Saturday, July 31, 2010

Discussion on Judge Bolton’s Stripping Arizona SB 1070

John R. Houk
© July 31, 2010

Inside Passage a frequent commenter on my VOX blog may be described as a Center-Left Independent. In my train of thought that means he supports some Leftist concepts and supports some elements of the Slanted Right in a mixed bag that bugs both the entrenched Left and the entrenched Right (which would be me).

Inside Passage was totally with the Obama Administration’s efforts to use the Judiciary to hamstring Arizona State Immigration enforcement of it SB 1070. Inside Passage believes Arizona overstepped her Sovereignty by meddling in affairs that should be sacrosanct to the U.S. Congress as vested power granted by the U.S. Constitution. You probably imagine I did not share his view.

To view all the comments between me and Inside Passage go to my VOX post HERE.

This particular post is in response to this comment by Inside Passage:

We're not in disagreement here as far as the government goes. They are failing to do their job, and failing dramatically. I totally understand that. Our job is to force them to do theirs, not to break the constitution into little bitty pieces as the means to the end by doing their job for them.

Understand that this is exactly what SB1070 is. The states have no right to put "teeth" into any LEGISLATIVE powers, just as the government has no right to overstep into state rights. I'm going to pull a constitutional quote here, because it's pure relevance:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Note the word "vested". That means fixed or absolute, without contingency. That may sound dictatorial in nature to you, but it is intentional to preserve the balance of powers. Each of the three branches is vested with specific powers that no other branch may infringe upon. That means that no, the states are absolutely NOT allowed to tinker with Congressional powers. The constitution gets very explicit about it to make sure that people understand that the lines exist. It's the preservation of states rights in the 10th amendment that convinced states to join the Union in the first place, knowing that they would not be allowed to keep their own armies, declare war or render treaties or any of those other wonderful congressional powers. Or establish supreme law, such as the judicial branch has. Or ... so on. You get that right? That states can't just add 'teeth' to any governmental power they like to claim a power they're not supposed to have?

Kobach knows that perfectly well, but being a lawyer and being teamed up with a power-grabber like Pearce, they have no reason to care.

I agree, the federal government makes a regular habit of stepping on state sovereignty and rights to an unconstitutional degree, but that doesn't justify the same behavior by the states. This is the constitution they're breaking here. They need to stop it. right. now.

As far as Scott Brown goes, I referenced him because he supposedly represents the face of change. Yeah, he's the face of change alright, that's why his name is all over the T.E.A (stripping Americans of citizenship without due process), the so-called Kill Switch Cyberspace Bill, and just recently on Charles Rangel's HR 5741 which allows the government to force citizens between 18 and 42 to be forced into presidential service. Yeah, that's awesome, Scott Brown's not just a RINO, he's an AINO - American in name only, selling out his country to that little clique that strangely includes democrats and republicans both.

Just think, if McCain had been elected, you would be dealing with the exact same crap right now, because his name is on at least two of the same bills, as well as political waste like Lieberman and Rangel.

I am focusing my response solely on the Constitutionality of Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling removing the teeth from Arizona SB 1070.

Inside Passage you quote Article 1 Section 1 of the US Constitution:
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

There are 10 Sections in Article One. So would it be logical to read all Ten Sections to reference “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States”?

It seems to me that Sections Two through Ten deal with the selection process and terms of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Specifically Section Eight relates the powers of Congress to make Laws that Sovereign States cannot:
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Section Ten enlightens the individual Sovereign States the laws they specifically CANNOT pass in State Legislatures:
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

I have to be honest with you Inside Passage; I do not see any vested powers enumerated in Article One that prevents the Sovereignty of the State of Arizona from enacting a law that does not contradict any Federal Laws vested in Congress. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment which amends any part of the original Constitution or clarifies ambiguities that may exist in the U.S. Constitution (which includes Article One), elaborates that laws not vested in Congress or Constitutionally in the Federal government is open to State Sovereignty to legislate:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Adding teeth to the enforcement of Federal Law enacted by the U.S. Congress does not contradict the rule of law; therefore the State of Arizona’s Immigration Law SB 1070 is not prohibited by the Constitution. Further more if a non-contradictory Law it means the rule of law is the same; ergo adding teeth to enforcement is not prohibited yet indeed the teeth thus reserved for the State of Arizona to enact a law supportive of the Congressional Law.

In relation to this the Federal Judiciary is only Constitutionally able to rule if Arizona’s Immigration Law is prohibited by the Congress. If the Federal Law does not prohibit a Sovereign State from adding teeth to a standing Law, Court cannot strike down the State Law. Rather the Court should have directed the plaintiff with is the Federal government under the management of the Executive Branch to refer back to the U.S. Congress. The U.S. Congress then in turn with the power vested in it by Article One could indeed prevent Arizona’s Immigration Law from becoming the rule of law in Arizona. The Executive Branch is limited in what it requires of Sovereign States of the Union by the power vested in the U.S. Constitution first and the power vested in Congress. Forcing action by Executive fiat that is outside of the U.S. Constitution or passed by Congress comes in the realm of the Judiciary to rule according to the Constitution. Again Judicial ruling is to the merit of Constitutionality and not to form policy which is derived from the U.S. Constitution first and the laws passed by the power vested in Congress. Execution of policy is in the prevue of the Executive Branch. And Policy is made by the Executive Branch as interpreted by the law of the land vested in the power of Congress.

So for clarity sake my position is that the Judiciary was operating extra-Constitutionally in making a ruling in accordance to the ability or inability of the Federal government to manage a policy burden that might be created by the State of Arizona bringing more illegal aliens for the Federal government to process in deportation or breaking laws. A Federal policy ability ruling was ridiculous! The Obama Administration should have shown its distaste for the Arizona Immigration Law by going to Congress to ask for more money to comply with the extra influx illegal aliens or to ask Congress to pass a new law according to the power vested in it by the U.S. Constitution to limit or extricate Arizona’s Illegal Alien enforcement.

We both know such a move by President Obama would be the political death sentence on election day 2010 and probably election day 2010. So what path did President pursue? He tapped a Left Wing activist Judge which has discarded the Constitution by Judicial fiat through making policy rather than ruling on the issues of Constitutionality.

Inside Passage that is wrong!

JRH 7/31/10

Friday, July 30, 2010

BHO Opens US-Mexican Border to Islamic Terrorists

John R. Houk
© July 30, 2010

President Barack Hussein Obama’s National Security and Foreign Policy ineptitude will come to the American homeland and bite the real citizens in the butt. By pushing a Clinton appointed Leftwing policy making activist Judge in Arizona to weaken Arizona’s efforts to aid the Federal government to make the Arizona-Mexican border a little porous, President Obama has made it easier for Islamic terrorists to contract with Mexican drug cartels to sneak in to the USA with the Mexican illegal aliens.

This is significant because if America is forced to militarily confront Iran over any kind of incident that even BHO cannot ignore, part of the confrontation will Islamic terrorists financed by Iran and assuredly sent by Iranian client terrorist group Hezbollah to begin acts of terrorism in the American homeland. There are indications that other Islamic terrorists are flowing into America via the US/Mexican border as well. Although I doubt there will be coordinated cooperation between the various Islamic terrorist organizations that have penetrated America from South of the border, I do believe Islamic terrorists are opportunists meaning if one group acts, other groups will act independently on the opportunity to terrorize Americans.

The Obama Administration’s foolishness in not utilizing State help on staving off illegal immigration by failing to praise stringent laws on a local level that compliments rather than usurp Federal law in enforcing the rule of law already established on a Federal level is sending engraved invitations for Islamic terrorists to slip into the land of “We the People.”

I was watching FOX News and discovered a Federal memo was sent to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to back-off from enforcing the rule of law as it pertains to illegal aliens. In point of fact if the memo is acted upon President Obama will be utilizing the power of the Executive Branch to supplant the Constitutional responsibility of Congress. If this is true then it demonstrates the Obama Administration is more concerned about pandering to the Hispanic vote (including illegal aliens who vote illegally) than America’s National Security. That definitely would explain why Obama chose to use the Federal Court to mandate policy rather than distinguish between what is Constitutional and Unconstitutional.

Brigitte Gabriel has an article in the NY Post. relating Islamic terrorists colluding with Mexican drug cartels to enter America to undoubtedly execute nefarious acts of terrorism against innocent American men, women and children.

JRH 7/30/10 (Hat Tip: ACT for America)

Legal Jihad Takes a Hit from US Congress

John R. Houk
© July 30, 2010

An ACT for America e-newsletter alert has been sent to make known that the Speech Act has passed both House and Senate and awaits President Obama’s signature which is expected to occur. I would be surprised if the President does not sign the Speech Act into law for the Bill had wide Bi-Partisan in this current age of Congressional political polarization.

What is the Speech Act? It is a law that protects American authors and publishers from foreign law suits that do not use American Constitutionalism to protect our Free Speech rights. The foreign civil suits that used non-First Amendment standards that resulted in the termination of Free Speech has many nick-names some of which point directly at the group of people most responsible for attempting to block American Free Speech which often resulted with punitive financial damages. That group of people is Muslims and/or agents representing Islamic Supremacism. Here are some names that the Speech Act will be a deterrent of:

    • Libel Tourism
    • Lawfare
    • Libel Terrorism
    • Legal Jihad (my personal favorite)

Because of Political Correctness last two will be less likely to appear in the MSM.

Below is the ACT for America e-news alert followed by some detail from the Press Gazette (UK).

JRH 7/30/10
VICTORY in Congress!!
The U.S. Congress Moves a Step Forward Toward the Eradication of “Libel Tourism”

By Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations
Sent by: ACT for America
Sent: Jul 29, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Tuesday, the House of Representatives passed a modified version of H.R. 2765, the “Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act,” (aka the “SPEECH Act”) originally introduced by Representative Steve Cohen (TN), and recently passed in the U.S. Senate. It will now be sent to the White House for the President’s signature, at which time it will become law.

H.R. 2765 deters individuals from bringing a libel or defamation suit against an American in a country that has less protective free speech laws. This increasing practice is not used to pursue legitimate claims of defamation and libel, but to silence journalists, publishers, authors as well as anyone else who seeks to exercise their First Amendment right of Free Speech. It is referred to as “libel tourism” or “lawfare” and it is being used successfully to silenced authors and journalists, like Rachel Ehrenfeld, who write about issues critical to our national security.

As Representative Peter King recently stated, “We cannot change other countries’ (libel) laws, nor would we want to. We must respect their laws, as they ought to respect ours. However, we cannot allow foreign citizens to exploit these courts to endanger Americans’ First Amendment protected speech; especially, when the subject matter is of such grave importance as terrorism and those who finance it.”

ACT! for America has a history of aggressively and successfully working to defeat libel tourism and to protect every American’s constitutional right to Free Speech. We have supported and helped pass similar legislation at the state level in New York (“Rachel’s Law”), as well as similar legislation in Florida, Illinois, Utah, Tennessee, Maryland and California. It was time for the U.S. Congress to address libel tourism protection at a national level as well.

ACT! for America is supportive of H.R. 2765’s provisions—namely banning enforcement of foreign libel judgments, and allowing authors to request exoneration in court. However, we endorsed, The Free Speech Protection Act introduced in the House as H.R. 1304, by Rep. Peter King, and in the Senate as S. 449, by Sen. Arlen Specter, as we feel it is stronger legislation. The proposals were on our list of “High Priority Legislation” in the current session of Congress and we actively supported them.

The Free Speech Protection Act contains not only provisions included in H.R. 2765—namely banning the enforcement of foreign libel judgments—but it goes a step further: The legislation would also allow American authors and journalists to sue those foreign plaintiffs here in the United States—something that we feel will be a strong and successful deterrent to libel tourism litigation.

The bottom line: Legislation that codifies any of our constitutional rights is critically important, and passage of H.R. 2765 can certainly be categorized as a “score” for us on the constitutional scoreboard. We remain hopeful, however, that stronger legislation, such as the King/Specter Free Speech Protection Act, will be addressed and ultimately passed into law during the next session of Congress. Doing so will ensure that the harassment of libel tourism will finally be significantly diminished, if not eliminated altogether.



Legal Jihad Takes a Hit from US Congress
John R. Houk
© July 30, 2010
VICTORY in Congress!!

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.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Tea Partiers Unite to Defeat Democrats in 2010 & 2012

John R. Houk
© July 29, 2010

Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily is a promoter of the Tea Party Movement. There is a caveat to his TPM support. Farah has been criticizing the Tea Partiers that only desire to focus on Big Government and Taxes; i.e. an economic obsession above all other issues that Conservatives of various causes might lean toward.

I am a supporter of the Tea Party Movement; however I am not personally involved in any of the numerous loose organizations that seem to be forming a loose rivalry to equal different Tea Party organizations. Frankly I have not paid much attention to the rivalries. I just love the concept of less taxation and placing an obstacle to President Barack Hussein Obama’s Transformation Agenda for America which appears to be anti-Christian, anti-Constitution, pro-Marxist, Pro-Counter Biblical lifestyles and Secular Humanist to the core.

Farah believes Tea Partiers should expand beyond Conservative economics and embrace Conservative social agenda’s as well. Although I don’t recall Farah pinning down a specific Conservative social agenda, I can think of some personal examples on my end. All my favorite social issues have to do with Biblical Christian Morality; e.g. pro-life, pro-Christian involvement in politics and public venues, anti-Islamist (or at the very least anti-Sharia) and anti-homosexual lifestyle acceptance.

I would love for the Tea Party to embrace Social-Conservatism on a unified front. On the other hand the one dialogue that unites all the Tea Partiers is Big Government and Taxes. These issues alone placed among American voters would slay the BHO Socialist behemoths that are beginning to appear to stampeding across American culture.

Personally I believe it is too early in the Tea Party Movement to advocate all the groups adopt simultaneous Conservative economics and Conservative Social issues. I sense there are significant amounts of center Left or normally political ambiguous people that vote as Independents which would be alienated and unwittingly continue Leftist messiah of Change. In 2010 and 2012 let us focus on what unites voters against President Barack Hussein Obama and his cadres.

Below are the feelings of Joseph Farah on the Tea Party Movement which are noble but I am uncertain if they are essential at this stage of derailing Leftists. If things change though for a unified Tea Party Movement of Conservative economics and Conservative Social issues – I definitely will be on that bandwagon.

JRH 7/29/10
Farah: This is last chance to turn America around
Boxing tea party in with dollar signs unwise, author says
'Economic issues and materialistic issues' panned as 'the Left's turf'

Sent by: WorldNetDaily News for Bloggers
Sent: 7/29/2010 2:32 PM

The fiscal-obsessed factions of the tea party jockeying to define the movement’s scope solely with dollar signs unwittingly are pulling a page straight from "The Communist Manifesto," warns the author of a brand new and very different manifesto.

"Since when are we concerned only about economic issues and materialistic issues? That's the Left's turf. They know this turf. They defined it. Marx and Engels. 'We live in a materialistic world. Everything's material. Everything's economic.' And now the right is going to fight back exclusively on that ground?" Joseph Farah, author of "The Tea Party Manifesto," said Wednesday during an interview on KION's "Wake Up Monterrey" in Monterrey, Calif.

"Our strength," Farah continued, "is the morals and values. The people that know that they're accountable to a God in heaven so they're self-governing individuals who police themselves. They don't need the tyranny of the state to do that."

In the interview with Mark Carbonaro, Farah confessed personal motivations to the Left Coast audience, describing how persistent reader feedback at prompted the "activism" that led to him author the book that presaged the tea party movement, 2003's "Taking America Back." His latest, "The Tea Party Manifesto," is dedicated to keeping that movement vibrant and effective by encouraging its members to establish a strong spiritual core.

Even now, he said, the "economic-only" wing of the tea party movement remains so afraid of frightening potential constituencies that they shy from any strong stance on issues with social implications – even ones in which staggering costs remain evident.

"These same people, I want you to recognize how extreme they are," he said. "They don't believe illegal immigration is an economic problem for this country."

Carbonaro asked Farah to identify just who in the tea party movement struck such a position.

"Dick Armey and FreedomWorks," Farah said.

FreedomWorks, Farah explained, forged the national federation of tea party groups and organized, "to their credit," a mass march on Washington. But the narrowed vision is actually a retread of familiar and failed Republican campaign slogans.

Carbonaro's personal experience with California-based tea parties reinforced that view.

"One tea party group that I've worked with, they felt that they wanted to keep their focus on economic issues because they felt that was the biggest tent they would put everybody under and there would be less dissention within the group," he said. "The rationale was 'Look, if we cut back the size of the federal government and we stopped the funding, if we cut back the money that's being spent, everybody is going to get what they want. The anti-war people are going to get less money spent on war. The people that are pro-life are going to have less money available for abortion services and Planned Parenthood and organizations like that.'

"The whole idea," Carbonaro continued, "was make the government smaller and there's less money for all these things that are so spiritually corrupting the government does."

Heard that one before, replied Farah, who described himself as "an economic libertarian to the extreme" when it comes to federal spending.

"(This is) what the so-called economic conservatives have been telling us for decades," Farah said. "How they're going to starve the beast. … Except when they get in power, what do they do? They spend bigger than the Democrats do.

"The point is, these folks, this is their rhetoric, and they don't even follow it when they have an opportunity," Farah continued. "All of the sudden they find all of these pet projects they want to start funding. How many times have we been through this … the big tent?"

Founding 14 years ago to conduct investigative reporting and meet the Framers' constitutional intentions of the free press serving as a watchdog on government and the powerful, Farah started recognizing a common thread in reader feedback.

"'Farah, thanks for telling us all these horrible things that are going on. Now what do we do about it?'" he recalled. "That question, at first I'd brush it off. I'd say, 'Well, it's not my job to tell you what to do about it. It's my job to tell you want happens.' After a while, that excuse would begin to ring hollow in my own soul.

"That's why I wrote the book, 'Taking America Back,' which I’m gratified to say was not a best-seller out of the chute by any stretch of the imagination," he said. "It came out during the Bush administration and nobody wanted to hear that we were going down the path to socialism and tyranny in 2003, right at the Iraq war was beginning. But since then, that book has sold almost 100,000 copies."

With the Obama administration accelerating the slide into socialism, the tea party movement represents the "last best hope" and must remain clear of distracting and destructive limitations, he said.

"I don't say this lightly, but I will just say it, it's our last chance," Farah warned. "It's our last chance to preserve any vestige of liberty that this country has inherited from our Founding Fathers. The tea party movement, I have to tell you, this is our nly chance. It's our last chance, to turn this country around."

Tea Partiers Unite to Defeat Democrats in 2010 & 2012
John R. Houk
© July 29, 2010
Farah: This is last chance to turn America around

Copyright 1997-2010 Inc. All Rights Reserved
Buy “The Tea Party Manifesto

The Plight of Hector Aleem

It Sucks to be a Christian in a Muslim Nation
John R. Houk
© July 29, 2010

I’ve been tracking the case of Pakistani Christian Hector Aleem who has been charged with blasphemy against Islam. It is horrendously evil that one can be charged a capital crime for merely saying things that might offend a Muslim especially if the words are innocuously harmless. In a Muslim culture like Pakistan Christians are often persecuted because their very existence as a faith other than Islam is offensive to Muslims. So much so that Christians often victimized without equal protection or justice in what we Westerners would call the Rule of Law but would Muslims would call Sharia Law.

Sharia Law is an Islamic Supremacist legal code which equally mixes the apparatus of State and Islamic religion which disturbingly makes non-Muslims third rate citizens with nil rights and zero rights if there is conflict between a Muslim and a non-Muslim.

This is the case of Hector Aleem. Aleem was a civil rights advocate for Christians in his homeland of Pakistan. A civil rights Christian advocate job is an extremely dangerous in a Muslim and Islamic Supremacist nation like Pakistan. Aleem’s so called “blasphemy” charge is suspected to have been trumped up because Aleem was endeavoring to protect Christian property with whatever limited legal apparatus he could utilize in Pakistan. The Muslim solution: Make a phone call to an Imam’s cell saying offensive things about Mohammed, Islam or Allah and frame the Christian Hector Aleem for it. Thus Aleem is arrested. The Christian property interests have zero representation. Aleem is jailed, tortured and faces a death sentence.

Here are some links to past updates of Hector Aleem’s plight that is nearly totally ignored in the Western World’s major press outlets:

    A Message From ‘Free Hector Aleem’
    Hector Aleem Update from Mehwish Aleem
    Christian Hector Aleem Murdered in Pakistan?
    Pakistan: Muslims Persecute Hector Aleem for being Christian

Below is another Hector Aleem update I received yesterday.

JRH 7/29/10
Update About Hector Aleem
Kausar Aleem
Sent: 28/07/2010
Sent to: Facebook Members of
Free Hector Aleem

Hello everyone

Sorry we always get so tired when its Hector Aleem's hearing. 26th July 2010 was the hearing in the High Court but we were told that we won’t have to come because Judge will give another date. I don’t know why Judge is choosing some other day for our case but hope everything will be okay. We did not go to High Court but we went to the Session Court, We have a stay in the Session Court because our case is being processed in the High Court. There we met Hector Aleem for like just two minutes, we told him that there are many brothers and sisters who are praying for him. He was happy to know that many people are praying for him and he said "when many people are praying for me then sure God will listen their prayers and will give me freedom asap". Another thing I wanted to tell you is on the day before 26th July 2010, four men were severely injured because someone shot them. And that’s the same Court my husband goes to, so today Hector was given security. But still we need your prayers.

Please keep on donating for Hector's legal funds because the case is being processed and lawyers do not work without fee. Those who have already donated, thank you very much. And those who can’t donate please tell your friends to donate and keep on praying for Hector Aleem.

We are Christians living in a Muslim state and our lives are in danger. We cannot even go out to do some job to earn money. We cannot do anything because of the danger from extremists. My Children cannot study anymore because their lives are in danger.

Since 22 January 2009 (The day Hector Aleem was arrested), I have contacted many NGOs. Some of the NGOs which we have contacted are the following:
    1. Amnesty International
    2. United Nations
    3. CLAAS
    4. IHEU
    5. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan
    6 Voice of Martyrs
    7. ICC
    8. ACLJ

None of them gave us positive response and everyone refused to help us. You can even ask them why they did not help us. It was our last option to collect the donation. There are currently 1,192 group members, It’s a request if anyone of you knows any Organization who can help us out and give us a lawyer or legal funds then please do contact us.

You can donate through PayPal or you can donate through Western Union. We even had $3, so any amount helps.

Here is the link to PayPal:;

God Bless You All
Wife Of Hector Aleem
Kausar Aleem
The Plight of Hector Aleem
It Sucks to be a Christian in a Muslim Nation

John R. Houk
© July 29, 2010
Update About Hector Aleem
Kausar Aleem
Sent: 28/07/2010

I ran a Word Spell Check on this update in case you have another version of this update. Also note that if the Pay Pal does not work go to the Facebook page: Free Hector Aleem to properly access the Pay Pal account to help Hector.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Dem Party Appointed Judge Bolton Takes Aim at Arizona

John R. Houk
© July 28, 2010

The President Clinton appointed Federal Judge - Susan Bolton - has handed President Barack Hussein Obama mixed bagged victory in relation to Arizona State Immigration Law SB Bill 1070. Judge Bolton has taken much of the political teeth that drove Leftists, Democrats and BHO crazy out of SB 1070. Judge Bolton DID NOT strike the whole Arizona Immigration down. There are still enforcement parts that still gives Arizona law enforcement some ability to tighten an illegal alien immigration net. The part stricken down however still allows holes in the American border along Arizona to skate through AND apply for work in Arizona. In essence Judge Bolden has accomplished the shameful act of ignoring the Constitution by making Federal Policy rather than ruling on the Constitutionality of a law.

Here are some reaction quotes of note courtesy of Blogs for Victory:

This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens.” – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in her official statement to the press…

…”We are deeply disappointed in the court’s ruling today and disagree with the court’s opinion that the Arizona’s law will unduly ‘burden’ the enforcement of federal immigration law. Instead of wasting taxpayer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona and complaining that the law would be burdensome, the Obama Administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its efforts to act where the Federal government has failed to take responsibility.” – Joint Statement by U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz…

…”Today’s ruling does not strike down SB1070. Her ruling only puts a hold on a few parts of the new law. That’s why her actions today are called a preliminary injunction. Those who are here in this state illegally, my deputies will still ask about their status in this country and will arrest on existing state and federal immigration violations. State violators will be booked into my jail and federal violators will be turned over to authorities.” – Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

THE FOUNDRY provides the Slanted Right opinion of Judge Bolton’s ruling.

JRH 7/28/10

Shocking NJ judge ruling

Here is the Islamic agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood (undoubtedly with the Leftist multicultural collective cooperation) existing in America. A Judge in New Jersey ruled that a forced rape of a Muslim husband’s wife is legal because of the religious beliefs of Islam! Is that unbelievable or WHAT? This Jersey Judge ruled that religious institutional rape trumps the law of the land; i.e. Sharia Law trumps Constitutional Law.

ACT for America is all over this story sending out a Robert Spencer expose to their email list.

JRH 7/28/10
Shocking NJ judge ruling
NJ Judge rules it’s not rape when a Muslim forces himself on his wife!

Sent by: ACT for America
Sent: Jul 27, 2010 at 10:01 AM

Recently, an ABC News story scoffed at the Oklahoma referendum going to the voters that prohibits the courts from using sharia law in their decisions. The implication was that there is no need for this.


Jihad Watch reported on Saturday (see story below, highlights added) that a New Jersey judge ruled that a Muslim man, accused of forcing non-consensual sex on his wife, was not guilty because of his religious beliefs.

Here is the portion of his ruling that should leave no doubt that Islamic sharia law is penetrating America:

"This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

In other words, the husband’s belief in sharia law trumps New Jersey criminal law. The husband did not commit a crime because he was acting according to sharia law.

Fortunately, an appellate court had the good sense to overturn this absurd decision. But don’t let anyone tell you we don’t need to worry about sharia law being imposed on us here in America! Or on Muslims who don’t wish to be subjected to it.
Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex

Posted by Robert Spencer
24, 2010 6:20 AM
Jihad Watch

Muhammad said: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460).

He also said: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle" (Ibn Majah 1854).

And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife -- not because he didn't do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time.

"Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal," by Eugene Volokh in The Volokh Conspiracy, July 23 (thanks to CameoRed):
From today's opinion in S.D. v. M.J.R. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.), a domestic restraining order case:

    The record reflects that plaintiff, S.D., and defendant, M.J.R., are citizens of Morocco and adherents to the Muslim faith. They were wed in Morocco in an arranged marriage on July 31, 2008, when plaintiff was seventeen years old. [FN1] The parties did not know each other prior to the marriage. On August 29, 2008, they came to New Jersey as the result of defendant's employment in this country as an accountant.... [Long discussion of the wife's allegations of abuse, which included several instances of nonconsensual sex as well as other abuse, omitted for space reasons. -EV] Upon their return to the apartment, defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her
    this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.
    After having sex, defendant took plaintiff to a travel agency to buy a ticket for her return to Morocco. However the ticket was not purchased, and the couple returned to the apartment. Once there, defendant threatened divorce, but nonetheless again engaged in nonconsensual sex while plaintiff cried. Later that day, defendant and his mother took plaintiff to the home of the Imam and, in the presence of the Imam, his wife, and defendant's mother, defendant verbally divorced plaintiff....[...]

    While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated
    This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.
    After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant's advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff's contrary wishes.

    Having found acts of domestic violence consisting of assault and harassment to have occurred, the judge turned to the issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff's domestic violence action....

The appellate court reversed this absurd decision, saying:
As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.

A close call. But no doubt more of this is to come.
Shocking NJ judge ruling

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.
Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex

Jihad Watch

Obama Gives OK to Raise Terrorist Flag in Washington

John R. Houk
© July 28, 2010

Caroline Glick properly busts President Barack Hussein Obama’s chops for being a Leftist, Foreign Policy challenged, Israel hating and Terrorist Palestinian loving American leader. Glick concluded from the Obama Administration granting permission to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) mission to fly its terrorist flag in Washington, DC. Glick’s conclusion was a logical assumption considering President BHO is hot to establish a sovereign Palestinian State. BHO’s strategy is to create a State under the borders barely won in 1949 when five to six invading Arab-Muslim armies had the goal of stripping Israel of its Independence and slaughtering as many Jews as they could find.

Friends with a nuclear armed Iran being allowed by President Barack Hussein Obama, a belligerent Syria to the northeast of Israel, Iranian client Hezbollah terrorists to the North and Iranian semi-client terrorist Hamas to the south of Israel splintering along the Mediterranean Sea all threatening Israel’s existence; 1949 borders will lead to a second Jewish Holocaust. You have to know that no matter how many promises are made to Israel to insure the Jewish State’s existence; that Mr. Appeasement would only curl his lips to condemn an imminent invasion based on 1949 borders. BHO would not lift a finger to help Israel.

Facing yet another public humiliation in the realm of Foreign Policy, the State Department was quick to state that the terrorists belonging to the Palestine Liberation Organization will not be given any diplomatic status whatsoever. The question is this: Why in the heck did Obama allow a terrorist organization whose stated ultimate goal is to terminate Israel’s existence?

Keep in mind there is difference between the PLO and the Palestinian Authority (PA). The PLO was formed which led to the eventual Chairmanship of avid Jew-killer Yasser Arafat. Mahmoud Abbas took the reins of PLO leadership from Arafat after the old terrorist died under mysterious circumstances.

The PA was formed under direction of the West to give Arabs who designate themselves as Palestinians a false image of a democratic-republic representation of a government. Arafat was its first President then Abbas massaged the Palestinian vote to follow as the next PA President. Hello! There is no difference between the Chairman of the PLO and the President of the PA. Now the Obama Administration has leant legitimacy to both terrorist organizations established in Judea and Samaria. What is next? Maybe President Barack Hussein Obama will establish a Hamas mission and allow it to fly its flag in Washington, DC. Such an action would extend instant credibility to Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), ISNA and many other groups that have the status of unindicted coconspirators in funding State Department terrorist listed Hamas.

JRH 7/28/10

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Who is Responsible for mud on Lady Liberty?

John R. Houk
© July 27. 2010

What is in a name? Take for example the name Barack Hussein Obama or perhaps Abdel Baset al-Megrahi. The first is the name of the President of the United States and the later is the name of the Lockerbie Bomber. The first gave an interview to Laura Haim with the audacity of the words America is an Islamic nation:

And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. And so there's got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples. (Emphasis mine)

President Obama speaking in an official capacity in the Muslim nation of Turkey governed by an Islamist Prime Minister:
And I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is -- although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values. (Emphasis mine)

Leftist apologists have attempted to explain away these BHO words as taken out of context by Conservatives. In a sly sense the Leftists are correct; however I believe President BHO was speaking from his Leftist and Muslim-sympathetic heart. BHO and his Leftist cadres have taken great strides to downplay America’s Christian heritage to magnify Leftist transformative concepts of Secular Humanism managing the American collective. Also President BHO has taken great strides to move America’s National Interests and Foreign Policy toward an Oil friendly Muslim Middle East increasingly pushing Israel into a potential existential threat (also to mention a demeaning of Jewish cultural heritage) by creating a Jew-hating sovereign Palestinian State.

The later person with a recognizable Arab-Islamic influenced name murdered 270 people on Pan Am Flight 103. The number of Americans murdered by Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was 180.

Al-Megrahi was the only person convicted of downing Pan Am Flight 103 in 2001 roughly 13 years after the deed committed in 1988. Al-Megrahi was diagnosed with cancer with the idea he had only three months to live. Al-Megrahi had a life sentence for his crime against humanity but a request went out to release him from prison for humanitarian purposes. I wonder if the victims and the families of the victims felt mass murder for the cause of Islam was a humanitarian act?

What was the agent that worked for al-Megrahi’s humanitarian release? Al-Megrahi’s supposed incurable cancer diagnosis somehow placed him into a prisoner exchange deal with Libya. Libya is where al-Megrahi is from and is the nation nailed for the source of the terrorist plan executed that murdered 270 souls. (Full Disclosure Conspiracy Theory)

It appears after denials and half disclosures that a combination of high level players was responsible for al-Megrahi’s release. President Barack Hussein Obama has been accused as the instrument that inspired Scottish authorities to make the humanitarian release. Shortly after this accusation a denial was issued from the What House in which the White House released a communiqué that demonstrates an inspired misinterpretation by Scottish authorities. Was Obama responsible or Scottish authorities?

President BHO’s sympathies for Leftist multiculturalism and memories of an Islamic upbringing undoubtedly added to the misguided thoughts of a humanitarian release of al-Megrahi. However, I am getting the impression that BHO’s thoughts of Scottish humanitarianism was abused to make a British National Interest deal benefitting British Petroleum’s access to Libyan oil.

If I am correct then BHO was swindled with the UK paper trail potentially making BHO the fall guy if public scrutiny turned south – and it did. Rather swindled or complicit, President Barack Hussein Obama is demonstrating his recurring ineptitude on Foreign Relations and Foreign Policy.

Obama is the tool of a Muslim terrorist’s release. Al-Megrahi is the Islamic hero who killed a large amount of infidel (kafir). Libya is the glorious Islamic welcoming host nation to a national hero. No matter how you look at it, it is mud on Lady Liberty.

JRH (Hat Tip: Solid Snake)
White House Has Their Own Lockerbie Questions to Answer

By Nile Gardiner
July 26th, 2010 at 3:30pm
Part of the Heritage Foundation

The Lockerbie scandal has just become even murkier. According to a Sunday Times report yesterday “the US government secretly advised Scottish ministers that it would be ‘far preferable’ to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya.”

The newspaper obtained a leaked document which reveals that Richard LeBaron, deputy head of the US embassy in London, had written to Alex Salmond, Scottish First Minister, ahead of the release of the Lockerbie bomber. The correspondence indicates that the Obama administration’s opposition to the “compassionate” release of the Lockerbie bomber may not have been as clear-cut as it has subsequently claimed. In the August 12, 2009 letter, the senior US official appeared to condone “a conditional release on compassionate grounds” of convicted Libyan intelligence agent Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, if Scottish officials were determined to proceed with the release of al-Megrahi against the wishes of Washington. As The Sunday Times revealed:
The note added: “Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose.” LeBaron added that freeing the bomber and making him live in Scotland “would mitigate a number of the strong concerns we have expressed with regard to Megrahi’s release”.

As the piece points out, this clearly contradicts President Obama’s assertion at his joint White House press conference last week with the British Prime Minister that “all of us here in the United States were surprised, disappointed and angry” upon learning of Megrahi’s release. Here is what Barack Obama said when he appeared alongside David Cameron on July 20:
I think all of us here in the United States were surprised, disappointed, and angry about the release of the Lockerbie bomber. And my administration expressed very clearly our objections prior to the decision being made and subsequent to the decision being made. So we welcome any additional information that will give us insights and a better understanding of why the decision was made.

This latest revelation in the Lockerbie debacle should not diminish the responsibility of Scottish authorities in the disgraceful release of a mass-murdering terrorist who killed 270 people. Nor should it alleviate the pressure on the Coalition government to hold a full inquiry into the role of British government officials in the bomber’s release. But it does raise serious questions over the Obama administration’s own role in the Lockerbie matter, and whether it did all in its power to try to prevent the release of a terrorist responsible for the killing of 189 Americans.

As I wrote nearly a year ago, President Obama was not as forceful as he might have been in speaking out before Megrahi’s release, and did not appear to make the fight against it a priority:
If returned to Libya he (Megrahi) will receive a hero’s welcome, and both Britain and the United States will be completely humiliated. He might also stage a dramatic recovery. As for the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, who have barely been consulted, they will be denied justice. Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, must show compassion for the families of those who were murdered, not for the terrorist who savagely killed their loved ones. A direct intervention by President Obama may be the only measure that will prevent Megrahi’s release – it’s time for him to speak out.

This Thursday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Lockerbie should focus not only on the role of Scottish and British authorities in the shameful release of the bomber, but also upon the messages being sent by the Obama White House and State Department to both the Scottish and British governments ahead of Megrahi’s release. This is a time for complete openness and transparency over Lockerbie on both sides of the Atlantic. David Cameron has pledged to make available some key British government documents dealing with the Lockerbie release. It is time for Barack Obama to do the same with regard to his administration’s Lockerbie correspondence.
Who is Responsible for mud on Lady Liberty?
John R. Houk
© July 27. 2010
White House Has Their Own Lockerbie Questions to Answer

© 2009 (sic), The Heritage Foundation
Conservative policy research since 1973

Monday, July 26, 2010

Israel: Annex Judea and Samaria and Make it Jewish

John R. Houk
© July 26, 2010

Ted Belman of Israpundit believes a diplomatic solution for Israel and Arabs that call themselves Palestinians is dead. In other words there is no common ground for a Two-State Solution in which a Jewish State and an Islamic State (i.e. yet another Islamic State in a Middle Eastern sea of Islamic States) will exist side by side.

Belman suggests an Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria (West Bank to Arabs, Muslims, Europeans and unfortunately America). After all that is exactly the path Jordan took when a British Military Officer led Jordanian army managed to stalemate Israel’s Defense Forces to what known as the pre-1967 border in 1948. The year Israel declared independence for the Land of Israel and fought off five to six invading Arab-Muslim armies to prevail its independence. The Arab-Muslim intention was a second Holocaust of Jews a mere three years after the Hitler-Nazi Holocaust ended.

For some reason Arab and Muslim propaganda has convinced most of the West that Jordan’s unilateral annexation of the Judea and Samaria side of the British Palestine Mandate meant that the land was Jordanian sovereign land. Hence the imposed term of “occupied” land by the West, Arabs, Muslims, Iranian-Shi’ites and Arabs that invented the name of Palestinian.

The irony of stranded Arabs by losing Arab armies that refused to accept the consequences for their invasion is that term “Palestinian” was an inference to Jews prior to 1948. I am certain the Palestine Mandate that became Israel abhorred the name “Palestine” because the term derived from an insulting term created by conquering Romans that had emptied most of the Holy Land of Jews because of constant revolts for independence. Ultimately “Palestine” is derived from Israel’s mortal enemy the Philistines of which King David finally eliminated in his reign as the second King of Israel. The Roman idea was to insult Judaism and remove a Jewish connection to their promised Home Land.

There is really no International Protocol that should prevent Israel from annexing Judea and Samaria for it was actually invaded and occupied by Jordan in 1948(ish). If Jordan had not gotten greedy they could have actually created another Arab State from the area of land that Jordan’s King Hussein dubbed the West Bank to distinguish it from the former Transjordan east of the Jordan River.

The biggest difficulty for an Israeli annexation today should not be the legality; rather the difficulty should be the demographics. Recent Jewish fear is that the Arab in Judea and Samaria have been breeding like rabbits and would make the Jews a minority in a Western Style Democratic nation. There have been new demographic studies that show that the Arab-Palestinians have inflated their population demographics significantly. Since the losing Arab nations of 1948 refused to matriculate Arab refugees into their own nations that was reinforced by the Arab League, the Arab created refugees began to live in a Stateless squalor. Ensuing losing invasions worsened the Arab conditions stranded in Judea and Samaria until 1967. That is the year that Israel spanked the invading Jordan and reacquired the land stolen by Jordan.

To give Jordan a little credit they accepted the most Arabs who called themselves Palestinians than all other Arab nations combined. This became a problem for Jordan for the Palestine Liberation Organization was created as an umbrella group of Arab and Islamic terrorists that became paramilitary troops within the Kingdom of Jordan. Much like Hezbollah is in present day Lebanon. The PLO began to indicate that the Yasir Arafat led paramilitary group was going to overthrow the Bedouin based army of King Hussein. This did not please the Jordanian King. Hussein took military action and booted the entire PLO armed infrastructure out of Jordan. This was like a civil war and Hussein prevailed. The PLO and Arafat next stop was southern Lebanon. To this very day though there is a significant amount of Arabs that would trace their lineage to the group that was told to flee by the 1948 invading armies.

Because of the demographics I am not necessarily pleased of an Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria that would extend Israeli citizenship to a large group of Arabs that have brainwashed for over a half a century to hate Jews with a pathological passion. I favor the example of Turkey though with a less brutal execution.

Turkey forced Christian Greeks, Christian Armenians and Muslim Kurds to vacate out of Turkey or to difficult to live land along the Turkish border. I don’t know the clear picture of the Kurds; however for the Greeks it was violent, thieving and deadly to the tune of thousands. For the Armenians it was a genocide of over a million as they were marched out of Turkey proper and isolated near the now nation of Armenia. Turkish reason for all this people extrication: It was to ensure that Turkey retained Turkishness after the Ottoman Sultanate of Turkey lost WWI. The victors of WWI half-heartedly intended to fracture what was left of the Ottoman Empire by uniting the Greeks of Anatolia with their fellow Greeks of independent Greece which had gained independence from the Ottomans. The Greeks lost that war to the detriment of Anatolian (Turkey) Greeks who were marched out of Turkey. The Armenian fate was before the Ottoman WWI loss out of fear Armenians would rise up in revolt at the behest of European powers.

Since the West (including America) is going through an anti-Israel hatorade and a pro-Arab/pro-Muslim love affair, Israel would have nothing to lose giving Arabs that call themselves Palestinians a forced extrication to avoid having pathological hatred living within Israeli borders.

Israel might stand alone with such action; however I believe Americans would rise up in anger if invading Arab armies again used dislocated fellow Arabs as an excuse to wipe Israel off the map.

Those are my thoughts. Here are Ted Belman’s thoughts.

JRH 7/26/10

Saturday, July 24, 2010

TANCREDO: The case for impeachment

Tom Tancredo blasts President Barack Hussein Obama’s brief Administration to this point. It is not even November 2, 2010 and Tancredo is demanding BHO’s resignation or impeachment for Presidential incompetence. Obama is placing America in a challenged position that our National Security and National well-being are threatened.

I say Amen to Tancredo. Unfortunately BHO will probably have the same benefit that sex predator President Clinton had. A Democratic Party that is the majority in the Senate making a conviction of Impeachment impossible for that matter I doubt a majority of the House required for an Impeachment could be assembled for the same reason.

Vote in November 2010 to end the Democratic Party majority.

JRH 7/24/10 (Hat Tip: WND)

Friday, July 23, 2010

A Message From ‘Free Hector Aleem’

Yesterday I posted a late plea for financial donations because of the persecution by Muslims of Christian believer Hector Aleem. Below is an update from Hector’s daughter Misbah Aleem.

JRH 7/23/10
A Message From ‘Free Hector Aleem’

Misbah Aleem
Facebook Cause: Free Hector Aleem
July 22, 2010 4:47am

Subject: What Happened in the High Court today!

Ty brothers and sisters........Today we went to the court but the lawyer of opponent party was not ready and he asked for some time. On the other hand our lawyer did an awesome job, he raised many legal points and judge was very impressed by our lawyer and Judge was on our side. But there were many Mullahs and they began to shout slogan against Christianity.......they were shouting "DEATH TO CHRISTIANITY" After the hearing we ran away from the court and hid ourselves in an office of our lawyer's friend. When the coast was clear we came back to home. We ran away from the court because we heard one of them saying that we must do something to Hector's family to teach that bloody infidel some lesson. We need more prayers..........Thank you once again for praying.

Now next hearing is on 26 July 2010, we got some time till Monday so please pray more and more for Daddy (Hector Aleem) and please all those who are bloggers please submit this story in your blog and tell your other blogger friends. And those who can donate, please donate for the fee of this lawyer. I know the fee is very high but he works really good, I have seen him today he is very brave and bright.

You can donate through Western Union, If you wanna donate through Western Union then please contact Mehwish Aleem (In Admin list). And if you wanna donate through Pay Pal then please follow the link given below.

Here is the link to Pay Pal: Please donate here:;

Another Request: Those who are Pastors please tell your Church about Hector Aleem. Please just pray for 5 minutes and I hope that God will listen your prayers. Thank you everyone for your support, You have supported us this far we all love you. We have already told Hector Aleem about you people and he is very happy to know that there are many people who are praying for him and are supporting him.

God Bless You All
Misbah Aleem
Daughter of Hector Aleem

Homosexual Thugs

When homosexuals are confronted with the truth about marriage between a male and a female they show up in force to utilize disruptive threatening protests at pro-marriage rallies. These homosexuals are thugs!

Thursday, July 22, 2010

The Accused Blasphemer Hector Aleem’s Lawyer

John R. Houk
© July 22, 2010

Hector Aleem is a persecuted Christian living in Pakistan that has been falsely accused of blaspheming against Islam. The best description of Hector’s plight with an unjust death sentence can on one of my blog posts:

I received a Facebook plea for money for a lawyer. The last time I posted about a lawyer one of Hector’s daughters informed her readers that a stiff fee had to be presented up front for continued service.

Apparently that lawyer took the money and went on the lamb with the donations. I am guessing that lawyer was a crooked Muslim or was fearful of defending someone on trial for insulting Islam or both.

Now another lawyer who his wife calls - a Pakistan Supreme Court lawyer - is asking for a big fee. Unfortunately for my readers, Kausar Aleem sent her Facebook message on July 20 needing the money for July 22. That is of course today.

The Facebook messages have been sent out heavy on requesting the money and light on the Hector Aleem update. My first instinct is to think Nigerian Scam in operation from someone in Pakistan or claiming to be in Pakistan. And yet the plight of Hector Aleem has been issued by the Christian Human Rights group he headed – Peace World Wide. The Voice of the Martyrs blog has also weighed in on Hector’s frame up, torture and the appearance of a death sentence. I wish the Mainstream Media (MSM) pick up on this persecution to provide international scrutiny on a possible death penalty for a mere alleged blaspheming insult of an Imam (hence an insult toward Islam). This would provide at the very least enough credibility to keep the money flowing to the Aleem family in Pakistan.

I am going to cross post Kausar Aleem’s update. I am going to use the Hector Aleem blog rather than the facebook notification. I confess my ignorance on how the “tinyurl” thing works with copying and posting. If the “tinyurl” link doesn’t work on my post go to the Hector Aleem blog and use the link there.

JRH 7/22/10
Update About Hector Aleem

By Kausar Aleem
July 21, 2010
Hector Aleem’s Blog

Dear supporters of Hector Aleem,

I am very sorry that I didn't update you on time. so here is the update of Hector's case.1- Our lawyer who was working for us has ran away and after that we found another lawyer who is a Supreme Court lawyer and he has taken our case.

When he took our case he told me that first of all he will make Hector out than we will give him his fee but as soon as he took our case he started demanding high fee as he is a SUPREME COURT LAWYER. That is why the amount is bigger than before. I know those who has donated for the previous lawyer do not like this but believe me we are more upset and our case which is very dangerous that even lawyers feels uncomfortable and no organization has helped us that is why we have to do all this alon.

2- Fee receipt of the lawyer is attached but this time I am being more careful. But still we have to collect donations. Do donate any amount you can and if you have already donated than please tell your friends to donate.

3- 22 July is the date of petition filed by our lawyer in High Court. We hope that our FIR ( first information report) will be quashed (cancelled) by the high court judge because it was filed illegal because an individual cannot lodge the blasphemy FIR. A senior officer is supposed to be the plantiff in the blasphemy case and before lodging it he has to investigate the case properly.

4 - As you know that two brothers from Faisalabad having same case i.e. Blasphemy case were shot dead yesterday in Faisalabad - Pakistan and no Police Officer did anything in fact they supported the killer in shooting the victims. Because the killer was only one guy and Police men were many in number but still those two brothers were killed. The reason to tell you this is Hector Aleem is arrested in that false blasphemy case and this case is the most dangerous case in Pakistan. A person can be killed by anyone anytime. So please pray for Hector Aleem's safety and also do write to Pakistani Government for his safety.

5 - Finally please donate any amount you can, because hopefully this maybe the last time we are collecting donation for Hector Aleem. Please pray for the quashment (Cancellation) of the FIR. You can donate through any way, you can either donate through pay pal or through western union. If you wanna donate through pay pal then follow the link given below and if you can donate through western union then contact Mehwish Aleem (in the group admin).

Here is the link for the pay pal:

Sincerely,Kausar Aleem
Wife of Hector Aleem

The Accused Blasphemer Hector Aleem’s Lawyer
John R. Houk
© July 22, 2010
Update About Hector Aleem

Foreign Agents: What CAIR, Anna Chapman, and Rep. Mark Siljander Have in Common

CAIR has received more in foreign money than Russian spies & ex-Congressman. Russian Spies and ex-Congressman have been indicted. CAIR's foreign donations make the spies and Ex-Congressman look like "chump change" in comparison but has not been indicted. Why?

JRH 7/22/10
Foreign Agents: What CAIR, Anna Chapman, and Rep. Mark Siljander Have in Common

Posted by Adam Savit
Jul 18th 2010 at 3:19 am
Big Peace

Late last month provocative pictures of alleged Russian spy Anna Chapman graced newspapers and blogs worldwide. The stories alongside the mandatory eye-candy featured scandalous accounts of “spying” and “espionage.” But despite the insinuations, the Russian “spies” in question were never charged with spying or espionage. Fox News reported that instead the ten Russians in American custody were charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering and “failing to register with the Department of Justice as Foreign Agents under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).” FARA, first enacted in 1938 to counter Nazi infiltration, is a disclosure statute requiring entities acting in the U.S. on behalf of a “foreign principal” (in this case the Russian government) to register and make periodic disclosure of their relationship. (Below, Anna Chapman flanked by former Congressman Mark Siljander and CAIR Communications Director, Ibrahim “Dougie” Hooper. More on each follows.)

Another U.S.-based entity that has been accused of violating FARA – by the Center for Security Policy and other leading intelligence and counter-terrorism sources – is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). The CAIR website ( documents that CAIR has received $6.6 million in cash and loans and $54.5 million in pledges from foreign principals based in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait; has met and coordinated with representatives of those foreign principals on more than 30 occasions; and has carried out over 70 political and propaganda operations on behalf of those same foreign principals.

Shortly after 9/11 CAIR released a carefully qualified statement: “We do not support directly or indirectly, or receive support from, any overseas… government.”

Unfortunately for CAIR, FARA § 611 (b) defines a “foreign principal” far more broadly than just a foreign government. It can also be a foreign political party, partnership, association, corporation, organization, or even an individual based outside of the United States.

For a 72-year-old law, the FARA statute is very much alive and kicking in 2010. We’re seeing it in the news nearly every week now. Underfunded and underestimated, the attorneys in the small FARA office are protecting America’s security, in spite of an increasingly politicized DOJ environment.

Just last week former Congressman Mark D. Siljander of Michigan pleaded guilty to violating FARA in connection with his work for a foreign organization; namely the Islamic American Relief Agency, a.k.a. the Islamic Africa Relief Agency (IARA), a non-governmental “charity” based in Khartoum, Sudan. The IARA allegedly paid Mr. Siljander $75,000 in exchange for his lobbying efforts to have its name removed from a U.S. Senate Finance Committee list of terror-supporting organizations.

The Siljander case is nearly a point-by-point match for CAIR’s work as an agent for “foreign principals” in the United Arab Emirates in the wake of the Dubai Ports scandal of 2006. As part of a senior CAIR delegation to Dubai in May 2006, Board Chairman Parvez Ahmad stated, “If the image of Islam and Muslims is not repaired in America, Muslim and Arab business interests will continue to be on a downward slide in the US.” CAIR was meeting with Khalaf Al Habtoor and other wealthy Dubai businessmen to solicit up to $50 million in donations to fund a public relations campaign in the US. CAIR’s Ahmad assured the audience, “Do not think about your contributions as donations. Think about it from the perspective of rate of return. The investment of $50 million will give you billions of dollars in return for 50 years.”

Within days of the fundraiser UAE Minister of Finance Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum endorsed a proposal to build an endowment property for CAIR in the U.S. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said, ‘The endowment will serve as a source of income and will further allow us to reinvigorate our media campaign…”

Furthermore, in 2007 CAIR received $325,000 in cash from another “foreign principal” based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). This mammoth pan-Islamic NGO composed of 57 governments is known for its “10 Year Plan of Action,” calling on all governments worldwide to institute “deterrent punishments” for the “crime” of “Islamophobia.” This is the same OIC that annually sponsors (and passes) resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly to prohibit “defamation of religions” (i.e. Islam). Barack Obama controversially appointed Rashad Hussein as a special US envoy to the OIC this year. The $325,000 transferred to CAIR was earmarked to fund a major OIC conference on “Islamophobia” at Georgetown University.

The ten Russian spies acted as sleeper agents for the Russian government. They allegedly received “hundreds of thousands of dollars” from Moscow. They were indicted under FARA by the Department of Justice in 2010.

Former Congressman Siljander lobbied members of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee to remove the Islamic Africa Relief Agency (IARA) from their terrorist sponsor list. He received $75,000 from the Sudan-based NGO for his services. Siljander was indicted under FARA by the Department of Justice in 2008, and pleaded guilty in 2010.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has lobbied for “foreign principals” and has conducted dozens of political influence operations in the US on their behalf. We have posted conclusive documentation at the CAIR Observatory website proving that CAIR has received $6,698,454 in cash and loans from “foreign principals” since their founding in 1994. So how close are they to being indicted under FARA?

The next few months may tell. On February 2, 2010 reported that FBI agents issued a grand jury subpoena seeking internal CAIR documents. Lynn Haaland, an assistant U.S. Attorney in the DOJ’s National Security Division was listed as an “interested party,” indicating that FARA may have been a factor in the investigation.

Ten Russians, one former congressman, and CAIR were all paid by foreign donors. The Russians, the congressman and CAIR all followed their paymasters’ orders. The Russians and the congressman got chump change compared to CAIR’s millions in foreign funding.

The Russians were indicted and deported. The ex-congressman was indicted and pleaded guilty.

What’s in CAIR’s future?

An Andrew Breitbart Presents blog.
Editor-in-Chief: Peter Schweitzer
Featuring: Frank Gaffney and Blackfive