During the speech one student shouted extreme abuse at the Deputy Foreign Minister including Itbach Al-Yahud (Slaughter the Jews). The event was caught on camera and subsequently shown on Israeli television Channel Ten. The Deputy Foreign Minister is looking into the possibility of pressing charges against the student for what is tantamount to a call for genocide.



Two separate events occurred at the same time on two continents. Both followed the same exact script: An Israeli figure came to a hostile campus to talk about the prospects of a better future in the region and to answer questions, including those of the most vigorous opponents. As each started to speak, he was interrupted by shouts “murderer,” “Israel is guilty of …,” “Zionism is the …” etc. A young Muslim man stood and shouted, reading from a note, was escorted out, followed a minute later by another young Muslim man who stood and shouted and the cycle repeated. At one point, the remaining members of the Muslim contingency stood in unison, walked out and continued their noisy interruptions outside, attempting to further disrupt the proceedings.

In previous events they had used loudspeakers and drums. For some reason, these were missing.

Had the opposite been the case, a virulent anti-Israeli speaker speaking, calling Israelis the new Nazis, claiming the Holocaust was an excuse to steal land from the Arabs or even calling for the annihilation of the Jewish State, a feeling of military control would have pervaded. Instead of the local police protecting, there would be private security brutalizing anyone who even seemed to think differently. A chilly fear would have descended, immobilizing and preventing anyone from expressing an opinion, asking a question or veering out of line. It is a most frightening scene, an even worse feeling that stays with a person for a very long time.

But in both cases, the speakers came to speak about Israel’s policies. In the UK it was Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon, previously the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. In California it was the current Israeli Ambassador, Dr. Oren, himself an academic. Dr. Oren implored at one point: “We have an opportunity here to exchange ideas. We have an opportunity to hear a different perspective.

This is why you have come to this campus as students. You have not come to this campus to hear one idea, you have come to hear a multiplicity of ideas. It is a humble suggestion. It is one of the inestimable values of education in this country. You have this opportunity. Don’t squander the opportunity.”

Only members of the University holding an Oxford Union membership were allowed to attend the UK event. In California the vast majority of attendees were members of the local Jewish and Israeli community rather than students and faculty. The constant interruptions by the Muslims were called “uncivilized,” “exceeding the principles of free speech” and the like. Each university has released an announcement denouncing the conduct in these events.

For those participating in such a gathering for the first time, the opportunity was eye opening, traumatic. One lady remained seated well after everyone dispersed. She continued shaking, in shock. Realization dawned for the first time: The very foundations of our society are not as solid and impenetrable as we thought but are crumbling before our very eyes just as we stand by and watch.

Let us look at the California event I attended. By now, many have seen it on YouTube or the news. It is worthwhile watching. The speech itself was not as captivating as the one given by the Ambassador earlier in the day at a Church across the way. Ambassador Oren was visibly nerved and reminded the Muslim objectors of Middle Eastern hospitality.

When a person is invited as a guest to one’s home in the Middle East, said Ambassador Oren, no harm should befall him. Muslims here are either too young to follow the traditions of their own people or have grown up in the United States under the illusion of a false reality and are thus unfamiliar with the very foundations of the culture they strive to spread (brutality, silencing, beheadings, fear and corruption, female slavery and subjugation and ethnic cleansing, essences of Sixth Century existence, alongside some of the tenants of survival in a barbaric society).

Allow me to describe the setting: I arrived late from that earlier event with Ambassador Oren. There was a very long line of people waiting inside the Student Center. Almost two hundred people were being told the hall was full and they must enter an overflow room or leave. As a member of the press I was invited in, bypassing what looked like a long line at a busy airport.

The airport setting analogy was most befitting. Muslims are up in arms against “Profiling,” yet it is no coincidence that Muslims are perpetrating terrorist attacks. If they have nothing to fear, why not embrace profiling as a means to keep everyone safer? They should vomit from within their midst Islamists who want to destroy the 21st Century Western way of life, if indeed they oppose terrorism and Islam is truly a peaceful religion. But they do not. They fight back, insisting they suffer as a result. All too soon they – the perpetrators and their supports – will be protesting against airport checkpoints.


We all suffer as a result. I cannot enter a gate without having my bottle of water confiscated, my computer turned on and half of my wardrobe removed because of what fellow Muslims do “for the sake of Allah, the All Merciful.” They slash the throats of innocent flight attendants, fly into high-rise buildings or simply explode themselves among hundreds of others.

Likewise at my own alma mater, the University of California, I cannot attend a lecture without having to go through multiple checkpoints and screening surrounded by police officers. Under the heading of “free speech” Muslims take away our basic rights, depriving us of legitimate discourse, civil gatherings, normalcy and sanity. Fear prevails.

Jewish students are afraid to stand up. Secular Americans watch, absorb and internalize. Fear is so contagious, it can be felt. It is chilling and cannot be ignored. This new feeling is embedded in the individual and our collective memories and never leaves. Like a nightmare from which we cannot awake, it remains.

I passed security and was now inside. The place was familiar: I was inside this hall before to hear another speaker a couple of years ago. The police were present then too and about a hundred members of the Muslim Student Union. Most were not students at UCI. When the audience was asked to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, they remained seated as a block.

An attending Congressman wrote the next day that as guests in this country (many are here on Student or other Visas), they should have shown some basic respect to their host country, a feeling shared by many. A foreigner is not expected to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but we expect one to at least stand up.

Later they started interrupting the speaker, until the police were forced to remove a few. Then, they stood in unison, left the hallway and continued the demonstration outside, shouting, trying to create as much an interruption as possible.

This is truly the modus operandi of Muslims: Silence everyone who does not think as they do. Prevent one from speaking and do not engage in discussion. Shout and pervert free speech like a lunatic. Attack (first verbally) those in front of you – not the substance of the argument but their features, heritage, traditions. If possible, threaten and do not hesitate to act. There are no consequences for this behavior. The next step – physical harm – is very easy to reach. All this will be protected under the guise of political correctness, the greatest gift ever bestowed on the Muslim world.

UCI is a hotbed of anti-West activity, a hornet nest. The script is not new, although each time brings an interesting twist. Anyone standing in their way, any reasonable person with clarity of thought and knowledge of history and current events is deemed a threat and must be silenced. An effective way to do so is by utilizing the victim’s mentality: “He is an Islamophob. He hates us. We are poor and weak. We want peace. We just want that to which we are entitled – free speech”— but only for us! What a twisted world.

One would surely ask:

    1) Why does the campus allow such inflammatory events? Speakers should be welcome, but events should only be open to students and faculty with valid IDs. Realize, outside agitators are there to exploit. As one enters, one should present his / her ID. If one is removed for unruly behavior, there should be immediate, severe consequences. Outside organizations should not be allowed to rent university facilities for such events (someone needs to cover the costs associated with increased police presence, the bad reputation to the university as an academic institution, etc.).

    2) Why was nothing done thus far to better educate and enforce existing rules and regulations (such as the code of student conduct)? If a student knew that she might be expelled form the University, that her loans or grants would be rescinded or her visa to the U.S. would be revoked, perhaps she would think twice before orchestrating or participating in disruptive behavior?


Author and speaker Susanne Reyto observed on another occurrence how University Police “seem to protect protestors more than the audience.” But it is not only the police. It is the faculty and administration, all the way up to the Regents of the UC system. There is a current of dismissal, closing one eye (and often both), acquiescence and silent agreement to look the other way. A dangerous inability to reconcile the idea such behavior can exist in a top academic institution and pose any threat to the very fabric of that institution and society at large.

Excuses abound justifying the Muslim actions against Israel and the Zionists. This reflects a complete lack of understanding of the true nature of the enemy. The Muslims are not only after Israel, they are against the American way of life, the very freedoms our Constitution affords and everything the United States of America stands for and symbolizes.

The Regents reflect in part the approach of the current Administration that talks and reconciliation, consensus building and appeasement can prevail. Try to negotiate with hijackers and history will bear out such folly. Negotiating through strength is the only successful method, not high hopes and dreams. The Administration has taken denial to its highest level, one that translated into movement-constricting action: The true nature of the threat cannot be discussed, ergo it does not exist.

The new language of President Hussein Obama’s Administration includes: These are deranged individuals, not terrorists. These are isolated incidents rather than a well-thought, very carefully planned and superbly executed campaign of war against us. Islam is a peaceful religion, and we are one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. The Islamic roots are deeply connected to those of the Pilgrims who fled to this country and created the best example of a free country on earth. Had it not been the current President of the United States of America who uttered these pronunciations during the last year, one would be justified in asking under what influence is the writer or what substances might he be consuming?

Back at the UCI, the vast majority of those in the hall were non-Muslim. Their student years have long passed. There were two groups of MSU, one on either side. Each block was immediately recognizable by the head coverings of the young women and the unshaven, dark skinned Middle Eastern young men.

The men had notes in their hands, inscribed with phrases they were soon to shout. The women were sitting and laughing, one orchestrating the order in which the men rose from either side of the hall. Hands were raised recording every movement, watching the audience, waiting for the cue, getting ready for the right moment. All were ready, calm, calculated, their passion controlled. They came to perform and inflict harm, and they succeeded as they did numerous times before and as they will undoubtedly do at future events.

One must keep in mind the calculated, cold manner of execution and the role women play, a true testament to equality of the sexes that will never be found in Muslim countries or under Sharia Law.


This was no dress rehearsal, but a very well executed performance in its mth (sic) appearance. The University has done nothing of substance to counteract this increasing tide, thus reinforcing and permitting it to gather strength. Outsiders remain in denial, thus the appearance of the Ambassador in California and his boss in the UK were merely tokens too little, too late. Other than news coverage, they achieved little at the campuses themselves. The university played into the hands of the Muslims, and if anyone won this round, it is the Muslims.

The Muslim anarchists must be uprooted, extracted from the once fertile ground into which they invaded, cut into pieces, crushed and destroyed. If permitted to rise again, they will continue to defile the essence of freedom, attempt to destroy the system from within. We must protect our way of life.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs must act. Preventing free speech in universities is just a small warning sign. Israeli officials already know better than to travel freely anymore as many face the inconvenience of public arrests and trials for crimes committed against humanity if they set foot in places like – unbelievably yes, Great Britain.

We as Americans, must express our disgust and act to protect our own system and ideals. This successful approach against Israeli officials can also be used not less successfully against others – perhaps a US Senator, a local businessman or a labor representative.

Our very system is being undermined and Israel is just a temporary decoration. The scenery may change as quickly as from one play to the next and the victim will change while the perpetrators continue their very effective action.

Wake up oh great nation. Our values and foundations are at stake, as our enemies use them to topple our system. The University of California at Irvine was just a preview of what is coming soon to a University near you.

_____________________________
Anti-Semitism in UK and America
Inspired by Ari Bussel


John R. Houk
© February 16, 2010
______________________________________
Coming Soon to a University Near You

In the series “Postcards from Israel,” Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers throughout the world to join them as they present reports from Israel as seen by two sets of eyes: Bussel’s on the ground, Zager’s counter-point from home. Israel and the United States are inter-related - the two countries we hold dearest to our hearts - and so is this “point - counter-point” presentation that has, since 2008, become part of our lives.

© Postcards from Home, February, 2010
Contact: aribussel@gmail.com


Monday, February 15, 2010

CAIR Lawsuit against Gaubatzes is DENIED as Moot



John R. Houk
© February 15, 2010


Have you been following CAIR’s Legal Jihad against the father/son team that collected some smoking gun damning evidence that CAIR’s unindicted co-conspirator status with the Holy Land Foundation’s (HLF) secret agenda to funnel money to Islamic terrorist group Hamas is just the tip of the iceberg to the fifth column wickedness of that American-Islamic organization?

Well it is apparent the Judge in CAIR’s civil suit against David and Chris Gaubatz is a judge that likes to explore all the merits of a case. Judge Kollar-Kotelly initially forced the Gaubatzs’ to return all the undercover acquired material back to CAIR. This minor legal victory by CAIR gave the Islamic organization some credibility in denouncing the book The Muslim Mafia co-authored by (Paul) David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry as spurious.

The FBI must realized that there was some material acquired pertaining to Homeland Security acquired by private citizens that potentially demonstrate criminal culpability by CAIR. Thus the FBI got a Federal Judge to override Kollar-Kotelly order to return material to CAIR. The Federal Judge issued a subpoena to allow those material documents to be diverted to the FBI.

Oops, that was a major dent in CAIR’s Legal Jihad.

Another minor dent in CAIR’s Legal Jihad occurred when attorney David Horowitz found a technicality in the CAIR lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed under the name that most Muslims and kafir that CAIR is known by; viz. Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The twist that Horowitz found was that CAIR legally changed its non-profit name to Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network. (Hmm … Wouldn’t the new acronym be CAIRAN – pronounced like Karen? No wonder CAIR is still displayed. CAIRAN has a female connotation. Misogynist Muslims cannot have a female connotation implied to male dominated Islam.) Since the lawsuit was filed under the name of CAIR which doesn’t legally exist, then the lawsuit should be dismissed, right? CAIR changed its name because of the unindicted co-conspirator association with HLF.

I have found from an email alert from WorldNetDaily (WND) that Judge Kollar-Kotelly has denied CAIR’s lawsuit err … Legal Jihad as moot.

Here is the WND news e-alert concerning the dismissal:

JRH 2/15/10
**********************************
‘Denied as Moot’
Federal judge upholds First Amendment, denies CAIR's attempts to legally intimidate, impoverish investigators who exposed its entrenched terror ties.

WorldNetDaily E-News Alert
Sent: February 15, 2010 12:18 PM


WASHINGTON) Feb. 15, 2010 -- A federal judge dismissed the Council on American-Islamic Relations' latest legal maneuver to re-file a lawsuit against the father-and-son team that investigated and documented the group's far-reaching links to terrorist networks.

Defense attorneys hailed the decision as a victory for the First Amendment in thwarting CAIR's alleged plan to "chill" free speech critical of the organization through an avalanche of court cases and legal costs.

After numerous briefings and counter-briefings that proved very costly to the defense of Air Force special agent P. David Gaubatz and his son Chris Gaubatz, who infiltrated CAIR as an intern and recovered thousands of damning documents, the organization's latest lawsuit intend to start the process all over again.

"But the new lawsuit didn't have anything substantively new," said Daniel Horowitz, one of the three lawyers for the defense. "And yet, that's their whole goal. They know they can't win the case, but they can chill the First Amendment by making it so expensive to speak against them that no one can challenge Saudi-funded CAIR. In the end, they can just keep getting more and more money from overseas and burn out opposition with lawsuits."

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia “denied as moot" CAIR's request to re-file the case.

According to the judge's decision, CAIR now has until March 1 to re-file "an appropriate motion for leave to amend."

"In terms of the First Amendment, it's a powerful ruling," Horowitz continued, "because it recognizes that by chilling free speech, you undermine it, even if you lose the case in the end. CAIR was trying to exploit that to the max, and the judge said no."


To interview attorneys Martin Garbus and Dan Horowitz or publisher Joseph Farah or obtain a review copy of Muslim Mafia, contact Maria Sliwa at (973) 272-2861 or (212) 202-4453 or media@wnd.com.

Posing as a young Muslim convert, in 2008 Chris Gaubatz served a six-month CAIR internship. Though told to shred certain documents, he instead retained them, providing key evidence for the book Muslim Mafia, published last fall by WND Books.

CAIR originally accused Chris Gaubatz of obtaining its property under false pretenses. But Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com CEO and publisher of Muslim Mafia, however, asserted the material was legally obtained by Gaubatz, who had been asked by CAIR officials "to shred documents he believed might be criminal evidence … and involve matters of national security."

Furthermore, Horowitz argues, the documents were returned—and subpoenaed by the FBI to go before a federal grand jury.

Most tellingly, CAIR never disputed the book's claim that the self-described Muslim civil-rights group is a front in a conspiracy by the Egypt-based mother organization of leading worldwide terrorist groups, the Muslim Brotherhood, to pave the way for Saudi-style Islamic law in the U.S.

Horowitz noted to WND that normally, if a party believes a book is deliberately false, it will sue for defamation. In yet another blow, Horowitz argued that CAIR has no claim because it does not legally exist. The group changed its name to the Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network almost immediately after it was named by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-finance case in U.S. history.

"Now CAIR will have to either try to explain to the court why it used a fake name to start the case, and show it was honest mistake," Horowitz continued, "or they will have to try to argue that the new lawsuit is somehow different from the old lawsuit, which I don't think it is."

To interview attorneys Martin Garbus and Dan Horowitz or publisher Joseph Farah or obtain a review copy of Muslim Mafia, contact Maria Sliwa at (973) 272-2861 or (212) 202-4453 or media@wnd.com.


Some key smoking-gun revelations detailed in Muslim Mafia include:

    • CAIR is more closely tied to al-Qaida than previously reported;

    • CAIR and its sister fronts are funded by foreign Muslim Brotherhood sources;

    • The Muslim Brotherhood investment in corporate America will be used to pressure U.S. companies into compliance with Islamic principles.

_______________________
CAIR Lawsuit against Gaubatzes is DENIED as Moot
John R. Houk
© February 15, 2010
_________________________________

‘Denied as Moot’
WorldNetDaily 2020 Pennsylvania Ave NW, #351 Washington, DC 20006

Copyright 1997-2010 WorldNetDaily.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

In the Forest of Eden



I have just finished reading a very compelling essay from Norma Zager. Zager is associated with Ari Bussel with Post Cards From Israel. The Post Cards website publishes essays of Jewish insight of thoughts about Israel and Judaism. I get the impression (I could be wrong) that Bussel and Zager have a Liberal Jewish mindset which slants to the center. The implication being they are not Orthodox Jews but either Conservative or Reform Judaism. I don’t know I am just guessing from their writing.

They submit essay to SlantRight often. Some are awesome and some simply do not fit here at a Christian Right (somewhat Neoconservative) blog.

The Zager essay entitled, In the Forest of Eden embraces the topic of Israeli survival in the midst of Jewish hatred shot from Muslims, a humanistic Leftist West (including America) and ironically self-loathing Liberal American Jews.

There is one more thing in Zager’s essay one doesn’t read in Jewish political writings very often. She honors and welcomes the support of American Evangelical Christians (notably the Christian Right) for the cause of Israeli existence.

JRH 2/14/2010