Thursday, July 31, 2008

New Premises in Iraq

You can almost sense the German academic accent as one reads Kissinger's Op/Ed. If you take the time to dissect the academia Kissinger is saying a troop withdrawal from Iraq should not be based on scheduled timetable, rather a withdrawal should be based on conditions which include Iraqi responsibility and the capacity to support Iraq if or when jihads flare up.

That sounds like wise advice to me.

Kissinger in says to learn from the mistakes of the Vietnam War. Congress cut funding to support South Vietnam and Cambodia. The result was a bloody Communist victory, especially the genocide of the "Killing Fields" of Cambodia.

Kissinger urges the Congress or whoever the next Executive in Office to NOT make the same mistake with Iraq.

Cagey wise words if you ask me.

JRH 7/31/08

What is the Mystery about Iraq WMD?

Check this out:

Don Bordenkircher – who served two years as national director of prison and jail operations in Iraq– told WND that about 40 prisoners he spoke with "boasted of being involved in the transport of WMD warheads to Syria.

A smaller number of prisoners, he said, claimed "they knew the locations of the missile hulls buried in Iraq."

This is not the first inklings of the actual existence of Iraqi WMD. Former high level military officials of Saddam Hussein like Georges Sada (Find Georges Sada on page) have said the WMD were moved to Syria. Dave Gaubatz which was part of a team sent to Iraq to look for WMD pointed the finger where to look; however he was mysteriously ignored.

Many of these people (American teams, former Hussein regime individuals,
Israeli Intelligence and so on) have all had pretty credible evidence via spoken corroboration. Obviously most of these finger pointers have their own agenda for going public; nonetheless there are simply way too many people to ignore.

So here is the mystery I can’t wrap my mind around: With all the criticism the Bush Administration has been hammered with which led to the expulsion of Republican control of Congress in 2006; why has not the Bush Administration been more opportunistic to point to these sources for vindication?

Another mystery: What’s with the
Duelfer Report that dismisses all this information as irrelevant publicly saying there were no WMD in Iraq?

Has the government become so polarized politically between Left and Right that a total lack of cooperation exists to mutually justify an Iraqi invasion? Is the Bush Administration the victim of American government scandal in the amount of support militarily given to Saddam Hussein prior to Iraq War 1 or prior to Iraq War 2 (or both)? Would the public information be so embarrassing to the American government (which would include Bush 1 and the Clinton years) that GW Bush is willing to be the target of a Left that knows it can get away with lies?

It is a mystery that I hope I live long enough for history to report all the cloak and dagger background concerning Saddam Hussein, America and WMD.

JRH 7/31/08

Living to Fight Another Day

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has been the leader in Congress to fight outrageous pork spending of the tax and spend Democrats. Coburn’s anti-pork spending agenda has even stepped on the toes of some of his fellow Republicans who view pork spending as a prize for their constituents rather than as irresponsible Congressional spending. writes of Coburn’s anti-pork spending battle. Since I currently reside in Oklahoma I am happy to re-post’s piece on Senator Tom Coburn.

JRH 7/31/08

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Call Congressman Brad Sherman today

Act For America has sent out an ACTION ALERT email to their subscribers notifying them that American Islamist organizations are attempting to rally American-Mohammedans and Mohammedan resident aliens that Steve Emerson is to appear before Congress to enlighten a Congressional Committee on Islamic Terrorism.

Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) are both sending emails to their fellows to prevent Emerson’s testimony. Evidently ISNA and MPAC believe they have the ear of Representative Brad Sherman for the Islamist organizations are telling their fellows to contact him.

The typical Islamist card being used is Victimology; i.e. Islamophobia is evil, bigoted and racist.

Personally I am proud Islamophobe believing that radical Islam needs to be exposed for what it is: The socio-theo-political threat to Western Society as we know it.

Below is a copy of the Act For America email:

JRH 7/30/08

ACTION ALERT! Time Sensitive Call Congressman Brad Sherman today

Act For America
Email Sent: July 30, 2008 2:26:52 PM

DO NOT ALLOW MPAC & ISNA to silence testimony on terrorism. Please read the alerts below demonstrating the efforts of ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and MPAC, the Muslim Public Affairs Council to prevent such testimony. Pre-empt its effort. Please call Congressman Brad Sherman by phone or fax, thanking him for inviting Steve Emerson to testify; he is one of the most knowledgeable experts in terrorism and one of our most important voices against terrorist proliferation. This is yet another example of how Islamist groups like MPAC & ISNA are trying to silence and undermine anyone who dares to speak out against terrorism in this country by attacking their credibility and accusing them of "Islamaphobia."

Washington, D.C. Office
2242 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515-0524
Phone: (202) 225-5911
FAX: (202) 225-5879
San Fernando Valley Office
5000 Van Nuys Blvd. Suite 420
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (818) 501-9200
FAX: (818) 501-1554

From ISNA AND MPAC: Read their email below sent to their members and ACT today!
[*Blog Editor: For brevity I have changed the email format but not the content of the email.]


Islamic Society of North America
Self proclaimed terrorist expert
Steven Emerson is scheduled to testify this Thursday, July 31st, in a congressional hearing entitled "Foreign Aid and the Fight Against Terrorism and Proliferation: Leveraging Foreign Aid to Achieve U.S. Policy Goals."

Emerson has a formidable history of attacking Islam and Muslims in America under the guise of his alleged expertise. Those familiar with Emerson's legacy state his lack of credentials in foreign aid and foreign policy and are concerned that his testimony will feed Islamaphobia.

The Islamic Society of North America encourages it members and all Americans to contact
Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA), chairman of the "House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade", convener of the panel, and request that balanced, qualified testimony be included in the panel or the session be canceled. ISNA is concerned that Emerson's hate mongering will deter responsible policy making, impede effective security, and detrimentally affect American Muslims.

Contact Congressman Brad Sherman by phone or fax now before Thursday's session.

Washington, D.C. Office
2242 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515-0524
Phone: (202) 225-5911
FAX: (202) 225-5879
San Fernando Valley Office
5000 Van Nuys Blvd. Suite 420
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (818) 501-9200
FAX: (818) 501-1554

MPAC Demands Congressman Sherman Ensure Credible Testimony or Postpone Hearing

July 29, 2008 Muslim Public Affairs Committee

Today, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)
released a letter urging Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) to either provide credible experts at an upcoming hearing on foreign aid, or postpone the hearing until credible experts can be found.

Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Hearing Information (U.S. House of Representatives, 7/28/08)
Congressman Brad Sherman, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, will call on self-proclaimed "terrorism expert"
Steven Emerson to testify at the congressional hearing. Emerson, who has a proven track record of anti-Muslim bigotry, is not a credible expert on foreign aid or foreign policy.

MPAC’s letter calls for the Congressman to "ensure that those who are relied upon for knowledge have the requisite expertise, experience, and nuanced outlook. In the interest of maintaining a good balance of views, we urge you to include an additional panelist from an NGO, university, or think-tank that can represent the positive role of civil society organizations in challenging terrorism. If, however, you cannot find any other witnesses that can balance the current witness panel, we request that you cancel or postpone panel until such time as the committee is able to convene an unbiased slate of witnesses."

"In the interest of effective and informed policy-making, it our sincere hope that the Congressman heeds this request and proceeds accordingly." said Salam Al-Marayati, MPAC Executive Director. "Misinformation could lead to disastrous initiatives, leading the U.S. further away from realizing its foreign policy objectives."
Click here to read the letter in its entirety.


Contact Congressman Brad Sherman by phone or fax, let him know that he must either provide unbiased, qualified experts for this Thursday's hearing - or cancel the panel.


The description of Steve Emerson as unqualified is almost libelous. This guy is super qualified. Emerson irritates ISNA and MPAC because he tells the truth that Islamist Mohammedan-American organizations DO NOT want the American public to be knowledgeable about.

Debating About Islam, Part 1

Are you a Muslim? If you answer that you are not a Muslim, then this essay about responding to pro-Muslim points will be of interest to you.

Do you have a friend (or even a very good friend) that is a Muslim? If you do then Bill Warner’s
Political Islam essay is of interest to you.

Are you critical of Islam and Muslims come down on you defending there faith as a
religion of peace? Then this essay entitled Debating About Islam, Part 1 is for you.

If you are a Muslim, get over it. These are the facts Jack (اcك) ِ

JRH 7/30/08

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Klinghoffer on U.S./Indian Nuclear Deal

Judith Klinghoffer has a perspective on the U.S./India nuclear deal from the angle of Asian history and the future speculation of what follows Asian history. My interpretation of Klinghoffer’s essay (really a kind of book review) is that geopolitically Asia may become the center of global civilization in the future; ergo the importance to American National Interests of the completion of U.S./India nuclear deal.

JRH 7/29/08 (Hat tip Jewish World Review)

Monday, July 28, 2008

Olmert May Quit and Name Mofaz as PM To Weaken Livni

Thank God the man that is giving away Israel is on his way out; however he is going down swinging. PM Olmert plagued with legal problems and electoral unpopularity is thinking of stepping down by naming a Kadima Party lackey Shaul Mofaz as Prime Minister. Olmert’s apparent plan is to subvert fellow Tzipi Livni also of Kadima from becoming Prime Minister. Livni has been openly critical of Olmert and Olmert has leaked his private displeasure of Livni’s criticism.

JRH 7/28/08

From ACT: Support the Free Speech Protection Act - Urgent!

This is just a quick post that I am in complete agreement with.

JRH 7/28/08


Support the Free Speech Protection Act - Urgent!

We need your help to pass this very important bill. You helped us pass it in New York; now we want it passed nationwide. If free speech is important to you, if you believe that people like me, Rachel Ehrenfeld, Sean Hannity, Steve Emerson, Bob Spencer and others who write and expose vital information about the threat of Islamofacism to our liberty and freedoms should be protected to continue sounding the alarm, PLEASE copy and paste the letter below and send it to Members and staff on the Judiciary Committees in the House and Senate (listed below). Identify yourself as an ACT! for America member, a patriotic voter, and that you strongly request that they support the passage of the Free Speech Protection Act.

You can also enter your elected officials' phone numbers in your cell phone and call them while you are stuck in traffic and voice your opinion. Every email or phone call represents 1000 voters. Here is the science behind the numbers: If 40 people in each state contact their elected official about an issue, that number represents 40,000 voters on election day. That can make or break an election. This is why every phone call gets the elected official's attention.

Please forward this to everyone you know. For those of you receiving this email as a forward from a friend, please sign up to receive our free emails and action alerts. We need to be able to reach you when important bills come up for a vote so YOU can be a voice affecting your community and our nation.

Let's jam their lines and swamp their emails.

Together we can make a difference!

Rising in defense of our security, our liberty and our values.

Thank you,

Brigitte Gabriel


The Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 ( S-2977 & H.R. 5814), was introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete King (R., N.Y.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.), and a Senate companion bill by Senator Arlen Specter (R., PA) and Joseph Lieberman (I- CT), and co-sponsored by NY senior Senator Chuck Schumer. With Schumer on board, and others joining, the Free Speech Protection Act can be adopted before Congress adjourns this summer.

It’s important to take immediate measures to defend our ability to inform the public and protect our free speech rights - now under attack by Saudis using the British legal system. I can’t think of a more important and urgent law Congress and you can be proud of than the Free Speech Protection Act.

This legislation builds on New York State's "Libel Terrorism Protection Act," aka "Rachel's Law.” The NY law, and the proposed federal legislation, grew from the court battles of New York journalist and terrorism investigator, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, whom a Saudi billionaire sued in Great Britain for Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed - And How to Stop It—although she is American and her book sold here, not in the U.K. But plaintiff-friendly British libel laws have made London a Mecca for libel tourists wishing to intimidate authors worldwide.

The suit against Dr. Ehrenfeld–like 40 previous cases that silenced many other American and New York authors–is an obvious attempt to dilute First Amendment protections of free press, and prevent investigations of terror-financing.

The British Guardian wrote on July 15, “English libel law is an international menace, a national disgrace, a pre-democratic anachronism. It defends crooks, terrorists and tyrants from investigation. It threatens the free speech of people all over the world and causes untold damage to the reputation of this country.”

In a tremendous victory for free speech rights and to provide legal protections from "libel terrorism" to New York authors and publishers, the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, aka "Rachel's Law," was adopted unanimously—in less than 3 months(!) by the NY legislature and signed into law by Gov. David Patterson on April 30, 2008.

Pat Schroder, President of the Association of American publishers stated: “We’ve supported Rachel Ehrenfeld in her court battles....Now we’d like to see the fight taken to another level with enactment of federal legislation.”

Senators Specter and Lieberman note that the English Libel Laws threaten the "free-flowing marketplace of ideas" which "enables the ideals of democracy to defeat the totalitarian vision of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations." Free speech in the U.S. “is under sharp attack through foreign courts, where dozens of mendacious libel suits have intimidated and silenced American authors and U.S. publishers.”

“The new legislation would not shield those who recklessly or maliciously print false information. It would ensure that Americans are held to and protected by American standards,“ wrote Senators Specter and Lieberman. The new Free Speech Act bars U.S. courts from enforcing libel judgments issued in foreign courts against U.S. residents, if the speech would not be libelous under American law. The bill also permits American authors and publishers to countersue if the material is protected by the First Amendment. If a jury finds that the foreign suit is part of a scheme to suppress free speech rights, it may award damages.

PLEASE, Help vote the Free Speech Act into Law. American Writers need it to be able to unearth the truth, and publish it without any censorship by foreign courts.


Below is contact information for the Senatorial Judiciary Committee, the Congressional Judiciary Committee, and Staff.

General Judiciary Committee -
Staff Majority Communications Director Jonathan Godfrey - (202) 225-3951
Majority Press Secretary/Spokesperson Melanie Roussell - (202) 225-3951
Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel Perry Apelbaum - (202) 225-3951
Minority Chief of Staff/General Counselor - (202) 226-0002
Minority Communications Director Kim Smith - (202) 225-6906

Senators on Committee

NY Charles Schumer - Press Secretary Brian Fallon - (202) 224-7433
VT Patrick J. Leahy - Press Secretary Erica Chabot - (202) 224-2154
MA Edward Kennedy - Press Secretary Melissa Wagoner - (202) 224-2633
DE Joseph Biden - Press Secretary Elizabeth Alexander - (202) 224-2154
WI Herbert Kohl - Press Secretary Lynn Becker - (202) 224-2240
WI Russ Feingold - Press Secretary Zach Lowe - (202) 224-8657
CA Dianne Feinstein - Press Secretary Scott Gerber - (202) 224-8657
IL Richard Durbin - Press Secretary Joe Shoemaker - (202) 224-7028
MD Benjamin Cardin - Press Secretary Sue Walitsky - (202) 224-7433
RI Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse - Press Secretary Alex Swartsel - (202) 224-7433
PA Arlen Specter - Press Secretary Chris Gindlesperger - (202) 224-5225
UT Orrin Hatch - Press Secretary Mark Eddington (202) 224-5251IA Charles Grassley - Press Secretary Beth Levine - (202) 224-6197
AZ Jon Kyl - Press Secretary Andrew Wilder - (202) 224-4521
AL Jeff Sessions - Press Secretary Michael Brumas - (202) 224-4124
SC Lindsey Graham - Press Secretary Wes Hickman - (202) 224-5972
TX John Cornyn - Press Secretary Brian Walsh - (202) 224-2934
KS Sam Brownback - Press Secretary John Rankin - (202) 224-6521
OK Tom Coburn - Press Secretary John Hart - (202) 224-5754
Congressional Representatives
NY-9th Anthony Weiner -
NY-8th Jerrold Nadler – Tel: 202-225-5635
CA-24th Elton Gallegly -
CA-3rd Dan Lungren -
CA-29th Adam Schiff -
CA-28th Howard Berman -
CA-16th Zoe Lofgren -
CA-35th Maxine Waters -
CA-39th Linda Sanchez -
CA-27th Brad Sherman -
CA-49th Darrell Issa -
MI 14th John Conyers (Chair) -
VA-9th Rick Boucher -
VA-3rd Bobby Scott –
VA-6th Bob Goodlatte -
VA-4th Randy Forbes -
NC-12th Rep. Melvin Watt -
MA-10th William Delahunt -
FL-8th Ric Keller -
FL-24th Tom Feeney -
FL-20th Debbie Wasserman Schultz -
FL-19th Robert Wexler -
TN-9th Stephen Cohen -
GA-4th Hank Johnson -
OH-13th Betty Sutton -
IL-4th Luis Gutierrez -
WI-2nd Tammy Baldwin -
AL-7th Artur Davis -
MN-5th Keith Ellison -
TX-21st Lamar S. Smith (Ranking Member) -
TX-18th Sheila Jackson Lee -
TX-1st Louie Gohmert -
WI-5th F. James Sensenbrenner -
NC-6th Howard Coble -
UT-3rd Chris Cannon -
IN-6th Mike Pence -
IA-5th Steve King –
AZ-2nd Trent Franks -
OH-4th Jim Jordan -
OH-1st Steve Chabot -
ACT for America

P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456

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.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Freedom is NOT a License to Break the Law

Tonight on the Fox News channel I watched a special on the alarming prevalence of honor killings occurring in America. From memory the nations referenced were Mohammedans from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Egypt.

I also remember the Fox News channel reporting that the U.N. condemned honor killing; however twenty-two Mohammedan nations refused to be signatories of the Assembly Resolution. Let write that again: TWENTY-TWO!

Fox News trying to live up to its moniker of fair and balanced also interviewed a Muslim council representing Pakistani Mohammedans in the American location of an honor killing. The Mohammedan spokesman said that the crime perpetrated in the name of honor has nothing to do with Islam. The spokesman said this even though the Mohammedan murderer of his own daughter awaited police to pick him up and through the course of his legal journey admitted that killing his daughter for family honor is something he does not regret. Keep in mind the murderer was a devout Mohammedan in America that found a way to pray towards Mecca five times a day.

Now I find this
WorldNetDaily article reporting on a British survey that found one in three Mohammedan students in Britain’s elite universities (meaning NOT impoverished people, which Lefties claim is the leading cause of radical Islam) believe it is just fine to kill in the name of Islam (Mohammedanism).

I write this enlightening information about Mohammedanism flabbergasted that I still receive comments from Lefties and Mohammedans that I am a “hatemonger.” I was remarkably accused of this by a Navy man stationed in San Diego (
HERE and HERE). This does not have a clue why he is in the American military and he told me, he and others like are the ones that NEED TO WAKE UP. Mohammedanism is a threat to American and Western culture and Mohammedan immigrants in America (at the very least) need to submit to American rule of law or get out.

Is that hate? NO! It’s the rule of law. Sharia Law is not the American rule of law. The Mohammedan scriptures which promote hate as an
abrogation to Mohammedan peace scriptures, needs active theological reformation (again – at least in America).

Freedom of Religion DOES NOT extend to murder any more than Freedom of Speech extends to hollering FIRE in a crowded theatre when in fact there is no fire.

JRH 7/27/08

India and USA: Nuclear Pact?

It is a shame there is a hold up on what would be the beginning of a beautiful geopolitical relationship. Some time ago India and America under the negotiations of the Singh government and the Bush Administration worked out the details for sharing nuclear technology.

I don’t care what anyone says moving to a close relationship with India will be a huge geopolitical coup for both America and India.

Part of the problem is the past history between India and America.

For decades India was in the old Communist Soviet camp as buddies with weapons and technology. This was the case despite of the fact India is a Parliamentarian democracy and the Soviets were a despotic communist dictatorship bent on spreading the delusion of Marxist/Leninism.

Part of this association with the old USSR was because India’s mortal enemy Pakistan had become a buddy with America during the days America was funding the Afghan Islamist revolt in then Communist Afghanistan. (This is another classic evidence of betrayal to America after help to be delivered from Communism.) Also India and Communist China were rattling sabers over border issues as was the old USSR and China on that border. Also India had gone the nuclear route in its quest for defense against the hated enemy Pakistan and the nominal enemy China.

Thus clearly it was in the National Interest of India to be in the deceased Soviet orbit.

The times, they are a changing.

Communist super power the USSR is no more. The old Soviets have chosen a republican form of government and lost much of their Soviet Union satellites. Russia is still a viable power but it is a mere shell of its past global designs for world hegemony.

Pakistan and America are still hooked up however that partnership is becoming more and more tenuous every day as Islamism appears to be the most influential dynamic among Pakistanis and some ruling elites in the government (Constant peace accords with the Taliban and refusing to let American troops into Pakistan to track down the Taliban and al Qaeda is evidence of that).

India and China (ironically both dominated by socialistic or communistic thinking) are becoming global competitors capitalistically for global markets and thus are still not the best of friends. China is a particular nuisance for India because the Chinese government is using their no found market wealth to modernize their military and make a go for Asian hegemony as the new Russia is also trying to build a regional hegemonic sphere.

India’s special relationship to the Russians is becoming less reliable as is Pakistan’s relationship to America.

India before and since independence from the U.K. in 1948 has been at odds with the Indian Muslim population; which is why a Pakistan (E. Pakistan later became independent Bangladesh) was carved out of the Indian sub-continent. India as Israel has known Islamist terrorism against their Hindi population as Israel has against their Jewish population.

The times we live in would make India and America natural allies. What is the hold-up?

Singh’s Parliamentarian government and America’s Senate have problems with each other. The former mistrusts America in being involved in their WMD program and the latter are upset that India is not part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and does not want to share peaceful nuclear technology that might be an enhancement to India’s WMD program. For America and India to be internationally compliant, there are a few international regulatory agencies that also must sign off on the America/India nuke pact (such as the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group).

Can Bush and Singh manage to push the pact through before their nation’s mutual upcoming elections? It would be in America’s interest for that to happen.

JRH 7/27/08

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Thanks to you, we won the first major battle!

Remember the story about the San Diego Minutemen organization that donated one of those “Adopt a Highway” signs that you see in some States? And Remember the Politically Correct Lefties and the pro-illegal immigrant lobby forced the sign to be taken down merely because the words San Diego Minutemen was on the sign?

Well it turns out the Courts saw it the Minuteman way.
The Minutemen WON.

JRH 7/26/08

EMP’s Would Change American Lifestyle

This news article on the effects of an EMP weapon utilized on the USA reads like the gloom and doom of the Old Testament Prophet Jeremiah.

Jeremiah prophesied if Judah did not turn from its wicked ways that God would allow the nation to fall and the Holy of Holies (the Temple) to be destroyed. Kings imprisoned Jeremiah for the warning.

And yet
Jeremiah was on a hill Lamenting the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the forced diaspora of the Jewish elite and craftsmen to Babylon.

In the 21st century I doubt anyone will receive the persecution for the warning of destruction; however the warning is so immense I doubt that Joe American can wrap the end result of an EMP blast would do to America. Society would almost certainly be at the least like Wild Wild West Days.

William R. Graham
delivers a 200 page report from the federal Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse to Congress. Will Congress and the Executive Branch treat the report in disbelief as Jeremiah was disbelieved?

JRH 7/26/08

The Hitler/Ahmadinejad Analogy Again

The analogy between Hitler and the rise of Islamofascism is not a new picture being portrayed by Conservatives. It seems the analogy is particularly pertinent to Iran which simultaneously openly speaks hatred of Israel and America while warning about the actions Iran will take if any nation (hmm … yeah, again Israel and/or Israel) does anything to hinder the Iranian nuke program. Incidentally everyone knows this Iranian nuke program is actually a Weapons of Mass Destruction program.

The powers that exist in this world blithely sit by believing that simply talking to Iranian leadership will convince that government how awful it would be to pursue the ability to nuke Israel. Iran says “let’s talk” and yet continues on its merry way to nuke WMD paradise with a policy of public denial or ok we’ll slow down or you can inspect what we’re doing to get out of Iran because we can do what we wish. In other words Iran with Nazi-like genius is putting the capable powers off until Iran has power to make a legitimate hegemonic move on the Middle East.

Just like in the 1930’s when the WWI weary pacifistic Europe thought talk and give and give would bring Hitler to his senses about European aggression, so are the EU powers and America slipping into the same trap again.

Hitler was emboldened by European give and give. How do you think Ahmadinejad (who has delusions of Islamic Messianism) will act after the EU promises of give and give to Iran?

Dr. Laurie Roth of the great State of Washington who was inspired by Thomas Sowell in turn inspired my thoughts on the old Hitler/Ahmadinejad analogy.

JRH 7/26/08

Friday, July 25, 2008

Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

Is the Mainstream Media biased to the Left? You’re darn toot’ in! William Tate does the math on public contributions from journalists to the Obama camp and to the McCain camp and finds that the current ratio of media contributions to Democrats versus Republican is a 100-1. THAT IS ASTOUNDINGLY BIASED!

JRH 7/25/08 (Hat tip my son of

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Is it Possible there is ONLY an Appearance of a China/Russia Alliance? has picked an essay from relating to bilateral relations between China and Russia. (Thus I have accomplished part of my due diligence of giving credit to who credit is due.)

Now you really need to read this essay by Peter Zeihan entitled, “China and Russia’s Geographic Divide”.

BUT before you do read Zeihan’s essay you need to have some thoughts in the back of your mind.

Consider that Russia (as the USSR) was a fomenter of instability in the Middle East during the Cold War rallying Mohammedan Nations with huge arms sales in the Islamofascist quest to wipe Israel off the map. Fortunately American sold weaponry (with Israeli innovation) was far superior to the old Soviet weaponry. It was fortunate because the little slice of Land known as Israel repeatedly defeated invading Mohammedan Armies from the North, West, South and (kind-of) East. So much were the Israeli victories that Israel re-attained some of their ancient heritage which America and the West is currently pressuring Israel to give up.

With the end of the Cold War and the downfall of Soviet Communism, the large installments of weaponry have not been forthcoming from Russia. On the other hand America was attacked by Islamofascist terrorists on American soil which has led America to become embroiled in an anti-terrorist Global War on Terror (GWOT) concentrated mostly in the Middle East.

Russia has taken this opportunity to trade technology more than weaponry. Sadly this has been with rogue nations Iran (primarily) and Syria. It is Russia that is aiding Iran with nuclear training lying to the world that Iran is going nuclear for peaceful purposes. Thus Russia has made every effort in the U.N. Security Council to water down harsh sanction to Iran just as Russia did with Iraq when Iraq was the recipient of technology. There is no smoking gun on WMD in Iraq but it is fairly common knowledge that
Russia Special Forces smuggled the chemical WMD out of Iraq just prior or during the American invasion and HUGE amounts of weapons grade uranium was recently transported to Canada for peaceful processing.

Then there is China. China is also on the U.N. Security Council and its story is similar to Russia. China has been selling weapons in exchange for oil to Iran. And
I suspect to old Saddam Hussein as well under the table so to speak (On the link scroll down to “What did Iraq buy with the money?”).

Thus there is the appearance that Russia and (still Communist) China are in cahoots for oil reasons AND geopolitical reasons to offset the hegemony of America. Like I said though, it is an “appearance.”

Peter Zeihan demonstrates with a little history and a little observation of China and Russia’s National Interest such an appearance of an alliance might be more illusion than reality.

Now you are prepared to READ “China and Russia’s Geographic Divide.”

JRH 7/23/08

U.S. government: We know parenting better than you

The Democrat Party led Congress is exploring the concept of sending the government into family homes to measure the well being of children. Of course the target is the poor or families in which one or both parents have a job that keeps them away from home (e.g. Military Personnel).

I don’t know about you but this sounds like Soviet style government management of how citizens raise their children. I realize there is a utopian angle to protect children from abuse and neglect; however it is also the toe in the door to expand government controlled behavior, social standards and religious/non-religious morality. In other words the dream of Secular Humanism to tell Biblical Christians what is acceptable or unacceptable in raising and training their children.

Are the
Democrats turning America into Amerika?

JRH 7/24/08

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Dhimmitude in U.S. Security Entities

I don’t know if you are aware of this. Certain government entities are imposing a terror lexicon to be used for writing reports or public statements. For example words such as "Jihad," "jihadist," "Islamist," "mujahadeen," "caliphate," and more are officially prohibited by government entities. Specifically the government entities that are using the terror lexicon are the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC), and the State Department.

This is mind blowing! The very entities that are involve radical Islamic enemies of America in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) are prohibited from using terms that describe our enemy but are used by our enemies.

Well thank God Almighty Representative
Peter Hoekstra (A Republican I might add) is battling legislatively to reverse this Politically Correct evil within the U.S. government.

Read about Rep. Hoekstra’s battle to keep a dhimmi terror lexicon out of the U.S. government at
Counterterrorism Blog.

JRH 7/23/08 (Hat tip
Act for America)

U.S. Congressional Representatives' Stance on Jihad and the War of Ideas

By Jeffrey Imm
July 22, 2008 10:30 PM
Counterterrorism Blog

Last week, there was an
interesting development in the U.S. House of Representatives that will give Americans a clear view as to exactly where their individual representatives stand on the war of ideas in fighting Jihad.

Per my
previous article on this subject, on May 8, 2008, Congressman Peter Hoekstra attempted to add an amendment on the "terror lexicon" to a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence bill on 2009 intelligence funding (House Resolution 5959).

Hoekstra's amendment condemned efforts by the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC), and the State Department to recommend a "terror lexicon" that prohibits use of words such as "Jihad," "jihadist," "Islamist," "mujahadeen," "caliphate," etc. In this amendment, Congressman Hoekstra called for the House of Representatives to prohibit the use of intelligence funding in support of such "terror lexicon" efforts. The House Intelligence Committee voted against this amendment, and over 900 people signed a petition condemning the actions of the House Intelligence Committee that was sent to members who voted against the amendment.

But on July 16, 2008, H.R. 5959 was presented to the full House of Representatives for
debate and adoption, including Congressman Hoekstra's amendment to bar the use of intelligence funding for such "terror lexicon" measures. This time the amendment passed by the margin of 249-180 (with 10 abstentions).

amendment was incorporated in H.R. 5959 as follows:

"None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be used to prohibit or discourage the use of the words or phrases 'jihadist', 'jihad', 'Islamo-fascism', 'caliphate', 'Islamist', or 'Islamic terrorist' by or within the intelligence community or the Federal Government."

Per my congressional sources, the House of Representatives passed (via voice vote) House Resolution 5959 "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009," including the amendment on the issue of the "terror lexicon" from Congressman Peter Hoekstra. Efforts to send H.R. 5959 back to the House Intelligence Committee (by a motion to recommit with instructions) failed, so now H.R. 5959 represents the House's resolution on 2009 intelligence funding.

Most importantly, Americans can see how
their individual representatives in the House voted (Roll Call 500) on this issue, demonstrating where their individual congressional representatives stand on the war of ideas in fighting Jihad.

During the
discussion on this House Amendment 4 to H.R. 5959 (aka "Hoekstra of Michigan Amendment No. 2"), on the "terror lexicon" efforts by DHS, NCTC, and the State Department, Congressman Hoekstra stated, per the Congressional Record:

"Al Qaeda itself uses these terms to describe its fight against America, our allies, and moderate Muslims around the world. Why then would we prohibit our intelligence professionals from using the same words to accurately describe al Qaeda's stated goals?"

"Yet that is exactly what some in Washington are attempting to do. I was dismayed to learn that over the past few months, intelligence bureaucrats at the State Department, the
National Counterterrorism Center, and the Department of Homeland Security have issued memos imposing speech codes on how their employees can describe al Qaeda and other radical jihadist groups. They won't even be able to use the words these groups use themselves to describe themselves. These agencies within the intelligence community won't be able to use those words."

"Mr. Chairman, free speech should not be controversial, nor should candid, accurate, and fair discussion of the self-professed goals of the terrorists that attack our homeland and have sworn to kill more Americans."

"I find it more than ironic that some who have complained the loudest about politicization in the intelligence community would oppose this simple amendment to prevent the politically correct politicization of our Nation's intelligence community. We all know that political correctness can be the enemy of clarity."

"We also know that radical jihadists have made repeated efforts to stifle free speech in the West, including the murder of Dutch film maker, Theo van Gogh, and frequent death threats against authors, cartoonists, and journalists."

"Let's not give the radical jihadists a victory here by imposing a speech code on America's intelligence community."

"How will America understand the nature and the character of our enemy if we can’t use the words that they use to describe themselves and we need to come up with a whole new language that is totally out of context with the enemy and the nature of the threat that we face today?"

Congressional Representatives Who Voted Against Hoekstra's Amendment on "Terror Lexicon"

Whether or not this amendment to H.R. 5959 ultimately is part of an approved bill signed by President Bush, the greatest value of this amendment is that it gets most congressional representatives on the record on their position regarding the efforts of groups to remove any suggestion of Islamic supremacism or Jihad when it comes to "terrorism."

Those in Congress who
voted against (or abstained from voting on) the Hoekstra amendment should be asked to publicly explain their position to their constituents, as their vote against the Hoekstra amendment can readily be perceived as reluctance to recognize the ideological basis behind Jihadist terrorism. The House of Representatives provides a ready online tool to allow Americans to identify their congressional representatives, and knowing your ZIP Code+4 number will greatly expedite that process.

Clearly the following members of the House of Representatives should be asked to explain their vote against the Hoekstra amendment:

House of Representatives' Members Voting Against Hoekstra Amendment:
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D, HI-1]
Rep. Jason Altmire [D, PA-4]
Rep. Robert Andrews [D, NJ-1]
Rep. Joe Baca [D, CA-43]
Rep. Brian Baird [D, WA-3]
Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D, WI-2]
Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12]
Rep. Xavier Becerra [D, CA-31]
Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28]
Rep. Robert Berry [D, AR-1]
Rep. Sanford Bishop [D, GA-2]
Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D, OR-3]
Rep. Madeleine Bordallo [D, GU-0]
Rep. F. Allen Boyd [D, FL-2]
Rep. Nancy Boyda [D, KS-2]
Rep. Robert Brady [D, PA-1]
Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1]
Rep. Corrine Brown [D, FL-3]
Rep. George Butterfield [D, NC-1]
Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D, MA-8]
Rep. Russ Carnahan [D, MO-3]
Rep. Andre Carson [D, IN-7]
Rep. Kathy Castor [D, FL-11]
Rep. Donna Christensen [D, VI-0]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D, NY-11]
Rep. William Clay [D, MO-1]
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver [D, MO-5]
Rep. James Clyburn [D, SC-6]
Rep. Steve Cohen [D, TN-9]
Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14]
Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5]
Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2]
Rep. Robert Cramer [D, AL-5]
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D, NY-7]
Rep. Danny Davis [D, IL-7]
Rep. Susan Davis [D, CA-53]
Rep. Peter DeFazio [D, OR-4]
Rep. Diana DeGette [D, CO-1]
Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D, CT-3]
Rep. Norman Dicks [D, WA-6]
Rep. John Dingell [D, MI-15]
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D, TX-25]
Rep. Michael Doyle [D, PA-14]
Rep. Donna F. Edwards [D, MD-4]
Rep. Thomas (Chet) Edwards [D, TX-17]
Rep. Keith Ellison [D, MN-5]
Rep. Rahm Emanuel [D, IL-5]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14]
Rep. Bob Etheridge [D, NC-2]
Rep. Eni Faleomavaega [D, AS-0]
Rep. Sam Farr [D, CA-17]
Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51]
Rep. Barney Frank [D, MA-4]
Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D, TX-20]
Rep. Raymond (Gene) Green [D, TX-29]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7]
Rep. Luis Gutierrez [D, IL-4]
Rep. John Hall [D, NY-19]
Rep. Phil Hare [D, IL-17]
Rep. Jane Harman [D, CA-36]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D, FL-23]
Rep. Brian Higgins [D, NY-27]
Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D, NY-22]
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa [D, TX-15]
Rep. Mazie Hirono [D, HI-2]
Rep. Paul Hodes [D, NH-2]
Rep. Rush Holt [D, NJ-12]
Rep. Michael Honda [D, CA-15]
Rep. Darlene Hooley [D, OR-5]
Rep. Steny Hoyer [D, MD-5]
Rep. Jay Inslee [D, WA-1]
Rep. Jesse Jackson [D, IL-2]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D, TX-18]
Rep. William Jefferson [D, LA-2]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D, GA-4]
Rep. Stephanie Jones [D, OH-11]
Rep. Paul Kanjorski [D, PA-11]
Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D, OH-9]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D, RI-1]
Rep. Dale Kildee [D, MI-5]
Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick [D, MI-13]
Rep. Ronald Kind [D, WI-3]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10]
Rep. Ray LaHood [R, IL-18]
Rep. James Langevin [D, RI-2]
Rep. Rick Larsen [D, WA-2]
Rep. John Larson [D, CT-1]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D, CA-9]
Rep. Sander Levin [D, MI-12]
Rep. John Lewis [D, GA-5]
Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D, IL-3]
Rep. David Loebsack [D, IA-2]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D, CA-16]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D, NY-18]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D, NY-14]
Rep. Edward Markey [D, MA-7]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D, CA-5]
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D, NY-4]
Rep. Betty McCollum [D, MN-4]
Rep. James McDermott [D, WA-7]
Rep. James McGovern [D, MA-3]
Rep. Kendrick Meek [D, FL-17]
Rep. Gregory Meeks [D, NY-6]
Rep. George Miller [D, CA-7]
Rep. R. Bradley Miller [D, NC-13]
Rep. Alan Mollohan [D, WV-1]
Rep. Dennis Moore [D, KS-3]
Rep. Gwen Moore [D, WI-4]
Rep. James Moran [D, VA-8]
Rep. Christopher Murphy [D, CT-5]
Rep. Patrick Murphy [D, PA-8]
Rep. John Murtha [D, PA-12]

Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D, NY-8]
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D, CA-38]
Rep. Richard Neal [D, MA-2]
Rep. James Oberstar [D, MN-8]
Rep. David Obey [D, WI-7]
Rep. John Olver [D, MA-1]
Rep. Solomon Ortiz [D, TX-27]
Rep. Frank Pallone [D, NJ-6]
Rep. William Pascrell [D, NJ-8]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D, AZ-4]
Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14]
Rep. Donald Payne [D, NJ-10]
Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7]
Rep. Earl Pomeroy [D, ND-0]
Rep. David Price [D, NC-4]
Rep. Nick Rahall [D, WV-3]
Rep. Charles Rangel [D, NY-15]
Rep. Silvestre Reyes [D, TX-16]
Rep. Laura Richardson [D, CA-37]
Rep. Ciro Rodriguez [D, TX-23]
Rep. Mike Ross [D, AR-4]
Rep. Steven Rothman [D, NJ-9]
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D, CA-34]
Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger [D, MD-2]
Rep. Timothy Ryan [D, OH-17]
Rep. John Salazar [D, CO-3]
Rep. Linda Sanchez [D, CA-39]
Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D, CA-47]
Rep. John Sarbanes [D, MD-3]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D, IL-9]
Rep. Adam Schiff [D, CA-29]
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D, PA-13]
Rep. David Scott [D, GA-13]
Rep. Robert (Bobby) Scott [D, VA-3]
Rep. Jose Serrano [D, NY-16]
Rep. Joe Sestak [D, PA-7]
Rep. Albio Sires [D, NJ-13]
Rep. Ike Skelton [D, MO-4]
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D, NY-28]
Rep. Adam Smith [D, WA-9]
Rep. Victor Snyder [D, AR-2]
Rep. Hilda Solis [D, CA-32]
Rep. Jackie Speier [D, CA-12]
Rep. John Spratt [D, SC-5]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D, CA-13]
Rep. Betty Sutton [D, OH-13]
Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D, CA-10]
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D, MS-2]
Rep. C. Michael Thompson [D, CA-1]
Rep. John Tierney [D, MA-6]
Rep. Edolphus Towns [D, NY-10]
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D, MA-5]
Rep. Tom Udall [D, NM-3]
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D, MD-8]
Rep. Nydia Velazquez [D, NY-12]
Rep. Peter Visclosky [D, IN-1]
Rep. Timothy Walz [D, MN-1]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D, FL-20]
Rep. Maxine Waters [D, CA-35]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D, NC-12]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D, CA-30]
Rep. Peter Welch [D, VT-0]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D, FL-19]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D, CA-6]
Rep. David Wu [D, OR-1]
Rep. John Yarmuth [D, KY-3]

House of Representatives Members Abstaining from Voting on Hoekstra Amendment:
Rep. Leonard Boswell [D, IA-3]
Rep. William Delahunt [D, MA-10]
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R, MO-8]
Rep. Luis Fortuno [R, PR-0]
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest [R, MD-1]
Rep. Al Green [D, TX-9]
Rep. Eddie Johnson [D, TX-30]
Rep. Frank Lucas [R, OK-3]
Rep. Eleanor Norton [D, DC-0]
Rep. Bobby Rush [D, IL-1]
Sources and Related Documents:

House Resolution 5959 - "Section 507. Jihadists"
July 16, 2008 - Congressional Record: Discussion on Hoekstra Amendment to H.R. 5959
July 16, 2008 - Press Release: Hoekstra Votes for Republican-Improved FY '09 Intelligence Authorization Bill -- Hoekstra Amendment on Radical Jihadists Approved
Official House House Roll Call 500 Vote on Hoekstra Amendment
Open Congress: House Roll Call 500 Vote - On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 4 to H R 5959
U.S. House of Representatives: Find and Write Your RepresentativeUS Postal Service - Identifying Your Zip+4 Zip Code
House of Representatives Roll Call Votes
House Resolution 5959 Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
May 8, 2008 - Jihad and U.S. Intelligence Resources -- Counterterrorism Blog - by Jeffrey Imm
March 14, 2008 - National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) - Counter Terror Communications Center (CTCC) Memorandum, Volume 2, Issue 10 - "Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide to Counterterrorism Communication"
January 2008 - Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties - Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims
"War of Ideas" Sources on the Debate over the Identity of the Jihadist Enemy
Petition on Defining the Jihadist Enemy


Dhimmitude in U.S. Security Entities
John R. Houk
© July 23, 2008


U.S. Congressional Representatives' Stance on Jihad and the War of Ideas
ABOUT Counterterrorism Blog