Thursday, September 29, 2011

Iran: Become a Christian – You have Chosen Execution

Youcef Nadarkhani - Wife Fatemah Pasindedah

John R. Houk
© September 29, 2011

Youcef (or Yosef) Nadarkhani is a Christian Pastor of a House Church in Shia-Psycho Iran. After a couple years of torture and isolation Pastor Nadarkhani has refused to renounce his Christian faith to become a Muslim. An Iranian Court determined that Pastor Nadarkhani was a Muslim by birth because his parents are Muslims. Because of that Iranian adjudication Pastor Nadarkhani has been sentence to death by hanging for apostasy. Apostasy is a capital offense in most Muslim nations and is especially the case of the Mullah ruled Iran.

Here is an excerpt from a post that I used to answer an Iranian critic about the persecution of Christians in Iran:

Yosef Nadarkhani is scheduled for execution after appeals process has gone full circle:

Iran’s Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling that Yosef Nadarkhani a 32 year-Old Iranian evangelical pastor, must reject his Christian faith or be put to death. It’s the latest incident in the Islamist Republic’s continuous and increased assault on its small Christian population.

Nadarkhani was first arrested on the charge of apostasy (leaving Islam for another faith) in October 2009 and sentenced to death by hanging for his refusal to teach Islam to Christian children. While Nadarkhani hadn’t practiced any faith before he became a Christian at age19, he was born to Muslim parents and thus considered to be a Muslim under Islamic law.

As such, Nadarkhani’s conviction was upheld in September 2010 by a lower Iranian court when it found that he had proven his apostasy by “organizing evangelistic meetings, sharing his faith, inviting others to convert, and running a house church.” At that point, Nadarkhani appealed to Iran’s Supreme Court to have his death sentence reversed but that appeal has now been rejected.

To Mohammad Ali Dadkhah, Nadarkhani’s attorney, the Iranian court decision came as a surprise as only one month ago he had been under the impression that his client’s appeal had been granted. Instead, Nadarkhani now stands to be the first Iranian Christian executed for apostasy since 1990. (Iran’s Christian Shutdown, by Frank Crimi,, July 19, 2011)

I have to say Amin, Iran is not friendly to anyone who is a non-Muslim.

Today it was rumored that Pastor Nadarkhani was about to receive a stay of execution from Iran; however also on this same day Nadarkhani’s lawyer Mohammad Ali Dadkhah has said the stay of execution was a lie. Perhaps the reason for the lie is because the Iranian secret police is attempting to downplay the execution to the Iranian public and to Western media to draw attention away from Nadarkhani. Executions occur unannounced in Iran and sometime are not reported at all. If Attorney Dadkhah is correct an execution could come at anytime from now through several weeks and the public would not hear of it or some Iranian yarn could be weaved to procure a deceptive picture of Nadarkhani’s demise for being a Christian.

Here is the full account of Nadarkhani’s plight with the Iranian government by simply adhering to another religion other than Islam.

JRH 9/29/11

Asian-Pacific Geopolitics: China, Japan and USA

China Critical Sea Lanes

John R. Houk
© September 29, 2011

There are three (maybe four if one looks at Australia) big players in Asia-Pacific geopolitics: China, Japan and USA. China and Japan are Asian and the USA is the North America Super Power that has a big stake in Asian-Pacific geopolitics.

The decade long Global War on Terror (GWOT) has somewhat obscured the reality that China is a Communist dictatorship that has had an ongoing successful upgrade on their economy and military. China’s upgrading of its geopolitical status in a strong economy and a modernization of its military has shown China is willing to be more and more confrontational with its neighbors.

In my opinion China’s geopolitical growth has made Japan (the old WWII nemesis) important to American National Interests. Japan still has a strong economy although some believe a diminishing economy. Japan has a modern military yet its military is greatly tied to the WWII victor’s in the USA.

I personally have focused on the geopolitics of a militant Islam that threatens Western culture and have little knowledge of the specifics of Asian-Pacific geopolitics. Every once in a while I run across an article should alert me and you about a Chinese geopolitical agenda. One such article I found at AEI by Michael Auslin entitled “The Bleak Future of Sino-Japanese Relations”.

The Auslin title suggests that “Sino-Japanese” relations will remain strained; however Auslin planted some seeds that imply there are those in the Japanese government and military that may see things through different lenses. That implication suggests a slight moving away from American influence because China and Japan have mutual economic-natural resource needs that when withheld from each causes a prick in each of their sides. (If I am pricked, do I not bleed?)

The question for America has to be: How much can America trust Japan as an ally in the future as Japanese National Interests might gravitate toward a closer symbiotic relationship with China? Does America need to encourage Japan to focus more on their military defense needs rather than American power making up the military defense difference for Japanese security? If a self-militarizing Japan occurs that could act as a military competitor with China, allow America to view Japan as an effective counter-measure to China’s modernizing military? If Japan effectively modernizes into a more than competent geopolitical military power, might that militarization lead Japan down the path of asserting their National Interests in the Pacific viewing America as more of a global competitor and less of a friendly ally?

In other words are the unknown variables of militarizing Japan as a buffer to China in the future a good or bad thing?

JRH 9/29/11

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

What should be the Price Tag for the Asher Father-Son Murder?

Asher and Yonatan Palmer

John R. Houk
© September 27, 2011

Yesterday I wrote about the Jewish Settlers of Judea and Samaria that are getting a raw deal from their own government and are the victims of Islamic terrorism in the land of their heritage. The Jewish Settler double victimhood is considered right wing religious extremism especially since recent years has shown the Jews of Judea and Samaria has lost trust in the Jewish State to protect and uphold rights. The Jewish Settler response has been “Price Tag activism”. The essence of Price Tag activism is that for every wrong done to Jewish Settlers a response will pay for the wrong.

Most recently the Price Tag response occurred because the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bulldozed to settler homes because the President of the Israel Supreme Court has ruled that any land that is not State land (as in the State of Israel) is private land; thus any Jewish Settlers that have built on land not provided by the State of Israel is owned by Arab Muslims. The IDF demolition proceeded even though the Leftist Jews of Peace Now that filed the suit that led to the demolition did not have the documentation to prove the three Jewish Settler houses were on Arab land.

Can anyone say, “Travesty of justice?”!

Here is some more anti-Jewish Settler news that was executed by both the Israeli government and Islamic terrorists: Jewish Settlers Asher Palmer and his baby son Yonatan were murdered. The weapon that murdered Asher was a rock. Guess who is notorious for standing alongside roads throwing rocks at vehicles driven by Jews? The obvious answer is Arabs that call themselves Palestinians committing acts of terrorism out of mere hatred for Jews. Here is a concise description of the murder:

At the same time Abbas was publicly asking the U.N. to grant statehood to the PLO in Judea and Samaria, his citizens were murdering two young citizens of Israel. Their car was hit with a large stone, thrown through the windshield by terrorists driving in an oncoming car.

The terrorists then stopped, stole Asher’s gun from his motionless body, and shot his still breathing infant son. (Palestinian Barbarians Murder Another Baby! Frumline; 9/27/11)

This is the proof of the difference between Price Tag activism and Islamic terrorism. The former vandalizes property and the latter murders innocent people.

The hugest travesty of these murders is that the IDF attempted to cover-up the murders as a car accident. Why would the IDF cover-up the murder of Jews at the hands of Islamic terrorists. THE REASON is Israel attempted to hide the murder because Palestinian terrorist PA President was speaking at the United Nations on the same day! The IDF did not wish to deal with any Price Tag outbursts from Jewish Settlers at the very time Abbas said they would not recognize a Jewish State and that a sovereign Palestine would allow NO JEWS to live in their own land of Judea and Samaria.

JRH 9/27/11

Monday, September 26, 2011

Taking Down Socialist 'Tax Fairness' Rhetoric

Mark Alexander writes about President Barack Hussein Obama’s Socialism in taxation.

JRH 9/26/11
Taking Down Socialist 'Tax Fairness' Rhetoric

By Mark Alexander
September 22, 2011

Who decides what is fair?

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all." --George Washington

Fumbling Fodder - BHO 9-22-11

One thing's for sure, Barack Hussein Obama is unrelenting in his effort tobreak the back of free enterprise. His Labor Day stimulus welfare, part deuxdidn't get a rise, so now he's rolling out the big guns.

On Monday, Obama brandished that favorite weapon of "useful idiots," class warfare. Classism (discriminating against a minority class of citizens on the basis of income) is like racism (discriminating against a minority class of citizens on the basis of skin tone), except for the fact that the former is acceptable to Leftist hypocrites (but I repeat myself), while the latter is not.

In a speech proposing $1.5 trillion in new taxes, ostensibly to reduce his rapidly accumulating deficit and debt, Obama claimed, "It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. ... We can't afford these special lower rates for the wealthy. ... Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires."

Obama flatly stated that mega-millionaires pay less tax and a lower tax rate than average American earners.

That might be "wrong" if it were true, but Obama is wrong and it's not true -- nowhere even close to factual. The red meat, however, certainly resonated with his wide-eyed sycophants. Here in Realville, the top 1 percent of income earners pay a whopping 38 percent of all tax revenues collected, while the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay less than three percent of all tax revenues collected. The remaining 60 percent of tax collections are confiscated from "the rich" between those brackets. And, of course, there are no "special lower rates for the wealthy."

Income Tax percentile chart

Still, Obama isn't one for letting facts get in the way of a good three-pointer, particularly in the politics of disparity game. Moreover, some 30 percent of Americans are already generational dependents of the state, which is to say they've been too dumbed down to distinguish the most basic facts from fiction, and will thus support Obama regardless. (If you think 30 percent dependency is a problem, just wait until ObamaCare kicks in...)

Here is what Obama's adoring masses took away from his speech: Tax increases should be implemented "in a way that is fair" to "make it fairer" so "the wealthy" will "pay their fair share." Obama used that last phrase ad nauseam -- no less than seven times.

But surprisingly, here is what Obama's oft-adoring media took away from his speech: The editors of USA Today concluded, "[T]he plan's flaws are troubling. It pretends that enough money can be raised simply by raising taxes on the rich. It can't. There aren't enough of them."

The Washington Post noted that Obama "replaced one gimmick with another," and concluded that there is "absolutely nothing new here."

For The New York Times, David Brooks wrote: "[Obama] repeated the populist cries that fire up liberals but are designed to enrage moderates and conservatives. ... This wasn't a speech to get something done. ... We're not going to simplify the tax code, but by God Obama's going to raise taxes on rich people who give to charity! We've got to do something to reduce the awful philanthropy surplus plaguing this country!"

But Obama's racketeering capos regurgitated the party memo.

Jack Lew, Director of Obama's Office of Management and Budget, said, "We believe there's a fundamental unfairness to have middle class people paying higher marginal tax rates than millionaires and billionaires. We're not saying we should have a confiscatory tax rate; we're saying it's just not fair to have a world where it's so unbalanced."

Ratcheting up the classist rhetoric, Sen. Harry Reid blustered, "More than anyone else, these millionaires and billionaires benefited from Bush tax cuts and contributed $3 trillion to our deficit, to help plunge this nation into a financial hole."

As for his calculation to pit one group of Americans against another, Obama remains defiant: "Now, you're already hearing the Republicans in Congress dusting off the old talking points. 'Class warfare,' they say. ... I wear that charge as a badge of honor."

Average Tax Rate Chart (2009) 9-22-11

The most amusing part of Obama's speech was his fallacious invocation of our nation's Founding Father. Obama claimed, "George Washington grappled with the problem" of taxes. "[Washington] said, 'Towards the payment of debts, there must be revenue, and to have revenue, there must be taxes. And no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.'"

This quote is from President Washington's Farewell Address, and Obama might benefit from reading the remainder of the Address. As president of our young nation, Washington's biggest debt concern was about dispensing with the costs of the revolt over excessive taxation. Obama and his socialist bourgeoisie would do well to remember that it was excessive taxation that gave rise to the American Revolution, and that is the same catalyst which gave rise to the present day Tea Party Movement and talk of a second American Revolution.

While quoting Washington, Obama failed to mention that a tax on incomes was expressly prohibited in our Constitution. The taxes Washington spoke of were limited to those in Article I, Section 8, Clause I, "taxes, duties, imposts and excises ... but all duties, imposts [customs taxes], and excises [consumption taxes] shall be uniform throughout the United States."

What else did Washington say about taxes and debt? Most notably, he insisted, as did all our Founders, that our Constitution "which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all."

Regarding sacred obligations to abide by our Constitution, Obama shamelessly admonished those members of Congress who have pledged to reduce taxes and government spending: "[T]he last time I checked the only pledge that really matters is the pledge we take to uphold the Constitution."

(I hope you were sitting down when you read that sardonic citation.)

Obama built his last presidential campaign, and is building the next, around the "change" theme, a euphemism for replacing free enterprise with Democratic Socialism: "This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America. And generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was our time."

In a public address prior to his aspirations for national office, Obama asserted that the Constitution "is a document which, uh, reflects some deep flaws," and consequently, he expressed disappointment that activist judges have not broken it "free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." He then went on to complain, "The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf." Say, for instance, "bring about redistributive change."

What is most "deeply flawed," however, is Obama's world view. This manifests itself via his abject disregard for Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution, and his advocacy for the rule of men under the so-called living constitution.

Obama, et al., are not required by law to abide by their solemn oaths to support and defend our authentic Constitution and thus they have no sense of that obligation. The whole body of our elected and appointed officials in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches must be legally required to abide by their oaths. To that end, we introduced a measure to enact a legal mandate either through the courts, or, if that fails, through the legislature.

The bottom line in regard to taxes and debt is this: Raising taxes removes revenue from the private sector, which suppresses economic growth and job creation. Cutting taxes increases revenue in the private sector, which promotes economic growth and job creation.

(Memo to Republicans who counter Obama's tax plan with the mantra, "It's not good to raise taxes during a recession": May I remind you that it's not good to raise taxes, period!)

Obama closed his proposal to raise taxes saying, "It's also about fairness. It's about whether we are, in fact, in this together, and we're looking out for one another. We know what's right. It's time to do what's right."

In other words, its all about confiscating and redistributing wealth from the most productive group of job-creators in America -- small business owners -- to the least productive groups, mostly those who subsist on the state. That does not constitute "looking out for one another" and is most decidedly not "what's right."

The essence of "fairness" is outlined in our Declaration of Independence, which states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The operative words here are "created equal" (not equalized by government redistribution) and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" (not granted them by the state).

That pre-eminent document of our nation's founding also stipulates, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

Let's hope that ballots prevail over bullets, and that the government we abolish will be that created by Obama during his single ruinous term in office.

Editor's Note: For reliable information on taxation, link to the Tax Foundation and Americans for Tax Reform. To understand more about excellent alternatives to the current bloated system of taxation, read about the national sales tax and the alternative Flat Tax.

The Patriot Post is a highly acclaimed advocate of Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We believe, as did our Founders, that Essential Liberty must be defended at any cost. "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin) · "A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." (John Adams) · "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Thomas Jefferson) · "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." (Thomas Paine) · "It does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. ... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" (Samuel Adams) · "Give me liberty or give me death!" (Patrick Henry) · "Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!" (George Washington)

The Patriot Post 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 Post 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.


Is Price Tag Activism the same as Islamic Terrorism?

All Israel is Jewish

John R. Houk
© September 26, 2011

The ruling of a near retiring President of the Israel Supreme Court proclaimed land settled by Jewish Settlers in the settlement of Migron, Judea-Samaria is private Arab land. The Supreme Court Justice Dorit Beinisch is a Jewish Left Winger which means in her imagination Judea-Samaria is occupied even though the area is traditional Jewish land. It also means Beinisch is under the delusion that if Israel donates a chunk of her heritage to the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians that peace will exist between Israel, Palestinians and surrounding Muslim nations. The Leftist Jews will be greatly surprised.

The pressure on Israel to acquiesce to a sovereign Palestine is tremendous. Because of the pressure I sadly predict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will get the dubious credit for selling the Jewish Settlers of Judea-Samaria out of their Jewish heritage. The sell-out would be the creation of a sovereign Palestine which will force the Jewish settlers to move out or die according to the tenets of Islam. One can see the frustration in that some Jewish settlers have began attacking those that are considered the enemies of Jewish Judea-Samaria.

In early September Beinisch’s judicial ruling led to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to bulldoze three Jewish Settler houses in Migron. Bulldozing of homes is what the IDF does to families of Muslim terrorists after a homicidal suicide attack that kills innocent Jewish men, women and children. Since it appears the whole world is determined to create a Jew-hating Arab State right next to Israel that continues even today before statehood that the Jewish State of Israel will not be recognized.

The Jewish-Settler frustration with their own sell-out government and Muslim terrorists creeping in the cracks of Judea-Samaria struck out at their nemesis times two: an IDF compound and a couple of Mosques as a Price Tag.

Price Tag activism is considered religious right wing extremist terrorism by Jewish Settlers in Judea and Samaria. Here is a brief description of Price Tag activism:

'Price tag' is a term coined by extremist elements within the settler population in Judea and Samaria for acts of vandalism, intimidation and violence against Palestinians and their property as a reaction to the government's removal of outposts, roadblocks, and other perceived anti-settler actions. 'Price tag' actions also come in reaction to Palestinian acts of violence, such as the brutal murder of the Fogel family from Itamar ([SlantRight Editor: This is what happened to the Fogels from Itamar] IDF Spokesperson: Settlers' 'price tag' policy is terrorism, Israel Hayom; August 4, 2011).

I find it odd that Jewish Settlers are called terrorists for protecting their Biblical inheritance. Muslim terrorists are called victims of Israel for stealing the Jewish heritage of Israel. Yeah I know, the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians believe all of Israel, Judea-Samaria, Golan Heights and Gaza have always been Muslim possessions and that the reclaiming Jews are stealing the land Palestinians have lived on for centuries. The reality though any presence of Muslims in the Holy Land is the result of Islamic Imperialism. The land of Israel is part of the promise given to Abraham that applies to his descendents from the son of Promise Isaac (NOT ISHMAEL the son of an Egyptian slave; i.e. Hagar) and the bloodline that has flowed through Jacob (renamed Israel by God Almighty) and further on to David and further on to Zerubbabel and as far as Christians are concerned to Jesus the Son of God through the bloodline of Mary. In case you are wondering the false prophet Mohammed that proclaimed his deity Allah has no Abrahamic bloodline that flowed through the son of Promise Isaac.

The Price Tag activists have thus far expressed their anger at the Israeli government betrayal and the Jew-hatred of Palestinians by using vandalism. Is that terrorism? Yeah probably it is. Is it terrorism on the level of the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians? NO ABSOLUTELY NOT! Islamic terrorists take aim at Jewish families that include women and children, and butcher them in the most heinous manner possible. YET the West is determined to believe Palestinian propaganda that Islamic terrorist butchery is justified because Jews occupy their own land. The reality is 1948 invading Arab armies created Arab refugees by refusing to matriculate them into the Arab nations after Israel defeated them. Then in 1967 after another Arab invasion Israel recaptured Judea and Samaria from Jordan which had marooned Arabs that call themselves Palestinians in which former conquering Jordanians renamed the West Bank.

Not that it would have changed the peace-conflict thing between legitimate Israel and Jew-hating Muslims, just think how history would have played differently if the Jordanians were less interest in conquest and more interested in setting up a sovereign state called Palestine in the area they called the West Bank by Jordan (in 1948 Transjordan). Since the invading Arab armies lost in 1948 yet refused to take responsibility for the refugees they caused, the parcel of land where most of the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians would have been perfect for a Palestinian State. However even this would be a usurpation of Jewish heritage.

Leftist Jews hate religious Jews in much the same way that American Leftists despise Biblical Christians. Leftist Jews go out of their way to denounce the Price Tag movement among Jewish Settlers as a breakdown of the rule of law in Israel. This is so even though Islamic terrorism within Judea-Samaria is looked upon less as a breakdown of the rule of law and more as victimization by Israel occupying Palestinian land. Calling Israel’s heritage “Palestinian land” drives me crazy.

Now check this out: The Obama Administration under the auspices of the Hillary Clinton State Department has joined Jewish Leftists and the Israeli government in selling the Jewish Settlers out. Secretary Hillary Clinton has called for justice for the vandalism of Mosques related to Price Tag activism. Actually this is not such a great surprise because Obama has consistently taken the Palestinian side for statehood even though PA President Mahmoud Abbas refuses to recognize the existence of a Jewish State. So when the American State Department condemns vandalism as a heinous crime by Jewish Settlers struggling to maintain Judea-Samaria as part of the Jewish heritage, the State Department is then ignoring the Palestinian-Muslim treatment of Christian Churches and Christians in Judea-Samaria. ALSO the State Department refuses to condemn and call for justice when Christians in other Muslim lands are persecuted by Church burnings, rapes and murders.

If America is going to be consistent in vehement condemnation, America must also vehemently condemn the treatment of Christians in Muslim lands! Will that happen? The appeasement affair the Obama Administration has for Muslims that persecute minorities will sadly preclude sounding of calling for justice for wronged Christians.

Raymond Ibrahim touches on the hypocrisy of the U.S. State Department which looks the other way when Muslims persecute Christians and Jews.

JRH 9/26/11
The State Department's Skewed Standards

By Raymond Ibrahim
September 23, 2011
Originally in Jihad Watch

Earlier this month in the West Bank, "settlers attempted to burn two mosques, and vandalized an IDF base as part of the latest 'price tag' attacks. The attacks came in response to the demolition of three buildings earlier this week in the West Bank settlement outpost Migron, 14 kilometers north of Jerusalem."

Accordingly, on September 9, the U.S. State Department unequivocally denounced these attacks, calling on those responsible to "be arrested and subject to the full force of the law." Likewise, when another mosque and copies of the Koran were burned earlier, the State Department said "We condemn this attack in the strongest terms and call for the perpetrators to be brought to justice."

This prompts the following question: If the State Dept. is concerned over places of worship, why do the epidemic attacks on churches in the Muslim world go largely unnoticed?

To be sure, the State Dept. has condemned the bloodiest and most savage of church attacks, including the Baghdad, Iraq attack, which saw at least 58 Christian butchered, and the New Year church bombing in Alexandria, Egypt, which left 23 Christians dead.

Yet one searches in vain for formal condemnations, let alone acknowledgment, of the majority of church attacks, most of which, if not as deadly as Alexandria or Baghdad, are much more brutal than the West Bank mosque attacks.

For instance, where is the condemnation for the attack in Sool, Egypt, when a Muslim mob torched a church, even as an imam called for Muslims to "Kill all the Christians?" As for theImbaba attacks in Egypt, when Muslim throngs torched three churches and killed several Copts, the U.S. embassy issued a statement condemning "sectarian violence" while not once mentioning that any churches were attacked.

During last month alone, two churches were set aflame in Indonesia, two churches were bombed in Iraq, three churches were bombed in Nigeria. Of all these, only one of the Iraq church attacks—which left 23 worshippers seriously injured—received a condemnation by the State Dept.

Of course, the issue here is not that the State Dept. needs to condemn all church attacks (who can keep up with their frequency?); nor do these statements amount to much more than mere words, anyway. Even so, as words, they offer some revelations.

First, the obvious: It seems that the State Dept. mentions attacks on churches only, but not always, when people are killed, whereas the condemnation of the West Bank mosques have only to do with attacks on buildings. In other words, attacks on churches around the Muslim world that do not necessarily lead to the loss of life, are ignored, whereas attacks on West Bank mosques that do not target or kill Muslims are strongly condemned.

The language of the condemnations is also telling: the Alexandria attack killing 23 Copts doesn't even call on bringing the perpetrators to justice; Kirkuk is treated with "confidence": "We are confident the Government of Iraq will take all necessary steps to bring the people responsible for this horrific act to justice."

Contrast this with the language used when Jewish settlers vandalize mosques, but kill no one in the process: then the U.S. unequivocally calls for them to "be subject to the full force of the law."

Yet even now, it might be argued that one is stretching the issue, focusing too much on words and statement frequencies. Perhaps—until one realizes that many of the most oppressive Muslim nations just got a free pass from the State Dept.

Days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. Amazingly, countries like Pakistan, notorious for making non-Muslim life a living hell, including through "blasphemy laws," were not even cited as "countries of particular concern."

In other words, the vast majority of Muslim nations persecuting their religious minorities do not, according to the Obama administration, count as countries that are "engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom" (the definition of a "country of particular concern"). Even Egypt—which this year alone has already seen over fifty Copts killed, not to mention the many churches burned or bombed—was not listed.

One would have hoped for a bit more objectivity and moral balance from the government of the United States, but such is the current state of affairs.

Is Price Tag Activism the same as Islamic Terrorism?
John R. Houk
© September 26, 2011
The State Department's Skewed Standards

Raymond Ibrahim

RAYMOND IBRAHIM is an Islam-specialist and widely published author, best known for The Al Qaeda Reader. He guest lectures at universities, including the National Defense Intelligence College, briefs governmental agencies, such as U.S. Strategic Command and the Defense Intelligence Agency, provides expert testimony for Islam related lawsuits, and has testified before Congress regarding the conceptual failures that dominate American discourse concerning Islam. Among other media, he has appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, C-SPAN, PBS, Reuters, Al-Jazeera, CBN, and NPR. READ MORE

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Latest Media: Winston Churchill Was an Islamaphobe

One of the greatest leaders of the Allies during WWII was Winston Churchill. Islam is not a pleasant religion. Churchill made this clear in a way that would have had him crucified today with the nails of political correctness. Check this out from the Walid Shoebat Foundation.

JRH 9/24/11
Latest Media: Winston Churchill Was an Islamaphobe

Sent: September 23, 2011

When it came to the evils of Nazism and calling a spade a spade Churchill was right but few listened till it was too late. Churchill's view on Islam was similar to Nazism. It also should be noted that Obama hates Winston Churchill, we know this from when he removed the statue of him in the White House: that should be cause for serious concern...

VIDEO: Winston Churchill Was an Islamaphobe

Friday, September 23, 2011

Who is More Heinous for Killing in the Name of Religion?

Crusader vs Muslim battle

Christians or Muslims
John R. Houk
© September 23, 2011

You know when Islam is exposed as violent rather than a religion of peace, Muslim apologists love to tell you that Christians have a huge history of killing in the name of Jesus. The Muslim apologists love to specify two Christian historically violent periods as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. The Muslim apologists love to point the torture, blood and guts that were spilled by Christians.

My primary response to the evils perpetrated by those calling themselves Christians and executing torture and killing in the name of Jesus Christ did so contrary to the Holy Scriptures (primarily the New Testament). Jesus Himself warned of future wars and rumors of wars; however the sense was that the Christ was speaking of turbulence that Christians would have to deal with in the future. The meaning of wars and rumors of wars was it would be the beginning of planet earth’s birth pangs of travail that will produce the New Earth and New Heaven with the Jesus the Son of God as the King both religiously and politically. The return of Jesus is the one actual time that politics and religion merge symbiotically and operate according the goodness of God.

Then I continue my response that Islam’s holy writings have the diametric opposite focus from Christianity’s goal to the straight path to Oneness with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Quran, Hadith and Sira of Islam are filled with ways to kill the kafir (Islam for unbeliever) along the way to a global Caliphate in which the Muslim version of Jesus and Mohammed come back to wrap up the job of kill or convert the kafir.

Here is something else you should know about the Muslim apologists’ claim that the historical warring Christians were as reprehensible if not more so than Muslim imperialistic wars that were justified to liberate kafir (Christians, Jews, Hindus et al) from their deceived path to the correct path of submission to Allah and the deity’s prophet Mohammed. That “something” is the death toll.

Now here is a shot of truth. Those that died by the hand of nations and religious orders in the name of Christ but contrary to Christ’s commandments is a quite huge number – 17,000,000:

It is true that in the world's history of beliefs and practices, there have been many wars and cruel inhumanities conducted in the name of different religions and ideologies. Those notorious events stand rightly condemned. The total number of deaths estimated to lie at the feet of humanity's poor practice of Christianity is approximately 17 million. This number would include ancient wars, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, various European wars during the Middle Ages, and witchcraft trials. (Isn't religion to blame for most of history's killings?

Here is some clarity: people killed in the name of Jesus but not according to the commands of the New Testament were 17,000,000 fellow Christians (disputes over theology), Crusaders (attacking Eastern Orthodox Christians, Muslims and Jews) and the Inquisition (primarily aimed at Jews and Muslims).

Now that 17,000,000 sure is a huge number of people killed contrary to the Word of God! How dare Christians declare themselves as followers of a peaceful religion when so many human souls were senselessly kill in the name of Jesus, right? AGAIN, the deaths occurred contrary to the Prince of Peace and not according to the Prince of Peace.

If you think 17,000,000 is a huge number check out how many people died by the imperialist sword of Islam that happened by specific Quranic, Hadith and Sira instructions on how to spread Islam: Conquer, Humiliate, Convert OR live the humiliating Dhimmi life or DIE for refusing to the suzerainty and submission to Allah: 270,000,000 human souls died by Muslims fulfilling their holy writings.

TWO-HUNDRED-SEVENTY-MILLION non-Muslims killed is nearly SIXTEEN TIMES more killed by Christians acting outside of Christian Holy Scriptures! A probable exaggerated figure of Muslims killed during the Crusades by Rhonda Roumani is “… several million Muslims” (Crusades-Encyclopedia: The Hall of Shame; Point 2). The death of millions of Muslims is bad. The death of 270,000,000 non-Muslims by the instrumentality of the Islamic death cult is force worse.

Bill Warner writes essentially about how political correctness how historians (authentic, revisionist and Muslim Apologists) muse over the horrors of the West and Christian culture yet ignores the truth of the Muslim horrors of the past. You need to read the Warner article entitled, “The Victim’s View of Islam”.

JRH 9/23/11