America Might have to use a Little Tweaked MAD on Iran

John R. Houk

© January 31, 2011

Dina Esfandiary and Harry White are geopolitical experts that focus on security issues such as nuclear proliferation. Esfandiary and White have tagged an article that has appeared in the Australian about their belief that a nuclear armed Iran is inevitable. Their conclusion is based on covert and overt activities have only served to slow down Iran’s nuclear aspirations rather than prevent them.

Their solution to a nuclear armed Iran then is not prevention, it is in deterrence. It seems the word “deterrence” is code for the old Cold War strategy between the old USSR and America of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). In no place in the article is there is specific to MAD strategy; however check this sentence out:

“The most obvious answer is deterrence, and probably nuclear deterrence. It will have to be clear to Iran that the consequences of using of nuclear weapons will far outweigh the benefits. Security provided by deterrence is more frightening than security provided by accord, but …”

That sounds like MAD strategy to me, how about you?

The thing is the threat of MAD strategy with Iran will have to be tweaked if it has any chance of working. The Mullahs of Iran subscribe to a radical theopolitical ideology that proclaims the Twelfth Imam (i.e. the Mahdi) will return soon to begin a global conquest to bring Islam to the world. Politics and theology merge for Iranian Twelver Shi’ites that will bring little fear of reprisal from a nuclear armed kafir nation such as the USA or Israel. Indeed Twelvers believe that the hidden Twelfth Imam needs a little help to reveal his self to lead physical Muslim armies in global conquest. What is that help? Check it out: If a human factor causes global chaos, the Twelfth Imam will appear to set things straight.

The only way to tweak a MAD strategy with Iran is to actually utilize a surgical small nuclear attack to show America means business. There is no way Israel could get away with such a notion. The Western armed nuclear powers are too cowardly to sign off on such nuclear surgery. India is capable, but they have their own MAD strategy working between them and Pakistan. China would take a wait and see what happens and throw in with whoever provides the best for Chinese National Interests and Security. Russia will overtly support Iran but also will join in according to how it benefits them.

Let’s see. What kind of chaos is happening currently in the Middle East?

1.     Recently a Hezbollah backed man became the Prime Minister of Lebanon after Hezbollah forced out Prime Minister Saad Hariri. New Prime Minister Najib Mikati has given public assurance he is not in the pocket of Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. If you believe that I have some mythical swamp land in Florida I can sell you for cheap.

2.     And why did Hezbollah topple the fragile Lebanese government of Prime Minister Hariri? It is because the U.N. has taken the shocking uncharacteristic action of naming what many believe to be Hezbollah members. There is speculation that Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran issued the order to assassinate Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and might be on the indictment. You can see the Iran to Syria to Hezbollah to Lebanon connection, right? Rafik was the father of Saad.

3.     Who can count how many times Syria has issued alerts in preparation for war with Israel the last couple of years. Did I mention Israel bombed a Syrian stealth nuclear reactor not too long ago?

4.     Hezbollah is Iran on the Mediterranean with some extreme back-up from rogue nation Syria.

5.     Sunni Hamas is a military recipient of the psycho-Shias of Iran and a tool of the Muslim Brotherhood.

6.     In mentioning the Muslim Brotherhood, that Salafist Islamic organization has taken advantage of Egyptian unrest to thrust itself into a potential power vacuum the mob is causing. Indeed, there are reports that both Hamas and Hezbollah have dispatched agents into Egypt to tweak the mob. Muslim grassroots unhappiness has spread across North Africa and is now entering the Sunni Middle East as well.  

I am sure with a little more digging I could find some more Muslim African and Muslim Asia indicators of the kind of chaos that is having a global effect. You can’t tell me the Twelvers of Iran are not thinking of giving a Twelfth Imam nudge by pushing chaotic circumstances.

JRH 1/31/11

*****************************

Tehran must know we'll strike back

By Dina Esfandiary and Harry White

January 31, 2011 12:00AM

The Australian

TALKS with Iran failed last week in Istanbul in another sign that within a few years the international community is likely to be faced with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Now is the time to work out how we plan to deal with it. Iran has never officially declared an ambition to develop nuclear weapons, but there is a very real possibility it could go down that path. How should the rest of the world respond? Delaying tactics should not be discounted; after all, buying time is useful. And breaking off talks would be a rash decision. But if there ever was a window of opportunity in which the rest of the world could prevent a determined Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it has almost certainly closed.

Slowing Iran's progress towards a nuclear weapons capability is an important way of dealing with the problem. A few weeks ago, former Mossad chief Meir Dagan said Iran's nuclear program had been set back and would not produce a bomb until 2015. This timeline is a testament to the success of the current mix of sanctions and sabotage -- including assassinations, and industrial and cyber-sabotage -- in slowing Iranian progress.

Limited air strikes, most likely by Israel, on the main Iranian nuclear installations will have the same effect, although there would also be some serious risks.

But lack of intelligence about the number and location of covert facilities would make targeting the program difficult, and strikes will lead Iran to double efforts to overcome the damage and resume development. None of the options can stop Iran developing nuclear weapons. All they can do is buy time.

In a perfect world, delaying tactics would give the international community some time to figure out how to convince Iran to forgo its nuclear program, but the problem with coming to a negotiated solution is that it is difficult to imagine what the rest of the world would offer that would entice Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program.

The real subject of these talks is not the domestic nuclear program, but the potential it has to be used as the basis for developing nuclear weapons. Iran clearly wants to retain the option. But who can blame them? The advantages to Iran of having a minimum nuclear deterrent may well outweigh the disadvantages.

If Iranians cannot be prevented from developing nuclear weapons, and if we are unlikely to change their minds about whether they want them, then, like it or not, the international community might just have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

Instead of trying to figure out how to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons, we now have to figure out how to stop them being used. The most obvious answer is deterrence, and probably nuclear deterrence. It will have to be clear to Iran that the consequences of using of nuclear weapons will far outweigh the benefits. Security provided by deterrence is more frightening than security provided by accord, but it may be the best option we have.

_____________________________

America Might has to use a Little Tweaked MAD on Iran

John R. Houk

© January 31, 2011

___________________________

Tehran must know we'll strike back

Dina Esfandiary is research assistant and project co-ordinator in non-proliferation and disarmament at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and Harry White is editor of Pnyx blog.

Copyright 2011 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11).

A Splintered Reed of a Staff

Ari Bussel wonders if the United States under the Obama Administration direction is involved with inciting mobs in Egypt. I am certain the thoughts hearken back to another American Democratic Party President that was responsible for unrest in the Middle East in the late 1970s. That DP President was Carter who sold out the Shah of Iran in the name of ending Iranian repression against their citizens. This Carter meddling with an American ally led to the Shah’s deposing, Ayatollah Khomeini’s entrance to power, Iran’s murderous revolution and the event that definitely turned Iran from an ally to America’s most virulent enemy since the USSR. That event was the Khomeini government allowing the American Embassy to be overrun and Americans with diplomatic immunity to be taken as hostages for about a year.

JRH 1/31/11

Mubarak is Leaving One Way or the Other

John R. Houk

© January 29, 2011

A crazy “throw the bums out” grassroots move has begun to spread across Muslim North Africa thanks to mob intimidation began in Tunisia. Although economics is undoubtedly the cause of regime change among despotic Muslim nations, the Muslims who wish to reform Islam to hearken back to the blood thirsty days of their Prophet Mohammed and the Prophet’s idea of converting the world to Islam are exploiting the unrest to become the leadership of the mob desiring change.

Egypt is succumbing big time to the Muslim mob unrest. Couple this that the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is the largest political opposition to Egyptian President Mubarak’s regime, there is a fuse lit that is searching for the bomb that will ignite the Egyptian support of the Muslim Brotherhood to depose Mubarak and rule Egypt.

The MB is the Sunni version of Iran’s lunatic Shia Twelvers that gave the Shah of Iran the boot to replace him with the repressive theopolitical dictatorship of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. An MB success in wresting control of political control of Egypt would mean that the Salafist style of Islam would make the rules of governance in Egypt. This means hearkening back to strict observance of Sharia Law and possible establishment of a Caliphate. Egypt is the most populous Muslim nation in Africa (Nigeria is the most populous nation in Africa and Indonesia is the most population Muslim nation). Egypt’s population would make the nation a prime candidate to enthrone a Caliph especially since the most learned Islamic University known as Al Azhar is located in Cairo Egypt. The existence of a Caliphate undoubtedly will awaken Muslim courage to invade Israel to attempt to execute another Jewish Holocaust.

Check this out: STRATFOR has sent out an alert that the MB and the Palestinian terrorists known as Hamas are crossing the Gaza-Egyptian border to aid in destabilizing Egypt:

The following is a report from a STRATFOR source in Hamas. Hamas, which formed in Gaza as an outgrowth of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB), has an interest in exaggerating its role and coordination with the MB in this crisis. The following information has not been confirmed. Nonetheless, there is a great deal of concern building in Israel and the United States in particular over the role of the MB in the demonstrations and whether a political opening will be made for the Islamist organization in Egypt.

The Egyptian police are no longer patrolling the Rafah border crossing into Gaza. Hamas armed men are entering into Egypt and are closely collaborating with the MB. The MB has fully engaged itself in the demonstrations, and they are unsatisfied with the dismissal of the Cabinet. They are insisting on a new Cabinet that does not include members of the ruling National Democratic Party.

Security forces in plainclothes are engaged in destroying public property in order to give the impression that many protesters represent a public menace. The MB is meanwhile forming people’s committees to protect public property and also to coordinate demonstrators’ activities, including supplying them with food, beverages and first aid.

The MB enjoys telling the West the propaganda taqiyya that it is no longer a militant Islamist organization, but rather a disseminator of peaceful da’wa to convince Muslims to reform and hearken back to the days of Mohammed. Hamas is definitely militant and it is a terrorist organization AND Hamas is directly a subset of the MB among Arabs that call themselves Palestinians.

The one ironic element that might deliver Egypt from the Islamist MB is the Egyptian Army which might accomplish a coup against Mubarak which will bring in a rule of Generals rather than radical Muslim political entities. Egyptian Generals are not Islamist; rather the Generals are self-interested in maintaining a stable Egypt that excludes the Muslim Brotherhood. The unknown variable is that the rank and file Officers in the Egyptian Army is a bunch of MB sympathizers.

This hearkens back to the days just after WWII when a Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser in the Egyptian Army with the aid of the Muslim Brotherhood exacted a mid-level Army coup against the British installed Egyptian Monarchy. The scary thing was the Muslim Brotherhood was highly connected to defeated Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler in the sense of European support against British suzerainty and a mutual hatred of Jews.

Nasser’s alliance did not stick long. Nasser eventually turned against the MB to aggrandize his political power to become a military dictator in Egypt. Nasser illegalized the MB and assassinated its early ideological leaders. This forced the MB to become a militant underground movement inside of Egypt. Over the years the MB still managed to gain Egyptian Muslim popularity and today runs candidates under other political auspices in Egypt’s legislature.

Although an Egyptian Army coup led by the Generals might solve the immediate concerns of the Egyptian populace and assuage fears of nations such as America and Israel, the Generals may fear another mid-level rank and file Officer coup similar to Nasser’s rise to power. The MB has infiltrated the rank and file of the Egyptian Army.

STRATFOR has a better elaboration of the possibilities that might arise with Mubarak receiving the boot as the dictator of Egypt.

JRH 1/29/11

**************************

The Egyptian Unrest: A Special Report

By STRAFOR Global Intelligence

January 29, 2011 2207 GMT

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak remains the lifeblood of the demonstrators, who still number in the tens of thousands in downtown Cairo and in other major cities, albeit on a lesser scale. After being overwhelmed in the Jan. 28 Day of Rage protests, Egypt’s internal security forces — with the anti-riot paramilitaries of the Central Security Forces (CSF) at the forefront — were glaringly absent from the streets Jan. 29. They were replaced with rows of tanks and armored personnel carriers carrying regular army soldiers. Unlike their CSF counterparts, the demonstrators demanding Mubarak’s exit from the political scene largely welcomed the soldiers. Despite Mubarak’s refusal to step down Jan. 28, the public’s positive perception of the military, seen as the only real gateway to a post-Mubarak Egypt, remained. It is unclear how long this perception will hold, especially as Egyptians are growing frustrated with the rising level of insecurity in the country and the army’s limits in patrolling the streets.

There is more to these demonstrations than meets the eye. The media will focus on the concept of reformers staging a revolution in the name of democracy and human rights. These may well have brought numerous demonstrators into the streets, but revolutions, including this one, are made up of many more actors than the liberal voices on Facebook and Twitter.

After three decades of Mubarak rule, a window of opportunity has opened for various political forces — from the moderate to the extreme — that preferred to keep the spotlight on the liberal face of the demonstrations while they maneuver from behind. As the Iranian Revolution of 1979 taught, the ideology and composition of protesters can wind up having very little to do with the political forces that end up in power. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB) understands well the concerns the United States, Israel and others share over a political vacuum in Cairo being filled by Islamists. The MB so far is proceeding cautiously, taking care to help sustain the demonstrations by relying on the MB’s well-established social services to provide food and aid to the protesters. It simultaneously is calling for elections that would politically enable the MB. With Egypt in a state of crisis and the armed forces stepping in to manage that crisis, however, elections are nowhere near assured. What is now in question is what groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and others are considering should they fear that their historic opportunity could be slipping.

One thing that has become clear in the past several hours is a trend that STRATFOR has been following for some time in Egypt, namely, the military’s growing clout in the political affairs of the state. Former air force chief and outgoing civil aviation minister Ahmed Shafiq, who worked under Mubarak’s command in the air force (the most privileged military branch in Egypt), has been appointed prime minister and tasked with forming the new government. Outgoing Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman, who has long stood by Mubarak, is now vice president, a spot that has been vacant for the past 30 years. Meanwhile, Defense Minister Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi (who oversees the Republican Guard) and Egypt’s chief of staff of the armed forces, Lt. Gen. Sami Annan — who returned to Cairo Jan. 29 after a week of intense discussions with senior U.S. officials — are likely managing the political process behind the scenes. More political shuffles are expected, and the military appears willing for now to give Mubarak the time to arrange his political exit. Until Mubarak finally does leave, the unrest in the streets is unlikely to subside, raising the question of just how much more delay from Mubarak the armed forces will tolerate.

The important thing to remember is that the Egyptian military, since the founding of the modern republic in 1952, has been the guarantor of regime stability. Over the past several decades, the military has allowed former military commanders to form civilian institutions to take the lead in matters of political governance but never has relinquished its rights to the state.

Now that the political structure of the state is crumbling, the army must directly shoulder the responsibility of security and contain the unrest on the streets. This will not be easy, especially given the historical animosity between the military and the police in Egypt. For now, the demonstrators view the military as an ally, and therefore (whether consciously or not) are facilitating a de facto military takeover of the state. But one misfire in the demonstrations, and a bloodbath in the streets could quickly foil the military’s plans and give way to a scenario that groups like the MB quickly could exploit. Here again, we question the military’s tolerance for Mubarak as long as he is the source fueling the demonstrations.

Considerable strain is building on the only force within the country that stands between order and chaos as radical forces rise. The standing theory is that the military, as the guarantor of the state, will manage the current crisis. But the military is not a monolithic entity. It cannot shake its history, and thus cannot dismiss the threat of a colonel’s coup in this shaky transition.

The current regime is a continuation of the political order, which was established when midranking officers and commanders under the leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasser, a mere colonel in the armed forces, overthrew the British-backed monarchy in 1952. Islamist sympathizers in the junior ranks of the military assassinated his successor, Anwar Sadat, in 1981, an event that led to Mubarak’s presidency.

The history of the modern Egyptian republic haunts Egypt’s generals today. Though long suppressed, an Islamist strand exists amongst the junior ranks of Egypt’s modern military. The Egyptian military is, after all, a subset of the wider society, where there is a significant cross- section that is religiously conservative and/or Islamist. These elements are not politically active, otherwise those at the top would have purged them.

But there remains a deep-seated fear among the military elite that the historic opening could well include a cabal of colonels looking to address a long-subdued grievance against the state, particularly its foreign policy vis-à-vis the United States and Israel. The midranking officers have the benefit of having the most direct interaction — and thus the strongest links — with their military subordinates, unlike the generals who command and observe from a politically dangerous distance. With enough support behind them, midranking officers could see their superiors as one and the same as Mubarak and his regime, and could use the current state of turmoil to steer Egypt’s future.

Signs of such a coup scenario have not yet surfaced. The army is still a disciplined institution with chain of command, and many likely fear the utter chaos that would ensue should the military establishment rupture. Still, those trying to manage the crisis from the top cannot forget that they are presiding over a country with a strong precedent of junior officers leading successful coups. That precedent becomes all the more worrying when the regime itself is in a state of collapse following three decades of iron-fisted rule.

The United States, Israel and others will thus be doing what they can behind the scenes to shape the new order in Cairo, but they face limitations in trying to preserve a regional stability that has existed since 1978. The fate of Egypt lies in the ability of the military to not only manage the streets and the politicians, but also itself.

_______________________

Mubarak is Leaving One Way or the Other

John R. Houk

© January 29, 2011

_____________________

The Egyptian Unrest: A Special Report

This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com

Copyright 2011

Learn Islam to STOP Islam

John R. Houk

© January 29, 2011

The increasing hostility from Muslims toward non-Muslims is further evidence that Americans should begin to view Islam in a light that is beyond religion. Sharia Law has become the political enforcement to religious laws derived from the Quran, Hadith and Sira. The word “politics” means the hands of the State receive a religious mandate to utilize the power of the State to infiltrate on the very lives of individuals providing an Orwellian Big Brother mentality on a local community level. This Islamic Orwellianism ends personal liberty for all actions of society must submit to the cult of Islam. This means repression executed on individuals that do not submit to Islam.

In Western governments this Orwellian Sharia Law has not invaded the secular-political arm – yet. Western governments in Europe are actually allowing Sharia Law to be practiced as a rule of law where Islam dominates the community. This gives rise to assault on non-Muslims when Muslims utilize Sharia as an excuse to vandalize, dehumanize, physically attack, rape or even murder. The last three I mentioned – physical attack, rape and murder – might be exacted by a Muslim on a fellow Muslim or a non-Muslim alike. It would depend on what portion of Sharia is broken by a Muslim and the multitudinous calls to protect the honor of Islam against the non-Muslim which excuse reprehensible acts in the name of Islam.

European nations are slowly allowing this de-Westernizing of their culture. Americans must prevent allowing the insidiousness of Islamic Sharia from gaining any acceptance as a force of the rule of law in America. Sharia means the termination of American citizens’ rights as defined by the Constitution’s First Amendment.

First Amendment:

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

How does Sharia Law contradict the First Amendment:

Sharia is based on the principles found in the Koran and other Islamic religious/political texts. There are no common principles between American law and Sharia.

Under Sharia law:

o   There is no freedom of religion

o   There is no freedom of speech

o   There is no freedom of thought

o   There is no freedom of artistic expression

o   There is no freedom of the press

o   There is no equality of peoples—a non-Muslim, a Kafir, is never equal to a Muslim

o   There is no equal protection under Sharia for different classes of people. Justice is dualistic, with one set of laws for Muslim males and different laws for women and non-Muslims.

o   There are no equal rights for women

o   Women can be beaten

o   A non-Muslim cannot bear arms

o   There is no democracy, since democracy means that a non-Muslim is equal to a Muslim

o   Our Constitution is a man-made document of ignorance, jahiliyah, that must submit to Sharia

o   Non-Muslims are dhimmis, third-class citizens

o   All governments must be ruled by Sharia law

o   Unlike common law, Sharia is not interpretive, nor can it be changed

o   There is no Golden Rule (Source: Sharia Law for the Non-Muslim; Bill Warner; PDF Document published by Center for the Study of Political Islam © 2010; Introduction p. 3)

Before American Leftists and Muslim-Americans demand the First Amendment right of Religious Freedom, adherents of Islam MUST deal with the political nature built into Islam that contradicts the rest of the First Amendment (which includes Religious Freedom for non-Muslims). If Islam cannot transform theologically to eschew the political mandates of Sharia, then at worst Islam needs to be defined as a political ideology and at best Sharia must be defined as a political ideology. Political ideologies can still be a part of First Amendment rights; however when the ideology seeks to act extra-constitutionally or is defiant of the U.S. Constitution the groups acting subversively can be monitored for illegal activities and prosecuted if the law is broken.

American Nazis can hate Jews in America, but they cannot kill or prevent the civil rights of Jews in America. The Ku Klux Klan can hate African-Americans, Jews and Catholics, but they cannot kill or prevent their civil rights. Violent Communists like Bill Ayers can write about the hatred and the overthrow of the United States, but they cannot exact acts of violence, terrorism or rebellion against the U.S. government under the rule of law of the U.S. Constitution. Neither can Muslims act against their women, honor kill their daughters, sisters and wife (polygamous wives are illegal in America); persecute Jews, Christians and other non-Muslim religions; kill the kafir; rape the kafir women and Muslims cannot do any other thing that is protected by the U.S. Constitution or subvert the U.S. Constitution because Islam demands resistance to non-Muslim practices.  

The next time a Muslim tries to tell you that Islam is a religion of peace, the person is self-deceived or a deceiving liar. You need to educate yourself on the teachings of Islam. Even though there may be a truth that a majority of Muslims are peaceful, the earliest remembrances of Mohammed’s words that became written down as the Quran are ONLY partially peaceful. If a Muslim tells you Quranic violence is understood out of context much like the Old Testament might be accused of violence out of context to today’s practice, know that it is a misleading accusation by Muslims and that Quranic violence is totally in context with the intent of its message to spread Islam establishing supremacy over non-Muslims to the point of humiliating them, converting them or killing them. That is absolutely NOT the context of the Old Testament.

The Biblical imagery of the Hebrew tribes conquering Canaan’s Land under Divine direction was a bloody enterprise. The directive by God to conquer and exterminate was based on the indigenous Canaanites and the various other tribal peoples such as Amorites, Philistines, Moabites, Amalekites, Hittites, Midianites, and Hivites and so on. These Canaan people were has religious and moral practices were reprehensible. Their sins had come to full course in that God deemed them beyond saving. This is much like in the days of Noah in which the sins of humanity had become collectively so evil that God wiped out humanity saving eight humans including Noah, Noah’s wife, their sons and their sons’ wives. The salvation of the eight by returning from the flood of water became a type of Christ’s Redemption announced to all. The new Believer is baptized or immersed in water with the sins of the old nature and resurrecting from out of immersion with their sins washed away to begin a new life journey with a new creation nature.

The slaughter ordered by God upon sinful people beyond redemption to be repopulated by the twelve tribes of the Israel nation is far different than the Quranic edict to spread Islam first by telling non-Muslims of the mercy of Allah followed by brutal conquest if Allah and his prophet Mohammed are rejected. The Israel conquest was localized to an area of land promised to the descendants of Abraham. The Muslim conquest is an ongoing path until the whole earth’s population submits to the will of Allah with violent repression if necessary.

Don’t be fooled by  Muslim apologists who vainly compare Islam’s early bloody empire acquired by brutal conquest to a localized land conquest promised to the descendents of Abraham through the bloodline of Isaac that essentially can be traced down to the son of Mary and the Son of God Jesus the Christ. Salvation is of the Jews because the son of Promise to Abraham would eventually lead to the birth of Jesus who has the equal nature of man and of God in simultaneous union. Mohammed’s lineage is NOT of the child of Promise Isaac. If anything Mohammed’s lineage MIGHT be traced to Abraham and the Egyptian slave of Sarah known as Hagar which gave birth to Ishmael. Ishmael the son of a slave was cast out of Abraham’s camp because the son of promise was born to the free woman and wife of Abraham – Sarah. Salvation is not of the Ishmaelites. You need to know your Islam. Mohammed’s words rewrote the timeless Scripture of the Old Testament by transferring Ishmael as the promised child even though Ishmael’s mother was a slave and not a free woman. In essence Mohammed replaced Isaac with Ishmael in order to make the accusation that Jews and Christians warped the true word of God that due to Mohammed only came into existence in the 7^th century AD. The Pentateuch (the Torah to the Jews) was written circa 1400 BC. Even if one buys into the secular humanist theories of the JEPD Document writing of the Pentateuch of 400 BC; that is still over a thousand years before Mohammed’s companions collated their collective memories into a written Quran.   

ACT for America’s Guy Rodgers lays out very desirable reasons for Americans to get involved on a grassroots level to combat the portions of Islam that contradict American and so also American culture.

JRH 1/29/11

*************************

Rising Worldwide Jihad

By Guy Rodgers, Executive Director

Sent: 1/28/2011 12:46 PM

Sent by: ACT for America

A recent column by Jeffrey Kuhner in The Washington Times reported the following:

·       “The Vatican estimates that from Egypt to Iran there are just 17 million Christians left.” Why? Persecution by Muslims.

·       “Nearly two-thirds of the 500,000 Christians in Baghdad have fled or been killed.” Why? Persecution by Muslims.

Other reports that have come across my desk in recent weeks report increased Islamic terror activity in Sweden. Thousands of Hindus have fled Pakistan’s Sind province due to increased persecution by Muslims.

 
While the church bombing in Egypt received some worldwide press, none of these developments I refer to above have received much worldwide attention.

 
Meanwhile, after Pakistani’s Punjab governor Salman Taseer was assassinated because he opposed Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy laws, over 500 Muslim clerics defended the actions of the murderer. What’s more, when Pope Benedict XVI urged Pakistan to repeal these laws, the leader of the nation’s most powerful Islamic party declared “The Pope’s statement is an insult to Muslims across the world.”

 
Crime perpetrated by Muslims against non-Muslims throughout Europe is accelerating. Terrorist threats are on the rise. Counterterrorism forces in Great Britain are tracking some 30,000 potential Islamic terrorist suspects in that country alone. Jews are fleeing Europe in response to increased persecution.

 
All of this is occurring against the backdrop of decades of appeasement and accommodation extended by European governments to militant Muslims.

Lebanon’s government was recently toppled by Hezbollah. Now, for all practical purposes, Hezbollah is in control of Lebanon.

Throughout history Islamic jihad has ebbed and flowed – but it has never completely ended. Today we are witnessing an emboldened and empowered worldwide jihad the likes of which has not been seen since before the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

 
In the face of this reality Rep. Bennie Thompson criticizes Rep. Peter King’s plan for hearings on Muslim radicalization, foolishly arguing that Muslim radicalization shouldn’t be singled out when we have mass shootings like the one recently in Tucson.

 
Organizations like CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, insist that terror and violence around the world, perpetrated by Muslims, has nothing to do with any doctrines of Islam. This in spite of the fact that since 9/11 over 17,000 incidents of Islamic terror have been documented worldwide. CAIR’s contentions would be laughable if this weren’t so tragic.

 
Over the past two years we saw more homegrown terrorists arrested than in the previous eight years since 9/11. Yet the Obama administration can’t even bring itself to use terms like “jihad” and “radical Islam” in its assessment of this worldwide threat.

The good news is the 2010 elections elevated Members of Congress like Peter King to chairmanships of key committees. Many of the new freshman class are more aware of the threat of radical Islam – and more willing to define it as such. More Americans than ever have heard of sharia law.

 
While issues like jobs, the economy, and exploding federal deficits dominate the headlines and are the top concerns of most Americans, we who understand the seriousness of the threat of rising worldwide jihad must continue to be the voices of warning to America. We must be the modern-day Paul Revere’s, who sound the alarm while most people don’t see what’s coming. We must connect the dots so that people understand why we are threatened by both cultural and violent jihad.

 
This year we have many big plans to ensure this happens. Our TV program premieres February 5th at 2:30 PM Eastern Time on Family Net and on February 6th at 4:00 PM Eastern Time on ALN.

 
Our National Conference and Legislative Briefing will take place in Washington, DC, June 22 – 24.

We will conduct several Citizens in Action training conferences.

We will host webcast training sessions for our chapter leaders.

Early next month we will announce a new initiative: Open the Qur’an Day.

 
I believe that, in spite of rising worldwide jihad, the tide is turning. Leaders and citizens in Europe are pushing back. ACT! For America doubled its membership in 2010. More and more Americans are rejecting the foolishness of political correctness.

 
This is not a year to lose hope. This is a year to build on what we have accomplished thus far.

 
Yours for a safe and free America,

Guy Rodgers

___________________________

Learn Islam to STOP Islam

John R. Houk

© January 29, 2011

________________________

Rising Worldwide Jihad

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.

2011 SOTU: The Patriot Response

Mark Alexander offers a scathing evaluation of President Barack Hussein Obama’s State of the Union address in his Thursday column at The Patriot Post.

JRH 1/28/11

***************************

2011 SOTU: The Patriot Response

By Mark Alexander

Thursday, January 27, 2011

The Patriot Post

"As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible [and] not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to bear." --George Washington

Barack Hussein Obama delivered his third State of the Union address this week. The good news: We can remove this man and his dangerously inept Leftist regime in two years.

The bad news: He still has two years left, and according to his ObamaPrompter, he intends to stay the course toward economic implosion.

By way of decoding Obama's message to America, Reps. Paul Ryan and Michelle Bachmann provided good rebuttals. However, they were constrained by certain standards of collegiality, so I have taken the liberty of providing The Patriot Post's unvarnished response to select excerpts of the SOTU.

First, some general observations:

1. Obama is the least qualified person to be president in any room he enters, so he looked particularly juvenile and incompetent at the House chamber podium.

2. Obama is still making political fodder of the Tucson tragedy, eager for another undignified pep rally like the "memorial service" he headlined at the University of Arizona. There, he was constantly cheered by sycophantic students whom he never once attempted to silence in due respect for what should have been a solemn occasion. For the record, in the 24 hours prior to Obama's SOTU, there were 11 law enforcement officers wounded or killed by sociopathic products of Socialist policies ... but they received no mention on Tuesday night.

3. The "date-night" seating arrangements were a great touch, particularly with serious men like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) sitting next to that bucktoothed moron, Al Franken (D-MN).

Here is the abbreviated version of the SOTU: "I want ... I believe ... I've seen ... I've heard ... I said ... I will be ... I'm asking ... I don't know ... I challenge ... I urge ... I set ... I know ... I'm proposing ... I ask ... I took ... I made ... I would ... I intend ... I've ordered ... I will not ... I've heard ... I am eager ... I'm not ... I'm not ... I'm not ... I am ... I've proposed ... I care ... I recognize ... I'm willing ... I've proposed ... I created ... I don't agree ... I am prepared ... I hear ... I will submit ... I ask ... I will veto ... I will travel ... I call on all ... I know ... I stand..."

For a more in-depth analysis, what follows are Barack Obama claims with The Patriot's rebuttals, keeping in mind that nothing Obama proposed has an authorizing provision in our Constitution:

Barack Obama: "We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. ... That's how our people will prosper. That's how we'll win the future. ... We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time."

The Patriot's Response: Obama's objective to socialize our economy is completely antithetical to "winning the future." After $850 billion in Keynesian "stimulus" spending, unemployment is higher than when Obama took office, and our national debt has grown by almost three TRILLION dollars, now bumping up against the $14.29 trillion debt ceiling just enacted in December. Here's a real stimulus plan: Reduce taxes and regulations, which will grow the economy, which will increase tax revenues, which will provide more government funding for legitimate expenditures.

BO: "To reduce barriers to growth and investment, I've ordered a review of government regulations."
TPR: This administration, which has implemented record government regulations, will now consider removing just a few of them but only if such revisions would not affect "values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts." Obama's taxes and regulations have, to this point, demoted our great nation to ninth place in Heritage Foundation's 2011 Index of Economic Freedom.

BO: "At stake right now is not who wins the next election -- after all, we just had an election."
TPR: Election, what election? As the Left is so fond of trying to forget.

BO: "Instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let's fix what needs fixing and let's move forward."
TPR: Clearly, Obama lost the battle in last November's election. Losers always say things like "let's move forward."

BO: "Now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same."
TPR: Bold words for a prez who has outspent all his predecessors, and who is now proposing more "stimulus spending," though he dared not use that term this time around, lest it be confused with the last colossal heap of Recovery.gov waste.

BO: "Our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That's what planted the seeds for the Internet."
TPR: And all this time we thought it was Al Gore.

BO: "We will make sure this is fully paid for ... and pick projects based on what's best for the economy, not politicians."
TPR: Obama is not interested in "what's best for the economy"; he's interested in picking economic "winners."

BO: "Over the next 10 years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school education. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. America has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us are willing to do what's necessary to give every child a chance to succeed."
TPR: And the answer is ... YES! Start by eliminating the Department of Education and its unconstitutional mandates. Encourage school choice and privatization. Sit back and watch education standards rise.

BO: "This is our generation's Sputnik moment."
TPR: Whoever wrote that line for the ObamaPrompter needs a one-way ticket into space.

BO: "I'm asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the [tax] system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. ... In fact, the best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code."
TPR: How about eliminating the U.S. tax code altogether and replacing it with a flat or national sales tax? Of course, our voluminous tax code is the hammer that Democrats use to control the free market, reward their friends, and punish their enemies. They're not about to lay down that hammer.

BO: "If you have ideas about how to improve [ObamaCare] by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you."
TPR: You mean like he "listened" during the original ObamaCare debate? Repeal it. Take that and work with it.

BO: "Invest ... investing ... investments ..."
TPR: As mentioned earlier, this is ObamaSpeak for unrestrained unconstitutional spending, in a year that the Congressional Budget Office projects a whopping $1.5 trillion deficit. The preamble for Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform concluded: "After all the talk about debt and deficits, it is long past time for America's leaders to put up or shut up. The era of debt denial is over, and there can be no turning back." Obama threw those commissioners under the train.

BO: "Let's make sure that we're not [cutting government programs for] our most vulnerable citizens. ... If we truly care about our deficit, we simply can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts. ... We should ask millionaires to give up their tax break. It's not a matter of punishing their success. It's about promoting America's success."
TPR: Ah, yes, redistributing wealth is always about "promoting America's success."

BO: "We shouldn't just give our people a government that's more affordable. We should give them a government that's more competent and more efficient. We can't win the future with a government of the past. ... In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government."
TPR: This is ObamaSpeak for further centralization of government power.

BO: "And so we must defeat determined enemies, wherever they are, and build coalitions that cut across lines of region and race and religion. And America's moral example must always shine for all who yearn for freedom and justice and dignity. And because we've begun this work, tonight we can say that American leadership has been renewed and America's standing has been restored."
TPR: So, Obama embarked on a worldwide apology tour, bowing to foreign dictators, and now "America's standing is restored"?

BO: "Now, the final critical step in winning the future is to make sure we aren't buried under a mountain of debt."
TPR: (Feel free to add your own rebuttal here, but don't mention the Red Chinese!)

BO: "We will argue about everything. The costs. The details. The letter of every law. Of course, some countries don't have this problem. If the central government wants a railroad, they build a railroad, no matter how many homes get bulldozed. If they don't want a bad story in the newspaper, it doesn't get written."
TPR: One of Obama's fundamental transformations of the U.S. Obama has never hidden his admiration for countries that "don't have this problem."

BO: "And we must always remember that the Americans who have borne the greatest burden in this struggle are the men and women who serve our country."
TPR: Obama begrudgingly delivered this tribute to the longest standing ovation of the evening.

BO: "Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love."
TPR: No standing ovation for gays in the military.

BO: "We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. ... We share common hopes and a common creed."
TPR: Apparently the original Constitution we use has been replaced with a "new and improved version" Obama uses.

Finally, Obama proclaimed, "It makes no sense."

This was the only thing Obama said that actually made sense.

Evaluating Obama's SOTU performance, commentator Charles Krauthammer summed it up best: "This is a president who can give great speeches, and has. This was not one of them."

But Obama's speech was not designed to impress savvy political analysts and serious-minded Patriots. It was designed to play to popular polls, and it played well.

Commentator Mark Levin had this observation: "Obama was trying to deliver a 'best of' moment in his State of the Union Address, yet it looks as if he tried plagiarizing past speeches from Reagan and JFK. We know that Obama is an ideologue and his positions on cap and trade, entitlements, social security, et al., are not going to change, no matter how moderate he desperately tries to appear. Obama's future for America will deliver us misery and poverty; it's not progressive, it's regressive. Why is it that liberals continue to mess up words like, 'Social, justice, and reform?'"

For the record, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's rebuttal said all that needed to be said in just a few minutes. As chairman of the House Budget Committee, Ryan has far more credibility and a far better grasp of our nation's fiscal peril than does Obama. Here are some excerpts:

"These budget debates are not just about the programs of government; they're also about the purpose of government. ... The principles that guide us are anchored in the wisdom of the Founders; in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence; and in the words of the American Constitution. They have to do with the importance of limited government; and with the blessing of self-government. We believe government's role is both vital and limited... We believe, as our Founders did, that 'the pursuit of happiness' depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government. ... Whether sold as 'stimulus' or repackaged as 'investment,' [Democrats'] actions show they want a federal government that controls too much; taxes too much; and spends too much in order to do too much. ... Our nation is approaching a tipping point. ... We need to chart a new course. ... We believe a renewed commitment to limited government will unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs and opportunities for all people, of every background, to succeed and prosper. Under this approach, the spirit of initiative -- not political clout -- determines who succeeds. ... We need to reclaim our American system of limited government, low taxes, reasonable regulations, and sound money, which has blessed us with unprecedented prosperity. And it has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed. That's the real secret to job creation -- not borrowing and spending more money in Washington. Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth."

Amen.

_____________________________

The Patriot is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of our readers. The Patriot is protected speech pursuant to the "unalienable rights" of all men, and in accordance with the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Copyright © 2011 The Patriot Post.

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: "The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/)"