DONATE

Monday, May 31, 2010

Israel Fights Islamic Terrorists in the High Seas



Global Islamophiles of Terrorism Vilify Israel
John R. Houk
© May 31, 2010



The world condemns Israel for engaging with terrorists on a flotilla described as bringing in supplies to Gaza. Because of the nature of who actually administers the Gaza Strip, there is good reason to make sure supplies move to Gazastan through verifiable sources.

Gaza is administered by the blood lust Islamic terrorists of Hamas. It is Hamas who refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist and calls for Israel’s complete destruction and the death of Jews. When the IDF began the attempt to stop the six ship flotilla which had actual terrorists aboard, the flotilla initiated an attack on the intercepting blockading IDF.

Israel enforced its naval blockade of Gaza Monday, in a raid that resulted in at least fifteen dead. Terrorist leader Sheikh Raed Salah of the radical group Islamic Movement was reportedly among those injured in the attack. The attack has drawn criticism from a variety of terrorist organizations including Hezbollah and al Qaida. The United Nations and other international groups holding anti-Israeli sympathies also condemned the action. Israel defends its action saying that it was acting in self defense and only the flotilla's organizers are responsible for its outcome. (Read More at Helium)


So check this out! Hamas wants to destroy Israel. Hamas has launched missiles on Israeli cities that only ended when Israel acted against international opinion and invaded Gazastan to end the Islamic terrorist barrage of missiles. By the way incredulously the U.N. sponsored Goldstone Report labeled Israel the aggressive and guilty of war crimes. Did Hamas cause war crimes by launching missiles and by defending their wicked self by utilizing human shields (sometimes staged deceased Arabs)?

Global Anti-Semitism arose immediately blaming and vilifying Israel for “Palestinian” collateral damage. My God NATO member Turkey had the temerity to vilify Israel when there was a Turkish connection to the Islamic terrorists of the flotilla.

Frequent contributor Ari Bussel was so incensed by the global vilification of Israel and the glorification Islamic terrorists as victims he sent SlantRight.com to posts venting his displeasure. (Go to the end of this post and you can read Bussel’s two essays in their entirety.)

JRH 5/31/10

Kafir Activism Against Islam



John R. Houk
© May 31, 2010


1683 AD is a reference date to when King Jan III Sobieski became the catalyst that ended the Islamic Ottoman Empire siege of Vienna by completely routing the Ottoman forces.

A fellow has adopted the 1683 AD nom de guerre on Facebook to write about activist principles that go to the next level of educating non-Muslims. The next level is activism. This is an activism that is nearly as confrontational as radical Muslims who take to the streets with placards that say such things as “death to democracy,” “Islam will dominate,” “Sharia Law will Prevail,” “Death to those who insult Islam” and so on with the hate speech of Muslims defended as multicultural Free Speech.

After a Google search I discovered the non-Facebook blog location 1683 AD.

I am uncertain but I believe the Facebook version is not an automatic. I believe one has to have approval to read the 1683 AD Facebook posts, but again I am uncertain of this information.

Here is the thing about 1683 AD. The author Michael Anderson (could be a pseudonym) appears to be British. His writing aims at activism in the United Kingdom. Some of the globe’s worst radical Islamists reside in the UK. Free Speech is a benefit that Radical Islam more than takes advantage of. Mullahs and Clerics harangue some of the most vile hate speech in Britain (all of Europe for that matter) and get away with it. If a non-Muslim (aka kufr) even writes or speaks reasonable criticism about Islam, British hate-speech laws (also EU) make the non-Muslim a criminal for inciting Muslims with – ahem – hate speech.

Both Christianity and Islam have written that in the End Times unbelievers will face doom under the judgment of the Creator (God – Christianity and Allah –Islam). There is a difference in outlooks between Christianity and Islamic writings of the Last Days. It is prophesied Christians will go through a period of horrific mistreatment (mid-trib and post-trib) that will include catastrophic natural disasters and pandemic illnesses. Only the faithful and the Christian converts who endure will be rescued by the Second Coming of Jesus Christ who comes with an army of Saints and Angels for a smack-down battle with Satan, the Anti-Christ and the False Prophet AND their deceived followers.

Islam pretty much has a similar Last Days massacre (Sunni vs. Shia) of non-believers (kafir) except the blood and guts does not wait until the Last Days. It is (lesser) Jihad from the day of Mohammed until the culmination of the version of the Islamic Last Days. This Jihad was the method of the military success (cancer) of early Islam spreading the theopolitical religion from Asia to Europe.

The real reform minded Muslims are what the West has called radical Islam who wishes a restoration to the days of Mohammed and Islamic expansion to bring in a final push to globalize Islam.

The array of different Confessions of Christianity, atheists, Human Secularists, Leftists, Conservatives and whatever ideology/theology must wake up to this agenda of the world’s actual reform minded Muslims. Muslims look down on anything non-Muslim as kufr and worthy subjection or death depending on how it affects Islam in dar al-harb or dar al-Islam.

As time has progressed away from September 11, 2001 the radical reform theopolitical agenda has gained favor with those who been termed as moderate Muslims. A majority of Muslims may be termed moderate; however that majority is shrinking everyday as Muslims realize that terrorism has literally transformed the socio-economic life of the West. The Old World West and the Indian Sub-Continent faced having to adjust their way of life during the cancerous early invasions of Islam. This age needs our version of Charles Martel and Jan III Sobieski to eschew political correctness and confront the emerging tide of radical Islam even if it hurts a few “Moderate” Muslims feelings.

With that thought in mind read Michael Anderson’s version of anti-Islamism (This link will take you SlantRight.com. Go to the end of my post and you will find the Anderson post.) - perhaps anti-Islam - activism which is sure to get him in a bit legal trouble someday in Merry Ole England.

JRH 5/31/10


Friday, May 28, 2010

Will Israel Survive?



John R. Houk
© May 28, 2010


Here are some interesting thoughts from Professor Paul Eidelberg. Eiddelberg’s essay is somewhat gloomy from a Jewish Patriot’s perspective.

Eidelberg is unhappy with over a quarter century of Israeli Prime Ministers who fell for the Western pressure that giving land to Arabs and calling it Palestine would bring peace to the Middle East. The reality is the land reacquired in defensive wars in which Muslim States attempted to exterminate Israel serves two purposes:

    1. Extra land acquired by Israel is a buffer for renewed growing militant Muslim hatred for Jews and Israel. The hatred surrounds Israel. Southwest of Israel is Hamas. East of Israel is the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) that has duped the West into believing a Western created Palestinian Authority (PA) can be the foundation for a peaceful sovereign Palestine. North of Israel is the dualistic nation of Lebanon who is neighbored by Syria. The controlling force in Lebanon has become the State within a State Islamic terrorist organization known as Hezbollah. Then there is the rogue nation Syria. It seems that Syria is in a continuous state of Alert either threatening war against Israel or believing a fed up Israel will invade them. All the Islamic terrorist organizations and Syria are clients and receptors of money and weaponry from Iran. The PLO/PA goes out of its way to deny an Iranian connection but I have no doubts that clandestine aid and agreements exist with Iran.

    2. The second purpose is obvious. The Land is a Jewish heritage which has been usurped by conquering for a couple of millennia. Arabs that call themselves Palestinians have never existed as a sovereign entity. The existence of Muslims (and Christians for that matter – and I am one) is the result of foreign military expeditions that went bad for the Jews.


Assyrians, Babylonians, Persian (Iranians), Greeks, Romans (who enforced the last Jewish Diaspora. As Romans became Christian the Land became a Christian majority), Muslims, Crusading Christians and then Muslims again all usurped Land that was Jewish. After the conquests the occasional leniency was demonstrated to Jews in their own Land. Throughout the conquests a remnant of Jews have always remained in their Land and on several occasions Jews have been repatriated to their Land. Modern Israel is the latest repatriation.

Israel’s blinded leaders are succumbing to Western pressure perhaps believing America and Western powers will secure, protect and defend Israel’s existence when Jew-hating Muslims feel enough advantage to be comfortable to make yet another life threatening invasion of Israel.

Geopolitics of the West has not been commendable in recent years. Is Israel alone in insuring the Jewish State’s existence?

JRH 5/28/10

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Hate Anti-Leftists Syndrome by the MSM



John R. Houk
© May 27, 2010


Republican candidate Rand Paul had originally gained some notoriety by being the son of Libertarian-Republican Ron Paul and the winner of a Kentucky Senate primary race against who many in the media has described as the “establishment” Republican. I am guessing “establishment” means among other things the candidate favored to win.

Rand Paul’s victory has awakened the Leftist MSM Hate Anti-Leftists Syndrome (HALS). In 2008 Republican Vice President Candidate Sarah Palin became the target of HALS. Palin was misquoted and her words twisted and her family placed under a microscope to find any minuscule tidbit of information that could be transmuted into political dirt.



Rand Paul was manipulated into using words of honesty about the Civil Rights Movement to be twisted into the Leftist accusation of racist bigot. (I found this on YouTube. The early part is what became troublesome for Paul. The latter part is primarily a Vlog analysis.)

Paul’s politics is more Libertarian than Conservative. Thus Paul’s emphasis on individual rights of choice of what happens on one’s own property is more valuable than the potential for discrimination based on race, creed and gender. Paul emphasized the non-proprietary elements of the Civil Rights Movement were essential to battling race discrimination that was primarily aimed at Blacks (or African-Americans, whichever is the politically correct of the age). For Libertarians the inalienable right is the thought that free association overrides social imperatives of the Civil Rights law.

Here is the best explanation I have found of the Libertarian concept of Freedom:

“…The essence of the libertarian philosophy is that each person owns him- or herself and whatever belongings he or she honestly acquires. Thus individuals are due freedom of association and, logically, non-association. It also follows that the owner of property should be free to set the rules of use, the only constraint being that the owner may not use aggressive force against others." (Sheldon Richman)


I have to admit I just now viewed Leftist Rachel Maddow’s Leftist setup that will lead to HALS on Rand Paul. It is her interview that is causing Conservatives to rally behind Paul. Slanted Left Crooks and Liars posted the entire 19 minute interview on their website. The Crooks and Liars video is follow by quite the congratulatory post by Nicole Belle praising Maddow and dissing Rand Paul. Belle accuses Paul of not answering Maddow’s questions as if Paul was going to give her yes and no answers such as would occur on the stand in the Court of Law. Fortunately he was able to answer Maddow’s questions to prevent the yes and no questions that could have been twisted more than his actual answers have been.



Now that I have done my bit to point out the Leftist MSM is on a witch hunt to discredit the reputation of GOP candidates running for Office in 2010, let me say that I do think Rand Paul’s stand is as utopian as a Leftist’s stand to establish a collective utopia of ending wealth and entrepreneurship for the so-called greater of good of humanity.

There is no way that racial discrimination would have been dissolved to the point it has up to this point in time if private businesses operating public services could prevent services on the basis of race, religion or national origin. Paul assumes that humanity is inherently good and will the morally correct thing in the preserving of First Amendment rights that presume private ownership has the absolute freedom of choice on who to provide service to or not.

Paul is correct that proprietary ownership provides the freedom of choice BUT if the choice involves offering general public service then the entire public should be allowed the opportunity to check out that service within the limits of the law. (Armed persons and drug black market individuals are an example of being discriminatory against according to the law.) However if the service is of the nature of a private club that accepts members based on say wealth, low income community associations, ethnicity, gender, politics and so on; then I have to agree with Paul.

Paul’s Civil Rights stand is a purist Libertarian interpretation which would not work in America or anywhere. From Hot Air I found this quote from Rand Paul that clarifies his current politics:

A political firestorm has followed Paul since last week, when he expressed misgivings about portions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He suggested to MSNBC host Rachel Maddow that the federal government shouldn’t have the authority to force restaurant owners to serve minorities if they don’t want to.

“I think they’ve used it as an issue to try to make me into something that I’m not,” Paul, an ophthalmologist, told a friendly hometown audience at a Bowling Green civic club. “I was raised in a family that said that you judge people the same way Martin Luther King said, you judge people by their character not by the color of their skin.”

Since last week Paul has been reassessing his campaign staff. He said he expects there will be staff changes, though he declined to give details. He won the GOP nomination last week with a campaign staff made up largely of political novices and volunteers. …

Campaign manager David Adams, who had been a Republican blogger in Nicholasville before joining up, will remain but perhaps in a different role, Paul said.

Paul, who ran as a political outsider, also said he has made amends with the Republican establishment. He said he has had cordial discussions with National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky’s senior senator.


It is evident Rand Paul’s campaign is going to be revamped in order to prepare for Leftist political IED’s by the Mainstream Media (MSM).

Well that’s my two-cents. Check out the wit of Ann Coulter as she points the hypocrisy of the Democrats about the Civil Rights Act and accusing Republicans with racism to suck-up the votes of African-Americans (and for that matter Hispanics).

JRH 5/27/10

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Gingrich Calls Obama Machine Corrupt



John R. Houk
© May 26, 2010


Newt Gingrich is getting aggressive politically to paint a picture that President Barack Hussein Obama is America’s Socialist Chicago-like political machine. Most Conservatives have understood that BHO is a Left Wing Socialist. Newt goes to the next level by using the word “Machine”. Newt defines “Machine” as:

“…the building of a machine that uses dishonesty, corruption, intimidation, and government power to make itself stronger so it can steamroll over the will of the American people.”


These are the fighting words of a man (that must be) considering to run for President of the USA. Newt can hardly be pooh-poohed by Leftists as the ranting of an extreme Right Winger. Newt is a Republican that is indeed considered Conservative yet with the credentials of a D.C. Republican establishment politician. In Newt’s case that means he is pretty much a Conservative but has been willing to compromise Conservative ideals to build a coalition of support for legislation. Some define that as statesmanship. Others define that as an undependable Conservative willing to negotiate away Republican/Conservative principles to achieve most or an essential piece of legislation.

Personally I like Newt as I do others as a potential Presidential candidate in 2012. Time will tell which Republican is willing to figuratively slap the Obama agenda the best to take down America’s most Leftist Administration in years. It looks like Newt is taking some shots at BHO’s charismatic Teflon coat to expose the ugly rust underneath.

Below is a cross post of Newt’s latest essay which also publicizes his new book written about the Obama “Machine”. I will follow this with a Newt email that is specifically designed to promote “To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine.” Newt’s email has a link with a short excerpt to a video interview which gives a verbal snapshot of his contempt of the Left.

JRH 5/26/10

GOP Candidate Barber Takes a Stand AGAINST 9/11 Mosque



John R. Houk
© May 26, 2010


I have been enlightened to the existence of a Republican Tea Party candidate for Congress in the 2nd District in Alabama. The Alabama candidate is Rick Barber. As part of his local campaign in Alabama D-2 he has placed an ad that demonstrates his contempt for Islam’s war against America. Ben’s blog alerted me to Rick Barber and has written that the YouTube version of the TV ad should go viral on the Internet.



I watched the video and I agree with Ben. Barber demonstrates an excellent though politically incorrect understanding that the effect theopolitical Islam will have on America. That effect is not conducive to the United States Constitution. This is probably one reason Islamists call America “Great Satan”. American Liberty and Islamic Supremacism cannot exist on the same political plain in a peaceful manner.

American-Islamic groups that have a close affiliation to the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood are a transnational radical Islamic group that provides the Muslim intellectual fodder for Islamic terrorists who have grasped with a firm hand of violent determination. These American-Islamic groups tied to the Muslim Brotherhood in reality are terrorist front groups who have subversively established themselves on American soil. Whenever a public denunciation of Islamic terrorism proceeds from Muslim Brotherhood tied groups it is a moment of deception. The denunciation is measured to suck in America’s obsessive politically correct (which includes Left and Right yet more overtly Left) while simultaneously teaching anti-American theopolitical Islam to their fellow Muslims.

Rick Barber has produced this insight to denounce radical Islam and the building of a Muslim Mosque contiguous to the 9/11 Islamic terrorist destruction of the Twin Towers and several thousand innocent American lives.

This is me agreeing with Ben that Barber’s roughly one minute ad should go viral across America.

Here is the thing though. Barber is one of about four Republicans running for the nomination to face the Democratic Party incumbent in November 2010. Although Barber has received Tea Party support (as he is also involved) the articles I have read show Barber behind front runner Martha Roby. Indeed Roby appears to be more concerned about Stephanie Bell than Rick Barber. Check out a blogger analysis from someone residing in Alabama District-2. It is apparent that Barber has not received the Tea Party exposure that Republican candidate Sharron Angle of Nevada has received. Angle has jumped from a near unknown to passing the early GOP favorite Sue Lowden in the Nevada polls. I don’t live in Alabama, but if I did I would vote for Rick Barber.

JRH 5/26/10

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

How Islamists Came to Dominate European Islam



Daniel Pipes writes in an essay of how Europe and America facilitated the existence of radical Islam and its evolution in Europe.

It is not surprising that Adolf Hitler’s Nazi German regime had a hand in the rise of radical Islam. The unfortunate truth is that America and Britain (and I am guessing other West European nations) also had a hand in entrenching radical Islam (Okay I know, the link is to a Conspiracy Theory website; nevertheless the page is well cited with sources.) that is now spreading like wild fire in Europe. This past facilitation could infect America as well. The lessons of historical mistakes are ignored in the name of Left Wing thinking of Multicultural Diversity. The same problems of radical Muslims in Europe WILL HAPPEN here in America. The foot hold has already happened with the American Left defending radical American-Islamic groups such as CAIR and their ilk.

Read the Pipes article to know how to protest to your Congressman with facts to back you up head off the typical accusation, “You are an Islamophobic racist.”

JRH 5/25/10
**************************************
How Islamists Came to Dominate European Islam

By Daniel Pipes
Originally National Review Online
May 25, 2010
Middle East Forum


The 7/7 bombings in London, in which Islamists killed 52 and injured 700, prompted British authorities to work with Muslims to avoid future violence.

However, rather than turn to anti-Islamist Muslims who reject the triumphalist goal of applying Islamic law in Europe, they promoted non-violent Islamists, hoping these would persuade coreligionists to express their hatred of the West in lawful ways. This effort featured Tariq Ramadan (b. 1962), a prominent Islamist intellectual. For example, London's Metropolitan Police partially funded a conference Ramadan addressed and Prime Minister Tony Blair appointed him to an official "working group on tackling extremism."

Deploying an Islamist may have seemed like a original and clever idea but it was neither. Western governments have been allying without success with Islamists for decades. Indeed, they have been allying with Ramadan's own family.

In 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower hosted a group of foreign Muslims that included Said Ramadan (1926-95), a leader of arguably the most influential Islamist organization of the twentieth century, the rabidly anti-West Muslim Brotherhood – and also Tariq's father. The Eisenhower-Ramadan meeting took place in the context of sustained U.S. government efforts to rally Muslims against Soviet communism, in part by putting Said Ramadan on the CIA payroll. Talcott Seelye, an American diplomat who met with him about that time explains: "We thought of Islam as a counterweight to communism."

Then there was Hasan al-Banna (1906-49), Tariq's grandfather, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and recipient of Nazi funding, American diplomats in Cairo in the late 1940s had "regular meetings" with al-Banna, found him "perfectly empathetic," and perceived his organization to be a "moderate" and even a "positive" force. The British apparently offered al-Banna money.

In other words, Western governments have a history of ignoring the Islamists' repulsive ideology and working with them, even strengthening them.

In a stunning piece of investigative historical research, Ian Johnson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist formerly with the Wall Street Journal, reveals new twists and turns of this drama in his just-released book, A Mosque in Munich: Nazis, the CIA, and the Rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the West (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, $27).

Johnson opens with a review of the systematic Nazi efforts to recruit Soviet Muslims from among their prisoners of war. Many Muslims loathed Stalin; and between 150,000 and 300,000 of them fought for the Axis in World War II. In other words, over and above their unfulfilled propaganda effort directed at Arabs, the Nazis actually fielded a substantial force of mainly Turkic Muslims under the leadership of a scholarly Nazi enthusiast named Gerhard von Mende.

After the German defeat in 1945, Johnson follows von Mende as he continued his anti-communist work with ex-Soviet Muslims, now in a Cold War context. But his network of former soldiers proved not very competent at the task of arousing Muslim hostility against the Soviet Union. Their leading intellectual, for example, had served as the imam of an SS division that helped suppress the Warsaw uprising of 1944. Islamists quickly proved themselves far more competent at this political and religious challenge. Johnson explains that they "wear suits, have university degrees, and can formulate their demands in ways that a politician can understand."

The heart of his fascinating study lies in tracing the evolution, much of it in Munich, from old soldiers to new Islamists. It's a classic tale of 1950s intrigue, complete with rehabilitated Nazis, CIA-front organizations, and dueling Soviet-American ambitions.

Johnson shows how, without anyone quite planning it, the Americans usurped von Mende's network and handed it over to Said Ramadan. This early U.S. boost to the Muslim Brotherhood, Johnson argues, gave it the means to establish an Islamist framework just in time to welcome the surge of Muslim immigration to Europe in the 1970s.

Thus did the Islamist domination of European Muslims have two hidden facilitators, Nazi and American. Its origins in Operation Barbarossa reveals the ugly pedigree of today's Islamist strength. Hitler and his thugs could not have foreseen it, but they helped set the stage for Eurabia.

American backing for Islamists prompts Johnson to warn against the futility of allying with the Muslim Brotherhood and its ilk – as Tony Blair once again recently attempted. However tempting, it invariably harms the West. The lesson is simple: be cognizant of history and do not assist the Islamists.

May 25, 2010 updates: (1) The published book lacks photographs to help bring its leading characters come to life. Fortunately, these are available on Ian Johnson's website. I reproduced some of them above.

(2) Coincidentally, I spent the summer of 1953 at the age of three in Munich, just as that city was emerging as a center of Islamic activism, precisely because of the major presence of ex-Soviet Muslims living there. An excerpt from my father's autobiography, Richard Pipes, Vixi: Memoirs of a Non-Belonger (Yale University Press, 2003), p. 74 explains why he took the family to Munich:

At the end of May 1951, with financial assistance from the Center of International Affairs at MIT, Irene and I left Daniel with our parents and went on a four-month trip to Europe and the Middle East. My purpose was to interview the surviving members of national governments of what had been the Russian Empire during the period 1917-21. I located quite a few of them in London, Paris, Munich and Istanbul, and they helped me appreciably to understand the complex situations of that era. In Paris I established contact with the Georgian émigré community. Two years later, I spent another summer in Europe, this time in Munich, interviewing refugees from Soviet Central Asia, nearly all of them ex-German prisoners of war. The information they furnished on life in their regions in the 1930s reinforced my conviction that nationalism was well and alive in the borderlands of the USSR and that no mass assimilation was taking place.



His research that summer provided the basis of his article, "Muslims of Soviet Central Asia: Trends and Prospects," The Middle East Journal, Spring, 1955, pp. 147-162 and Summer, 1955, pp. 295-308.

_____________________________
Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
©1994-2010 The Middle East Forum
This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Bussel: The Scroll of Ruth



Ari Bussel finds a type of Aliyah for the Jewish Diaspora in the Book of Ruth. Without mentioning the name of Jesus Bussel writes that from the marriage of Ruth (Moabite by birth) and Boaz (Jewish) the Prophet/King David descended and from David descends the Messiah. Bussel does not use the name Jesus for the Jewish expectation of the Messiah. As a Believer in Christ Jesus, I take the stand the Messiah has already come. Jesus as the Son of Man (i.e. His human essence is through Mary) and thus a descendant of David. Jesus is also the Son of God (i.e. His Godly essence was incarnated from Father God without Divine attributes prior Resurrection and restored Divine attributes after Resurrection). When Jesus returns in the Parousia, His Second Coming will restore Jews completely to the Land of Israel and all Believers will have the temporary corporeal exchanged for the immortal incorporeal. This will be a transformation that extends beyond Redemption of the human spirit to the full Redemption of spirit, soul and body (Once Saved Always Saved version, Word of Faith version and Mainstream Christianity version). Amen. (I’m a Christian so I need to stipulate I am not trying to be offensive to Jews of whom I still regard as God’s Chosen People.)

Bussel correctly points out that the Land of Israel is the haven for Jews who desire to be free from the hatred of Anti-Semitism. It is unfortunate that modern Israel is only a haven and not a place that is free from external Anti-Semitic hatred. Israel’s Muslim neighbors bombard their populations with an indoctrination that Israel and all Jews are evil and that Islam must eradicate Jews from the face of the earth. This is particularly the case of the Arab-Muslims residing in the Jewish land of heritage of Judea and Samaria (so-called West Bank) and Gaza. I am talking about the Arab-Muslims who desire to call themselves Palestinians even though there is NO historical record of Muslim Palestinians specifically connected to the land.

JRH 5/24/10

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Could Greece Fracture the Efficacy of the EU?



John R. Houk
© May 23, 2010


Not too long ago the European Union appeared to be a bastion of economic strength with the Euro that soared even over the American Dollar in value. Now Greece goes through population unrest in which you could also a rioting. Over what is the Greek unrest? Is the Greek unrest over big government and too many social programs? Is the Greek unrest over an intrusive large government bureaucracy? Is the Greek unrest over placing security in a plain higher than civil liberties? If the answer was yes to all of the above it might sound like the American Tea Party Movement. The answer though is no.

Greek unrest is over the Greek government realizing it has gotten in over its head in entitlements and social programs. Just for clarity, the anger is not because entitlements and social programs are too large. Nay my friends, the Greek anger is because the Greek government has realized it does not have the financial resources to keep those entitlements and social programs solvent. The Greeks are rioting because the Greek government is scaling back on entitlements and social programs that would otherwise bankrupt the Greek government.

The fracture in the EU caused by the near insolvency of Greece brings into question the socio-political-economic unity of this confederation of independent nations who have sought a unified front in the global scheme of geopolitics.

JRH 5/23/10

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Donna Milo for Congress?!

“Donna Milo” is running as a Republican candidate for Representative in the State of Florida. I watched a video in which Milo states standard Conservative Republicans principles including being pro-Israel and pro-Arizona law on illegal immigration.



RED ALERT! Milo is a transgender as in man transformed to woman – NASTY!

JRH 5/22/10 (Hat Tip: Solid Snake)

Friday, May 21, 2010

Pakistan: Muslims Persecute Hector Aleem for being Christian



John R. Houk
© May 21, 2010


Who is Hector Aleem? Hector is a Christian involved in human rights issues in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. One day a Muslim Cleric claimed he received an anonymous text message which in the Cleric’s estimation insulted his psychopathic insidious Prophet that we know as Mohammed. Whether the text message was a stage event in order to blame something on a Church to ensure its destruction or a prank by a Muslim or a Christian not pleased with the Muslim Cleric is not determined. The only thing that Pakistan authorities have determined is that Hector DID NOT send the text. In the Islamic way of the so-called religion of peace it was apparent someone had to pay for the text. Thus Hector was originally charged with Blasphemy in Pakistan – a capital offense in enlightened Islam. (A Western Muslim defining the Islamic penalty for Blasphemy and Apostasy)

When it was proved the text message was not from Hector, the Blasphemy charge was dropped. BUT the vendetta to blame a Christian and undoubtedly to destroy the Christian, the Muslim authorities thought of another charge against Hector. The charge is “abetting Blasphemy.” Now if Hector is innocent of Blasphemy under the crazy Islamic law, what in the world kind of dreamed connection is being imagined for Hector abetting Blasphemy against Islam?

Here’s the rundown from Compass Direct News 2/5/09 of how Hector of the Christian faith began receiving persecution from intolerant Islam in Pakistan:

More than 100 protestors last week surrounded a Pakistani courthouse and chanted death threats against a Punjabi Christian said to be framed for sending a “blasphemous” text message on his cell phone.

Rawalpindi police arrested Hector Aleem, 51, on Jan. 22 and detained him on charges of sending a text message that insulted the Islamic prophet Muhammad. At his Jan. 27 hearing at the Rawalpindi Sessions Court, crowds gathered and began shouting death threats.

His attorney, Malik Tafik, told Compass that a local man allegedly framed Aleem for the charges because Aleem has made legal challenges on behalf of Christians involved in a land dispute. Aleem directs a small agency that often defends the rights of Christians.

Last November, a scholar associated with the national Islamist political movement Sunni Tehreek received a text message claiming to have come from Aleem. The religious scholar registered blasphemy charges against Aleem on Nov. 28 at the Rawalpindi police station.

Police raided Aleem’s house at 1:30 a.m. on Jan. 22 and assaulted him, his wife, and his two daughters. They also stole 50,000 Pakistan rupees (US$630) worth of valuables and broke pictures of Jesus hanging on their walls, according to a report from the Center for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS).

Authorities charged him with violating sections 295c (blasphemy) and 109bb (abetting) of the Pakistani criminal code. Aleem was transferred to a Rawalpindi anti-terrorism court for a second hearing on Jan. 30, where an even larger crowd of protestors gathered shouting that his life would not be spared. Many of those who came to protest were associated with Sunni Tehreek, which has been involved in violent sectarian clashes with other Islamist movements in the last decade.

“There were about 150 people protesting that Aleem should be handed over to them,” Tafik said. “And there were many journalists, two news stations, and lawyers who came out to protest against him.”



At a hearing at an anti-terrorism court on Monday (Feb. 2), Judge Sakhi Mohammad Kohut exonerated him of blasphemy charges but did not clear him of abetting. A government official told Compass that the judge’s decision was heavily influenced by Islamic extremists attending the open court hearing who told the judge, “If you release [Aleem], then we will kill him outside.”

At the hearing, the judge implicated the man who allegedly framed Aleem – Bashar Kokar, previously charged multiple times with fraud – accusing him of using his cell phone to send a blasphemous message against Muhammad. Kokar was charged with blasphemy and arrested later that day. But court evidence shows the original text message came from an unregistered mobile number that pertained to neither Kokar nor Aleem, sources said – exonerating Aleem, but also making it difficult to prove that Kokar framed him. Khushdil Khan Malik, deputy secretary of Pakistan’s Ministry of Human Rights, said he believes the judge implicated Kokar as a scapegoat for the blasphemy charges in order to appease the extremists.



Read more to discover the human rights assault by Islam in Pakistan


After providing this background on Hector Aleem, Ben’s Blog has an update on this persecuted Christian.

JRH 5/21/10

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Is Honeywell Selling Out the USA to Profit Its Shareholders?



John R. Houk
© May 20, 2010


I received an interesting email from United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) that was sent as a press release. The press release is an exposé of Honeywell International Inc. Honeywell is an American largest private military contractor. Honeywell is involved in making products for America’s nuclear weapons system.

It is understandable that UANI want to alert Americans that Honeywell is doing business in emerging nuclear weapons power Iran. Could Honeywell in the name of profits leak missile and armed nuclear weapons information to Iran?

Here is the rub about Honeywell and Iran. As an American Company the law prohibits Honeywell to do business directly with Iran. So how does Honeywell get away with doing business with Iran? Honeywell is a multinational corporation based in America. Companies owned by Honeywell but registered in another nation evidently are immune to the American law relating to NOT doing business with Iran. Hence Honeywell British subsidiary (UOP LLC) contracted with Iran to build an oil refinery that produces gasoline. According to a Bloomberg report on the UANI campaign against Honeywell, UOP LLC is also supplying security equipment to Iran. In case you have not kept up, one of the options to rein in Iran’s nuclear program is to prevent gasoline from reaching Iran. Iran is one of the world’s largest oil producers yet the psycho-Islamic Shi’ite nation does not have enough oil refineries to produce the demand of gasoline Iran would need to supply itself.

Go get Honeywell UANI. Below is the UANI press release explaining its position on Honeywell.

JRH 5/20/10
***********************************
UANI Calls on the Pentagon to Debar Honeywell from U.S. Government Contracts

Press Release by: Kimmie Lipscomb
Sent: May 20, 2010 10:30:57 AM
Sent by: UANI


New York, NY - United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) on Tuesday called on the Pentagon and the U.S. Government to debar Honeywell from all U.S. government contracts. Honeywell does more business with the U.S. Government than any other company that is active in Iran. In 2009 alone, Honeywell's contracts with the U.S. Department of Defense totaled $3.45 billion, comprising over 80% of its total contracts with the U.S. Government. UANI President, Ambassador Mark D. Wallace sent letters to Secretary Gates and to the head of the General Services Administration, Martha Johnson (The UANI Link appears to need a password. In not knowing the content of the link HERE is a GSA link about Martha Johnson) calling for the debarment of Honeywell.


In a letter to Secretary Gates, UANI President, Ambassador Mark D. Wallace wrote:


It is inappropriate for a key U.S. defense contractor to work in Iran and on such strategically important projects. It is inappropriate for U.S. taxpayer dollars to be paid to a company that does such work in Iran. UANI calls on the Defense Department to debar Honeywell from contracting with the Pentagon, unless and until it ends its business in Iran.

****

Given the major role of Honeywell's products and services in Iran, it is clear that the IRGC is likely a major beneficiary of Honeywell's business in Iran. Yet Honeywell very comfortably does business in Iran.

****

Both the House and Senate recently passed the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA), which seeks to restrict Iran's import of gasoline. Because of Iran's lack of refining capacity, Iran must import much of its gasoline. The U.S. Congress saw this as an opportunity to protect U.S. national security by adopting meaningful sanctions against Iran. Honeywell's work in Iran enhances Iran's ability to refine its own oil, and directly undermines this bipartisan Congressional effort.

****

Even given the current economic downturn, Honeywell, a top Fortune 500 company, boasted profits of $2.153 billion in 2009. Honeywell's CEO, David M. Cote, was rated as one of the ten highest compensated CEOs by CNN, with a total compensation package valued at $28.7 million. In February of this year, President Obama appointed Mr. Cote to the Bipartisan Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

However, companies like Honeywell that rely on U.S. taxpayer dollars have a responsibility to conduct themselves in a manner that is consistent with U.S. national security. By doing business in Iran, Honeywell has failed in that responsibility. Why should taxpayers contribute to Mr. Cote's salary when it is clear that President Ahmadinejad's IRGC thugs contribute to Mr. Cote's salary as well? The answer is clear.

****

As Secretary of Defense, you understand the dangers posed by a nuclear Iran. You have been outspoken on the importance of adopting a strategy for dealing with Iran. As part of any such strategy, the Defense Department should not contract with companies that work in Iran.


Honeywell should be debarred from U.S. government work, and that debarment should start with Honeywell's work with the Department of Defense.


Click here to read the full text of the letter to Secretary Gates.
Click here to read the full text of the letter to Administrator Johnson.
Click here to send a message to Honeywell.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
UANI Statement of Purpose in Email


United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a program of the American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran, Inc., a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran should concern every American and be unacceptable to the community of nations. Since 1979 the Iranian regime, most recently under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's leadership, has demonstrated increasingly threatening behavior and rhetoric toward the US and the West. Iran continues to defy the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations in their attempts to monitor its nuclear activities. A number of Arab states have warned that Iran's development of nuclear weapons poses a threat to Middle East stability and could provoke a regional nuclear arms race. In short, the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran is a danger to world peace.


United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) is a non-partisan, broad-based coalition that is united in a commitment to prevent Iran from fulfilling its ambition to become a regional super-power possessing nuclear weapons. UANI is an issue-based coalition in which each coalition member will have its own interests as well as the collective goal of advancing an Iran free of nuclear weapons.



The Objectives of United Against a Nuclear Iran

    1. Inform the public about the nature of the Iranian regime, including its desire and intent to possess nuclear weapons, as well as Iran's role as a state sponsor of global terrorism, and a major violator of human rights at home and abroad;

    2. Heighten awareness nationally and internationally about the danger that a nuclear armed Iran poses to the region and the world;

    3. Mobilize public support, utilize media outreach, and persuade our elected leaders to voice a robust and united American opposition to a nuclear Iran;

    4. Lay the groundwork for effective US policies in coordination with European and other allies;

    5. Persuade the regime in Tehran to desist from its quest for nuclear weapons, while striving not to punish the Iranian people, and;

    6. Promote efforts that focus on vigorous national and international, social, economic, political and diplomatic measures.


UANI is led by an advisory board of outstanding national figures representing all sectors of our country.

______________________________
Is Honeywell Selling Out the USA to Profit Its Shareholders?
John R. Houk
© May 20, 2010
____________________________
UANI Calls on the Pentagon to Debar Honeywell from U.S. Government Contracts
American Coalition Against Nuclear Iran 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York NY 10111

Intro to ‘The Remaking of America’



Intro to ‘The Remaking of America’

Below is an article from Leslie Sacks. Sacks correctly complains of burdensome taxpayer financed bureaucracy that President Barack Hussein Obama is developing by big government projects (what I would call socialism).

I read through the article saying to myself as I perused it, “Sick’em Sacks”.

Then I came towards the end and I remembered that Leslie Sacks has often described himself as a Reagan Democrat. Sacks adds a jab at social Conservatives for dropping the ball about an emerging gloomy future of America by saying:


“But in the meantime, whilst conservatives fritter away the innate advantages of capitalism by screaming about abortion, the left-leaning, psychologically-intuitive Democratic elite have taken over the universities and seconded a large portion of the media to the cause.”


As a Conservative I believe the abandonment of our nation’s morality is a huge factor to the voters looking the other way as the Socialistic Democratic Party originally used economic problems to win in 2008. Rather than using “Change” to reform the economic problems, the Dems have eroded Capitalism by their spread the wealth agenda. The economy and social issues are very interrelated. But that’s a Conservatives view.

My comment on the Sacks article has gone a little longer than I intended show view this as an introduction to “The Remaking of America”.

JRH 5/20/10

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

SCOTUS, Life Sentences and International Law



John R. Houk
© May 19, 2010


It is time for a rock and a hard place of what is right and of what is wrong.

At the age of 17 Terrance Graham was given a life sentence for breaking parole. Graham was involved in some armed robberies at age 16 in which there were no deaths. He was sentenced to one year for this. He broke parole when he was caught fleeing the scene from a non-lethal home invasion. In the adult world this would be strike two. I am guessing the seventeen year old Graham was a cocky kid at 17 for the Florida Judge threw the book at him.

Terrance Graham was 16 when he pleaded guilty to attempted robbery of a restaurant in which one of his accomplices hit the restaurant manager over the head with a steel pipe. Graham served one year in jail, then was released on probation. Six months later he was arrested fleeing the scene of an armed home invasion robbery.

The judge revoked his probation, but rejected the four-year prison sentence recommended by the Department of Corrections and instead sentenced Graham, by then 17, to life in prison without parole. "If I can't do anything to help you," said the judge, "then I have to . . . protect the community from your actions."
(NPR 11/9/09)


Graham was informed by the Judge he felt Graham was beyond help and so chose to give the kid a life sentence even though the recommended prison sentence was four years. In the brief articles I’ve read about Graham there is no indication of his actual demeanor during sentencing. Was the 17 year old contrite about his crimes? Did Graham cop an attitude that he was above the law and that he could do whatever he d**ned well pleased because he would just get out and no one could stop him?

The Left is all about the kid was a child in the eyes of the law and you would be imposing cruel and unusual punishment (EIGHTH Amendment) upon someone who does not have the maturity to comprehend the life time consequences of a crime. The Right is all about the Constitution and protection for the community at large rather than stroking a repeat offender already at the age of 17.

So what is right and what is wrong?

On a purely subjective level I have to tell you I can’t see giving a minor under the age of 18 a life sentence without any possibility of parole for a non-lethal crime. I think that tips the scale toward cruel and unusual punishment in relation to the crime committed. On the other hand if a minor committed a heinous murder I do believe considerations for either a life sentence without parole or a death sentence should be considered. Again the circumstances involved for a minor committing the crime should be weighed. Like was it a murder of spontaneous passion or a well calculated premeditated murder. Was the minor afflicted with childhood trauma in which mental health counseling did not reach the minor who turned to murder for whatever level of mental disorder – purely crazy, tired of molestation or beatings, simply a case of a delusional sociopath incapable of feeling emotion and so on. I don’t know that a death sentence should be carried out for a nut case kid who went on a heinous murder rampage. I think a life sentence with the possibility of parole based on clinical findings of counseling should be involved. Again, there should NOT be a life sentence without the possibility of parole. There should never be a life sentence without parole for a non-lethal crime for a juvenile.

Now what about the practice of States utilizing “Three Strikes” in felony convictions for a life sentence? What if the first two strikes occurred when a person was a minor?

Without knowing the law I would have to say the level of offense and the age the kid when the felony occurred should be weighed in Three Strikes cases. For the most part I highly favor the Three Strikes punishment. There is no reason for society to put up with a career criminal who commits felony after felony. Putting up with that makes society crazier than some actual nut cases.

So back to Terrance Graham: should he have been sentenced to life without parole at 17? NO!

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision indeed ruled that a life sentence without parole was an EIGHTH Amendment violation under the cruel and unusual punishment clause for a minor juvenile. I am a Conservative and I agree with that decision. This is in the right.

The part of the decision I find disturbing is the Supreme Court’s usage of extra-Constitutional Law that was considered as precedent in its ruling in favor of Graham. SCOTUS cited International Law that the U.S. has not bought into via a Senate approved Treaty. In effect SCOTUS – the Branch that exists to protect the Constitution – used case law outside of the United States based on the huge amount of Nation signatories relating to rights for children. This is scary because the rights for children agenda is a Leftist United Nations agenda designed to usurp parental guidance for their children. Again I have to reiterate that America is not a signatory of this U.N. initiative to disrupt parental prerogatives in training a child.

The Judicial Branch of American government in its supreme finality has thus created case law that can be cited in the future by Leftists who can further dilute the U.S. Constitution into a meaningless relic of yesteryear that will be esteemed and honored but not followed according to the Founding Fathers’ original intent.

This is wrong.

JRH 5/19/10

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

BHO Gives a Strategic Advantage to Islamic Terrorists



John R. Houk
© May 18, 2010


If you have any doubt about President Barack Hussein Obama’s commitment to win the Global War on Terror (GWOT) in the Afghanistan theatre then you need awareness Mr. Appeasement has changed the rules of engagement (at Karzai’s insistence). The BHO change will allow the Taliban and al Qaeda to use human shields that will place U.S. military personal in life threatening dangerous situations.

It sounds ever so altruistic to keep civilians out of harm’s way. That is the new rule: don’t harm the civilians when engaging Islamic terrorists. The thing is that it is a war that our boys in Afghanistan are fighting. Will the Islamic terrorists utilize innocent civilians as human shields? I have no doubt of the possibility. Are civilian Muslims in the AfPak area so innocent? Undoubtedly the hang-outs of Islamic terrorists are in radical Muslim friendly areas.

Using human shields is a common tactic of Islamic terrorists of Judea, Samaria (so-called West Bank) and Gaza. It is a perfected practice to gain a strategic advantage over the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). An Israeli nation that has had to live with Islamic terrorism since the nation’s modern inception has learned to be a bit calloused over the Islamic terrorist strategy of human shields. To show who has the higher moral ground in Israel other solutions are examined before a strike happens among human shields; however when it is obvious that key leadership or key weapons stocks of Islamic terrorists can be destroyed the imperative of winning rather than collateral damage leads to the best solution. Undoubtedly this is why Western Leftists and Islamic propandists use the deaths of human shields as an example of so-called war crimes of Israel.

BHO is setting up American troops for the same moral dilemma as the IDF. It should be noted that staged atrocities have already been accused of the U.S. military (e.g. Haditha Marines and Navy SEALS). The Haditha Marines have been exonerated. Three Navy SEALS have been exonerated of utilizing excessive force against an Islamic terrorist who was involved torturing, burning, dragging and hanging the corpses of American Blackwater security guards.




With Leftists hot to find a scapegoat of a war crime in the GWOT, I am certain BHO’s new Rules of Engagement will lead to more prosecutions of soldiers doing their job to track down Islamic terrorists and kill them, force surrender and win the war.

Part of BHO’s appeasement agenda is to actually create a Medal for soldiers who use heroic restraint in saving Muslim civilians rather than attacking the enemy. Does anyone believe Islamic terrorists will use heroic restraint in their guerilla and terrorist attacks against American troops or American civilians?

I should note though some Leftists still find President Barack Hussein is still doing too much in relation to Islamic terrorists. I found at Soda Head that a paid advertisement in the NY Review of Books accuses BHO of war crimes for – get this – authorizing Islamic terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to be killed. The reality is al-Awlaki who is an American citizen has a dead or alive price on his head. It may be easier to kill him than to capture him. Perhaps the stronger stand to kill Islamic terrorists in foreign lands is a political maneuver to get Conservatives off the rules of engagement that allows Islamic terrorists (perhaps like al-Awlaki) to hide behind human shields.

Below is the Move America Forward (MAF) email that I read about BHO’s new Rules of Engagement. Now the MAF email also serves a purpose of soliciting for donations to provide care packages for our troops fighting the GWOT. The soliciting is interspersed throughout the email. I am editing the email to provide links and information for care packages at the end. I encourage one and all to participate in the care package service MAF is providing.

JRH 5/18/10
********************************
Obama Wants to Give Medals for our Troops to NOT Kill the Enemy

Sent by: Move America Forward
Sent: 5/18/2010 8:01 AM

ANSWER THE CALL II: OBAMA’S POLICIES CONFUSE AND ENDANGER OUR TROOPS!
RESTRICTIVE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT AND NEW ‘RESTRAINT’ MEDAL WOULD CONFUSES TROOPS, INTERFERE WITH MISSION, ENDANGERS LIVES!


As we have reported several times now, Obama’s rules of engagement and policies for our troops in Afghanistan is increasingly a problem to our troops on the ground. They are facing a tough enemy who has learned to take advantage of the restrictive rules our troops have to abide by.


In Marjah, where our troops are fighting a tough enemy, the Taliban has learned that they can grab the nearest farmer or innocent child and effectively render our troops helpless to respond! Our troops are in harm’s way and cannot fire back for fear of endangering civilians!

The United States has taken "extraordinary measures" to avoid civilian deaths in the war, Obama said, a nod to Karzai's loud complaints last year that U.S. airstrikes were killing innocents and making enemies of those who might be friends.


"I do not want civilians killed," Obama said, adding that he is ultimately accountable when they are. FOX NEWS 05/17/2010


Our troops are confused and frustrated by these restrictive policies. They are told to fight a war, to destroy the enemy, but the Obama administration has put the muzzle on their ability to fight!

One of the most ridiculous ideas of Obama’s administration, a new medal for “Courageous Restraint” is being considered. The idea would be to ‘award’ troops who show restraint under fire in order to save civilian lives.

WHEN OUR TROOPS ARE UNDER FIRE SHOULD WE EXPECT THEM TO SIT THERE AND TAKE IT, OR FIRE BACK? WHICH RECOURSE DO YOU THINK EMBOLDENS THE TALIBAN MORE?

“The idea is consistent with our approach,” explained Air Force Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis. “Our young men and women display remarkable courage every day, including situations where they refrain from using lethal force, even at risk to themselves, in order to prevent possible harm to civilians. In some situations our forces face in Afghanistan, that restraint is an act of discipline and courage not much different than those seen in combat actions.” Marine Times 05/13/201[0]


Although military officials claim that in offering the medal they will put no pressure on troops to restrain when their lives are in danger, but not having a clear policy that the enemy SHOULD be killed whenever possible puts our troops in a moral quandary that they should NOT have to deal with when their own lives are at stake! It’s confusing to a soldier when being pressured from one side to eliminate the threat, and from the other side being pressured to hold back.


Confusion and indecision have no place in the front lines of a war that we must win! We know our troops work very hard to ensure that civilians are not harmed unnecessarily, but we must always remember that this is A WAR and that in a war our primary objective should be to destroy the enemy first, keep our troops alive, and thirdly protect civilians where possible.

SIGN UP FOR MONTHLY SMILES. SIGN UP TROOPS TO RECEIVE CARE PACKAGES. READ THANK YOU LETTERS FROM THE TROOPS

Click here to find out more about Monthly smiles For a long time people asked us why we didn’t offer a “Set it and Forget it” method, where people could automatically contribute a little bit each month. In response we began our Monthly Smiles program earlier this year and so far it has been a BIG HIT! We have hundreds of people signed up so make sure you take a look at this exciting alternative way to support our troops.


It’s not for everyone, but for those that want it, our Monthly Smiles program is a huge convenience and takes the worry out of supporting our troops – you have the peace of mind and you know each month you are doing something nice for the troops.

Are you currently serving? Do you know someone or have a family member who is currently deployed? If so, sign your troops up here and they will receive care packages from Move America Forward – it’s absolutely FREE!

We love sending care packages to our troops, and nothing is more satisfying than when they write back! We’ve put NEW section on our website where you can read the letters that our troops have written back to us! Send a package, and then check it out!

____________________________
BHO Gives a Strategic Advantage to Islamic Terrorists
John R. Houk
© May 18, 2010
____________________________
Obama Wants to Give Medals for our Troops to NOT Kill the Enemy
Web link to MAF email

Niall Ferguson: The metrics of doom



Here is a Rod Dreyer summation of a Niall Ferguson Niarchos lecture.

Ferguson lectured about Greece’s economic woes AND how those woes are around the corner for America because immense spending projections of the U.S. government. And who is attempting to transform America into a European style Socialist Democracy?

JRH 5/18/10


Monday, May 17, 2010

Obama Pressures Israel – PA TV Keeps Spewing Anti-Semitism



John R. Houk
© May 17, 2010


The U.S political establishment (Democrats and Republicans) require Israel to conform and help create a sovereign Palestinian State. The nations of the European Union (EU) also require establishment of a sovereign Palestinian State. AND it goes without saying the Muslim Middle East and Muslim North Africa demand Israel to conform to the building of a sovereign Palestinian State.

Worse still the Leftist Administration of President Barack Hussein Obama and the Slanted Left EU are requiring the hereditary home of the Land of Israel to give up an eastern portion of Jerusalem to this sovereign Palestinian State.

Friends this is international Anti-Semitism on a global scale that is comparable to the former apex of 1930’s to 1945. During that period of time about six million Jews were exterminated from the planet because of Jew-hatred.

How can I say that since there has been no mass extermination of Jews on the horrendous scale of the WWII era? You can think of a sovereign Palestinian State as the starting point of such hatred toward Jews that the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians will seek to exterminate Israel and thus the Jews of Israel.

An example of mindless Western thinking to create a Palestinian State is in the constant hate-propaganda that emanates from PA TV which is owned and operated by the Palestinian Authority that has been designated by the West to be the government infrastructure for a sovereign Palestinian State.

In the midst of the Obama Administration expressing anger because construction of Jewish buildings occurred in Jerusalem (i.e. the eastern Old City) the PA TV continues to spew its hatred of Jews. Arutz Sheva 7 has the story.

JRH 5/17/10

WND’s Farah Farsighted Picks of President and Vice President



John R. Houk
May 17, 2012


Joseph Farah kind of disses Sarah Palin as a potential 2012 Presidential candidate. Farah does not diss Palin because of her politics. He disses her because of 2010 political endorsements for Office. Farah specifically mentions the Palin endorsement to reelect Senator John McCain and her endorsement of Carly Fiorina.

Farah’s farsighted dream pick is Senator Jim DeMint for Prez and Rep. Michelle Bachman for Veep.

Are you willing to go out on a limb for the 2012 GOP nominees for President and Vice President?

JRH 5/17/10

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Insensitive Islam and Twin Towers Memorial




John R. Houk
© May 16, 2010


Pamela Gellar and Michael Ghouse were on a Sean Hannity radio program recently debating the merits (or lack thereof) of building a mega-Mosque in the very shadow of the Islamic attack that brought down the Twin Towers and killed thousands of Americas who were the victims of an act jihad.



(Gellar on Huckabee about the Mosque near Twin Towers)

The Hannity interview I listened to is on YouTube. The video ran the sound track of the Hannity broadcast with a slide show of the Twin Tower attacks which showed Americans jumping to their death resulting from the intense heat of fire in the upper portions of the Towers. Interspersed through the slide show are some factual snippets relating to deaths, the jumpers and the attack. I first found this video at a Jihad Watch post which can be viewed HERE.

In the interview Geller effectively counters the deceptive use of Ghouse’s language to justify an Islamic Mosque right next to the emerging Twin Towers memorial.

Just as a side comment I heard Hannity begin to introduce Gellar as a member of SIOA. He stopped himself short and referenced Geller to her popular blog Atlas Shrugs. I suspect Hannity backtracked on the intro because SIOA stands for Stop Islamization of America. The best place to discover the SIOA agenda is to go to their Facebook page. Really though the name should be self-explanatory. SIOA wishes to prevent the evil aspects of Islam and Sharia Law to gain a foothold of acceptance in America. The reasoning obviously centers around cultural differences: Islam is a theopolitical force that is intolerant to religious freedom, free speech and the basic liberties espoused by the U.S. Constitution.

In essence Islam is diametrically opposed to the American way of Life. All those Leftists concerned about using the “Living Constitution” view of separation of Church and State (which is an inimical interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment) what meet their worst nightmare if Islam and Sharia Law would ever become entrenched in America. Islam demands that the fabric of Community and the fabric of government become one in which the Community submits to an Islamic government (State Established) according to the writ of the Quran, Hadith, Sunna and Sira of Islam. Such a submission would be the termination of free speech, religious liberty, State criticism and many if not most civil rights. The concept of segregation would be reinstituted. The difference being segregation would not be along a racial paradigm; rather segregation would be along a religious paradigm. Which is to say any religions that were permitted to be practiced would forced into a position in which the adherents would be discriminated against including paying higher taxes than Muslims and forced to humble themselves publicly to Muslims.

What are the implications of being humbled in the presence of Muslims?

Non-Muslims would not be allowed civic services that Muslims would be allowed. There would be Muslims only restaurants, rest rooms, motels and so forth. Utilities would be less expensive for Muslims than non-Muslims. Public help (entitlement programs) would be on a Muslim only basis. Only Mosques could be built and only Churches in existence can survive with the added humiliation to get special permission to exact building repairs. In essence all the accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement in America would be reversed yet with the irony of all non-Muslims (Blacks, Whites, Native Americans, Asians etc.) experiencing all the negative attributes Blacks suffered from the end of the Civil War through the 1960’s.

The disgrace of Islamic Supremacism for America gaining acceptance would relegate Leftists, Secular Humanists, Christians, atheists, Homosexuals, the female gender and all other concepts that might compete with Islam as second class citizens constantly in danger of capital punishment.

Yes it is a worst case scenario, but is it a scenario Americans should allow to begin to go because of our ingrained tolerance for all religions?

JRH 5/16/10