Marjah, Taliban and Pakistan

John R. Houk
© March 1, 2010

Ryan Mauro has another view of the Marjah campaign that is part of the Afghan troop surge. Operation Moshtarak is the work of the NATO troops with America in the lead to dislodge the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Marjah evidently is the hub for Taliban narcotics trade. Dislodging from there and the Helmand province could put a crimp in the Taliban’s monetary resources.

Mauro’s view of Marjah is a bit more negative than the AP story I posted on the February 28. The NATO forces have apparently received stiffer resistance than the AP story implied. As of the wee hours of Mauro’s posting Mauro reports Marjah had not been completely secured. The NATO troops have control of the major roads and by-ways it is a matter of time wading through mine fields of IEDs to further a stance of kicking the Taliban out of the area.

Mauro notes that many of the inhabitants are a bit distrusting of the Afghan government because of the shady way President Karzai sowed up his election victory.

Mauro believes Pakistan’s commitment to retake Taliban controlled land on their side of the AfPak border will be more relevant than a victory in Marjah. Mauro backs his thoughts with with the recent arrests of Taliban big dogs particularly Mullah Baradar the Taliban second in command.

Gary H. Johnson, Jr. suggested that Baradar’s capture was more of Taliban plan of sniffing out a negotiated peace or truce. Johnson suggests that the Taliban are currently divided between full scale resistance and autonomy. Johnson’s logic sounds good to me because it just seems so outlandish that a Taliban leader of Baradar’s stature would have been apprehended so easily.

Mauro implies Baradar’s capture was a lucky break that might embarrass Pakistan’s ISI. There are ISI elements that are supportive of the Taliban. Apparently the NATO intelligence is happy about the progress of interrogation which implies information is not coming forth easily.

Whether Baradar’s capture was the luck of Pakistani rival internal conflict or some kind of side ways Islamic path to talk American led NATO forces into a truce, there is one important thing: How useful will Baradar’s information be?

President BHO is actually politically stretching his neck out with the troop surge to Afghanistan. If he doesn’t support a surge with a goal of victory then BHO will actually create a situation similar to Vietnam. Maintaining a status quo with the indigenous population supporting the Afghan government’s enemies will result in either failure or a long stay which even Conservatives will weary of which will also result in failure. The neck being stretched is with BHO’s peace at any cost (i.e. losing) constituency.

The strategy of ‘clear, hold and build’ still must be accomplished with extreme prejudice. Any sign of weakness to Islamic Supremacists is a concession that the enemy has won.

JRH 3/1/10

GWOT News from Afghanistan

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

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

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

JRH 2/28/10

AFTAH and Hackers

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

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

Myrick the Bold VS Saracens in America

John R. Houk
© February 26, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To register, please click here.
________________________________________

US Rep. Myrick meets NC Muslims, warns of dangers

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"We have a problem," said David Schanzer, lead author of the study and director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. "It's important to keep it in perspective in its size and dangerousness, which I think are generally overblown."
____________________________
Myrick the Bold VS Saracens in America
John R. Houk
© February 26, 2010
________________________________________
Muslim leader slings 'McCarthyism' slur at Congresswoman
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
_________________________________

US Rep. Myrick meets NC Muslims, warns of dangers

Sovereign Self-Defense is a Machiavellian Path

John R. Houk
© February 25, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JRH 2/25/10

John Bolton on President Obama's New International Order

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

JRH 2/23/10

Thoughts on Chosen OIC Envoy Rashad Hussain

John R. Houk
© February 23, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JRH 2/23/10