Thursday, April 30, 2009

Swine Flu Pandemic

The Swine Flu Pandemic originating out of Mexico has raised fears in Americans cognizant of End Time Prophecy. Some people are going to start the new millennium mentality when the 90’s gave way to the twenty-first century. There were all kinds of cataclysmic predictions but the one I remember was that computers around the world were supposed to go haywire because they were not programmed calendar wise for the twenty-first century. Or at least some things like that.

People were stocking up on food, water and survival knick-knacks.

Now I am hearing the same things pertain to the Swine Flu Pandemic. Personally I would be more concerned about Islamic terrorist dirty bombs or rogue nation EMT attacks from weak nukes.

Adding fuel to pandemic hysteria are reports like this:

The swine flu outbreak raises a lot of fears.

Here’s one you might not have thought of yet: The Pentagon may be taking over more and more of our civil society in this crisis.

Back in 2002, President Bush created NorthCom, the Pentagon’s Northern Command, which has jurisdiction over the United States.

And NorthCom has been running preparedness drills in the event of a flu pandemic for at least the past three years.

Making things more alarming, NorthCom got assigned its own fighting unit six months ago—the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, which had spent much much of the last five years battling things out in Iraq.

The assignment of that fighting unit alarmed the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “This is a radical departure from separation of civilian law enforcement and military authority and could, quite possibly, represent a violation of law,” said Mike German, ACLU national security policy counsel.

Testifying in March, General Victor Renuart, head of NorthCom, said it would provide “assistance in support of civil authorities” during an epidemic. And, he added, “when requested and approved by the Secretary of Defense or directed by the President, federal military forces will contribute to federal support.” But he boasted: “USNorthCom does not wait for that call to action.”

One last concern: George W. Bush bestowed upon the Presidency enormous powers, essentially to be in charge of every branch of government, as well as state and local and tribal governments and the private sector, in the event of a “catastrophic emergency.” (See National Security Presidential Directive 51)
We’re in a public health emergency now. It’s not “catastrophic” yet. But it appears to be up to the President—and the President only—to make that determination, according to the directive.

Congress needs to hold hearings on NorthCom, InfraGard, and National Security Presidential Directive 51.
(The Progressive)

The irony is The Progressive blames President Bush for something he never did and yet Leftist President Barack Hussein Obama has the authority to execute.

Reputable news sources are indeed beginning to point to possible safety measures by civilians and the government is and may do to overcome the Swine Flu Pandemic. I am a watcher of FOX News. I have noticed the last two days the Swine Flu is the top story dominating FOX News dissemination of information.

Time will tell how effective civilian and government actions reverse potential devastation to a mere cold and flu season finally.

JRH 4/30/09

Islam: Religion or Ideology

If you have been reading my posts on Islam/Mohammedanism you may be aware I have been working out a stand concerning the religion founded by Mohammed (e.g. Here and Here).

The decision is between banning Mohammedanism in America or considering Mohammedanism a religion protected by Free of Religion and Free Speech ala the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

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

There are three points that need to be examined pertaining to Islam:

    1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

    2. (Congress shall make no law) prohibiting the free exercise thereof (i.e. religion).

    3. (Congress shall make no law) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

A few other points could well be addressed pertaining to Islam however without an understanding of these three points the later is irrelevant or relevant depending on the conclusions of those points.

The first point about the Law and the establishment of religion is one of my pet peeves because Leftists over the last sixty years or so have extrapolated ex nihilo that this means a wall of separation exists between the government (Federal, State and Local) and religion.

This extrapolation has zero to do with the Constitution or with those attributed to reasoning out the meaning of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. Rather it comes from a letter (A LETTER!) to the Danbury Baptists in which President Jefferson trying to calm the fears of Baptists about the traditional concept of Christian nations establishing a State Church.

Baptists had never been privy in any nation as a State Church. In those days part of taxation was to support the State Church. Many of the Thirteen Colonies and then the Thirteen States of the United States of America initially had State Churches on the State level.

Saying all this, the majority of America’s ruling elite from the Revolutionary War days considered the rule of law and morality based on Christian principles. My conclusion (though admittedly an opinion) is that the First Amendment did not prohibit religion from being involved in the State; rather it prohibited the State from being involved in religion. The religions of the day were the varieties of Christianity in the new USA with a smattering of Judaism. The Courts of the day would not even consider extrapolating ex nihilo a law prohibiting the involvement of religion in the government apparatus.

The second point is that Congress shall make NO laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This opened the door for religions other than Christianity to practice freely in principle; however you have to be aware the populace in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s would look with prejudice upon a non-Christian religion such as Islam/Mohammedanism. Nonetheless the letter of the law in the Constitution is very concrete. The specific word “religion” was used rather something such as the “religion of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Although Christianity would have been considered the faith of America in post Revolutionary War days, an extrapolation of diverse religious worship is free to occur.

An uncorrupt Court would have to rule to prevent public or private harassment of non-Christian religions in America because Congress can make NO law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

There are over a billion people who consider Mohammedanism a religion. At this point one has to realize my quandary about banning Mohammedanism. I’ll back to this thought in a moment.

The third point is that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. This takes care of America’s atheists who choose to live by a philosophy, philosophical principle or merely not care about the existence of religion/deity one way or the other. It is the freedom of conscience without fear of retribution.

Even today ideologies such as Communism or Nazism are allowed freedom of expression in America as long as the expression does not lead to breaking the law via murder, assault, theft, incitement to riot disturbing the public welfare and so on.

Thus today fringe Leftist and fringe Rightist groups test how close they can get to the line of the rule of law without crossing it. Prosecution followed Communists in what was known as the McCarthy Era and today White Supremacists are prosecuted for arms violations and the breaking of other citizens’ civil rights.

It is the THIRD POINT I believe that Mohammedanism crosses the line.

Mohammedanism as a religion simply has too many tenets in their revered books or traditions that cross the line of the rule of law according to the American Constitution. Mohammedanism is a warrior religion that its revered books call to establish the ideological-religion globally first by peace. If peace does not work then war is forced on unbelievers of Mohammedanism until there is Mohammedan conversion or submission to second class citizenship forced to not do anything anti-Islamic or death in a heinous way.

So even though there is a theological nature of otherworldliness to Mohammedanism, the political nature of Mohammedanism in practice in this world tends toward an ideology of political world domination. This world domination mentality has the ferocity inspired by Adolf Hitler’s Nazis on the German population of a superior race. In the same way the German Nazis sought to exterminate human beings (not just Jews) considered as subhuman as not worthy of life. Those outside the Nazi vision of the Germanic Aryan nation not deemed subhuman would be second class citizens serving the Nazi German State.

The Mohammedan ideology of the days of Mohammed in which one can label as radical Islam today is really a Reformation movement on the scale that Protestantism was a movement to reform the Catholic Church to a return of the perception of the Early Church and Patristic Church.

Ali Sina has an awesome essay that points out that “reform” is a movement to go back to the way it was rather than a transformation to another a better way of thinking. The appellation of “Progressive” Churches is a case in point. Progressive Churches are not reforming Christianity; rather they are inserting Leftist humanism to eliminate what is perceived as archaic and of no value in today’s society.

Ali Sina thus stipulates Mohammedanism is not able to be reformed. If there is any reformation occurring in Mohammedanism it is the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabi and Shi’ite aims to bring Mohammedanism back to a closer vision of the Prophet Mohammed.

The implication is that Mohammedanism would have progressive thinking added to it to bring it back to a religion that is otherworldly seeking inner peace in this life and the life to come. For this to happen a progressive Mohammedanism would have to deny Mohammed’s revelation from Allah pertaining to convert or die, sex slavery, honor killing and intolerance of everything non-Islamic.

Part of Sina’s point is to not trust Mohammedans that claim to be reform minded. Sina does not specifically point to a website called Muslims Against Sharia but implies that one should not trust Muslims who say they wish to reform Islam. The link for Muslims Against Sharia does not have its name in it, rather the link is

Sina implies there is a religion that is a progressive version of Mohammedanism. That religion is known as Bahá’í.

The Bahá'í's believe in an essential unity of the great religions of the world. However, this does not mean they believe the various religious creeds and doctrines are identical. Rather, they view all religions as having sprung from the same spiritual source. The social and outer forms of different religions vary due to the circumstances at the time that they were founded. Other differences in doctrine and belief can be attributed to later accretions, after the death of the founder.

Bahá'í beliefs promoted major social changes when they were first circulated in the 19th century: they supported gender and race equality; world government; freedom of expression and assembly; world peace; religious tolerance, and religious cooperation. In many ways, they were a century or more ahead of many other faiths. Their followers are heavily involved in promoting these concepts today. Also, unlike many other religions, Bahá'ís view scientific inquiry as essential to expand human knowledge and to deepen their members' faith. They feel that science needs to be guided by spiritual principles so that its applications are beneficial to all humanity.
(Excerpted from Bahá'í Faith: Beliefs and Practices)

I have come around to the conclusion that if Mohammedanism wishes to evolve into a true religion of peace (Note as a Christian I did not say the true religion) then Muslims would embrace Baha’ism which is an actual root from Mohammedanism.

So now I am pretty much in the “Ban Islam” crowd even though it is not completely etched into stone in my thoughts. It is entirely reasonable to view Mohammedanism as a Theo-Political cult with the emphasis on political ideology. The inherent political ideology of Islam definitely crosses the line of American Constitutionalism and the rule of law to protect citizens from harm.

Thus to ban Islam could be viewed as terminating an ideology which would harm the Constitution of the United States of America.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Defeat Harry Reid

Just as President Reagan predicted, Senator Harry Reid is a tax and spend Leftie. Senator Reid is also emblematic of the direction of extreme socialism his buddy President Barack Hussein Obama is taking America.

This TV ad is from "Our Country Deserves Better."

Obama and the EU will Deliver Israel to Muslim Designs

I am fascinated – no let me rephrase that. I am astonished that the Obama Administration and the power members of the European Union keep haranguing Israel to allow the existence of a sovereign Arab State to be called Palestine to be set up as Israel’s next door neighbor.

One might ask, “Well John Boy, why are you astonished?”

I am glad you asked that.

I am astonished because the group of people the Obama Administration and the European Union wish to install an Israel hating and Jew hating administrative infrastructure whose sole agenda for existing is the destruction of Israel and the promoting of anti-Semitic hatred ala Mein Kampf.

President of the Palestine Authority even in the present publicly tells his constituents that Israel will not be recognized as a Jewish State. The ruling elite of Gaza as represented by the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas goes further. Not only will Hamas will not recognize a “Jewish State” but also promotes the actual destruction of Jewry. What is the reasoning put forth to the West? The existence of a “Jewish State” is racism.


Most of the West influenced by Leftist ideology buys into this “Israel is a racist State” paradigm. Yet it is the Arab-Muslim Middle East is completely sold out to Islamic Supremacism.

Islamic Supremacism means that all non-Muslims (aka kafir) do not have rights to openly practice their faith (or lack thereof) if it insults Islam-Mohammedanism and the Theo-political cult’s Prophet and god known as Allah. The perceived insult may result in imprisonment or Capital punishment by the Middle Eastern State. Also the perception of the insult of everything Islamic will result in the authorities looking the other way as inflamed and incited Mohammedans ruin property, defile non-Muslim religious places, torture (the kind that maims and kills), rape and an unending list of heinous acts that I choose not to search my memory for.

A little sliver of Land that is the Jewish State of Israel was re-created in the twentieth century from the carnage of the Holocaust which was an apex moment of anti-Semitic hate. That land had become an insignificant waste land for a long time by the late nineteenth century.
Jews lived in the area dubbed Palestine even after the Ancient Romans attempted to destroy Jewish heritage after 130’s AD. Those same Jews still were living in then Muslim Supremacist controlled Palestine in the late nineteenth century. European persecution couple with the influence of the rising concept of Zionism led many European Jews to immigrate to the Roman named Palestine.

The few Muslims residing in the Ottoman mismanaged waste land had no animosity to the immigrating Jew until …

A very hate filled anti-Semite known as the
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini began sowing seeds of Arab nationalist hate among his fellow Muslims. Al-Husseini also was a buddy of Hassan al-Banna the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is one of the originators of today’s current global scourge – Islamic terrorism.

So here we have little sliver Israel reborn from the death of the Holocaust to a new life in the Land of Jewish ancestors. Israel created as a Jewish State to be a place in which global Jewry could return to evade persecution from the West and the East and everything in between.

We have this Land of Israel as a speck in a sea of Islamic Supremacism and many influential people of the West has the temerity to call Israel a racist State that uses apartheid to render Arabs that call themselves second class citizens. These same Arabs have been taught from birth to hate Israel and dream of its destruction. These same Arabs who many in the West claim are the victims of an apartheid style State are the very same that have defiled Jewish revered sites located in the land being pushed to be a sovereign State. These same Arabs are the ones that have used their greater numbers coupled with Islamic Supremacism to strike fear into Arab Christians that used to be the majority in such cities such as Bethlehem.

Now we have President Obama teaming up with EU leadership to force Israel to accept these Arabs who call themselves Palestinians as a partner in a Two-State solution that in their Islamic Supremacism want to rob more Jewish heritage by trying to usurp the Eastern part of Jerusalem.

President Barack Hussein Obama intends to sell out the only real Western democracy in the Middle East to provide advantage to Muslim Supremacy that will literally murder people who wish to practice Freedom and Liberty. In other words BHO advocates becoming a dhimmi to Muslim global demands to the detriment of the sliver of land known as Israel.

Monday, April 27, 2009

RE: Obama’s War on Islam

Gary H. Johnson, Jr. has provided two comments pertaining to “Obama’s War on Israel.”

JRH 4/27/09

Commenter: Gary H. Johnson, Jr.
United Against Islamic Supremacism
Sent: April 27, 2009

Comment 1:

The key reality to understand in the Obama pressures on Israel is the fact that Mitchell (about Mitchell) set up his offices in West Jerusalem.

UPDATE Sent: 4/27/2009 11:40 PM

The key reality to understand in the Obama pressures on Israel is the fact that Mitchell (about Mitchell) did not set up his offices in West Jerusalem, but chose instead to set up his offices in East Jerusalem. The question is, who is in control of the territory housing the offices of Mitchell? It seems East Jerusalem is most likely controlled by the West Bank.

Comment 2:

For OneJerusalem to single out Hillary Clinton for chiding is actually rather shortsighted. In the Middle East, Hillary Clinton is a part of a team of US Diplomatic Ambassadors which span from Indonesia to Morocco and these diplomats are operating on an Obama Agenda, whose architecture is designed to create stability...not peace...not solutions... Stability!

When Stability Operations are the measure of your resolve, victory is replaced with success as the goal. As to Jerusalem, to Obama, success in stability operations has to do with the entire region of Greater Palestine from Egypt through Iran and is measured in geopolitical terms. Therefore, when OneJerusalem looks to divine the activities of Obama and Netanyahu, they are faced with absurdity.

A two state solution is impossible without a second state. And the Second state, Palestine, does not exist under any unified or unity government at present...and has decided to work itself into a transitional unity government by the elections in January of 2010.

All is on hold for the Palestinian Government until next January. So, why so much pressure on Netanyahu and Israel from the world community? Why is the world community not facing the fact that Hamas just won the Union elections of UNRWA (This is the UN organization mandated to provide relief for those called Palestinian Refugees)?

Why is the world not paying attention to the fact that Muhammad Dahlan recently admitted that Fatah never abided by Oslo's Accord?

Why is it dismissed in the Western Media that the Hamas gunrunners are chiefly finding their sources for arms and drugs and explosives in Iran?

The reason - no one wants to face the fact of the matter: Islamic Supremacism is THE destabilizing element in the region. To focus on geopolitical wrangling when what is at stake is Islamopolitical Reality is to face half the beast while pretending that the organs of the beast that make up its nervous system and agitating flames do not exist.

In the end, the only question is whether Israel is a paper tiger...and with Netanyahu at the helm, it is unlikely that the two-state solution will advance without assurances to the Israeli people from the world community and Hamas and Fatah that Israel has a right to exist. The fact that Netanyahu has bucked back and said that Hamas and Fatah must recognize Israel as the Jewish state and Obama's team came back and said "Hamas doesn't have to recognize Israel" tells us one thing...Obama's administration is aligning itself with the European Elite Diplomats and Leftwing Revisionist Historians to advance a radical agenda in the region.

It won't be long until the upheaval of June 2009 in Lebanon and Iran and a skip and a jump to the Afghanistan broil over Karzai's slot in August 2009. For the European Community and the Obama Administration to be ramping up pressure on Israel is premature on the two-state solution front and the only piece of the puzzle that is a spoiler that is driving this geopolitical reality on Israel's border in the intel communities of the US, Britain, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Pakistan is the Iranian Nuclear question.

If the Iranians were not close to the bomb, the Obama Administration would not be pressuring Israel to this degree...however, the need to weaken Iran's hold on the Proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah before they detonate the practice sands is a push for influence that is beginning in a radical manner in this new age of American coalitions and diplomacy. The US diplomatic corps is pushing for Stability, therefore, the definition of success is the establishment of governments and bureaucracies that can provide security and guide societies and individuals within them.

Morality is sidelined, history is put on hold in preparation to be written, Islamic Supremacism is backburnered, and reason is literally flung out onto the highway from the speeding vehicle like an unwanted kitten in a pillowcase.

All in all, to push for a two state solution when one of the states is against it and the other state refuses to accept the idea of uniting is literally ABSURD! It is insane, crazy, without any basis in reality, pie in the sky, crucified hope, gerryrigged corruption wound around the intrusive power of the World Bank, the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and SCF (Sharia Compliant Finance) brokerage houses here in Washington, New York and Chicago.

Only someone with a vested interest in hairline stability would consult this course of action in the Levant. It guarantees one thing - it places the definition of success into the heart of the Islamic Supremacist ideological stronghold... De-stabilization is the specialty of Islamic Supremacism...if Stability is the definition of success, until Islamic Supremacism is destroyed ideologically, principally, ethically, the geopolitical wars and diplomatic actions of our new administration in the Af-Pak and Levant will end in guaranteed failure on every count.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Pelosi Did Not Disapprove of Torture

An oft reported theme I have put forth is that Democrats lie. There was a time when only the obvious Left wing of the Democrat Party would indulge in political slight of hand and tell a lie for political gain in the hope the Center to Right would acquire a bad public image. The Democrat fringe was in the mold of Senator McGovern. The McGovernite Dems were an electoral laughing stock. That is because the Democrat Party used to be dominated by Center-Right Statesmen in the mold of Senator Scoop Jackson of Washington State. Those Democrats are long gone.

Now that the fringe Left has utterly taken over the Democrat Party America can expect lies for political public enhancement will be the norm rather the exception.

The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in her minority leadership role was involved in about thirty meetings along with other Republican and Democrat leadership circa 2002. Those meetings explicitly detailed the enhanced interrogation techniques to be used on Islamic terrorists captured shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan.

Nancy Pelosi is the ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives and third in line for the Presidency if a cataclysmic catastrophe occurs to the President and Vice President. This woman of High Government Office has down right lied claiming there was NO detail given in those meetings explaining the nature of enhanced interrogation techniques.

Here is a side thought: Is it not interesting the Obama Administration is bent on calling Islamic terrorists and the Global War on Terror by long drawn out names obfuscating the reality of America’s enemy? Yet the successful methods to extract information from those Islamic terrorists to keep America safe are “torture.” Can you say political agenda?

Pelosi is being busted in public in the deceitful
hypocritical lie to protect her Leftist back-side.

Porter J. Goss a former CIA Director is part of an increasing line of individuals
calling Pelosi out on her lies.

Many Joe Americans may ask, “What’s the big deal? Politicians lie for gain all the time. What makes Speaker Pelosi’s lie any different?”

The big deal is part of the Democrat Party road to power was decrying the lack of civil rights for non-State terrorist POWs who utilized heinous brutal torture that cost lives prior to their capture. Using the weariness of the Global War on Terror by the American public, the accusation of torture as an American war crime was used to paint a picture of evil of Republicans who believed in winning rather than losing.

Pelosi is in a position of choosing to lie about any knowledge of what enhanced interrogation techniques entailed OR owning up to the truth proving the Democrats lied there way to the American voters’ hearts.

JRH 4/26/09

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Dr. Wafa Sultan is Awesome

I was perusing my latest Faith Freedom International (FFI) e-newsletter showing recent posts to that website. I noticed a link that honored Dr. Wafa Sultan who is an ex-Muslim gal from Syria who has done what many anti-Islam males fear to tread. Sultan has gone into the heart of the devil’s media lair such as Al-Jazeera and verbally slapped Islamic clerics into fits of anger. Evidently when confronted with the truth of Islam the measured response of a typical Muslim cleric is not to provide a reasoned response. Rather the cleric goes into fits castigating Sultan’s integrity and eventually issuing a fatwa that threatens Sultan’s life.

This makes Sultan special!

Anyway the FFI post honoring Dr. Wafa Sultan is entitled, “Honoring Wafa Sultan (Video).” There are a huge amount of Dr. Sultan videos explaining the evils of Islam/Mohammedanism. I encourage everyone to go there to receive mini-lessons on the reality of the Theo-Political ideology known as Islam which I prefer to call after its founder Mohammedanism.

To comprehend how brave Dr. Sultan actually is here is a post from the American Congress for Truth pertaining to her sheer courage:

JRH 4/25/09
“Bold ex-Muslim threatened by top sheik”: Brava to Wafa Sultan

Comment by: Jerry Gordon

Dr. Wafa Sultan is “a national and international treasure” says our colleague Bob Spencer of Jihad Watch in a FrontPageArticle about her electrifying second al-Jazeerah interview on March 4th. Spencer rightfully asks why our government isn’t protecting her against Fatwas issued by Islamist clerics around the Muslim ummah seeking her death. She is unafraid to beard the Lion in its den - Islam - by going on Al Jazeera and speaking truth to power enraging fulminating sputtering Islamist clerics to the point of issuing Fatwas for her death as they did following her amazing first interview on Al Jazeera in February, 2006. Time Magazine named her one of the 100 Most Influential persons in its annual 2006 listing.

Brigitte Gabriel and I had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Sultan at the Secular Islam Summit in St. Petersburg in March of 2007. We found her convincing, friendly, outgoing to a fault, exuding humanity and compassion while being an unrelenting critic of the religion she left behind in her native Syria. This second al-Jazeera interview was triggered by the republication of the Danish cartoon of Muhammad with a turban shaped like a bomb. Debating Dr. Sultan was Egyptian Islamist, Tal’at Rmeih.

Here’s what Sultan said and the reactions of Rmieh and the infamous ‘reformist’ Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi of Egypt. al- Qaradawi you may recall justified suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians and US service personnel in Iraq.

“The reactions of the Muslims, which were characterized by savageness, barbarism, and backwardness, only increased the value of these cartoons and gave them more importance than they merited, simply because they proved that these cartoons were true, and that the message they were conveying was true.” Sultan said.

“The Muslim is an irrational creature ruled by instincts,” she declared. “Those teachings have deprived him of his mind, incited his emotions and reduced him to the level of an inferior creature that cannot control himself or react to events rationally.”

An Egyptian Islamist, Tal’at Rmeih, who debated Sultan on the March 4 Al Jazeera show, replied: “God help me. First, Islam is too great to be harmed by the publisher of the cartoon, or by that woman who is talking over there. The truth is that everything she said is 100 percent false, I’m sad to say. It seems to me that the American and Zionist intelligence agencies have begun to produce people who are hostile to their own nation.”

And here’s what Sheik al-Qaradawi said and Bob Sepncer’s ominous comment:

Qaradawi said Sultan, a former Muslim, uttered “unbearable, ghastly things that made my hair stand on end.” Specifically, “she had the audacity to publicly curse Allah, his prophet, the Quran, the history of Islam and the Islamic nation.”

Spencer concludes, “These are serious charges, and Qaradawi states them in terms that his jihadist minions will understand as meaning that she must be killed.

The real reason why these Islamist clerics are so agitated is that Dr. Sultan, the bold critic of Islam, is a woman. Brava to fearless truth speaker, Dr. Wafa Sultan.

Wafa Sultan shocks Islamic TV audience again, Al Jazeera apologizes

March 25, 2008

Wafa Sultan – the Syria-born psychiatrist whose Al Jazeera interview two years ago sent shockwaves throughout the Islamic world – reportedly is the target of a serious tacit death threat from an influential Muslim scholar in the wake of a second interview with the Arab satellite television network.

Al Jazeera issued an apology after Sultan’s interview earlier this month, pointing to “offensive remarks” but never specifying anything she said. Since then, however, the prominent Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi of Egypt “has directed his rage against Sultan,” writes author and Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer in FrontPage Magazine

Qaradawi said Sultan, a former Muslim, uttered “unbearable, ghastly things that made my hair stand on end.” Specifically, “she had the audacity to publicly curse Allah, his prophet, the Quran, the history of Islam and the Islamic nation.”

Spencer concludes, “These are serious charges, and Qaradawi states them in terms that his jihadist minions will understand as meaning that she must be killed.

“Given that Qaradawi has justified suicide attacks against Israeli civilians and American soldiers in Iraq, it is clear that he has no distaste for violence, and thus law enforcement officials should take his latest fulminations against Wafa Sultan very seriously indeed,” Spencer writes.

(Continue Reading This Article)

Friday, April 24, 2009

The Prophet Foretold By The Baptist Was Certainly Prophet Muhammad Part 1

Email Inquiry: Mennower Akhter
Ongoing Inquiry
Inquiry Responder: John R. Houk
© April 24, 2009

There are two very significant remarks about John the Baptist made by Jesus Christ, but recorded in a mysterious way. The first remark about the Baptist is that in which John is presented to the world as the reincarnate Eliah (Elijah) the Old Testament. The mystery with which this appellation is enveloped consists in the significant silence of Christ about the identity of the person whom Eliah (not Elias) was expected to officially announce and introduce to the world as the Last Prophet.

The language of Jesus in this respect is exceedingly obscure, ambiguous, and mysterious. If John was Eliah, as is expressly and fearlessly declared, why, then, is the person whose precursor was Eliah not expressly and fearlessly mentioned? If Jesus were the "Messenger of the Covenant" and the Dominator [as the Vulgate translates the Hebrew Adon (Mal. iii. 1)], why does he not openly say so? If he courageously declared that it was not he himself but another Prophet who was that 'Dominator' it must, indeed, have been a criminal hand which erased and effaced the words of Jesus from the original Gospel.

At all events, it is the Gospels that are responsible for this ambiguity and obscurity. It cannot but be described as diabolical tampering with the text that has misled billions of Christians for so many centuries. Jesus, whatever he believed he represented, ought to have, to say the least, shown himself straightforward, and to have frankly declared: "John is the Eliah who was sent as a precursor to prepare the way for me!" Or if such was not the case, then he could have made the following declaration: "John is the Eliah who was sent to prepare the way for Prophet Muhammad." Perhaps this is due to the love of Jesus for ambiguity.

There are, in fact, several instances - as reported in the Gospels - where Jesus gives an answer or makes a statement which is obscure and entirely unintelligible. Leaving his godhead aside, as a Prophet, no, even as a teacher, he was expected to be a straightforward teacher and leader.


I can tell from these paragraphs that Mr. Akhter and I are going to have a disagreement whose God inspired or is responsible for revered Scripture. I am fairly certain we may not be able to overcome this in dialogue.

A Muslim believes the Quran is the infallible word of God/Allah revealed to Mohammed (either directly or via the angel Gabriel or both – I am uncertain). It is the Quran’s stipulation that everything in the Old and New Testaments that does not agree with the Quran was tinged by Jewish or Christian deception.

I don’t have a clue as to who Eliah is. I know Elias is the KJV English translation of the Koiné Greek for Elijah. Perhaps Mr. Akhter’s Eliah is also Elijah.

As to the Bible referring to Mohammed as the last prophet you will not find that anywhere in the Old or New Testaments. Christianity (of which I am a follower) connects the Jewish Scriptures we call the Old Testament as prophetic of the coming Messiah who we believe to be Jesus of Nazareth the Son of God. I am uncertain how Judaism handles Messianic scriptures in the Old Testament which they refer to as the Tanakh. My guess Judaism is still looking for their Messiah for am fairly certain that neither Jesus nor Mohammed fits their criteria. And yet since Jesus was Jewish of the tribe of Judah, I am fairly certain that Jesus is a closer to a Jewish version of a Messiah as compared to “Kill the Jews wherever you find them” Mohammed.

The Gospels are pretty clear that John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah to prepare the way for the Messiah which is Jesus Christ the Son of God.

11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12 And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15 For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. 16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,’[a] and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”
18 And Zacharias said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is well advanced in years.”
19 And the angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and was sent to speak to you and bring you these glad tidings.
(Luke 1: 11-19

John the Baptist personally endorsed Jesus the Son of God (via the Holy Spirit) who is simultaneously the Son of Man (via mother Mary).

1 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” 3 For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying:

    “The voice of one crying in the wilderness:

    ‘Prepare the way of the LORD;
    Make His paths straight.’”[a]

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.[a]
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. 14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?”
15 But Jesus answered and said to him, “Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed Him.
16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He[a] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
(Matt. 3: 1-3, 11, 13-17 NKJV)

Now let’s examine the Latin word “dominator” from Malachi 3: 1. You must realize the “dominator” does not necessarily have the meaning in English or Latin, right?

English translation of the Latin word “dominator” comes up as “dominium, lordship, dominion, domination”. I am guessing dominium is a Latin transliteration and the other three have an easy to comprehend meaning.

Let’s examine the Hebrew to English translation of “Adon”.

Adon is the Northwest Semitic for "lord" [1] (Ugaritic adn, c.f. Akkadian adannu "mighty") (also see Baal)

    • in the Tanakh, Adon may be used for men and angels as well as to El, (e.g., Exodus 34:23). El is called the “Lord of lords” (Deuteronomy 10:17)

    • Adonai "my lord" in Masoretic tradition is used as a euphemism to refer to YHWH of the Hebrew Bible.

    • Greek Adonis, an adoption of Tammuz

The Hebrew word that Mennower Akhter wrote as “Adon” has this Hebrew meaning:

It was necessary that mankind be morally prepared for the coming of the Lord. The messenger of the Covenant who would come to His temple would be none other than the Lord God Himself. The word “Lord” here (ha adon) always refers to God (cf. Isaiah 1:24; 3:1; 10:16, 33). (John Ankerberg)

Thus “ha adon” refers to God Almighty Himself coming to set the world strait for deliverance from this evil age created by Satan. Obviously Mohammed claimed he was not God: however Jesus of Nazareth born of a human female virgin by the overriding power of God does claim He is God.

Since “ha adon” refers to God Himself, it is no mystery when John the Baptist says this in the Gospel of Mark:

1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in the Prophets:[a]

    “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,
    Who will prepare Your way before You.”[b]
    3 “The voice of one crying in the wilderness:

    ‘Prepare the way of the LORD;
    Make His paths straight.’”[c] (Mark 1: 1-3

We have learned that in Malachi 3: 1 Messenger is a reference to Almighty God. One could render “Messenger” of Mark 1: 2 as referring to Malachi’s “Messenger” and read – “Behold, I send God before your , Who will prepare Your way before You.”

John spoke of Jesus as the Messiah/God:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.[b]
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own,[c] and His own[d] did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”
16 And[e] of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,[f] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

19 Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”
20 He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.”
21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?”
He said, “I am not.”
“Are you the Prophet?”
And he answered, “No.”
22 Then they said to him, “Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?”
23 He said: “I am

    ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness:

    “Make straight the way of the LORD,”’[g]
    as the prophet Isaiah said.”

24 Now those who were sent were from the Pharisees. 25 And they asked him, saying, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
26 John answered them, saying, “I baptize with water, but there stands One among you whom you do not know. 27 It is He who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose.”
28 These things were done in Bethabara[h] beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ 31 I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.”
32 And John bore witness, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. 33 I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”
(John 1: 1-34 NKJV)

As we can see the dispute between me and Mennower Akhter is whose writings are Divine and whose writings are false. I would pray Akhter would see my view; however as long as he views the Quran as infallible and the Hadith, Sunna and so as near infallible then agreement between the two of us is unlikely.

Just a heads up Mr. Akhter sent me two pages of Islamic apologetics. I thought I would be able to sit down go through his points and respond as a Christian Apologist; however I have discovered that is impossible. I will continue to answer Mr. Akhter’s points; however it will be spread out and take some time. I am also guessing there may be a little back and forth between us which will inevitably make inquiry even longer. Feel free to jump in any time.

I wish I knew Mr. Akhter’s website or blog for I would have listed in the credit. I do have his email; however I do not publish emails unless it is obvious a writer wishes to be contacted.

JRH 4/24/09

Thursday, April 23, 2009

The outrage continues

Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf became the foundation document for Nazi extermination of Jews in Europe. Today we know that as the Holocaust.

The last two Durban Conferences on human rights could be the foundation of a United Nations extermination of Jews in the 21st century.

The premise of the two Durban Conferences (One of which actually took place in Durban) was for global dialogue on ways to end racism. In actuality they were conferences on castigating Jewish Israel and singling out the Zionist State as the only racist nation on the planet.

The United Nations is dominated by despotic and/or intolerant Islamic States. If it were not for the actual power of the U.N. residing with a unanimous Security Council, the U.N. would be the lead in establishing a one world government with thugs and dictators attempting to run the globe. If that were to be the case one could expect Ahmadinejad’s deepest wish to exact a Holocaust that makes Hitler’s Holocaust look like a picnic in the park.

Anne Bayefsky writes about “The outrage continues”. The article is about the absurdity of the existence of the U.N. being any kind of advocate for human rights.

JRH 4/23/09

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

An Obama Partisan Witch Hunt?

John R. Houk
© April 22, 2009

By all accounts President John Fitzgerald Kennedy is one of America’s greatest Presidents, particularly in the twentieth century.

Yet there was intense speculation that JFK and his Administration was involved in the assassination of South Vietnamese dictator Ngo Dinh Diem. The coup preceding Diem’s assassination was indeed orchestrated by the JFK Administration with knowledge thereof from JFK himself.

President Lyndon Baines Johnson definitely believed the JFK Administration was part and parcel to the assassination.

President Richard Milhouse Nixon believed that JFK was directly (Note: annoying soundtrack is part of the website) involved in the ordering of the assassination of Diem. A New York Times story that included the transcripts of Nixon tapes paints of picture of Nixon trying to frame JFK; however after close examination of the NYT story you will note the message the NYT wants its readers to believe does not match Nixon’s strong belief of JFK culpability.

Among Academia during the Vietnam War era it was considered a truism that JFK ordered Diem’s assassination. Kennedy apologists have come to the Kennedy Legacy rescue claiming there is no direct proof that JFK was behind the Diem assassination. Since there is no smoking gun connection it comes down to what one surmises from any evidence available. Today the lack of evidence has pretty much exonerated JFK publicly of culpability; however that does not mean there was not a successful cover-up.

Records of the Kennedy national security meetings, both here and in our larger collection, show that none of JFK's conversations about a coup in Saigon featured consideration of what might physically happen to Ngo Dinh Diem or Ngo Dinh Nhu. The audio record of the October 29th meeting which we cite below also reveals no discussion of this issue. That meeting, the last held at the White House to consider a coup before this actually took place, would have been the key moment for such a conversation. The conclusion of the Church Committee agrees that Washington gave no consideration to killing Diem. (Note 12) The weight of evidence therefore supports the view that President Kennedy did not conspire in the death of Diem. However, there is also the exceedingly strange transcript of Diem's final phone conversation with Ambassador Lodge on the afternoon of the coup (Document 23), which carries the distinct impression that Diem is being abandoned by the U.S. Whether this represents Lodge's contribution, or JFK's wishes, is not apparent from the evidence available today.

A second charge has to do with Kennedy administration denials that it had had anything to do with the coup itself. The documentary record is replete with evidence that President Kennedy and his advisers, both individually and collectively, had a considerable role in the coup overall, by giving initial support to Saigon military officers uncertain what the U.S. response might be, by withdrawing U.S. aid from Diem himself, and by publicly pressuring the Saigon government in a way that made clear to South Vietnamese that Diem was isolated from his American ally. In addition, at several of his meetings (Documents 7, 19, 22) Kennedy had CIA briefings and led discussions based on the estimated balance between pro- and anti-coup forces in Saigon that leave no doubt the United States had a detailed interest in the outcome of a coup against Ngo Dinh Diem. The CIA also provided $42,000 in immediate support money to the plotters the morning of the coup, carried by Lucien Conein, an act prefigured in administration planning Document 17)
. (John Prados)

So why do I mention some dirt on an American hero as JFK?

The reason is President Barack Hussein Obama has decided to re-open the door on possible prosecution of Bush Administration Aides and functionaries (including Lawyers providing legal advice) concerning the Bush Administration tactic of using extreme interrogation methods to extract information out of Islamic terrorists to protect the American Homeland. Most people in this currently Leftist dominated nation use appellation of “torture” for extreme interrogation methods. This is odd for the Obama Administration has decided to abandon all actual words for Leftist euphemisms for phrases and words like Global War on Terrorism or Islamic terrorists.

I am not a proponent of the kind of torture that leads to the termination of life or to the maiming of one’s body. Torture thus defined is indeed a heinous crime or war crime if perpetrated by signatories of the Geneva Conventions.

I am a proponent of what is labeled as torture yet there is NO threat to life and limb. It is the use of psychological methods to extract relevant information not necessarily for prosecution but rather for the safety of American citizens and military operations against Islamic terrorists abroad. The Bush Administration has indeed proven such extracted information has kept American soil free from another 911 style attack on American lives.

Left Wing places Vice President Cheney’s assertion that extreme interrogation methods indeed prevented terrorist attacks as well as the capture of other terrorists. also pooh-poohs the former Vice President by saying the harm to the American image outweighs any success that can be claimed by extreme interrogation methods.

HUH? Does that make sense? The Lefties are saying the aspirations of terrorists were mere fantasy that would not take place. I guess 911 was one of those fantasies that a failure in Intel failed to prevent.

Now here’s the thing. President Barack Hussein Obama initially showed bi-partisan wisdom in sticking to his convictions (as wrong as they are) by saying there will be NO prosecutions or investigations into the circle of Bush Administration people in the loop for getting the extreme interrogations started and accomplished. BUT NOW BHO is saying well hold up there, my fellow Lefties are crying for Right Wing (viewed as extremist no doubt) blood or the blood of BHO if he fails to go after all the Bush Administration people from top to bottom involved in extreme interrogation techniques.

BHO might as well go back and investigate anyone still alive from previous Presidential Administrations that have the stench of criminal activities from President Clinton through President Eisenhower (I am fairly certain before Eisenhower that for sure Presidential Aides and advisors are dead).

My point is the Bush Administration did not break any prosecutable any more than previous Presidential Administrations. There are Presidents in this time period that Americans loved to loathe; however many of the Presidents are legends or were at least very popular among voters (after all Clinton beat an impeachment rap). If BHO goes on a partisan political vendetta on a Presidential Administration that he deplored, it should open the doors for anyone who is alive connected with previous Administrations (Can you say Sandy Berger?).

JRH 4/22/09
Prosecuting Bush: On Second Thought....

Ben Johnson
Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Some decisions lead to the discerning of the inner thoughts of the heart, and the separation of the bones and marrow. President Obama’s decision Tuesday to open the door to prosecute Bush administration officials who crafted legal opinions he believes led to torture is one of them. His judgment says much about the unsteady future of homeland security, whose voice is heeded in Washington, and the way the commander-in-chief views his own country’s most patriotic citizens.

The decision came after two days of head-fakes from administration officials who assured no charges would be filed against CIA interrogators or those who devised the legal policy. Rahm Emanuel told George Stephanopoulos on Sunday Obama believes “those who devised policy…should not be prosecuted, either.” On Monday, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs agreed, insisting, “The president is focused on looking forward.”

Yesterday, President Obama took one long glance backward. When questioned, in the presence of a Middle Eastern king, Obama propounded his new policy to the media: “with respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that.”

AG Eric Holder tipped his hand last November, shortly after the election, when he blustered before the American Constitution Society: “Our government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic surveillance against American citizens, secretly detained American citizens without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution...We owe the American people a reckoning.”

The winds that will blow as a result of that reckoning may knock down another American skyscraper. The mere threat to prosecute lawyers for giving legal advice – a dubious and unprecedented action – will unleash the paralyzing fear into those tasked with providing American counterterrorism: nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. Who will craft a robust anti-terrorism interrogation program about a hatching terrorist plot, or trust his instincts to shoot the oncoming jihadists, if he fears prosecution in eight years for doing what is legal today?

We have seen this before, on the frontlines of the War on Terror and in its bureaucratic boardrooms. In Party of Defeat, David Horowitz and I recount the story of Navy SEAL Marc Luttrell, who with his fellow SEALS spared a group of “goat-herders” who spotted them on a covert mission in Afghanistan. The patriots considered shooting the spies but desisted, knowing the fire they would come under for “murdering” innocent civilians – including some teenagers. Within an hour of their hesitation, al-Qaeda terrorists killed 19 SEALs. Luttrell reflected he and his men were “tortured, shot, blown up, my best buddies all dead, and all because we were afraid of the liberals back home, afraid to do what was necessary to save our own lives.” (Emphasis added.) John Murtha and John Kerry’s hyperbolic rhetoric was paid for in American blood.

The Obama decision has impact for legal advisers, as well. On August 28, 2001, the FBI’s National Security Law Unit (NSLU) denied Minneapolis FBI agent Harry Samit the right to search the laptop of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker. Samit sent 70 e-mails requesting permission to search the computer, which he learned too late contained the plans for 9/11, pleading once he was “so desperate to get into Moussaoui's computer I'll take anything.” But the NSLU denied requests from Samit and his superior, Coleen Rowley, on grounds stricter than those required by the law. The caution about overstepping bureaucratic bounds engendered during the Clinton administration, the fear of professional retribution, caused them to build a fence around the law big enough to hide al-Qaeda’s sleeper cells.

This was the path to 9/11 – it is and the path back.

Obama’s move carries out the marching orders of his party's far-Left base., which boasted it “bought” the Democratic Party in 2004, had just sent out a blast e-mail soliciting petition signatures to revive prosecutions. The Sunday New York Times opined Obama had “an obligation to pursue what is clear evidence of a government policy sanctioning the torture and abuse of prisoners—in violation of international law and the Constitution.” Its most subservient U.S. senator, Russ Feingold, insisted “those who gave improper legal advice or those who authorized the program…should be held accountable.” Last week, MSNBC bully Keith Olbermann used his program to chide Obama to prosecute, ominously comparing Bush to Hitler (snore). He droned, to his three viewers:

obody even arrested the German Kaiser, let alone conducted war crimes trials then. And 19 years later, there was an indescribably more evil Germany and a more heart-rending Second World War…Sir, some day there will be another Republican president, or even a Democrat just as blind as Mr. Bush to ethics and this country's moral force. And he will look back to what you did about Mr. Bush. Or what you did not do…Prosecute, Mr. President.

Not to be outdone, absolutely unbiased Newsweek reporters Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas compared the treatment of Abu Zubaydah to Winston Smith’s torture by Big Brother in 1984. (But sympathy for jihadists is a recurring theme of Isikoff’s.)

Organizations calling for prosecutions of Bush lawyers include such stalwarts as the Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. And no less a human rights advocate than Khaled Almaeena, the “editor of the Saudi Arabia-based Arab News daily, said Obama’s decision not to prosecute ‘sends the wrong message.’”

Others have targeted specific lawyers. Progressive Democrats of America is urging Americans to contact Congress to impeach Jay Bybee, currently on the infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a former Assistant Attorney General for the Bush administration. (PDA was founded by leftovers from the Dennis Kucinich presidential campaign. David Swanson, PSA’s Press and Media Team Coordinator, is a former ACORN employee.)

Some view the decision to open the door for prosecution as a chit to his leftist base, jilted by his relatively centrist war cabinet. However, the move betrays Obama’s own disposition. Unreported thus far, his decision comes virtually a year to the day Obama told the Philadelphia Daily News, “if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody [is] above the law.” Similarly, Joe Biden echoed last September, “We will not be stopped from pursuing any criminal offence that’s occurred…no one is above the law.”

The president and vice president may find opposition within their own administration. Obama’s national intelligence director, Admiral Dennis Blair, wrote in a memo last Thursday, “I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.” (Emphasis added.) Blair rightly noted those supposedly harsh methods – which were only employed in the most circumscribed circumstances – yielded “high value information.” To cite but the most obvious example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed revealed an intended 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles after being waterboarded.

Blair’s assistance may be needed, not merely for former Bush legal eagles, but for CIA interrogators still at Langley. The UN’s special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, said Obama’s decision to exempt those who conducted the investigations violates international law. Nowak told the AP, “The fact that you carried out an order doesn’t relieve you of your responsibility.” Obama has coupled a history of quickly abandoning those he recently promised to protect with the strength of a jellyfish in international affairs, and the interrogators may yet end up before a tribunal. Whatever occurs with prosecution, or non-prosecution, of former administration officials, future counterterrorists will now weigh the correct response against the likelihood of their own incarceration.

The real story behind this is what it confirms about President Obama. This decision, joined with his perpetual focus on the “faults” of the United States, his endless overseas apologies, his moral equivalence of America-hating racist ministers with pro-life Congressmen, all tell a similar story: Obama shares the worldview that invites aggression and punishes defense. Since the 1970s, the Left has excused our foes and obsessed over alleged American misdeeds, from John Kerry’s atrocity allegations in the 1970s to…John Kerry’s atrocity allegations in 2005; from My Lai to Abu Ghraib; from “the Evil Empire” to “the Axis of Evil”; from the Church Committee to the Leahy Truth Commission; and from winning the nuclear arms race to aggressively interrogating those who may be plotting the next 9/11.

Carterism is back.


An Obama Partisan Witch Hunt?
John R. Houk
© April 22, 2009


Prosecuting Bush: On Second Thought....
Ben Johnson is Managing Editor of FrontPage Magazine and co-author, with David Horowitz, of the book Party of Defeat. He is also the author of the book 57 Varieties of Radical Causes: Teresa Heinz Kerry's Charitable Giving.

Copyright © 2009

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Gird Your Blogs!

Here is an email from which appears to be a paid ad from Brad O’Leary. I usually ignore the paid ad stuff unless it is a cause I can really get behind.

As it goes I stumbled upon Mr. O’Leary on
FOX News talking about this very same thing: The Dems have submitted Bills to Congress which puts a Bull’s Eye on Conservative bloggers as my self.

If the Bills pass and go to President Barack Hussein Obama’s desk for a signature to be law, then the President will have near dictatorial powers that reach beyond the so-called Fairness Doctrine. BHO would merely have to fabricate any kind of emergency and limit Conservative usage of the Internet.

Think that as a Leftist agenda to hamper Free Speech and ignore the First Amendment. Hopefully if such an occurrence happens I hope the mercurial SCOTUS will do its job and rule it UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Below is the ad/story from Brad O’Leary.

JRH 4/21/09
Gird Your Blogs!
Under "Cybersecurity", Congress Will Be the Internet's Greatest Threat!

By Brad O'Leary
Email Sent: 4/21/2009 12:01 AM
Email Provider: WorldNetDaily

Gird your blogs, because if liberals in Congress get their way, President Obama will have sole discretionary authority to shut down the Internet or critical parts of the Internet should he feel his presidency is being tested. Worse, under the guise of cybersecurity, Obama will essentially be granted the power to destroy free speech on the web.

On April 1st of this year, Senators Rockefeller, Snowe, Bayh and Nelson introduced bills S. 773 and S.778, collectively called the Cybersecurity Act, which would give President Obama dictatorial power over the Internet during a time of national crisis or emergency.

All of the bills' sponsors voted for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that prohibited organizations and individuals from running advocacy ads against candidates 60 days in advance of a general election. Now it seems these same people have conjured up a gag order for the Internet.

According to the current drafts, under the Cyber Security Act of 2009 the President may "declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shut down of Internet traffic to and from any comprised federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network". He may also "order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security."

What constitutes "cybersecurity emergency" or "critical infrastructure information system or network" is left completely up to the President to define. We know that the Administration, according to Rahm Emanuel, never wants "a serious crisis to go to waste". We also know the Administration supports the regulation of free speech on the Internet.

President Obama's choice to lead the powerful Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is none other than Cass Sunstein, a radical Harvard law professor and supporter of the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet. According to Sunstein, "A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government."

Obama campaign fundraiser and FCC Chair nominee, Julius Genachowski, is a supporter of "Net neutrality", the first step in applying the Fairness Doctrine to the Internet.

"Net neutrality" proponents like Genachowski would have government decide what content Internet operators and network owners must provide. Incredibly, they claim this is to keep the Internet free and open to all, when in reality, their goal is to usher the heavy hands of federal regulators into the tent.

Stifling any venue where ideology competes with left-wing mainstream media has always been a goal of the left and Obama. Obama has just been more evasive in his means by supporting policies such as "net neutrality" and wobbling on the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine to talk radio. Liberal members of Congress are now set on sending America on an unconstitutional b-line away from Uncle Sam and directly to Big Brother.

The Cybersecurity Act is also includes a provision where "The Department of Commerce shall serve as the clearinghouse of cybersecuirty threat and vulnerability information to the Federal Government and private sector owned (emphasis mine) critical infrastructure information systems and networks." Shelving all privacy laws including the requirement for warrants, the Secretary of Commerce "shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access." Senator Rockefeller made it clear in his statement what "relevant data" this act could include when he stated "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records – the list goes on."

While we have worried about cyber attacks from Russia and China, who would have thought the greatest threat would come from members of our own Congress.


Brad O'Leary is chairman of PM Direct Marketing and a former NBC Westwood One talk-show host. He is the author of 11 books, including last year's bestseller, The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values.

Obligatory ad for O’Leary’s newest book: Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech

Copyright 1997-2009 Inc. All Rights Reserved.

OCDB: Defeat Harry Reid’s Reelection

Senator Harry Reid the Democrat from Nevada is coming up for reelection in 2010. Comrade Reid has done everything in political power to undermine America’s troops fighting in Iraq. Currently Reid enjoys the Democrat Party spoils of electoral victory by being the Senate Majority Leader which means that his anti-American Leftist rhetoric is joined with actual real political clout.

Since the Mainstream Media is slack on reporting on ignoble incidents publicly spoken by Leftists, I need to remind you that Senator Reid spoke these infamous words prior to “The Surge” in Iraq: “… this war is lost …”

The Slanted Right (Janet Napolitano would say right wing extremist) group known as Our Country Deserves Better (OCDB) has decided to concentrate some efforts to make Senator Reid vulnerable to an election loss in 2010.

As Senate Majority Leader, Senator Reid will be an architectural component in President Barack Hussein Obama’s Socialist Agenda to bring the kind of “Change” American voters did understand they were voting for. That change is more than diminishing part of what makes America strong – Free Market Capitalism. Indeed, that change involves a moral, social and societal transformation of America that could end Free Speech as the First Amendment originally intended and the further eroding of morality by infusing further the concept Secular Humanistic relativity.

It was two years ago today that Harry Reid proved his level of incompetence. He and his ilk of anti-Americanists and those directly responsible for the deaths and wounding of our Troops for political power and gain tried to lose the War as a whole for the express purpose of personal and professional power. They empowered, enabled and emboldened the enemy every day. They tried to lose the war 45 times and lost 45 times. You'd think that losing would make them happy because they dwell on and thrive in defeat.

Reid: "...this war is lost..." Those were his words of wisdom to We The People and the idiot is still a US Senator. What's up with that? I can only surmise that Treason is an acceptable personality flaw and political trait.
(The Snooper Report)

Even if you are not from Nevada, join Our Country Deserves Better (and no doubt other Napolitano considered right wing extremists) in defeating Senator Reid’s reelection bid.

JRH 4/21/09
Psst - Don't Tell Harry Reid

Deborah Johns
Email Sent: April 20, 2009
From: Our Country Deserves Better


Hello, it's Deborah Johns, co-Vice Chairman of the Our Country Deserves Better Committee. This is an important email and I ask that you please read the entire email and if possible, please forward to your friends.

I am writing to you today to let you know that we've just updated our website with our "Defeat Harry Reid" project. I urge you to check it out and support our efforts to oust Sen. Harry Reid in the upcoming congressional elections, where Senator Reid is up for re-election: DEFEAT HARRY REID - CLICK HERE.


As Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid has been Public Enemy #1 to the American people.

Ever since he became Senate Majority Leader spending has exploded and he has pushed through one spending plan after another. Our children and grandchildren will be burdened with trying to overcome the damage he has caused. As the mother of three sons, I can tell you this is not the legacy I was hoping our generation would leave for the future.

Reid was the one who arm-twisted those squishy RINO Republicans (Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe) to vote for the $800-billion porkulus spending plan of Obama. Now Reid is lining up votes for Obama's additional deficit spending plans, just as he lined up the votes for government bailouts and tax increases.

But for me this issue is very personal. As many of you know, I have been an active leader in the pro-troop movement for the past several years. And the day that Sen. Harry Reid announced "This War is Lost" while our troops were still fighting on the battlefield, I was LIVID! (Please watch the video of Sen. Reid making an *** of himself when he falsely and erroneously declared "The Surge" and our troops a failure - WATCH IT HERE).

I don't care what your view is about the War on Terror and the various missions that have been involved. We can all debate the best way and means to fight radical Islamic terrorists. But I cannot respect a man who cheerleads for the enemy and insults our military men and women while they are in the middle of fighting a war and conducting their missions.

And newsflash to Harry Reid: you were wrong, the surge was an incredible success!

The war was not lost, and in fact our troops pushed back al-Qaeda cells throughout Iraq and brought calm and stability to over 90% of the nation thanks to Gen. David Petraeus, our troops, and "The Surge" strategy.

Friends, our country deserves better than to have the U.S. Senate led by a man who has been disastrous to our nation's fiscal health; who has helped advance a socialistic policy of government control of parts of our economy, and who has acted disgracefully towards our military men and women.

The past few days everyone has been talking about what's next for the Tea Party movement. Well, obviously we need to vote out those politicians who are harming our country's future. And I can think of no better place to start than by defeating Sen. Harry Reid. Polls show he is in serious trouble in his home state of Nevada, and I promise you that we here at the Our Country Deserves Better Committee will make sure that he is actively opposed.

How we can change our government is to take those out of power who are using that power to harm America's future and our citizens. Please support our efforts to "Defeat Harry Reid." You can learn more about the effort - HERE.

This is just one small part of a major project we at the Our Country Deserves Better Committee will be announcing to take back our country. Stay tuned for additional aspects of this major initiative as we unveil it over the next week.