Engaged – Chapter 3

Gary H. Johnson, Jr. writing for United Against Islamic Supremacism has sent what can be considered the third chapter of Engaged. At SlantRight.com you can read chapters one and two HERE and HERE.

When the “Engaged” chapters are complete, Johnson is considering entitling the book form “The Elemental Struggle.” Of course the title is not etched in stone but it is something to look forward to when the Johnson/Carter engaging makes it to book form.

JRH 9/24/09

Engaged – Chapter 1

Here is an interesting discussion about Islam that takes place between Gary H. Johnson, Jr. and Chris Carter. As you read these musings you will view Johnson’s understanding of phrases used by anti-jihad bloggers. Whether you agree or not with the definitions are not as important as it is to begin engaging your mind to ponder them.

The Obama Administration may not be at war with Islam or at least aspects of the theo-political cult, but Islam is definitely at war with the West (again) or at least aspects of Islam.

The pondering is posted at United Against Islamic Supremacism and it appears it may be an ongoing discussion.

JRH 8/18/09

My Criticism of Islam (Mohammedanism)

I have been very critical of Mohammedan claim that Islam (Mohammedanism) is a religion of peace. One of the biggest examples is from the Mohammedan writings considered holy and Mohammedan history. I have come to realize that there is an element of peace inherent in Mohammedanism related to the hisba; however that inherent peace is ONLY toward believing Mohammedans. Mohammedanism is intolerant of any creed or religion that runs counter to its holy writings and of Mohammedans that deviate from Mohammedanism. This intolerance can aptly be called Islamic Supremacism.

In Mohammedan dominated lands (and increasingly where Mohammedans are a large minority in the West) Mohammedanism is cruel and brutal. Christians, Jews and (those considered) pagans are the victims of this cruelty.

That said it should be noted that Mohammedan intellectuals and apologists (which ironically includes non-Mohammedans usually of the Leftist persuasion) often attack Christianity in retaliation to the “Islam is violent” mantra that I stand by. The Christian attack is usually first displayed by bringing up Christian history.

Those who have called themselves followers of Christ have too often committed atrocities of cruel violence and genocide in the Name of Christ. I have to admit the history does not lie; human beings calling on Christ have warred between themselves, persecuted and killed Jews and unleashed vengeful and unrelenting violence and death upon Mohammedans during the Crusades.

The Revelation of John is loaded with violent images; however those images are the result of evil rather than the continuation of God invoked violence.

I have to point out that Christianity’s Holy Scriptures expressly tell a Christian not to be violent among themselves or to any human being. The only exception to this is the fine line in which Scripture provides for those in authority (e.g. military, police, government and so on). Mohammedan apologists should cease their hypocrisy and own up to the perpetual violence commanded in their holy writings.

Then Mohammedan apologists usually counter with an “aha!” The Christian Old Testament which is the Jewish Tanakh is full of genocidal violence. The classic example is Moses and Joshua leading the Twelve Tribes of Israel into the Land of Promise. As the Hebrew/Israelite Tribes possessed their Promised Land the Scriptures tell the Jews to exterminate those being dispossessed. The extermination indeed proceeds. God told the Jews to completely possess the Land and completely destroy the inhabitants. The Mohammedan apologist says, “See!” How is the genocidal dispossession of the Promised Land’s original inhabitants any different than Mohammed and his descending followers from rapaciously conquering non-Mohammedan land to fulfill the will of Allah to convert the world to Islam (Mohammedanism)?

Here is a difference!

The Land given to the Tribes of Israel was populated by idolatrous religions that taught such things as sacrificing humans (usually babies) and the practice of temple prostitutes. The land was populated with evil hateful people. Once the Land was possessed the Jews were not to continue exterminating other people even though they also may have been morally deviant as well. In fact the Jews were told not to mix whatsoever with non-Jews as a practice.

On the other hand Mohammed and Mohammedan conquerors through out the ages have used their prophet’s example and their holy writings to conquer, convert or kill all humanity that lost their nation to victorious Mohammedans. This often resulted in cruel slavery and sex-slavery (for the beautiful women). If the conquered were lucky for being the people of the book (i.e. Jews and Christians), those people had a choice of converting or living a sub-human life as an oppressed dhimmi.

Even to this day Jews do not seek out converts although converts to Judaism do occur on a willing basis. Christianity Scriptures tell Christians to share the Gospel (Good News) Truth to all humanity. If the Gospel is rejected the problem is between God and the individual in the Last Judgment.

Now in practice as Christianity was embraced by militarily powers in the West, the faith of the military became the faith of the indigenous people. In the case of the West colonizing the New World and parts of Africa, the Christian faith was forced upon the indigenous people. Again this is not part of the Gospel plan; however Christian nations saw a political advantage to govern easier if everyone prayed to the same God. The very Christian faith which was misused politically in time brought tolerance of the multiplicity of Christian tenets and eventually tolerance the practice or non-practice of a religion.

In contrast Mohammedan holy writings are an example that Mohammedans have used to brutalize the globe in the name of Allah for centuries; indeed the Islamic terrorists of the 20th and 21st century believe they are merely reforming Islam to the purest form as delivered the their prophet Mohammed. There has been little to zero advancement in the Liberty and Rights of humanity as a result of Islamic Supremacist intolerance.

Before I move on I have to discuss one pet peeve of mine pertaining to the Christian Crusaders. The Crusaders are accused of brutal intolerance toward Mohammedans as they brought the Christian faith back to the Holy Land by military force.

The Mohammedan protesteth to much me thinks.

The Crusades were not about one day a group of medieval knights got together and said, “Hey, we’re kind of bored. Let’s go the Middle East and slaughter some Saracens.” In fact the Crusades were a result of Mohammedan incursion on Christian lands stretching from present day Turkey through to present day Spain. Part of those conquests was continuous raiding parties along Mediterranean Europe which resulted in the bloodthirsty acquisition of booty and slaves. One day a combination of an appeal from the Byzantine Emperor and the report that Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were being enslaved or murdered inspired a call for military action.

After 500 years of Saracen/Muslim brutality against the West, it is hardly surprising that the warrior caste of medieval Europe embarked on military incursions against Mohammedan lands which when victorious slaughtered everyone in sight.

My point is this: the Crusades were more like a football metaphor; viz. the best defense is a good offense. The Crusaders end came when European rulers lost in interest in any benefit the political control had for their kingdoms. The result was the slow evisceration of the Crusader kingdoms ending in the Holy Land in 1291 with the fall of Acre. There were more Crusades however the period of political control was only a 192 years. Compare that 192 years to over a thousand years of brutality that kept coming from Mohammedans. In Europe the Mohammedan military prowess lead to a slow retreat after John III Sobieski smashed Mohammedan Turks at the Battle of Vienna in 1683. The Hindu Genocide continued in ebbs and flows on the Indian Sub-continent really until the British usurped total control in 1857.

Beginning with Mohammed’s brutality in the early 600’s to the end of the last vestige of a Mohammedan empire (Ottoman Turkey) in 1918 we are talking about nearly 1300 years of historical murder and mayhem at the hands of Mohammedans. There are no Mohammedan military super powers today; however where Mohammedanism reigns intolerant totalitarianism is more the rule than the exception.

Ironically the most democratic of Mohammedan nations (which are self-reliant) is Turkey. The nation representative of total intolerance is the Saudi Arabian kingdom in which public beheadings and whippings are still practiced. It is a place where women cannot have a driver’s license. It is a place in which a rape victim is punished for breaking the law. It is a place where thieves may loose an appendage.

Below is further example of Mohammedan intolerance and violence based on the “Reliance of the Traveller.” The critique of the “Traveller” is by Ben of Ben’s Blog posted at a Facebook page. Ben broke his Facebook post into several stages probably because you can only post so much at one shot there. I am going to piece them together on my SlantRight.com page.

JRH 7/16/09

Robert Spencer talks free speech and censorship

The British stand to band Michael Savage from Britain is an example of Islamic States and notable Muslims to reduce Western free speech to dhimmitude and in bondage to Islamic Supremacism.

Islamic Supremacism is Racism

John R. Houk
© May 9, 2009

The Muslim Middle East is on the forefront of calling the Land of Israel a racist nation. This battle cry is led by Iran’s Ahmadinejad openly and behind the scenes by the power elites of Saudi Arabia.

The sad thing is many Westerners are jumping on the Muslim race propaganda train, particularly of the Leftist bent.

Muslims and Leftists equate Zionism with racism. O my God, a thought just popped into my cranium. Surprisingly there are many Jews in the West that also equate Zionism with racism. How self-destructive is that?

Ahmadinejad is correct about one thing in his hate filled speeches. Modern Israel was formed out of the ashes of guilt the victors of WWII felt by allowing Adolf Hitler’s regime to murder six million Jews in the Nazi Final Solution (not to mention roughly another six million non-Jews that did not fit the Nazi vision of the master superior Aryan race).

Ahmadinejad and other Muslims pump propaganda that the Jews in Israel were sent by the West to displace Muslims living in the area.

The reality is the land then called Palestine was made a waste land by Ottoman Turk mismanagement. The Western ingenuity of immigrating Jews combined with the Jews already in the land turned this wasteland into habitable arable farm land that produced a gain from what was once an inhospitable landscape depleted by lack of attention.

In 1516 the Mamluks were defeated by the Ottoman Turks. The first three centuries of Ottoman rule isolated Palestine from outside influence. The discovery of sea routes to the East began to erode the importance of the Middle East to commerce. In 1831, Muhammad Ali, the Egyptian viceroy nominally subject to the Ottoman sultan, occupied Palestine. Under him and his son the region was opened to European influence. Ottoman control was reasserted in 1840, but Western influence continued. The Ottoman tax system was ruinous and did much to keep the land underdeveloped and the population small. [Emphasis Mine] When Alexander W. Kinglake crossed the Jordan in 1834-35, he used the Jordan's only bridge, a survival from Roman antiquity. Among the many European settlements established, the most significant in the long run were those of Jews, Russian Jews being the first to come (1882).

It is important to note that there was a Jewish population in Palestine continuously. Even after the Jewish state was ended by the Romans, Jewish communities continued to exist. All of the successor governments tried to eliminate the Jews at one time or another, but none succeeded as numerous accounts testify over the centuries. When the Zionists started the modern "return" to Eretz Yisrael in the 19th Century, they were joining Jews who never left.

In 1918, a Yiddish book by David BenGurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Eretz Yisrael in the Past and Present, was published in New York by the Poale Zion Palestine Committee. The authors note that long after the destruction of the Second Temple — and even after the defeat of Shimon Bar Kokhba, leader of the Jewish revolt against the Romans in the second century C.E. — large masses of Jews still tilled the soil of Eretz Yisrael.

In the wars and uprisings, many cities were ruined and many communities destroyed, but the farm population could not be wiped out so easily. Under foreign oppression, city dwellers — the propertied and educated classes — chose to leave their homes and migrate to freer countries such as Babylonia. The Jewish peasant, however, like peasants the world over, would not leave his land so quickly, for it was land developed by his sweat and that of his parents. (A Brief History of Palestine)

The more prosperous the ingenuous Jewish production, the more Arabs moved back into the area seeking jobs to make a living. Until the end of WWI, there existed little hostility between Jewish innovators and Muslim employees in the land dubbed Palestine in Levant.

The end of WWI saw the beginnings of Arab nationalism after receiving freedom from the Ottoman authority. This Arab nationalism resulted in the WWI victors to arbitrarily create borders for Arab nations that would be spheres of influence by the European victors which were primarily Britain and France in the Middle East.

I am guessing many Arabs viewed this as a mere switch of subjugation from the Ottomans to a form of neo-subjugation by Britain and France. As a part of this emerging bitterness and the Balfour Declaration, nationalistic Arab Muslims began to view the influx of more European Jews as stepping on the toes of Arab lands at the management of European colonialism.

The instigation of Arab hatred toward the Jewish was planted by the Arab nationalist the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini. Al-Husseini’s anti-Semitic hatred poured into Palestinian Mandate Arabs who became influenced to no longer look at Jews as harbingers of prosperity but rather as usurpers of Dar al-Islam. The Dar al-Islam concept is as racist an ideology a people can develop. Dar al-Islam simply defined for the Western mind is that once conquered by Mohammedans then it is always Mohammedan even if “temporary” set backs infringed by the kafir of Dar al-Harb.

If Zionism is racism then Zionists are picnic racists compared to Islamic Supremacist racism projected from intolerant Mohammedanism. The Jewish State of Israel has discovered a paradigm of a haven for the world’s Jews to live without government persecution AND operating democratic institutions with civil rights for Israel’s non-Jewish citizens. There are other minorities in Israel; however the significant minority that enjoys political enfranchisement is Arab-Muslims and Arab-Christians. This equal political enfranchisement is totally non-existent in other Middle Eastern nations. In the other Middle Eastern Muslim nations you are a fully enfranchised Muslim or a discriminated against non-Muslim. One bad look by a non-Muslim will render some harsh treatment up to and including death for a perception of insulting Islam.

It is part of Mohammedanism’s Theo-Political nature to be brutally intolerant and so I understand their dimwit hatred of Israel based on Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The real mystery is that of the Western Left that actually falls in line with Mohammedan propaganda by also claiming Israel Zionism is racism.

Israeli Zionism is racism as compared to what: Islamic Supremacist racism? Dear God in Heaven there is absolutely no equitable comparison between intolerant Mohammedan racism and full citizen enfranchisement of Zionist Israel. The Basques of Spain probably receive less toleration than the Arab citizens of Israel.

Leftist outcries about Zionism equaling racism are heinously ludicrous. Either the Leftist hatred of Zionism is based on delusional Muslim propaganda or Leftist hatred of Zionism is linked to traditional Western anti-Semitism. So when I read or hear people say ‘being anti-Israel is not being anti-Semitic’ is a bunch of delusional garbage.

Another thing that throws me for a loop is that there are actually Leftist Jews and even Orthodox Jews that denounce Zionism. Hello! Zionism is a movement of protection for practicing Jews and Jews of heritage in a place to exist where government of community prejudice will not exact violent to deadly pogroms that Jews have experienced in the West’s past. For a Jew of any persuasion to be anti-Zionist is to be self-loathing. The self-loathing is always in danger of self-destruction via stupid actions to outright suicide (note that suicide is not homicidal).

Anyway that is enough of venting on my part. You should go over to Ben’s Blog to read what set me off.

JRH 5/9/09
****************************
Ahmadinejad: UN Racism Conference Part 4

By Ben
May 9, 2009 at 3:03 AM
Ben’s Blog

[statement by the Islamic Republic of Iran as delivered (unofficial transcript)]

After the Second World War, by exploiting the holocaust and under the pretext of protecting the Jews they made a nation homeless with military expeditions and invasion. They transferred various groups of people from America, Europe and other countries to this land. They established a completely racist government in the occupied Palestinian territories. And in fact, under the pretext of making up for damages resulting from racism in Europe, they established the most aggressive, racist country in another territory, i.e. Palestine.

Two groups of people claim possession of one small land area. Only one of them has a historical moral and legal right to it. The side having the valid claim was willing to share the land; the usurpers were not. They made war, which they continue to prosecute.

The death and displacement of which Ahmadinejad complains resulted from Islam's war against Israel. Without that war there would have been neither death nor displacement. The complaint has about as much merit as the parricide's plea for mercy on grounds of being an orphan.

Ahmadinejad practices projection: labeling Israel as “the most aggressive, racist country" when, in fact, that description fits Islam. The unstated premise is that Falestine is the national homeland of Falestinians. In fact, Israel was the homeland of the Jews, who were conquered and displaced serially by the Greeks and Romans, who were conquered by the Muslims in the seventh century.

• Our first clue comes from the Charter of Hamas, read it carefully. [Emphasis added.]

This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Muslims have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations till the Day of Judgement.

• Our second clue comes from Rodwell's translation of At-Taubah 29

9:29. Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.

• Our third clue comes from the oral tradition of Moe's companions.

Abu Dawud 14.2477
Narrated Ibn Hawalah:


The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: It will turn out that you will be armed troops, one is Syria, one in the Yemen and one in Iraq. Ibn Hawalah said: Choose for me, Apostle of Allah, if I reach that time. He replied: Go to Syria, for it is Allah's chosen land, to which his best servants will be gathered but if you are unwilling, go to your Yemen, and draw water from your tanks, for Allah has on my account taken special charge of Syria and its people.

The continuous conflict flows directly from Moe's command, recited in Allah's name, to make war upon the Jews and his statement of preference for attacking the Byzantine province of which Israel was a part.
____________________

Islamic Supremacism is Racism
John R. Houk
© May 9, 2009

_____________________

Ahmadinejad: UN Racism Conference Part 4
Ben’s Blog

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.

The 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.

What!

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.

UN council votes to criminalize 'defamation' of Islam

Here is an ACT! For America email alert showing that Islam is making a notorious effort to dhimmify the globe. By “dhimmify” I mean the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is wielding its oil and U.N. membership to make it illegal to criticize the Theo-political religious cult known as Islam (and which I prefer to call by its founder ergo Mohammedanism).

Of the forty-seven member U.N. Human Rights (totalitarian) Council a majority of nations actually voted to criminalize criticism of Mohammedanism. I am guessing the thirteen members that abstained mostly did so out of the oil fear/Islamic terrorist connection. At least most of the Western nations stood by Free Speech. Eleven Western nations stood up for Free Speech.

So of the forty-seven member council 23 voted to criminalize criticism of Mohammedanism and 24 members did NOT vote for the criminalization of criticism of Mohammedanism.

JRH 3/30/09
***************************************
UN council votes to criminalize 'defamation' of Islam

ACT! For America
Email Sent: March 30, 2009 11:12:24 AM

It’s been brewing for some time. Muslim countries have been pressing for a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution calling on nations around the world to pass laws criminalizing the alleged “defamation” of religion – specifically Islam.

This week the Council passed the resolution.

The good news is that Western nations and over 100 faith groups opposed this resolution. The bad news is that efforts by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) have paid off in getting such a resolution passed – and we can count on the OIC to continue its global campaign to criminalize free speech that allegedly “defames” Islam.

This is not the only tactic the OIC is pursuing in this regard. At last year’s OIC conference, the conference supported efforts to look for legal strategies to fight back against the alleged “defamation” of Islam. Translation: lawsuits around the world funded by petrodollars.

Maybe America Needs a BNP

I just finished reading a tirade from a blogger upset that the British National Party (BNP) members are being selectively banned from jobs and governmental services.

Evidently the BNP has a historical timeline that goes back to thuggery aspects of pro-Nazi and Hitler-philes. This means the BNP heritage is a history of white supremacy and anti-Semitism.

Apparently the BNP has disavowed that past in their official writings but now take a controversial stand of anti-immigration. The focus of this anti-immigration is the growing population of Mohammedans in the UK.

The BNP anti-Mohammedan immigration stands no doubt derive from Britain diluting British rule of law by allowing Sharia Law courts to have legal jurisdiction over the culturally Mohammedan. Incredibly the Sharia Law acquiescence is even supported by the England’s State Church – The Church of England (aka Anglican Church and in America the Episcopalian Church).

Since the Brits have adapted the continental European stand that speaking against a religion is hate speech, an anti-Mohammedan immigration stand is considered racism by the government.

The HUGE irony is that Mohammedan mullahs and apologists speak the most vile hate speech first against Jews and next against practicing Christians. The British government and EU government nary lift a hand against the Mohammedans that preach their hatred of Jews and Christians.

Robert Locke writing for Think-Israel gives a good history of the BNP racist past. Now check this out: Locke is not sympathetic to the BNP past however he views the current BNP stand against Mohammedanism as something Israel should promote. There is an understanding that Mohammedanism has zero in common with the Liberty and Rights that exists in Western nations (and America in particular).

Since the BNP has a racist past and has renounced anti-Semitism, white supremacy and the fascist leanings of neo-Nazism; today the BNP is still a racist party by virtue of repatriating and preventing future Mohammedans from the UK.

Due to this media portrayal of racism there is a movement to ban BNP British citizens from certain jobs such as the police, nurses and the Anglican clergy.

Imagine that: A British citizen this wishes to uphold the British tradition of the rule of law or worship and minister for the Christian God are being prohibited from their positions. Could it be the traditional power brokers of Britain are trying to ensure the BNP’s growing popularity does not turn into British votes that translated into MPs in Parliament? I ask this question for the website for BNP is more popular than the power broker political parties combined.

Under the Obama Administration is this the kind of dilution of Liberty to expect in America?

Read the anger of the British citizen. (Do note this blogger oozes a bit of the BNP white supremacist past while simultaneously realizing the threat of Islamic culture to Western culture.)

JRH 3/30/09

Defying and Defeating Barack Hussein Obama’s Dhimmipolitik

Gary H. Johnson, Jr. is a compendium of information. His blog is United Against Islamic Supremacism.

Wow! I actually did not read this until I cross posted this at SlantRight.com. Mr. Johnson has found an awesome way to write about what is ailing America: Evolving socialism, devolving Capitalism, emerging Marxist dictatorship, Surrender to Islamic enemies, Stealth Jihad, Sharia Compliant Banking, Islamic Supremacism, Dhimmitude and more.

This is the first time I have read the word “Dhimmipolitic.” I can’t wait to absorb the information in this essay surrounding that word.

JRH 3/27/09

Understanding the Name Martel Sobieskey

I just read an awesome essay by a fellah that calls himself Martel Sobieskey. The name must be a pseudonym or his parents had a good understanding of Muslim aggression against Christianity.

The Frankish leader Charles Martel decisively defeated Abd-ur-Rahman (aka Abdur Rahman, Abdur-Rahman and other variations) the Muslim (Mohammedan or Saracen) leader in a place in present day France between Tours and Poitiers on October 10, 732 AD.

Charles Martel’s victory abruptly stopped Islamic ravaging of Christian lands from the Middle East through North Africa up to present day Spain.

The “Sobieskey” part of Martel Sobieskey’s name no doubt is from the hero Jan (John) III Sobieski. In late 1683 Sobieski’s smaller force won the day against the brutal Muslim Ottoman Turks who had been ravaging Christian Eastern Europe. Sobieski was not only hailed as the hero of defending Vienna but as a savior of Christendom in all of Europe from Islamic invasions and raiding parties.

Understanding the historical significance of Martel Sobieskey’s enables one to comprehend his theme in the essay “Demoting Islam’s Religion Status.”

The theme is Islam is NOT a religion in the Western sense of religion. At any rate Islam is NOT a religion of peace, rather Muslim writings obviously convey the image of a religion of war. The mindset of Islam is to transform the globe to Islamic The-political ideology by force or by stealth from within.

Martel Sobieskey expounds a recurring thought by anti-jihadis; i.e. that Moderate Islam is a myth. The reasoning behind calling Moderate Islam a myth is the Muslim writings beginning with the Quran. The Quran is considered infallible by Muslims of strict adherence, moderate adherence and even secular minded Muslims. Thus a true Muslim follows the words of Allah delivered by its prophet Mohammed and the observations of Mohammed’s life by his companions. Whether it is Allah or Mo’s buddies, the picture is that of violence to anyone perceived insulting Islam, its prophet or it Allah. This is not a pretty picture.

I personally lean toward a mixture of disbelief of a Moderate Islam and a reformed Islam. I believe Islam can discover a miracle and join the beliefs of modern global religions, which is a better afterlife through faith or the discovery of Nirvana or Moksha or whatever individual religious experience that releases a person from world thinking which is suffering.

Right now Islam only has a peaceful release for devout Muslims and Jihadist Martyrs of whom many look forward toward carnal pleasures disdained by most religions.

The website Muslims Against Shariah (Their Blog) proclaims itself to be a reform movement. This obviously an extreme minority of Muslims who may be put to death as Apostates if they lived in Muslim dominated societies.

JRH 3/24/09

Pastor brutalized by Muslims in Merry ol’ England

As Islamist-American organizations proceed with an agenda to insert Islamic practices above the rule of law in America, expect the so-called religion of peace to perpetrate violence on Christians that speak against Mohammedanism as is happening in the United Kingdom.

JRH 3/19/09

Obama Diplomacy and Islamic Supremacism

John R. Houk
© March 8, 2009

The term "Islamic Supremacism" is an ideology that pervades Mohammedanism. Islamic Supremacism is overtly acted upon by radical Islamic transnational terrorists. Islamic Supremacy is covertly and/or unconsciously practiced by non-radical Mohammedanism as a paradigm of thought ingrained on all levels of the Mohammedan intellect.

The problem for America is the Obama Administration (and somewhat the Bush Administration) goal of dialoguing with the radical Mohammedan Islamic Supremacists does not understand that negotiation is seen from an entirely different paradigm by Islamic Supremacists.

Islamic supremacism is an identity-based supremacist ideology that seeks to establish the superiority of Islam to control all of humanity, in the United States and around the world. Islamic supremacism rejects the inalienable human rights of individual equality and liberty and seeks to perpetuate the lie that its exclusionary ideology is superior to equality and liberty. Islamic supremacism promotes a segregationist Sharia legal system which seeks to control the behavior of every human being. Islamic supremacism is an activist, transnational ideology that seeks the transformation or assimilation of every human being, with ultimate goal to establish a global Islamic caliphate to govern Earth. Islamic supremacism may provide the ideological basis for Jihadist terrorism, but its adherents seek to attack and undermine equality and liberty using many other tactics besides Jihadist terrorism. The fact that Islamic supremacists may have different factions, such as the Wahhabist (Sunni) or Khumeinist (Shiite) supremacists, changes nothing in terms of the ultimate threat of such anti-freedom ideologues; the overall threat of Islamic supremacism itself — in all of its forms and tactics must be acknowledged and confronted by America. – Jeffrey Imm on United Against Islamic Supremacism blog

With this understanding in mind you have to read “Denial on Islamic supremacism.” Jeffrey Imm writes about the huge mistake the Obama Administration is pursuing with radical Mohammedanism with Western concepts of diplomacy and dialogue.

JRH 3/8/09
***************************************
Denial on Islamic supremacism

"The idea that... [Dennis B. Ross] who has been part of a "leadership group" with an organization that calls for engagement with Islamic supremacist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Islamic supremacist nation of Iran, demonstrates how little the current government leadership appreciates the threat to equality and liberty that Islamic supremacism poses to the world."

Leader in Group Seeking "Engagement" with
Islamic Supremacism to Advise State Dept

By Jeffrey Imm
March 7, 2009
American Ideological Society

The appointment of Dennis B. Ross as a U.S. State Department advisor is yet another reason why the American public must demand that its government leaders wake up to the ideological threat of Islamic supremacism to equality and liberty around the world.


On Monday night, February 23, the State Department quietly issued a press release that Dennis Ross would begin serving as "Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for The Gulf and Southwest Asia," addressing "political-military challenges that flow from the area and have an impact outside of the Gulf and Southwest Asia." The New York Times reports that Mr. Ross will report directly to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and various media reports have speculated that Mr. Ross' primary role will be to focus on U.S. foreign policy issues regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mr. Ross was a foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama's campaign on middle east issues. The Jerusalem Post reported that, during the campaign, Mr. Ross called for "Rallying the international community to tighten sanctions and then offering incentives to have the Islamic Republic stand down from its suspected nuclear weapons program." Regardless of such geopolitical tactical news, the larger issue is Mr. Ross' positions regarding Islamic supremacism and its adherents.


What hasn't been reported yet has been Mr. Ross' involvement in the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, that I first addressed five months ago, and how his involvement demonstrates a dangerous degrading of those in the executive branch committed to equality and liberty. The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, which included the leader of unindicted co-conspirator organization ISNA and a former national director of MPAC, also listed Dennis Ross as part of the "leadership group" that provided a report offering recommendations to the U.S. government, entitled "Changing Course: A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World." Mr. Ross is listed on page xi of the report as part of the group that developed this report.


The report that Mr. Ross contributed to as part of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project leadership group calls for engagement with Iran, engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood, seeks the U.S. to assess engaging with "political representatives of armed and activist movement," rejects the existence of American concerns about "Islamism," calls for America to support political groups that support Sharia, promotes the Islamic supremacist OIC organization that supports the Cairo Declaration against equality and liberty, and seeks America to reassess its position on the Islamic supremacist terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.


Does Mr. Ross' appointment indicate that these are acceptable positions in the federal government today?


U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report on Iran:

--- Engagement with the Islamic supremacist nation of Iran (page 4) is necessary "to explore the potential for agreements that could increase regional security"

--- Believes that "[t]he strongest source of U.S. leverage with Hamas may be a U.S. dialogue with Iran, discussed earlier, that could lead to a reduction in Iranian support for Hamas' military operations." (page 44)

--- Calls for America to get Iran involved "in stabilizing Afghanistan" (page 48)


U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report on Muslim Brotherhood:

-- "The U.S. must also consider when and how to talk with political movements that have substantial public support and have renounced violence, but are outlawed or restricted by authoritarian governments allied to the U.S. The Muslim Brotherhood parties in Egypt and Jordan are arguably in this category." (page 60 and 61)

-- if America doesn't "work with" "Islamist parties, notably the Muslim Brotherhood," then the U.S. is not serious about political reform (page 54)

-- the "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood and "Islamist political parties" should be encouraged by America (page 56)


U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report calls for U.S. to assess "engagement with political representatives of armed and activist movements"

-- Recommends that the United States "[a]ssess the value of engagement with political representatives of armed and activist movements case-by-case, based on their principles, behavior, and level of public support" (page 59)

-- Group complains that U.S. has failed to engage with terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas, calling them "illegitimate," "when political openings allowed militant movements..." "to gain popular support through elections" (pages 52, 53, 54)

-- "the Group has reached consensus on a set of criteria that the U.S. can use to judge whether, when, and how to engage in dialogue with armed political groups and movements: Does the group or movement have a substantial base of legitimate public support, demonstrated by membership, electoral success, and/or mass mobilization?" (pages 59, 60)


U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report says Americans not concerned about "Islamism"

-- regarding the concerns of "most Americans"... "They are not deeply concerned about 'Islamist' parties coming to power, as long as those parties do not advocate violence and do respect basic human rights." (page 51)

-- By using the term "Islamist," rather than "Islamic supremacist," the group misuses the term "Islamist" to obfuscate about such a supremacist ideology; the 9/11 Commission report called "Islamism" - "an Islamic militant, anti-democratic movement, bearing a holistic vision of Islam whose final aim is the restoration of the caliphate," while this group then pretends that "Islamists" respect "basic human rights."

-- Can you imagine anyone in American federal government agreeing to such an absurd comment about white supremacist political parties or Aryan supremacist Nazi political parties?


U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project report promotes the Islamic supremacist Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)

-- the report calls for "Reapplication of Islamic Principles to Meet the Challenges of the 21st century" (page 53)

-- the report promotes the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and its website, a group that has consistently sought to promote Islamic supremacism and silence any challenge of such supremacism (page 53)

-- the OIC's 2005 Mecca Declaration calls for promotion of "human rights" based exclusively on Islamic supremacist Sharia law, in accordance with the so-called "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam," which denies the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty - except as defined by Islamic supremacists; the OIC's 2005 Mecca Declaration also seeks to implement it in all OIC member nations, and it seeks "deterrent punishments" for those engaged in "Islamophobia"


Certainly, Mr. Ross could have chosen to disagree with any of these positions. Moreover, he also has had numerous opportunities since September 2008 to either denounce such positions or to distance himself from the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project. He has chosen to do none of these, and he is still listed as part of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project leadership today. His name remains on their report calling for engagement with Islamic supremacists.


The idea that an individual who has been part of a "leadership group" with an organization that calls for engagement with Islamic supremacist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Islamic supremacist nation of Iran, demonstrates how little the current government leadership appreciates the threat to equality and liberty that Islamic supremacism poses to the world.


The root of this problem comes from those in denial on Islamic supremacism choosing a "let's make a deal" attitude towards equality and liberty, when faced with supremacist ideologies.


Can you imagine American federal government leaders seeking engagement with "political" white supremacist groups in the 1960s and 1970s? Can you imagine American federal government leaders seeking engagement with "political" Aryan supremacist Nazi groups in the 1930s and 1940s? Yet there is not outrage, not even a press report, to acknowledge when someone is appointed to America's federal government leadership with a documented support in seeking engagement with Islamic supremacism.


Equality and liberty are not merely pawns to be used in a geopolitical chess match, nor are they just human rights of convenience that American government leaders can support when the mood suits them. Those in the amoral cliques of foreign policy tradecraft would laugh at such an "ideological" view (and they do), as they continue to promote a "realpolitik" view towards Islamic supremacism that is neither realistic nor American.


Now more than ever, when facing the global threat of Islamic supremacism, America needs to never forget who and what we are - our declaration in supporting the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty, and our dedication to the ideal that "all men and women are created equal" that define our nation and our society.


Those who believe that such inalienable human rights are not the priority of American government, and who view such human rights as expendable in "engaging" with Islamic supremacist groups and nations, have no right serving as representatives of America to us or to the world. We must continue to challenge this growth of appeasement towards Islamic supremacism. We must demand that our government is responsible for equality and liberty.


Unlike those who would sell out America's commitment to such inalienable human rights...


We Fear No Evil.


Leader in Group Seeking "Engagement" with Islamic Supremacism to Advise State Dept / Culture Wars
______________________________

Obama Diplomacy and Islamic Supremacism
John R. Houk
© March87, 2009
___________________________________

Denial on Islamic supremacism

Copyright 2007-2009 American Ideological Society

Johnson: A Geert Wilders Defense Journal Entry

Wow! If these thoughts by Gary H. Johnson, Jr. pertaining to Geert Wilders do not send you into passionate American patriotism, then you may need to perform some self-examination for you may be on the ropes of dhimmitude.

JRH 2/11/09

ONLY Conclusive Victories Ensure Israeli Existence

In this Hamas instigated war against Israel it is totally evident how much the radical Islamic terrorist’s value human life. That value is zero.

How can I come to that conclusion? Hamas launches rockets at civilian targets in Israel and uses Arab civilians as human shields in Gaza (Gazastan/Hamastan). Not only is Hamas using the lives of their brethren as human shields they are using structures associated with hospitals, Mosques and civilian homes as command centers and places to store cache of weapons.

How does Israel value human life?

Israel sends leaflets to warn of impending Israeli assaults. Israel utilizes non-lethal missiles in an effort to scare Arab human shields off of buildings before the lethal missiles are launched. The rules of engagement for Israeli military are not to harm civilians UNLESS there is no other way to attack the cowardly enemy.

The evident rules of engagement for Hamas is to utilize a labyrinth of tunnels in Gaza to pop out in civilian clothes briefly engage the Israeli IDF either with weapons or with homicidal suicide bombers. Then disappear like cockroaches back to the tunnels.

The reality of the Hamas tactics actually is brilliant against a superior military army; however that which is reprehensible is the Western accepted propaganda that Israel is brutalizing Arabs that call themselves Palestinians.

I have established the difference in the value of human life between Hamas and Israel. Hamas seeks to murder Israeli civilians and sacrifice their own people to death. Israel seeks to protect their civilians and warn Gaza Arab civilians to minimize the collateral damage of civilians. And the West buys into the propaganda that Hamas ruled Gaza are the recipients of victimization. It is Israel taking every effort to protect Arab civilians from the collateral damage that Hamas encourages as a tactic to bring global opinion against Israel. THAT IS CRAZY!

How can such a disparity exist between two groups of people who merely wish to have a life of self-determination?

In Israel’s case they have a nation established in the 20th century resulting from the millennia of guilt of Jewish persecution that culminated with the Nazi horrors of the Holocaust.

Arabs that call themselves Palestinians are the victims of Islamic/Mohammedan ideology that once a land is conquered by Islam it must remain under Islamic hegemony forever regardless of a non-Muslim claim to a land of heritage. It is the concept of Dar al-Islam versus Dar al-Harb. The Supremacist factor permeating the Theo-political ideology of Islam/Mohammedanism will forever unreasonably take every opportunity (openly or deceitfully) to drive the Jews of Israel into the sea.

It is Islamic Supremacism that is behind generations of clerics and Muslim educators continuing to poison their own people with racism and hate toward Israel and Jews in particular. Israel is a speck in a mote of Muslim hatred. To survive as a nation where Jews can go for both religious reasons and to escape millennia government persecution of Jews, Israel must maintain a vigilance of a martial nation. For the sake of self-preservation Israel must choose military strategies that may fly in the face of Western PC tolerance or Islamic Supremacism.

At the present time a good deal of Israel’s troubles is the result of failing to shoring up their multiple victories over Arab-Muslim invading armies. Every victory has been followed an appeasement gesture toward the losers. The losers merely used the gesture to re-arm for the next invasion, create Arab refugees trained in hate (ergo Islamic terrorists) and generations of misinformation-propaganda to paint a picture of Israeli evil to Westerners.

Hamas’ continued missile needling of Israeli civilians coupled with exploiting their own people to produce a fiction of Israeli atrocity in the now infamous doctrine of “Proportional (or Disproportional – depending on usage) Response, is a continuation of the ideology of Islamic Supremacy.

Israel needs to step up to the courage to eschew Left media anti-Semitism and Arab-oil muscle on the West to utilize DISPROPORTIONAL force to bring a conclusive victory instead of PC victory.

JRH 1/11/09

Is the UK America’s reflection of Future Sharia Law?

Thank God for Act for America. Brigitte Gabriel’s activist organization enlists grassroots chapters across America to actively educate non-Muslims (called kafir by Muslims) about the dangers of an encroaching violent Theo-political death cult in American society. Act for America has delivered an email alert concerning the dhimmi appeasement in Britain might take place in America.

Britain actually has cities that allow judicial components to operate specifically in the jurisdiction of Muslims residing in Britain. This means Sharia Law is utilized in contradistinction to Britain’s Western Culture rule of law.

If you don’t know it, Sharia Law is one of the great evils developed by mankind to successfully keep practioners of Islam to tow the Islamic way and to viciously discriminate against non-Muslims (AKA kafir).

As for Muslims, Sharia Law also utilizes harsh punishments for breaking Islamic cultural mores such as leaving Islam, reducing women to chattel or sex-slaves, death for moral deviancy such as homosexuality, death to women victim’s of rape, (in Middle Easter areas) the loss of human appendages for theft, honor killings (primarily of women) if an action (such as dating a kafir) dishonors the Muslim family and on and on.

The Act for America email I received is a write up on a Damian Thompson blog entry of Britain’s Telegraph. Mr. Thompson’s title, “Exclusive: over 60 per cent of Britain's Muslim schools have extremist links, says draft report.”

Can you imagine that? Sixty percent of Britain’s private Islamic schools have “extremist links.” Since we live in a PC world let us be plain as to whom “extremist” refers to.

The “extremists” are Islamic terrorists from the Middle East, Islamic dominated nations and/or extreme Muslims within the West.

That should shed some clarity on the PC reference of “extremist.”

Basically here is the warning from Act for America: What happens in English speaking Britain in a cultural or legal framework oft times makes it’s way across the Atlantic Ocean to America. That being said – my fellow Americans – you should wonder how many private Islamic/Mohammedan schools (or even public schools with an Arabic/Muslim culture) has ties to Islamic extremism both here and abroad.

Here is the Act for America email:

60% of UK's Muslim schools linked to 'extremists'

Act for America
Email Sent: December 29, 2008 9:32:32 AM

Dear …,

We frequently refer you to what is happening in Great Britain because there we have a road map of what is coming to the United States, if we fail to act or choose to act as Great Britain has acted over the past 30 years. Seldom in life do we get the opportunity to see so clearly what does not work so that we can avoid replicating what does not work.

The bottom line is that Britain’s approach to dealing with the threat of radical Islam, no matter how well-intentioned, is proving to be an abject failure. Britain’s politically correct attempts to appease and accommodate Islamic militancy, in the hopes of mitigating radicalism and terrorism, are not only failing to mitigate those threats, they are accelerating them.

For instance, two different polls released over the past few years reveal that Britain’s Muslim population is increasingly clamoring for the imposition of Shariah law – which is now officially recognized in numerous cities across the country. These polls also reveal that second-generation Muslims, the children of the immigrants who came to Britain, are likely to be more radical than their parents.

The latest evidence of the failure of Britain’s approach is revealed in the commentary below.

As dangerous as Islamic terrorism is, to focus on that threat to the exclusion of the many ways that “cultural jihad” is being advanced in the West and here in America, is in itself dangerous. What will America be like in 30 years if we have 2,000 Islamic schools and madrassas in this country, a majority of which have links to extremists, teach extremist doctrines, and isolate their students from the world at large?

This is what the chilling study referred to below has found in Britain. This is cultural jihad at work. We are watching the transformation of Britain take place before our very eyes.

If we fail to act…or if we choose to act as Britain has…we are next.

Rest assured ACT! for America will do everything we can to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Do God in Heaven! Do Americans want Extremist Muslims teaching the American-Muslim population to hate America, the U.S. Constitution and Judaism? Think long and hard before you think this is a freedom of religion issue. This is an issue of Muslim Supremacists utilizing American laws to warp an exclusivity right for a specific religion (or as I prefer – Theo-political death cult).

JRH 12/29/08

Thoughts on G.H. Johnson Jr. – ‘A SCF Journal Entry’

Gary Johnson, Jr. believes that focusing on what I would the Political Islam nature of Mohammedanism diminishes from understanding the totally of the Theo-political cult. In other words anti-jihadist writers that focus on the Mohammedan dictum of “convert, pay alms or die” does not provide enough understanding of Mohammedanism to demonstrate and/or educate the West of the Islamic Supremacist attitude prevalent among Mohammedans.

Mr. Johnson may be correct in the long run nonetheless I am still convinced that an activism to expose the Theo-political nature of Mohammedanism is the best way to understand the cult’s threat to 21st century Western Civilization that has achieve a high degree of representative democracy, civil rights and human rights. Political Islam would swallow modern Western Civilization into a black hole of Islamic Supremacist repression particularly to those who choose not to convert.

Mr. Johnson uses the wording “convert, pay alms or die.” Paying alms (money or charity for the poor) is not what a non-Muslim is expected to pay in the sense of regarding the poor. Anti-Jihadist would point out the dictum for non-Mohammedans (aka kafir or various similarities) are a repressive tax (jizya) designed to humiliate the kafir for paying for so-called “protection” that their lives are not terminated. A better wording thus would be “convert, pay the jizya-protection tax or die.”

Let me be clear: I am not saying Mr. Johnson is inaccurate. Indeed, a complete understanding of Mohammedanism would provide a greater sense of Western empowerment to overcome the deceptive “political correct” zone the West is determined to maintain. In addition I am hardly an expert on Islam. I am a reader of various experts on Islam. I know the anti-jihadist writers do not agree on everything; however they do agree on one thing – Islam is NOT compatible to the Western way of life.

JRH 12/23/08

Muslim Supremacy in America – PROTEST IT!

CAIR is demonstrating Muslim Supremacy syndrome (see part 1 and 2) by telling the Parent company of Long John Silvers to apologize for having a kid-meal toy with a Bible message and a Bible quote.

This is crazy! Mall of America is a private enterprise and not associated with a government agency. If any private business wishes to utilize a Christmas story as part of their promotion in a nation that is predominantly Christian, then American-Muslims (or in this case mostly foreign Somali-Muslims) need to get over it or shop somewhere else.

In America the FIRST Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. The Constitution does not guarantee a minority religion such as Islam/Mohammedanism insulation from the majority religion such as Christianity. If Muslims living in America require a Muslim Supremacist protection from offense they should live in a Muslim nation in there is NO freedom of religion and the rights of non-Muslim religions are extremely limited or down right illegal.

If the “Yum! Brands” parent company of Long John Silvers actually apologizes to CAIR on behalf of Muslim-Americans then I encourage Christians to inundate the “Yum! Brands” company with Christian Protest. It is a Constitutional Right for Christians to complain as much as it is for Muslims.

YUM! BRANDS contact link – HERE.

Here is the Jihad Watch post exposing the Muslim Supremacy syndrome being practiced by the unindicted co-conspirator CAIR to the HLF terrorist supporting charity convicts.

JRH 12/21/08 (Hat tip CCPGA)

Obama, Israel, Arabs and Land

I am one of those crazy for Jesus evangelicals that Orthodox Jews mistrust and Leftists hate in my support of a Greater Israel and especially a ONE UNITED Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. The only interest in the slice of land known as Israel by the Arab/Muslims in the 20th and 21st centuries is that a group of Jews immigrated back to their homeland and creating a Jewish/Zionist State. Muslim Supremacists view Israel as part of dar al-Islam and is never to be surrendered to the original inhabitants because conquering Muslim armies establish the area as Islamic territory.

Here is the thing. The Muslim conquerors of the land so mismanaged the natural resources of the land dubbed by Romans as Palestine that the area became a wasteland. Blatant persecution of Jews in Europe finally brought a vision to a Jewish man – Theodore Herzl. Herzl realized that Jews would never get a fair shake as citizens in the various prejudiced European nations stretching from France through Russia.

In the late 1800’s Herzl realized the Jews needed their own homeland if they ever were to be free from the taint of second class citizens in Europe. Thus Herzl began the Zionist movement to promote such an idea. The Zionist ideology was not popular among European Jews at first; however noticeably increasing hate caused others to latch onto Herzl’s Zionist plan. Herzl would not live to see the fruition of his ideas for he died in 1904.

Chaim Weizmann took up where Herzl left off however it was Weizmann that turned the Zionism goal of a Jewish Homeland to the land of Jewish origin – then Palestine and now Israel.

Adolf Hitler sealed the deal with the Holocaust. Hitler’s murder of over six million Jews finally woke up Europeans (well West Europeans anyway) to the demeaning treatment Jews had received since their Diaspora from their homeland.

From Israel’s Independence in 1948, Arab Muslim nations and later Islamofascist stateless terrorists have tried to destroy Israel and perpetrate a Second Holocaust. The Arabs have lost every war even though they greatly outnumbered itty bitty Israel. When aggressors lose war a price is to be paid. In the Arabs case that price is land that rightfully belongs within a Jewish Homeland.

Ever since oil became an economic weapon against the West, Europeans have forgotten the lessons of the pinnacle of European anti-Semitism of the Holocaust. For now the European goal under the auspices of the European Union have favored policies that have brought Europeans into dhimmitude to Arabs and the tortuous slow dismantling of Israel.

American Leftists and RINO’s have also fallen into this dhimmitude to Arabs. Part of the reason is understandable: why stand behind a little sliver of land coveted by Islamic Supremacists when the delusional perception is to placate Arabs to end terrorism.

Barack Hussein Obama is in this Leftist crowd. Obama after schmoozing American Jews to the contrary apparently now favors the division of Jerusalem and reducing Israel to the indefensible borders of 1967.

All Obama Options Call For Dividing Jerusalem
The Times of London reports that President-elect Obama will adopt the Saudi plan that calls for the establishment of a Palestinian State in Jerusalem. Kadima candidate for Prime Minister Livni supports the Saudi plan.

Little Green Footballs and Hot Air analyze the story.

There have been many stories about what plan will Obama adopt. There are differences between the plans, for example, on the issue of right of return, but they all agree that Jerusalem will be divided to provide for a Palestinian capital.

Outgoing Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is determined to see Obama continue her failed peace efforts. This story reports on Rice's efforts and the differences between Netanyahu and Livni on this subject. Livni is seen as fully supportive of a deal based on Israel going back to its indefensible borders of 1949 and Netanyahu defending Israel's right to an undivided Jerusalem and secure borders. Could the differences be any clearer? (One Jerusalem)

Be sure to examine the Little Green Footballs and Hot Air articles. Their analyses both demonstrate that the author of The Times article is a reporter of a dubious nature.

Regardless of Obama’s AIPAC speech to American Jews, he is no friend of Israel and their heritage.

One Jerusalem has a short little article explaining the importance of keeping Jerusalem One under Israeli sovereignty.

Understand Jerusalem

The modern historical record proves the importance of keeping Jerusalem united under Israeli sovereignty:

1948-1967: The Dark Period

An invasion of Arab armies during the 1948 War of Independence caused Jerusalem to be artificially divided between an Israeli-controlled western section, and a Jordanian-controlled eastern section.

During this dark period, Arab control of the Old City and eastern sections of Jerusalem caused severe hardships and persecution for both Jews and Christians: From 1948 to 1967, Jordan denied the Jewish people access to its sacred Western Wall (in violation of its Armistice Agreement with Israel), over fifty synagogues in the Old City's Jewish Quarter were destroyed or desecrated, and the Old City’s Jewish residents were expelled.

Moreover, the Christian population of Jordanian Jerusalem fell from 25,000 to 11,000, as highly restrictive Jordanian laws were imposed on Christian institutions.

1967-Present: Freedom for All

In the wake of the 1967 Six Day War, Jerusalem was reunified under Israeli sovereignty.

Since then, Christians, Muslims and Jews have all been granted full religious and cultural freedom in the holy city, and Arabs living within Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries are offered Israeli citizenship.

Israel has upheld its moral and ethical obligations to the people of the world and has earned the right to retain sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, according to the present boundaries. Israel's decision, as a free and democratic nation, to designate a united and undivided Jerusalem as its capital, should be respected and recognized by the entire international community.