Thursday, November 29, 2007

Who's the Bigger Threat: The Moderate Muslims or the Jihadists?

Amil Imani writes in a kind of dialogue form debunking the concept that there is such a thing as a moderate Islam. The essay is quite lengthy; however it is worth the read even if you have to go back a few times to finish reading.

JRH 11/29/07

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

GOP rivals clash on immigration, torture

Apparently the Republican debate hosted by CNN/YouTube tonight was a good old fashioned American backyard mud fight of “he said, I said.”

After reading about it, now I wish I would have watched it.


Here are some Annapolis insights from Joel C. Rosenberg.

JRH 11/28/07

AFTER ANNAPOLIS: President Bush should visit Israel and speak in Jerusalem

Joel C. Rosenberg
November 28, 2007-11-28

How should we assess the Annapolis conference?

First, the good news:

* President Bush, to his great credit, is doing everything he possibly can to keep another horrible war from breaking out in the epicenter. I don't think in the end he will be successful, but I strongly applaud him for trying. He is following the words of Jesus, "Blessed are the peacemakers." With great difficulty, he brought together senior leaders from almost 50 countries -- including Syria, including the head of the Arab League, and including the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference -- in the hopes of jump-starting a new dialogue for peace. I, for one, am grateful for his efforts.

* The U.S. emerged once again as a global agenda-setter, working hard to build a global alliance of moderate, peaceful, reformer Muslim leaders against the radical Islamic jihadist leaders that Iran is trying to pull together into an alliance against Israel and the West.

* Syria's participation in the Annapolis conference, which infuriated Iran, was particularly welcome. Tensions along the Golan Heights are running high. War clouds between Damascus and Jerusalem are clearly building. The fact that Syria was willing to meet in a diplomatic setting like this is good news. It may not ultimately be enough to prevent a war, but it is still a welcome development.

* The Israelis and the Palestinians are going to begin regular peace talks beginning December 12. This, too, is good -- though Prime Minister Olmert must strongly and firmly insist from the outset that talks absolutely cannot continue if southern Israeli towns like Sderot continue to be hit by rockets and mortars. The shelling must stop immediately. The first provision of the "Road Map to Peace" was Israeli security. Nothing else should be discussed until the border is quiet.

* President Bush did not publicly pressure Olmert to divide Jerusalem, and Olmert did not publicly immediately put Jerusalem on the table. This, too, is good, though I suspect it's only temporary. Still, let's take one day at a time.

Now, the bad news:

* A process is now in place that will, in fact, steadily and dramatically increase international pressure on Israel to give up something tangible (land, sovereignty) for something historically elusive, at best ("recognition" by the Islamic world and, of course, "peace"). If Israel is not careful, she could end up feeling forced to give away the store.

* We know by his previous statements and those of his advisors that Prime Minister Olmert is already disposed to give away nearly all of the Biblical heartland of Judea and Samaria, commonly known as the West Bank, as well as up to half of Jerusalem. He is going to have plenty of opportunities to thus "respond" to this growing international pressure in the weeks and months ahead. This is a serious concern.

* It is not clear that Mr. Olmert has learned the lessons of Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 or her withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Rather than Israel receiving "recognition" and "peace" in return for such land giveaways, the radical jihadist group Hamas took over Gaza and is steadily consolidating its power in the West Bank. What's more, Israel was attacked by some 4,000 rockets and missiles from Lebanon in 2006 and by more than 2,500 rockets and mortars from Gaza over the past two years. "Land for peace" worked with Egypt in 1979. Israel did not have to give up land for peace with Jordan in 1994, and that peace treaty has held. Is there evidence that giving up land will bring about true and lasting peace with the Palestinians in 2007 or 2008? Sadly, no.

* The very fact that the Israelis are talking about giving up land and dividing Jerusalem is a sign of blood in the water to her enemies, not a good thing when you're surrounded by sharks. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is already organizing a conference of terrorists as an "alternative" to Annapolis. He and his genocidal cronies will do everything they can to sabotage any prospect for peace, however slim, and then say, "See, we told you so! Now it's time for war." Ahmadinejad sees Olmert and his government as weak, exhausted, and doomed to collapsed. He said as much yesterday after a cabinet meeting in Tehran. "It is impossible that the Zionist regime will survive,"
Ahmadinejad insisted. "Collapse is in the nature of this regime because it has been created on aggression, lying, oppression and crime." Moreover, Ahmadinejad believes the winds of history are at his back. He believes he is doing Allah's will to obliterate Israel and annihilate Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it. Annapolis will very likely serve as a catalyst to him to get his nuclear weapons program complete, take care of Israel once and for all, to bring about the global carnage and chaos necessary to usher in the coming of the Mahdi.

* Russia has announced that it is going to host a post-Annapolis summit soon. President Vladimir Putin can't stand the notion that President Bush has emerged in recent years as the game-changer in the Middle East. Putin wants that role for himself. The difference is Bush wants to support the Reformers, while Putin is siding with the Radicals. We must watch carefully to see how Putin reacts to Annapolis and what new initiatives he might try to put on the table. One possibility: "a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone" that would seek to turn the world's attention away from Iran and put the spotlight on disarming Israel.

Where do we go from here?

* Let me start by saying I believe the Israeli public sincerely wants peace with the Palestinians. They sincerely want the Palestinian people to run their own affairs, govern their own lives, raise their children in peace and safety, and have a growing economy that can bless and benefit everyone in the region. I wholeheartedly share this desire.

* That said, we must be clear: Hamas does not want peace with Israel. Hamas wants what Iran wants: the annihilation of Israel. And Hamas is calling the shots in the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (aka, Abu Mazen) is a weak figurehead right now. His Fatah/PLO organization is withering beneath him. It may not be long before it completely collapses and Hamas takes full control in the West Bank as it has in Gaza. Should Israel really be negotiating with terrorists? Should we really risk putting the Christian holy sites of Jerusalem under the control of radical Islamic jihadists. Look what's happening to Christians in Gaza. They are being attacked, harassed, persecuted and even martyred. Muslims who don't subscribe to the full Hamas agenda have been slaughtered on the streets of Gaza. Journalists are being kidnapped there. Under no circumstances should such a fanatical group of people be allowed to control the West Bank or any piece of Jerusalem. It is insane to think otherwise.

* President Bush should, therefore, take an historic trip to Israel soon and address the Israeli Knesset (parliament) in Jerusalem. He should make clear to the Islamic world that the U.S. stands with Israel and that we will do nothing to compromise her safety or security.

* The President and Congress should also make it clear that the U.S. considers Jerusalem the eternal, undivided capital of the Jewish State of Israel. We should move our Embassy there immediately. This would send a clear and powerful message to Israel's enemies that Jerusalem is not a Thanksgiving turkey to be carved up, slice by slice.

* We should recruit more people to sign Natan Sharansky's online petition to protect Jerusalem and keep it unified. See below to visit

* Evangelical Christians must obey Psalm 122:6 to "pray for the peace of Jerusalem." Such prayers are needed as much as ever. The Joshua Fund is seeking to mobilize 100,000 partners around the globe to pray knowledgeably and consistently for peace in the region and to get our
Flash Traffic geopolitical updates. We've gone from 3,000 to 39,000 such partners in the last year. If you know someone who would like to sign up for Flash Traffic, please email this to them and encourage them to get onboard.

* We also need to mobilize evangelical Christians to provide even more humanitarian relief supplies to poor and needy Israelis, Palestinians, and Lebanese, and to preposition more supplies in the region ahead of coming wars. This year, we've sent nearly $2 million worth of relief supplies into the region to care for needy Jews and Arabs, but so much more needs to be done. That's what The Joshua Fund's "Operation Epicenter" is all about. Find out more and consider getting involved at


* Thomas Friedman, NYT:
Oasis or Mirage?
* Bush, Olmert to have private meeting today on Iran
* Russia to host next Mideast peace conference
* Reuters: Bush pushes Arabs to reach out to Israel ("Don't watch the peace train go by.")
* Reuters:
Hamas slams Annapolis, vows to keep fighting Israel
* Israeli Troops Essential in West Bank: IDF Leaders

A Siege of Mecca in 1979?

Did you know there was a group of Wahhabi Islamists that attempted to rip control of the “Great Mosque” in Mecca on November 20, 1979? The leader was a Sunni Wahhabi by the name of Juhayman al Uteybi.

Uteybi was no relation to the Saudi Royal Family. Apparently this is significant because the Saudi Royal Family of the time was attempting to liberalize the Saudi nation at the time and this Uteybi seizure of the “Great Mosque” was a Wahhabi response to the Saudi liberalization.

Let’s see, I was exactly 23 at the time. I have to be honest with you I have absolutely no recollection of that event in history. Do you?

Apparently it struck fear in the Saudi Royal Family who is supposed to be the modern protector of the Mohammedan holy city of Mecca. This Uteybi guy was so successful in seizing Mecca that the Saudi military needed help to re-take the “Great Mosque” in Mecca.

I became aware of all this through the posting of Mark A. Taylor of the
ccpga Yahoo Group who discovered a book review by Thomas Lippman of a book entitled The Siege Of Mecca: The Forgotten Uprising in Islam's Holiest Shrine and the Birth of Al Qaeda, by Yaroslav Trofimov.

To get a time frame in your mind
Lippman points out this is a year in history that a whole lot of events of notoriety occurred:

That year began with the Iranian revolution and ended with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In between, Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel, radicalizing the Palestinians. Saddam Hussein took power in Iraq. And the former prime minister of Pakistan, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, was hanged by the general who overthrew him, Mohammed Zia ul-Haq - the leader who would turn the struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan into a religious war that inspired zealots such as Osama bin Laden.

Here is the thing; I remember every one of the above events of history. I do not recall the siege of Mecca. There is a good reason for this.

This was humiliating for the Saudis. The Saudis asked for foreign help but not from any MUSLIM NATIONS. Indeed Jordan offered to help but the Saudis refused Jordanian help. Lippman’s book review does not go into why Jordan’s offer was refused but I can guess. The Hashemite family had been protectors of Mecca but the first Saudi king wrested the honor away from the Hashemites. The
Hashemite Royal Family of Jordan claims direct descent from the founder of Mohammedanism – Mohammed. I am uncertain of the details but there has been a loose rivalry ever since.

The foreign help that came were in the guise of French Commandos who eventually entered the city forbidden to non-Muslims and gained victory. Saudi officials have refused to discuss the event in their history for years.

It was from the ashes of this “Great Mosque” siege that was broken by a non-Muslim nation that the Saudi Royal Family began to re-adopt the harsh Wahhabi ways and forsaking any thought of liberalizing Saudi society.

Lippman says the author Trofimov implies that an already breeding radical Islamism became a global radical Islamic starting point for massive transnational terrorist movements like Usama bin Laden’s al Qaeda.

I believe I have to get this book.


Monday, November 26, 2007

Here is a Reason to Vote Fred in 08

Huckabee implies once an illegal alien makes it here to America, then America is required to educate the illegal alien brood. Sounds like an incentive to illegally immigrate to America.

(Hat tip
Michelle Malkin)

The Nazis Were Marxists

The Slanted Left has propagandized that Nazism is an extreme Right Wing ideology. Then the Slanted Left has linked by association America’s Conservative movement, the Bush Administration and prominent Slanted Right Pundits as Nazis or Fascists in an effort to discredit Conservatives in the eyes of the American public. I have touched on this Leftist lie in posts HERE and HERE at the website and other blogs I operate.

Bruce Walker writing in the
American Thinker has the best article on this Left Wing lie I have read to date. In order to enlighten readers of Leftist/Liberal lies of associating the Slanted Right with the Nazis I am cross posting Walker’s article here.

JRH 11/26/07 (Hat tip to Blind Conservatives Don Moore)

The Nazis Were Marxists

Bruce Walker
November 25, 2007
American Thinker

The Nazis were Marxists, no matter what our tainted academia and corrupt media wishes us to believe. Nazis, Bolsheviks, the Ku Klux Klan, Maoists, radical Islam and Facists -- all are on the Left, something that should be increasingly apparent to decent, honorable people in our times. The Big Lie which places Nazis on some mythical Far Right was created specifically so that there would be a bogeyman manacled on the wrists of those who wish us to move "too far" in the direction of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater.

The truth about the Nazis was that they were the antithesis of Reagan and Goldwater. Let us consider the original Nazi movement and its evolution. The National Socialist movement began in Austria with Walter Riehl, Rudolf Jung and Hans Knirsch, who were, as M.W. Fodor relates in his book South of Hitler, the three men who founded the National Socialist Party in Austria, and hence indirectly in Germany. In November, 1910, these men launched what they called the Deutschsoziale Arbeiterpartei. That party was successful politically. It established its program at Inglau in 1914. What was this program? It was against social and political reaction, for the working class, against the church and against the capitalist classes. This party eventually adopted the name Deutsche Nationalsozialistche Arbeiter Partei, which, except for the order of the words, is the same name as "Nazi." In May 1918, the German National Socialist Workers Party selected the Harkendruez, or swastika, as its symbol. Both Hitler and Anton Drexler, the nominal founder of the Nazi Party, corresponded with this earlier, anti-capitalistic and anti-church party.

Hitler, before the First World War, was highly sympathetic to socialism. Emile Lorimer, in his 1939 book, What Hitler Wants, writes about Hitler during these Vienna years that Hitler already had felt great sympathy for the trade unions and antipathy toward employers. He attended sessions of the Austrian Parliament. Hitler was not, as many have portrayed him, a political neophyte in 1914.

The very term "National Socialist" was not invented by Hitler nor was it unique to Germany. Eduard Benes, President of Czechoslovakia at the time of the Munich Conference, was a leader of the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party. Ironically, at the time of the Munich Conference, out of the fourteen political parties in the Snemovna (the lower chamber of the Czechoslovakian legislature) the party most opposed to Hitler was the Czechoslovak National Socialist Party. The Fascist Party in Czechoslovakia was also anti-Nazi.

The first and only platform of the National Socialist German Workers Party called for very Leftist economic policies. Among other things, this platform called for the death penalty for war profiteering, the confiscation of all income unearned by work, the acquisition of a controlling interest by the people in all big business organizations and so on. Otto Strasser, the brother and fellow Nazi of Gregor Strasser, who was the second leading Nazi for much of the Nazi Party's existence, in his 1940 book, Hitler and I revealed his ideology before he found a home in the Nazi Party. In his own words Otto Strasser wrote: "I was a young student of law and economics, a Left Wing student leader."

Consider the following text from that platform adopted in Munich on February 20, 1920 and ask yourself whether it sounds like the notional Right or the very real Left:

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. The government must undertake the improvement of public health."

In his 1939 indictment of Nazism, Germany Rampant, Hambloch has an entire chapter on political parties under the German Empire before the First World War and political parties under the Weimar Republic. Hambloch lists parts of the "Left," "Right" and "Centre" in the German Empire pre-1914, but there are no "Left," "Right" or "Centre" parties in the Weimar Republic, but rather "Weimar Parties, i.e. those who supported the republican constitution," "National Reactionary Parties" and "Revolutionary Parties." The Nazis are listed, along with the Communist Party of Germany, as the two "Revolutionary Parties." Pointedly, the Nazis were not considered a "National Reactionary Party.

"Consider these remarks of Nazi leaders. Hitler on May 1, 1927:

"We are socialists. We are enemies of today's capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Goebbels, who was the only major Nazi leader who stayed with Hitler to the very end, wrote in Der Angriff in 1928:

"The worker in a capitalist state - that is his greatest misfortune - no longer a human being, no longer a creator, no longer a shaper of things. He has become a machine."

That image sounds almost identical to what Charlie Chaplin, a Marxist, was portraying in his caricature of industrial society, Modern Times. In 1930, Hitler tasked Hans Buchner to clarify what Nazi economic policies were. What did Buchner elect to call the economic policies of the Nazis? "State socialism."

As the Nazis began to become a serious political party, in the 1930s, the Nazi deputies introduced a flurry of proposals: (1) to ban trading in stocks and bonds; (2) to nationalize all large banks; (3) to require registration of stock ownership with a state agency; (4) to limit interest by law to five percent; (5) to confiscate all profits acquired by inflation. These measures were not hidden; they were trumpeted on the front pages of Nazi periodicals to ensure that party members knew what the Nazi Party in the Reichstag was doing. Some Nazi proposals sound eerily modern. The Nazis, for example, proposed that old age and disability benefits (Social Security) be paid out of general revenue, rather than from the contributions of the individual recipient, and that the benefits be indexed to the cost of living.

In 1932, months before the Nazis actually took power, a leading opponent of Nazism writing under the pseudonym Nordicus, in his the book, Hitlerism: The Iron Fist in Germany, notes what Josef Goebbels, leading propagandist for the Nazis, was writing: "War against profiteers, peace with workers! Destruction of all capitalistic influences on the political system of the country." The same author notes the economic principles of Nazism included support for the general welfare, and that this included old age pensions, the confiscation of war profits, and opposition to capitalism.

The Nazis simply did not ride to power on the backs of wealthy industrialists. In fact, after the Nazis had acquired power and when it would have been very advantageous to have "backed the right horse," Ernst von Borsig, the prominent Berlin industrialist, said that he and his colleagues provided very little support to the Nazis. As early as 1921, Paul Reush, the leading industrialist in the Ruhr, actively insisted that his company officers not support the Nazis. The Krupp family, famous for producing arms for Germany, opposed Hitler in the 1932 presidential election. Nazis received very little support even from industrialists who would benefit from rearmament until 1930.

Hendrik Willem van Loon, in his 1938 book, Our Battle, written before the Nazi-Bolshevik non-aggression pact and while Nazis were presenting themselves to the world as sworn enemies of Bolshevism, wrote that Big Business mistrusted a political program which made a point of denouncing with bitterness all those who made profits by loaning out money at interest, and that because Hitler "pretended" to be the enemy of Communists, industrialists would occasionally give him some money, but they were careful not to take sides.

The putative connection between Nazis and industrialists was invented simply for convenience by Communists. Opponents of the Nazis in 1923 claimed that Hugo Stinnes, the leading industrialist in Germany, was providing support to the Nazis. At this very point in history, not only was Nazi propaganda attacking Stinnes, but Hitler himself specifically attacked Stinnes in his speeches. The Weimar Republic, like the Third Republic of France had no Right in the way that Americans would conceive of it.

Hitler, for example, loathed the Kaiser and Imperial Germany. The Tat Circle, that enigmatic group which influenced Nazism, was profoundly anti-capitalist. The title of Tat Circle member Ferdinand Freid's 1931 bestseller was The End of Capitalism, which asserts that capitalism not only was doomed, but also that it was unjust. The Tat Circle is an example of what passes for the Far Right in the Weimar Republic, and if an anti-capitalism and anti-Christian movement is the Right, one must wonder what the Left in Weimar Germany believed. Germany never had "capitalism," and in his 1938 book, Germany Puts the Clock Back, Edgar Mower writes that when in April 1931 a number of German industrialists visited Soviet Russia they were enthusiastic about the unlimited authority of the Bolsheviks over the workmen, which was what many of them dreamed about for Germany, noting that German owners long since ceased to believe in anything so vigorous as Western capitalism and competition.

While Nazi rhetoric consistently attacked the rich, the well born, the war profiteers, and the industrialists and while Nazi rhetoric consistently championed the working poor, the old, and the unemployed, how did the Nazis act once they had acquired actual power? If anything, Nazis in power were more hostile to business and to the "rich" when they ran Germany as when they were seeking power through democratic means. In 1937, four years after the Nazis gained power, Freund wrote of Hitler in Zero Hour that "Only in domestic affairs did Hitler follow his original plan to the letter." Graf von der Golz, the Deputy Commissar in the Ministry of Economics in a speech to businessmen reported in the Nazi periodical Völkischer Beobachter on July 15, 1934: "Any organization that represents the interests of the employer will be regarded as illegal and disbanded and the guilty parties will be prosecuted." Fritz Thyssen, one of the industrialists who did help bring the Nazis to power, said in 1940: "Soon Germany will not be any different from Bolshevik Russia; the heads of enterprises who do not fulfill the conditions which the ‘Plan' prescribes will be accused of treason against the German people, and shot."

The Nazis on October 16, 1934 raised the highest income tax rate from 40% to 50%, and on February 17, 1939 raised that highest rate again to 55%. A decree of September 9, 1939 again increased income taxes, but exempted incomes of 2,400 Reichmarks a year or less. Comparative Major European Governments, a 1937 book, notes that through several new laws on December 4, 1934 banking, credits, and stock exchanges passed under complete government control and that the Loan-Stock Law limited stock company dividends to six percent in some cases and to eight percent in others, with profits over that required to be transferred to the Gold Discount Bank, which was in turn required to invest them in government loans or municipal debt service bonds.

Nazi hostility to individual wealth was matched by its hostility to big business. The same act of October 16, 1934 removed the exemption on business taxes for many types of businesses and it increased the progressivity of the business taxes; an act of August 27, 1936 raised the general business tax rate from 20% to 25% and to 30% for each year thereafter; then on July 25, 1938 corporate profits of more than 100,000 Reichmarks per year were subjected to an additional tax of 35% with that rising to 40% for each year thereafter; and on March 20, 1939, the Nazis imposed an excess profits tax. In four years, Nazis had raised taxes to approximately one fourth of the national income.

Stephen Roberts, in his 1937 book, The House That Hitler Built, noted that compulsory loans had been extracted from banks and insurance companies, and that these grew to such an extent that armament firms complained that they no longer could bear this in addition to all the other assessments like the eight percent Labor Front charges assessed. Dr. Schacht, an economist who worked for the German government after the Nazis took power, had been compelled to fight with the Leftist economists within the Nazi Party, and that he had refused to join the Nazi Party for a long time. Dr. Schacht had also opposed the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazis as economically unsound.

The Loan Stock Law of December 4, 1934 virtually confiscated all dividends of six percent or, in some cases, eight percent by ordering the beneficiaries of stock dividends to invest those monies in state bonds. Even this was deemed to be too generous to the rich. The original promise to pay these stockholders in cash or other bonds was revoked in 1937 through the issuance of tax certificates which bore no interest at all, and beyond that, the owners of these tax certificates could not use them to pay their income taxes or their capital profits tax -- they could only use them beginning in April 1952, and then only in installments. In January 1935, all mortgage banks and similar institutions were authorized to "offer" to owners of obligations issued by them a cut to 4.5% per cent in annual interest, for which the owner was to be compensated through a special payment corresponding to two percent of the face value of the obligation and this was "deemed" accepted unless the owner rejected it "in writing" and "within ten days"; in the latter case he also was forced to deposit the obligation with the credit-giving institution.

David Shoenbaum states in his book, Hitler's Social Revolution, that business was frustrated by the failures of the Nazis and soon began simply reading official scripts. And from the 1937 book, The House That Hitler Built, Roberts dismisses as "fantastic" the stories that Hitler came to power as the nominee of the Thyssen group, noting that Hitler received little money from industrialists until 1930, and the Krupp group, a major armaments builder, opposed Hitler as late as 1932. Once in power, the Nazis checked the industrialists, grabbed for the state dividends above six percent, forced employers to keep unnecessary workers, made them scrap modern labor-saving machinery, and coerced contributions for all kinds of Party purposes.

The Nazis passed legislation to make it difficult to form or maintain corporations and to limit the authority of directors of corporations or of stockholders in corporations. Directors of corporations, for example, were allowed to grant bonuses only upon condition that they were directly tied to profit and upon condition that the board of directors authorize "voluntary social contributions" to employees, granting employees effectively an automatic share in corporate profits. Later, the tax on directors' fees was increased from 10% in March 1933 to 20% in February 1939. The capital market in Germany was almost completely closed to private issues and banks were subject to a succession of compulsory levies, confiscated reserves and increasingly high taxes. In March 1939, a decree liquidated virtually all holdings of foreign securities.

The Nazis also simply expropriated, with or without compensation to the business owners, canals, dams, roads and other private enterprises if ownership was deemed in the interest of the Reich. Even if some compensation was given to the owners, the owners themselves could not request compensation for virtual seizure of their businesses when the government wished to seize them. The same year, the Reich Supreme Court for Finance and Taxation invalidated claims for tax deductions for two spinning mills in Saxony, noting that prior law could be ignored and that tax laws had to be interpreted according to a "National - Socialistic" perspective, to the great detriment of business. Even when private property rights were suspended by the Nazis in the interests of the "people's community," if there was any compensation to the property owners, "speculative gains" were taxed away.

Vera Micheles Dean in her 1939 book, Europe in Retreat, written before the Second World War began, said that the Nazis had introduced into Germany a form of graduated Bolshevism, focusing first upon Jewish bankers, industrialists and businessmen, but then upon other businesses, noting that the Nazi goal, from which it had not deviated, was to establish an egalitarian society in which everyone is equal and subordinate to the state. The same year Time Magazine wrote that the "most cruel joke of all" has been how Hitler treated those capitalists and small businessmen who thought National Socialism would save them from radicalism. Some businesses had been expropriated; some were subjected to a capital tax; all had profits strictly controlled; and all were subjected to intense government regulation. The Nazi regime also had taken over big estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism. The same year Dorothy Thompson wrote that, having robbed the Jews, the Nazis were beginning to rob the Church, and later will almost certainly expropriate the property of the bourgeoisie. Rauschning in 1938 wrote of Nazi economic policies, "The expropriation of property will inevitably follow, as well as the complete abolition of private enterprise."

Lunn noted the very same year that the decline of economic conditions in Germany was because of socialism and bureaucracy which was leading Germany toward foreign adventures. Two years later, in 1941, Karl Lowenstein wrote that even if industry and big business had helped Hitler into power, these men found a much sterner master in National Socialism. The Nazis regulated business to death and they were completely indifferent to the effect this had upon businessmen, who the Left often had presented as the secret masters of Nazism. The Anatomy of Nazism, published by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith in 1961, noted that many industrialists who had supported Hitler found out that the Nazis were their masters, not servants, and that an enormous amount of private correspondence was simply new bureaucratic red tape imposed by a vast, new Nazi system of controls.

Fodor the following year wrote that now there was no doubt that the National Socialist regime truly justified the second part of its name, which a few years ago probably was only "window-dressing." In 1941, former Nazi boss of Danzig, Hermann Rauschning, wrote that the last part of the German Revolution was Nazism, which was just as much a realization of Marxist as of nationalist ideas, and he notes that the only ones who refuse to admit this are supporters of Marxist theories and Nazis themselves. Rauschning also writes in his book that Marxism itself was part of a single great revolutionary movement which included Marxist Socialism, Nazism, Communist Bolshevism, Fascism and nihilism. Rauschning knew Hitler well and repudiated him and his movement at great risk before the rest of the world recognized the full danger of Nazism.

Karl Lowenstein in the 1940 book, Governments of Continental Europe, writes that there was a convergence in Bolshevism and National Socialism regarding private property, and that this was clear long before Hitler and Stalin became allies. Such things as freedom of contract, inviolability of private property, and the right to dispose of one's estate were cited as examples of the deep-reaching restrictions in both totalitarian states. National Socialists were socialists. They had nothing but contempt for what socialists call "capitalism" or what normal people call economic freedom. While it is convenient to portray Nazis as beholden to industrialists and militarists, even from the earliest days Nazis loathed not only industrialists in general but armament makers in particular. The Nazis raised taxes, punished profits, reduced the power of owners, of managers, and of directors and championed the right of the state or the party to "protect" Germany and German workers from abuses of "capitalists

Nazis were Marxists, through and through. Although Nazi condemned Bolshevism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Russia, and although the Nazis often bickered and fought with Fascism, the particular incarnation of Marx in Italy, Hitler and his ghastly accomplices were always and forever absolutely committed to that which we have come to call the "Far Left." Nazis were Marxists.

© American Thinker 2007

Sunday, November 25, 2007

The Spirit of John Kerry Lives

Thanks to fringe Democrat John Edwards, the Republicans will have the ammo to show the spirit of John Kerry is alive and well: Hillary is for something before she was against it.

Hat tip to Vote For Hillary Online (Satire Site).

Rule of Law Under Islam

If there is such a thing as Moderate Mohammedanism it is in only practiced in Western style democratic nations.

At the
ccpga Yahoo Group there is a huge amount of citations of non-Islamist (ergo the opposite being moderate) Mohammedans experiencing judgments from the rule of law in various Middle Eastern nations.

The post begins with a
Dhimmi Watch post about a Christian woman being thrown in the slammer in Egypt for stating her religion as Christianity on her Marriage Certificate.

Evidently her father converted from Christianity to Mohammedanism briefly then converted back to Christianity. That is illegal according to the law of the land in Egypt. The father’s brief flirtation with Mohammedanism made all his children (whether they wanted to or not) legally Mohammedans. Thus the Egyptian Christian according to the law of the land was a Mohammedan. She broke the law trying to marry as a Christian.

ccpga Post goes on with comments about the Dhimmi Watch post some of them telling accounts of other enforcement of the rule of law in Egypt.

Now if this is justice in a moderate Mohammedan society imagine the ruthlessness of Islamism.

Now imagine that Islamism is the predominant force in America and the West seeking Mohammedan converts and supporting the biggest and the newest Mosques in America and the West.

Now I am a huge believer in America’s First Amendment right that implies Freedom of Religion or philosophical conscience; however if this is the kind of rule of law moderate Mohammedans expect to be practiced in America, I am for some religious profiling to make sure Islamist teaching is NOT a right and a test to make sure a moderate Mohammedan is moderate by American Constitutional rule of law.

The Saudi Pipes the Tune

To ensure the prestige of Saudi involvement in Annapolis this week Israel (i.e. the Olmert government) had to agree that the entire West Bank, Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and the entirety of the Holy Temple Mount be on the table for consideration in the formation of a Palestine State.

Olmert might as well have hired pied pipers and lead Jews marching into the sea of oblivion.

JRH 11/25/07

Saturday, November 24, 2007


NOW THIS IS SOME DISTURBING INSIGHT FROM DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN on Republican George W. Bush elected twice mainly on the impetus of the Christian Right toward Democrat Hillary Clinton.

It is so disturbing it is the stuff nightmares and betrayal is made of.

JRH 11/24/07

Islamist Deception

Here is a classic example of al Taqiyya (deception) that the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians utilize to deceive the West that Mohammedan Arabs are victims of Israeli aggression.

Even though this was posted nearly a year ago, it is an example of common Pallywood (Palestinian Entertainment). This is the kind of people that the Bush Administration is forcing Israel to bargain with in Annapolis in a few days.

It is ridiculous!

Friday, November 23, 2007

A Shot of Realism in the Bush Doctrine

Robert McMahon writing for the Council on Foreign Relations concludes in a recent article that the Bush Administration is modifying the Bush Doctrine. To act preemptively in international crisis is still stalwart; however the concept of exporting democratic principles is being modified. Not all cultures are amenable to receive Western style democracy when the culture is theocratic and anti-Western culturally.

This is the difficulty that has slowed American progress in Iraq (combined with utilizing political correctness as a viable option to schmooze the indigenous citizens). Thus the experience in Iraq and the current crisis existing in Pakistan – Islamists versus Mohammedan moderates (if there is such a thing) is effecting a modification of the Bush Doctrine.

That modification is a resurgence of
Political Realism to a certain degree within the Bush Doctrine. Thus preemptive action to secure America’s National Interests still remains; however applying Political Realism as a measured viability in transforming a repressive regime into the infrastructure of democratic principles must weigh in to America’s National Interests. If democratic principles are rejected on a grass roots level of a culture in a nation then Political Realism options to ensure American National Interests and Security must be utilized.

The old adage power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is a truism under a one man rule even if its initial inception was benevolent. In a Western Democratic Representative government that possesses immense power, the power is managed collectively via voters choosing elected officials to manage the power. The corruption aspect is more difficult to corrupt power when the infrastructure has the checks and balances of democratic principles.

Nonetheless America is a mega-super power globally which means there are regional mere super power nations that do not wish to deal with American hegemony. The principle super powers that attempt to derail American National Interests for whatever reasoned regional conflict with another National Interest are Russia, China and remarkably the collective of the European Union.

Regardless of accusations of Third World nations and Leftist influences of the mere super powers, American National Interests does not include imperialism. Imperialism implies conquest to rule foreign nations. America has never had an interest in neo-colonial imperialism since the twentieth century and very little of that thinking prior to the twentieth century. The closest America came to imperialism was the concept of Manifest Destiny, which acquired land from the east coast toward the west coast at the expense of Native Americans and Mexico.

The National Interests are the end goals of the USA. US strength gives the appearance of a global hegemony of American Empire. Since the USA has no interest in ruling other lands that is an erroneous perception. The USA has a National Interest in maintaining mega-power to meet outside security threats and the National Interest of maintaining global prosperity that affects the economy of America and the pursuit of happiness for American citizens.

The Bush Doctrine meets the parameters of America’s current National Interests. The use of preemptive military action that rocks the global boat and the exporting of an infrastructure of democratic principles which promote global coexistence are the central points of the Bush Doctrine.

Communism has been derailed as a repressive government in which democratic principles have been inculcated into a nation’s culture. That is the legacy of the Reagan Administration.

There is a new ideology threatening global peace and affecting the National Interests of America. Well new in the sense of twenty-first century, actually the ideology has been around since the seventh century. That is the terrorist principles of Theo-political Islamism or Islamofascism. Islamofascism is the fringe interpretation and enforcement of the Scriptures and Traditions related to the founder of Mohammedanism (Islam) – Mohammed. Mohammed was a cruel Arab that utilized delusional visions or manmade ideology in the wrappings of religion to carve out an empire and maintain the empire by forcing the conquered to Mohammedanism or become a sub-human in submission to the Theo-political ideology or die. This effectively maintained a platform to control large amounts of land providing wealth to the ruling elites that followed Mohammed’s demise. In Mohammedan lands this system is maintained to this day which has indoctrinated the Mohammedan follower of hateful intolerance of non-Mohammedans and cruel barbaric punishment to Mohammedans that break the cultic code. This harshness is
particularly devastating toward women who do not even realize the cruelty until they become the victims breaking the medieval code (Sharia Law) wittingly or unwittingly.

Two things threaten global peace and thus include American National Interests:

    1. The largest deposits of OIL that are extracted to be refined are in the Mohammedan controlled Middle East. Currently oil is the black gold energy source that powers the majority of what people use that need energy. The primary examples are automobiles, jets and military vehicles. Without refined oil the global economy could sink into a depression reminiscent of the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Western European nations and China are highly dependent on this oil. The politics of oil has influenced democratic Europeans to support Islamist causes. China has developed a huge market in military arms for oil with Middle Eastern nations; particularly rogue Islamofascist nations as Iran and Syria who in turn supply Islamofascist transnational terrorists as al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and more.

    2. The second threat on American National Interests is the growing influence of Islamist-American organizations that receive and send funding to foreign Islamist terrorists or supporters of terrorism (such as Saudi Arabian Wahhabism and Egyptian based Muslim Brotherhood). Currently this is a larger threat in Western Europe where secular humanism has created a huge vacuum in spiritual matters and the large populations of Mohammedans are actually filling that vacuum rather than the traditional Christian Church (Catholic or Protestant).

    In America there seems to be a union of religious Islamism and non-religious Secular Humanist with the mutual goal of obliterating the foundations and morality of Christianity. Islamist-Americans and foreign Islamists are
    infiltrating American Government and bureaucracy to attain sensitive information and deliver it to Islamist terrorist enemies of America.

The Bush Doctrine and/or a modification of the Bush Doctrine must be maintained to combat a patient enemy lacking the technology for their ends yet willing to use the long term fear mongering of terrorism and the West’s democratic infrastructure against us as a means to an end.


Thursday, November 22, 2007

Be Thankful You Are NOT a Woman Living in Saudi Arabia

Be thankful you live in America where victims are not treated as criminals and criminals receive punishment based on the rule of law rather than the whim of a Muslim judge that deliberates according to the Quran – a document of pain, suffering and murder.

In Saudi Arabia the
religion of peace has convicted a nineteen year old for the crime of being a victim to a gang rape. Her original judgment was ninety lashes; however at her appeal the judgment was increased to two-hundred lashes because her supporters supplicated to the media to get her story out to the world.

I believe in Freedom of Conscience to practice or not practice any religion; however the Scriptures of Islam (Quran, Hadith, Sunna, etc) makes Islam on paper a death cult. I am certain most Mohammedans have extracted any words of peace and justice from these Scriptures; however this does not nullify the violent oriented Scriptures.

It is the violent and absurdly unjust Scriptures that Sunni and Shia Islamists adhere to.

Saudi Arabia is an oxymoron in geopolitics. Saudi Arabia as ruled by the House of Saud has become a valuable ally with America on the War on Terror and yet the school of thought that dominates Saudi Arabia is Wahhabi. It is this Wahhabism that Sunni Islamists use to justify their Jihad of terrorism against non-Mohammedans and cruel judgments as interpreted by Sharia Law.

America cannot afford to have Wahhabi Mohammedans leak into America. The initial reaction of an ingrained Freedom of Religion will allow Wahhabists to develop into a fifth column to undermine the very foundations of America.

Thanksgiving will be labeled as a discriminatory holiday for Christians violating and offending Wahhabi Mohammedans who pray toward Mecca. To be Politically Correct Mohammedan ethics could be forced to be taught our children in relating about being Thankful to God the Christians experienced on a rare occasion in which Native Americans providentially aided Christian Pilgrim survive a harsh winter. Read the Presidential Proclamations concerning Thanksgiving until Congress made the day an official American Holiday.
Thanksgiving is all about Thanks to God which included the exchange of Christian Giving between people who were natural enemies.

The Mohammedan concept of Thanksgiving is convert or die.


Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Veteran Murtha a Leftist Coward

Democratic Party Representative Jack Murtha from Pennsylvania lost a civil suit for libel to Marine Staff Sergeant Mark Wuterich who was one of the Marines that Murtha publicly proclaimed after the Haditha shoot out that was then label a massacre.

"They actually went into the houses and killed women and children. And there was about twice as many as originally reported by Time." – Rep. Jack Murtha.

None of the Marines are being prosecuted for murder and two are facing Court Marshal on procedural errors. In essence not one Marine massacred anyone at this incident in Haditha, Iraq.

Do you think Captain Corruption/Doctor Cut-n-Run might consider apologizing to Marines for making such an insidious accusation? I mean Murtha is a veteran, you would think he would man up and publicly apologize.

Murtha has not made even an inkling of remorse for defaming United States Marines for something that was staged by terrorist insurgents for an eagerly waiting Mainstream Media.

Murtha is so determined not to apologize he went through the civil suit brought by Wuterich and lost. Not only has Murtha lost
he is appealing on the grounds that his insidious remarks were made while he was an employee of the Federal Government. If Murtha swings an association with the Federal Government he could avoid responsibility for libel for the Federal Government cannot be sued for libel.

My God Murtha is abandoning Servicemen and veterans (of which he is one) for what? Is it because he is Leftist Democrat and is incapable to man up for admitting a mistake.

(Hat tip to
Humbled Infidel)

Thompson First Choice, Huckabee Second Choice

Mike Huckabee is a man of faith. Huckabee is running for the Republican nomination for President. In the recent polls of this posting he has passed my pick Fred Thompson in popularity. Huckabee’s poll numbers are nipping at Romney’s heels and have passed Giuliani in the most current polls for the Iowa Caucus.

I like Huckabee but I sense an ordained minister will be a target of Left Wing viciousness about religion and politics. I personally believe an injection of Faith into the political process would be a great shot to cure the cancer of Secular Humanism which is extinguishing Christian morality by replacing it with moral relativity. Moral relativity deviates and excuses depravity such as homosexuality or pornography as morals that are acceptable relative to a consensus of individuals instead as measured against a foundation of absolutes of the Creator.

Since the Left is dominant in the Mainstream Media I do not think Huckabee could win the Office of President with a team of the MSM and Leftists Democrats propagandizing the voters.

On the other hand Fred Thompson, regardless of an active participation of faith or a lack thereof, is favorable to many Christian moral principles and is a Conservative. Certainly Thompson has supported legislation that I highly disagree with – such as
McCain-Feingold. However one can find a special interest subject of every Republican candidate’s past that is disavowed or down played now.

Huckabee has some serious
ethics scandals in his past. As I said one can find a skeleton on every candidate – Republican or Democrat. So the issue for Republicans is can they find a candidate that not only fits their political philosophy but deliver on at least acting on their campaign platforms.

Like I said Huckabee fits generously into my social issues for candidate but is he electable? Thompson also fits into my social issues for a candidate (though not as dynamically as Huckabee) and I believe his electable in 2008.

I like Romney’s image on social issues now; however he belongs to a religion that I believe is cult masking as Christianity. Also Romney’s skeletons are about flip flopping on social issues of his Massachusetts days to his current image. I think that threatens his electability in 2008.

Giuliani is a very electable candidate for the Republicans and I think he would even be tough on Islamofascism overcoming Political Correctness. However Giuliani on social issues is a huge disappointment for me.

So again I am this spot now: Thompson first choice and Huckabee second choice.

Now the reason I was inspired to write this piece because a very influential person in my Christian life is having Huckabee on his televangelist program for a week. I don’t know how Kenneth Copeland is going to swing this without Leftist accusations of a 501(c)3 non-profit violations; however good for him. Brother Copeland’s under the table endorsement of Huckabee by having him on the
Believer’s Voice of Victory has influenced me to have Huckabee into my number 2 choice.

Here is the email announcement that Huckabee will join Brother Copeland on the Believer’s Voice of Victory.

    Tune in to see a special Believer’s Voice of Victory broadcast series with Kenneth Copeland and his guest, Governor Mike Huckabee, Sunday, November 25 through Friday, November 30.Get a unique look at their life experiences as they explore two foundational teachings: The Need for Character and Integrity and The Integrity of Character. These powerful messages will encourage you to make godly, Word-based decisions in every area of your life.For a list of program times in your area, click here. To watch online, visit And remember…JESUS IS LORD!

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Thompson Will Rebound in Pre-Election Polls

Fred Thompson for the Presidency of the United State of America; let me say it again: Thompson for President in 2008.

Now I have to be honest, Fred’s Hollywood charisma added to a self-proclaimed Conservative is the reason I first leaned toward a Fred08 candidacy. I realize many people might feel that is not how to pick National Leadership in a time of war and political polarization in America.

Indeed the
recent polls are seemingly showing the same enticement followed by a soul searching re-think of what drew people to Fred.

When Fred’s name was bandied about as a potential Presidential candidate combined with Fred’s reluctance to announce a Presidential run enamored him to many Republicans as a man with Hollywood communication skills reminiscent to President Ronald Reagan (also an Actor who turned to politics).

Fred made people nostalgic for a new Great Communicator that could sway a nation back to unity and pride while making the Left appear loony.

President Bush is no great communicator. The strength of his two elections was the polarizing votes of the Christian Right out numbering the Left at the voting polls. GW had won the hearts of the Christian Right with words that made him appear one of them lock stock and barrel. Bush was not elected on his eloquence, rather he was elected on because of the representation that President Clinton was the picture of everything despised and Al Gore and John Kerry projected the same moral lunacy if not worse. So the Christian Right came to the Presidential election in droves hoping to outnumber the Leftists and was successful.

Here is the thing. President Bush gave the appearance of strong leadership in a time of a National Crisis when al Qaeda murderers were flying jets into American buildings on American soil. In addition President Bush managed a robust economy for America. Unfortunately the Left hated and hated GW passionately. In a bond of unity the Mainstream Media and the Leftist Democratic Party publicly diminished GW’s strong points and disseminated to the public obvious weaknesses. In circling the wagons the Bush Administration made some correct decisions with catastrophic execution.

The War on Terror needed to be addressed; however the rules of engagement for the military were politically motivated instead of utilizing military rules of engagement designed to win. The political rules of engagement was afflicted with the virus of being politically correct which led to a stalemate that the MSM projected as a successful insurgency winning with a strategy of blended terror and attrition. The length of the attrition and the botching of
finding WMD became fodder team MSM and Democratic Party whittle on Bush credibility.

Thus an anti-war movement began under fringe Left management that seemed to draw many people of the political center who listened to the distortions of the Left.

Then President Bush began to alienate the Christian Right (particularly after 2004) and the Conservative base by not attending Slanted Right moral agendas. The persecution of Christians in schools became rampant, references to God on public buildings became challenged by the Left, illegal immigrants sky rocketed with Border Agents being restrained or prosecuted for doing their jobs.

President Bush seemed to be getting way to cozy with Arab Mohammedans that have been the money bags of terrorists and the spread of terrorist ideology – such as the Wahhabi element of Saudi Arabia. Which in turn has influenced the Bush Administration to carve out a sovereign nation for Arabs calling themselves Palestinians at the expense of Israel: This path could threaten Israel’s very existence.

I could on with the disappointment of President Bush so let us focus on a post-Bush era.

Fred Thompson’s failure to maintain a surge of popularity may have to do with
staffing decisions that were not popular with Conservatives. Coupling this with a late start turned eyes back to Republican candidates who have been duking out a bit longer than Fred.

Nonetheless Fred and his team have set forth some of goals of Thompson Presidency if so elected and I like them.

1. A
border security plan:

    A. No Amnesty

    B. Attrition through enforcement; i.e. enforce the laws already on the books vigorously.

    C. Enforce existing Federal laws; e.g. ending sanctuary cities, ending higher privileges to illegals that American citizens do not even receive; prevent the use of Federal Grants in States and localities to fund special benefits for illegal aliens.

    D. Reduce illegal job incentives.

    E. Rigorous entry/exit tracking.

2. Improving the legal Immigration process:

    A. Maximize program efficiency; i.e. speed up the process determining if immigrant can immigrate, if there is a job market American citizens are reluctant to work then expedite the process of an immigrant willing to do the work.

    B. Enhanced reporting of temporary working immigrants.

    C. Modernize immigration law/policy; e.g. If an immigrant has definite skills that would benefit American society, encourage that immigration.

    D. Make English the official language of America

    E. Continue policy of welcoming political refugees.

    F. Legal immigrants that are working a public service should be placed on a fast track to citizenship; e.g. those serve in the Armed Services.

3. Check out Thompson’s “
Pro-Growth” record while in the Senate.

4. I have to tell you I really like Thompson’s ideas on
revamping the American Military to make it even stronger and bigger than it is today. Pundits on the Left and the Right have been critical of this; nonetheless this is the very strategy used by President Reagan to crumble the Soviet Union.

Reagan beat Communism without firing a shot through military growth. Because of the nature of Islamofascism today I doubt a Thompson Presidency would be so lucky; however an extremely strong military with strategies and rules of engagement to win rather than not hurt people’s feelings would be a true shock and awe experience that would challenge terrorism globally.

So heck yeah, get back on the Fred Thompson bandwagon. Fred has a victory vision, a Conservative style pro-growth vision, a vision relating to immigration and illegal aliens and Fred has the social conservative vision in being pro-life.

That is a political package I can get behind and support and you should too.


I just read an outrageous possibility that is on the table between Israel and Palestine Authority (PA) negotiations to establish a Palestinian sovereign State. I should say an addition to the reprehensible demands from the PA negotiating team.

The latest
demand is for Israel to publicly apologize for existing on one time Mohammedan controlled area. This is purely an escalation in anti-Semitism for such an apology is like apologizing for being Jewish.

Even worse: the Bush Administration is apparently pressuring Israel into making such a ludicrous humiliating apology for the delusion peace will ensue between Israel and the Mohammedan Middle East and the Arabs called Palestinians.

So let’s rehash the demands of the PA on Israel: Total
abandonment of the West Bank and booting Jews off of land historically Jewish, the acquisition of the Eastern half of Jerusalem including total hegemony of the Temple Mount and an apology for existing.

And what does the PA offer in return? NOTHING!
The PA will not recognize Israel as a nation but also will deny that Israel is a Jewish State.

The only requirement America imposes on the PA is to live in peace as a neighbor of Israel. The PA and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) have not kept one promise in any negotiations ever. How can America or the West believe that will change now? It is a utopian dream that has all the makings of appeasement and Leftist thinking. It is the thinking that is the toe in the door to begin the destruction of Israel.

One would expect America would step in and protect Israel if imminent destruction is faced; however I am not so certain these days. Petrol politics of the PA’s Mohammedan friends, European dependency on that oil and Leftist control of America’s Congress may have the world sit on their hands and close their eyes as the second modern Jewish holocaust begins.


Monday, November 19, 2007

I'm Fred in '08, BUT ...

I am a Fred Thompson for President Republican; however if Fred was not in the race I would consider Mike Huckabee. Certainly he is a candidate with a sense of humor.

What is the IAEA and the MSM Thinking?

The International Atomic Energy Agency has said recently that Iran is “generally truthful about key aspects of its nuclear history”.

Apparently there is some mix up with IAEA or possibly the Mainstream Media (MSM) is reporting aspects of IAEA findings to add confusion about Iran’s nuclear program. The reason I say this is the IAEA seems to be reporting two opposite sides of the old coin.

Middle East Forum (MEF) observes IAEA reports don’t seem to match the emphasis of a peaceful nuclear program in Iran:

    “IAEA inspectors discovered traces of uranium metal used to build bombs, not fuel reactors. IAEA inspectors also found that Iran had experimented with chemical separation of polonium, a material used to initiate nuclear detonation.”

Now does that sound like Iran is reporting the truth about key aspects of its nuclear history? It is the truth only if you are a moron.

Either the IAEA is lying or the MSM is misreporting or both.

Bad ole’ Democrat Senator Byrd has taken umbrage to President Bush’s statement concerning Iran:

    “’If you're interested in avoiding World War III,’ he said, it's necessary to deny the Islamic Republic ‘the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.’”

Senate Byrd apparently wishes to be Ahmadinejad’s dhimmi by the tone of his retort:

    (Byrd) “… accused the President's (sic) of using ‘rhetorical ghosts and goblins to scare the American people, with claims of an imminent nuclear threat in Iran.’”

Does finding traces of uranium metal used to build bombs and experimentation with the chemical separation of polonium which is used to initiate nuclear detonation sound ghosts and goblins to scare the American people or the clandestine manufacturing of nuclear weapons?


Sunday, November 18, 2007

The Truth about Iraqi WMD

John Loftus of is one of probably who has had an opportunity to sift the secret and Intelligence files of butcher Saddam Hussein. Loftus has come to a conclusion concerning the Weapons of Mass Destruction that the US Military never discovered which the Bush Administration was certain were in Iraq.

It has been the hangman’s noose of the Left discrediting the Bush Administration with sayings such as “Bush lied, people died”. And as Loftus pointed out, Neocon diehards (such as myself) still believe WMD is somewhere in the Iraqi desert (or in my belief, transported out of Iraq).

Loftus’ analysis apparently embarrasses everybody thus it is not likely to be admitted by the American Left or the American Right.


Saturday, November 17, 2007


The Ace of Spades HQ says Bob Hope nails it! Man I have to agree!

Seeds of Jewish Hate Perpetuated in Egypt

Freedom of Speech and the Press is a Liberty and Right enjoyed in America. It so enjoyed that the good, the bad and the ugly are allowed to be publish as long as there is no libelous material in the publication. Thus pressure from the Left has stroked Free Speech and Free Press to allow malevolent publications as porn and racism (KKK stuff for example). Even here a gray line is drawn in the sand. Explicit wicked porn is publishable, yet kiddie porn is illegal.

I personally do not know the where the line is drawn on racism or hate, but I know you can find a copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf in your Public Library.

Thus Liberty enables both the good and the bad within the confines of the rule of law.

Now let us look at a nation like Egypt. It is a State that is highly influenced by Mohammedanism. At first glance Egypt’s legal system is based “…on English common law, Islamic law and Napoleonic codes.” (
Egypt Information and Facts)

I suspect Islamic law (more than likely sharia law) is the dominant legal reference even thought well over 20% of Egypt’s population are Coptic Christians. Egypt is a dictatorship in which one man calls the shots. There is no Liberty or freedom in Egypt.
You can go to jail for criticizing the government or Mohammedanism.

Egypt has an International Annual Book Fair toward the end of January running to early February. Apparently all kinds of fiction and non-fiction publications appear at the Book Fair. Undoubtedly there are no books that are critical of the Egyptian regime or Mohammedanism. Yet there are bounteous selections of gross anti-Semitic literature that is available.

Now think of this combination. Egypt has diplomatic relations via treaty with Israel. Egypt and Israel are not kissing cousins but diplomatic channels exist between the one of the most ominous former enemies of Israel. Egypt and America are allegedly allied in the fight against the War on Terror rhetorically (not militarily).

It is understandable that Egypt is on the side of Arabs calling them selves Palestinians to have a sovereign State formed. So realize this, these Arabs of so-called Palestine are schooled in Jewish hatred form the time the education process begins.

And yet Egypt is in a treaty with Israel and is working with the USA against Islamofascist terrorism. Incidentally Egypt is the location and home of one the largest transnational Islamist group on the planet. That group is known in English as the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood along with Wahhabi aligned Islamists like al-Qaeda wish to see an International Caliphate ruling the globe.

The Egyptian dictatorship (ranging from Nasser to the present Mubarak) has off and on had a hostile relationship. The Egyptian government has regarded the Muslim Brotherhood as a Theo-political rival to the regime. The Egyptian government has off and on persecuted the Muslim Brotherhood and allowed their presence depending on end goal situations for the government. To the Egyptian government’s chagrin the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood is quite popular among the Mohammedan Egyptian masses.

The thing that makes Egypt a wary neighbor is the allowance of the forms of extreme anti-Semitism to be published. As I said Egypt is not a land of Liberty and Freedom. The government could squelch the public publishing of anti-Semitic books and publications that continue to incite Arab hatred toward Israel.

Take pause and wonder: what would Egypt do if Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran joined in an attack on Israel?


Friday, November 16, 2007

Free Speech for CAIR but NO Free Speech for Non-Muslims?

I am not a Michael Savage fan. He is more on the scale of a Right Wing Shock Jock than conservative talk radio.

However I find it disgusting that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is running a national campaign against the sponsors of his program because of anti-Mohammedan remarks. This coming from an organization that has documented ties to the infamous terrorist organization known as Hamas: Hamas is so evil that they even terrorize their fellow Arabs if they do not fall in step with their Wahhabi version of Mohammedanism.

Atlas Shrugs is calling for a boycott of products and services of the latest Savage sponsor to cave in to terror supporter CAIR – OfficeMax. You can to Atlas Shrugs to get the contact emails of OfficeMax’s top tier executives to complain about their jello spine.

I would take this boycott thing a step further. When or if you ever discover a sponsor of any program that drops a sponsorship due to CAIR, find their contact information and email or snail mail them about CAIR’s terrorist sympathies and their dream of ending American Liberty and replacing it with Sharia Law.