Pro-Palestinian Propaganda Ploy


Flotilla III Stopped by Israeli Navy

By John R. Houk

© June 29, 2015

Apparently the latest Arabs that call themselves Palestinians latest propaganda effort with Gaza Flotilla III did not come with weapons or Islamic terrorists ready to provoke an incident with Israel’s Navy. Of the four ships taking off from Sweden to land in Gaza without Israeli approval, three turned back and one – Swedish registered Marianne of Gothenburg – carrying some notable protesters continued when ordered to turn around and go back to last port of origination. The Israeli Navy boarded the ship without incident and headed to the Israeli port of Ashdod:

Israeli Navy fighters boarded the Swedish boat Marianne of Gothenburg early Monday, taking over the vessel carrying 18 political activists and journalists bound for the Gaza Strip. The takeover was accomplished without incident and the Navy then escorted the vessel to Israel’s southern port of Ashdod, where the passengers will be questioned and then deported.

,,,

… The declared aim of the organizers – Israeli, Arab and European activists – was to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which Israel says is essential in order to prevent Palestinian terror group from arming.

“This flotilla is nothing but a demonstration of hypocrisy and lies that is only assisting the Hamas terrorist organisation and ignores all of the horrors in our region,” Netanyahu said.

“Preventing entry by sea was done in accordance with international law and even received backing from a committee of the UN Secretary General,” he said.

Israeli troops boarding the vessel handed the activists a letter, accusing them of hypocrisy in singling out Israel for alleged human rights violations at a time when brutal wars raging across the Middle East claim heavy tolls.

“It appears you have strayed READ ENTIRETY FOR MORE DETAILS (Israeli Navy seizes Gaza flotilla boat without incident; By Taboola; i24 News English; 6/29/15 01:27pm)

Ari Bussel forwarded a copy of the Israel Government Press Office (GPO) official statement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a quite humorous letter delivered to the protesters on the vessel Marianne. Undoubtedly the statement and the letter made public have the purpose to counter pro-Palestinian propaganda that typically lies or twists facts in an effort to paint Israel as the villain.

JRH 6/29/15

Please Support NCCR

_________________________

PM Netanyahu’s Statement Following Last Night’s Navy Action

Sent by Ari Bussel

Originated from GPO

Sent: 6/28/2015 11:50 PM

PM Netanyahu’s Statement Following Last Night’s Navy Action

(Communicated by the Prime Minister’s Media Adviser)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this morning (Monday, 29 June 2015), issued the following statement:

“I would like to commend the sailors and commanders of the Israel Navy for their determined and efficient action in detaining the passengers on the ship that tried to reach the Gaza coast in contravention of the law. This flotilla is nothing but a demonstration of hypocrisy and lies that is only assisting the Hamas terrorist organization and ignores all of the horrors in our region. Preventing entry by sea was done in accordance with international law and even received backing from a committee of the UN Secretary General.

Israel is the only democracy that defends itself in accordance with international law. We are not prepared to accept the entry of war materiel to the terrorist organizations in Gaza as has been done by sea in the past. Just last year we foiled an attempt to smuggle by sea hundreds of weapons that were destined for use in attacks against Israel’s citizens.

There is no siege on Gaza. Israel assists in transferring goods and humanitarian equipment to Gaza – approximately 800 trucks a day that have recently brought into Gaza more than 1.6 million tons of goods. Moreover, Israel assists in hundreds of humanitarian projects, through international organizations, including the building of clinics and hospitals.

Israel is a state that seeks peace and acts in accordance with international law so that the residents of Gaza might have safe lives and their children may grow up in peace and quiet.”

Following is a copy of the letter that was issued last night:

“Welcome to Israel,

You seem to have gotten lost. Perhaps you meant to sail to a place not far from here – Syria, where Assad’s army is slaughtering its people every day, and is supported by the murderous Iranian regime.

Here in Israel we face a reality in which terrorist organizations like Hamas try to kill innocent civilians. We defend our citizens against these attempts in accordance with international law.

Despite this, Israel transports goods and humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip – up to 800 trucks a day. In the past year we enabled the entry of over 1.6 million tons of products, an average of one ton per person in the Gaza Strip. By the way, these supplies are equivalent to 500,000 boats like the one you came in on today.

Israel provides assistance to hundreds of humanitarian projects through international organizations, including the building of clinics and hospitals.

However, we will not allow the terrorist organizations to transfer weapons into the Gaza Strip by sea. Only one year ago, we thwarted an attempt to smuggle hundreds of weapons into the Gaza Strip by ship. These weapons were meant to target innocent Israeli civilians.

There is no siege on the Gaza Strip, and you are welcome to transfer any humanitarian supplies for the Gaza Strip through Israel.

Barring the entrance of boats and ships into the Gaza Strip is in accordance with international law, and was even backed by a committee commissioned by the United Nations Secretary General.

If you were truly concerned about human rights, you would not be sailing in support of a terrorist regime which summarily executes citizens in the Gaza Strip, and uses children as human shields.

If you were to travel around in Israel, you would see for yourself that the only stable democracy in the Middle East guarantees equality for all its citizens and freedom of worship for members of all religions; it is a country that upholds international law so that its people can live in safety and its children grow up in peace and quiet.”

_________________

Pro-Palestinian Propaganda Ploy

By John R. Houk

© June 29, 2015

__________________________

PM Netanyahu’s Statement Following Last Night’s Navy Action

 

Original content: GPO

Sent from Ari Bussel

 

Blog Editor John R. Houk

Calls grow for probe of Clinton’s private server


Hillary Clinton: This is the gal that currently leads the Dems for the 2016 nomination for POTUS. How crazy is any portion of the American electorate to trust this woman with the security, safety and prosperity of the United States of America? If she actually wins the Dem nomination will American voters replace one Liar-in-Chief for another?

JRH 6/29/15

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Calls grow for probe of Clinton’s private server

By SARAH WESTWOOD

JUNE 27, 2015 | 12:01 AM

Washington Examiner

Calls for Hillary Clinton to allow a third party to examine her private server grew louder Friday following revelations that she had withheld more than a dozen Benghazi-related emails from the State Department.

“Secretary Clinton’s failure to turn over all Benghazi and Libya documents is the reason why we have been calling for an independent, third party review of her server,” Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., a member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, told the Washington Examiner.

“Her unusual email arrangement with herself allowed for Secretary Clinton to pick and choose which emails she deemed work related, and now we know that she failed to be honest and forthcoming with those emails to both the Select Committee and the State Department that were subpoenaed,” Westmoreland added.

A State Department spokesman said Friday the agency had no plans to launch a probe of Clinton’s private server, on which she hosted both her personal and work-related emails.

But officials did acknowledge that they had no idea whether Clinton submitted all of her work-related emails, as she has claimed to have done.

“This confirms doubts about the completeness of Clinton’s self-selected public record and raises serious questions about her decision to erase her personal server — especially before it could be analyzed by an independent, neutral third party arbiter,” Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the select committee, said Thursday evening.

Renewed scrutiny of Clinton’s private email use bubbled up this week after it became clear that Blumenthal had given Congress 60 emails that the State Department never provided.

The agency admitted Thursday it could not locate all or part of 15 of those messages.

“[Clinton] said she had ‘confidence’ that all relevant emails from her secret server were handed over,” Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said Friday.

“But now there is proof that she wasn’t telling the truth. This is yet another reason she can’t be trusted,” Priebus said. “And it’s yet another reason that her server has to be turned about to an independent arbiter — to see if anything can be recovered after she wiped it.”

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the only way to ensure the State Department has a complete record of Clinton’s emails is to locate and search the private server she used as secretary.

“This is something we’re raising now with the courts in a variety of cases,” Fitton said, noting that State has resisted calls to seek out the server.

Judicial Watch has filed more than 20 requests through the Freedom of Information Act for records related to the Clinton email scandal.

“There is nothing in the history of the Freedom of Information Act or in the history of the Federal Records Act to compare with Mrs. Clinton’s decision to use a secret account to conduct her government business, and have other agency officials use that as well,” Fitton said.

“There was a whole cadre of State Department officials who went dark and were conducting government business in such a way that made it immune to scrutiny,” he added.

Gowdy has blasted the State Department for what he perceives as its reluctance to comply with congressional requests for Benghazi-related documents.

State Department officials have countered that the select committee’s ever-widening requests have drained resources and resulted in the possibility of documents falling through the cracks.

“The State Department also turned over a new set of Clinton emails that were responsive to previous committee requests regarding Libya and Benghazi, but for some reason were not previously given to the committee under subpoena,” Gowdy noted Thursday.

A State Department spokesperson told the Examiner the “new set of Clinton emails” provided to the committee were all the records in their possession that matched those submitted by Blumenthal earlier this month.

“These revelations raise questions that the committee will now be considering carefully in the days ahead,” Gowdy said, suggesting the committee may take additional action to ensure it obtains all of Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails.

___________________

Sarah Westwood is a Watchdog Reporter for the Washington Examiner. She previously covered local governments for the Marietta (Ga.) Daily Journal. She received her bachelor’s degree in political science from George Washington University. She is a graduate of the fellowship program of the National Journalism Center.

 

Copyright 2015 Washington Examiner

America Rising


It is gratifying there are Patriots in America displeased with an unconstitutional SCOTUS. Justin Smiths shares some thoughts on the Obamacare subsidy ruling and the Same-Sex Marriage ruling.

JRH 6/28/15

Please Support NCCR

*************************

America Rising

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 6/27/2015 9:30 PM

“The Liberties of Our Country … are worth defending at all hazards … We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors … purchased … with toil … and expense of treasure and blood. — It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation … if we should … be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.” – Samuel Adams

Two-hundred and thirty-nine years of freedom and liberty and the American Heritage, as that “shining city on the hill,” a beacon and a place of safety for all peoples that offers a glimmer of hope for a better future and a better tomorrow, are coming to a grinding halt. With Congress moving America towards transnational fascism (TPA) and the Supreme Court acting in a lawless fashion concerning Obamacare – King v. Burwell – and the issue of same-sex marriage, the “land of liberty” is facing the greatest challenges of its entire history.

The majority of Americans stand for American interests to be first and foremost in our foreign policies, and we oppose globalism. We believe this country has the right and obligation to secure Her borders, Her sacred Heritage and Her values. And we believe in a small constrained federal government, with its inevitable corruption confined within the limited role set for it by the Founding Fathers.

When the Supreme Court can arbitrarily decide to provide alternative and false meanings to words written and passed by our elected representatives and ignore other laws, in order to align with the goals and agendas of whoever happens to be in power, we are on the road to tyranny, like it or not.

As noted on June 25th by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia _ a true Son of Liberty:

(On Obamacare) “We should start calling this SCOTUSCare … this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The summersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax … ‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.”

On June 26th Scalia stated his concerns regarding the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision removing state bans on homosexual/gay marriage:

“I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy … Today’s decree says that … the ruler of 320 million Americans coast to coast is a majority of nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”

In Katie Pavlich’s Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right, the observation is made that Chief Justice John Roberts’ accusation that the Court acted “out of preference” is “an interesting description considering he did the same thing on King v. Burwell.”

Former Governor Mike Huckabee’s assessment on this egregious mess coincides with Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent. Huckabee said: “They [the Justices] didn’t rule on any existing law. They simply redefined marriage”; and Roberts stated: “The majority’s decision was an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.”

Marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman is a part of America’s core traditional value system. Our ancestors were mostly Christian, and, as such, the majority of Americans have understood marriage as set forth in the Bible. They also hold fast to God’s commandment in Leviticus 18:22 _ “Man shall not lie with man as with woman; it is an abomination.”

The Court’s ruling on homosexual marriage is nothing less than an attempt to force Christianity out of America’s public square and underground, as the Far Left moves to culturally transform America. Chief Justice Roberts pointedly observed: “As a result the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?”

All of these disgusting anti-liberty, anti-American developments moves me to tell the fascist Progressives of both parties “You don’t belong here.” Go find a place where the people welcome the idea of a permanent ruling class. There are plenty of them out there, but it’s not here.

Take your tools in the press, your sycophant followers, the poltroons and quislings, your socialist pipedreams and your Hell called “Utopia”. Take your self-serving transnational vision of one borderless world, united under your thumb. That might be fine for others, but it’s not for the Sons and Daughters of Liberty still living in America.

Whatever the motives of Obama and the five Progressive activist Justices, America cannot allow itself to be dragged down into the dung heap of totalitarianism, as a result of the majority’s misapplication of clauses like “due process”, aimed at affording substantive rights at the expense of ‘liberty’ and through a distortion of the principles on which this Nation was founded. Our path can only be up to man’s age-old dream and the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order.

The sole thing tyranny fears is the truth, and therein lies a sworn mission for each of us. All who believe in liberty must do everything to convince their fellow Americans of the importance of a conservative path towards freedom. Tell the truth to the good people of the United States, and through that revelation, restore America to the greatness She was founded to attain.

There is a God, and this God of all Creation would prefer us to be free. That means He must love this country, not so much for what we’ve allowed it to become, but deeply for what it was once meant to be.

However, there is a never ending war being waged for the heart of America — because true Evil cannot be stopped and the truly Good will not be moved. [This] is a battle that must be won or lost every day, by one side or the other, and no less than the fate of free mankind hangs in the balance.

The outcome may still be in question, but I know where I stand. To those yet undecided, there’s a place here beside me or out there against me, once you’re moved to make up your mind.

Rise up America and let Liberty’s dimmed light once more burn bright. It awaits an awakening, so this one nation and the love of true Liberty at its heart can be restored to Her old glory. America demands much of those that hear the call, and the first hard thing it asks is courage.

By Justin O. Smith

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Guns or Bibles or Both


Is it Time to Consider?

John R. Houk

© June 27, 2015

Bible believing Christians must show their displeasure with SCOTUS, Congress and of course President Barack Hussein Obama. The only way to prevent the further threat to our Liberty to be practicing Christians is to call for an Amendment to the Constitution to reverse the curse that SCOTUS has placed on our nation. That a Leftist Congress has promoted. And that our Leftist-in-Chief President has sent in his so far successful agenda to fundamentally transform America.

VIDEO: Fundamentally Transform America- the Obama Promise

Posted by obamacare

Published on Jul 24, 2013

Remember 5 days before the 2008 Presidential Election? President Obama promised to fundamentally transform America? How’s He doing? Join the Fight against Obama and the Progressives’ attempt to destroy Individual Liberty at http://freedomist.com

Getting Congress to pass an Amendment to address Traditional Marriage may be a daunting task. I suspect not one Democrat would vote in favor of such an Amendment. ALSO I have a horrible feeling the Establishment Republican RINOs and pretend pseudo-Conservatives would join the Democrats in naysaying. Under those conditions I have serious doubts that Congress could muster even a simple majority in favor of Traditional Marriage with one man and one woman. A simple majority in favor of a Traditional Marriage Amendment isn’t enough since 2/3 of both Houses of Congress is required. And if a 2/3 majority passes both Houses still the Amendment to the States requires the ratification of 3/4 of States (currently 38 out of 50) to be a part of the Constitution. There is another way to constitutionally amend the Constitution that bypasses Congress, the President and SCOTUS.

If 2/3 (34) of each individual State passes a resolution petitioning for a Constitutional Convention to construct an Amendment for Traditional Marriage. This has never happened since the first Constitutional Convention that brought us our U.S. Constitution.

Critics of a Constitutional Convention on both the Left and the Right believe such a convention will rewrite the entirely new Constitution. However I have since learned that each State legislature can call for a Constitutional Convention with a specific mandate for a specific Amendment or specific Amendments or a whole new Constitution. The next convention which would only be the second since the 1787, can assign the delegates with specific instructions on what kind of Amendment or Amendments to work on. AND THEN still 3/4 of the States would be needed to ratify said Amendment or Amendments under a specified mandate; i.e. 38 out of 50.

Calling for such a convention only needs a simple majority of the legislature of each State OR if the State runs an Initiative law, a voters plebiscite can call for a convention. The U.S. Constitution does not actually lay out the framework on how each State issues a petition for a convention. That method is left to the devices of each State. The U.S. Constitution does issue one caveat for States calling an assembly of a national Constitutional Convention. After 34 States submit a Constitutional Convention petition, then the U.S. Congress must convene the Convention.

I have to wonder what happens if the U.S. Congress refuses to convene a Convention after 34 States validate such a petition. The next logical Constitutional path would that the several States have SCOTUS force Congress to convene a convention as per Article 5 of the Constitution. I perceive the problem with SCOTUS fulfilling its Constitutional duty is that the recent two rulings validating Obamacare and same-sex marriage contrary to Amendment 10 of the Constitution will continue a rogue Supreme Court thus ensuring political tyranny.

It is political tyranny that America’s Founding Fathers initiated a rebellion against British rule because the British Crown and the British Parliament ignored the Liberty and Freedom of their citizens in the 13 American colonies.

Declaration of Independence – July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and … Dear God in Heaven you should READ THE REST (The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription IN CONGRESS [i.e. under Articles of Confederation], July 4, 1776; Charters of Freedom; Archives.gov)

It is my opinion that if all three Constitutional Branches of government form an oligarchy of despotism, then a new American Revolution may be necessary for WE the people to dissolve the political bands which have connected us to a political despotism that separates us from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.

I suspect the Founding Fathers responsible for the Bill of Rights (viz. the Second Amendment) foresaw a future rogue National Government. Hello: rogue President, rogue SCOTUS and an indecisive Congress essentially the essence of a rogue legislature swayed by special interests and huge ideological divisions making statesman a 19th century concept.

It was there I took a couple of courses with Dr. J. Rufus Fears, professor of an incredibly manly subject: the history of freedom. One of the things the good professor emphasized to us captivated students was that a politician and a statesman are not the same thing. A statesman, Fears argues, is not a tyrant; he is the free leader of a free people and he must possess four critical qualities:

1. A bedrock of principles

2. A moral compass

3. A vision

4. The ability to build a consensus to achieve that vision

Let us now explore these four criteria of a democratic statesman in READ ENTIRETY (The 4 Qualities of a True Statesman; By Brett & Kate McKay; The Art of Manliness; 1/30/12)

The only moral compass among Obama-Democrats are the godless fallacies of Secular Humanism:

Theologically, Secular Humanists are atheists. Humanist Paul Kurtz, publisher of Prometheus Books and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, says that “Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe.”[5] Corliss Lamont agrees, saying that “Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods.”[6]

Philosophically, Secular Humanists are naturalists. That is, they believe that nature is all that exists – the material world is all that exists. There is no God, no spiritual dimension, no afterlife. Carl Sagan said it best in the introduction to his Cosmos series: “The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”[7] Roy Wood Sellars concurs. “Humanism is naturalistic,” he says, “and rejects the supernaturalistic stance with its postulated Creator-God and cosmic Ruler.”[8]

Secular Humanist beliefs in the area of biology are closely tied to both their atheistic theology and their naturalist philosophy. If there is no supernatural, then life, including human life, must be the result of a purely natural phenomenon. Hence, Secular Humanists must believe in evolution. Julian Huxley, for example, insists that “man … his body, his mind and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution.”[9] Sagan, Lamont, Sellars, Kurtz—all Secular Humanists are in agreement on this.

Atheism leads most Secular Humanists to adopt ethical relativism – the belief that no absolute moral code exists, and therefore man must adjust his ethical standards in each situation according to his own judgment.[10] If God does not exist, then He cannot establish an absolute moral code. READ ENTIRETY (What is Secular Humanism? Adapted from Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of our Day and the Search for Truth, and Clergy in the Classroom: The Religion of Secular Humanism by David A. Noebel, J.F. Baldwin and Kevin By water of Summit Ministries; ChristianAnswers.Net; Copyright © 1996, Summit Ministries, All Rights Reserved)

The SCOTUS decision on Same-Sex marriage has just about robbed me of all confidence that the operation of the current Federal Government will preserve an exceptional United States of America under God with Liberty and Justice for all. The “Justice” here is NOT the social justice advocated by a godless Secular Humanism. RATHER this “Justice” is Justice under God Almighty as displayed in the Holy Bible (and not the antichrist Quran of Islam).

In a cross post of Robert Smith’s email submission yesterday, he volunteered Americans have two choices to take back the Constitution of the Founding Fathers’ Original Intent:

It is becoming clear that the American People must take matters into their own hands. Hopefully by the ballot box, but if necessary by armed intervention.

Robert had submitted his thoughts at about 11:00 PM on June 25 referencing the SCOTUS support for Obamacare subsidies which was a stretch on the Constitution. However his thoughts came to mind after listening to Fox News the morning of June 26 announcing the SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage. AGAIN: the ballot box or armed intervention.

I always conceived an armed confrontation might occur between American citizens standing for Conservative-Christian principles and a rogue operating unconstitutional Federal government, BUT I really did not conceive such a situation viable in my lifetime. NOW I am not so sure.

The existence of a Rogue Presidency and a Rogue SCOTUS could be hard pressed for Americans to make their wishes be heard at the ballot box. SCOTUS has demonstrated that a disregard for the Constitution in which their mandate was to preserve when broken and to instruct Congress to make corrections to bad legislation unless that legislative purview belonged to each individual State of the Union.

A SCOTUS majority has embraced the Secular Humanist Leftist (Progressive, Liberal or whatever appellation) concept of a Living Constitution rather than the Original Intent (See Also HERE) of the Founding Fathers and the original intent of succeeding Amendments after the Bill of Rights. The Living Constitution theorists believe the U.S. Constitution must be interpreted according to the perceptions of modern culture and associated rules of law pertaining to the global legal environment.

It is my increasingly lack of confidence in all three branches of the Federal government that leads me to believe America’s last chance is in the never yet used Constitutional process of Amendment by State origin regardless of the potential to rewrite the entire Constitution. If a new Constitution favors a Left Wing perspective and is ratified by 38 States is America is lost to the past of insightful American Founding Fathers.

If THIRTYEIGHT American States choose a godless path to America’s future that means twelve States are willing to remember Liberty and Freedom under God.

Franklin Graham Facebook post 6/26/15 screen capture

If there are 38 States ratifying godlessness, I suspect there will be Conservative Christians who will be willing to participate in a Declaration of Independence-style rebellion throw the godless bands of tyranny off their necks by guns or Bibles or both.

JRH 627/15

Please Support NCCR

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

Yesterday SCOTUS ruled Obamacare subsidies are just fine. Remarkably Chief Justice John Roberts joined four Leftists and a Centrist to pat Barack Hussein Obama to tell him it was just fine to keep screwing up America.

TODAY SCOTUS ruled that same-sex marriage must be legal in ALL 50 States in the Union based on the 14th Amendment that assured former slaves as equal citizens with equal rights. I wonder if those Northern States that ensured Freedom for Black-Americans would think that the 14th Amendment’s intent would be used to justify the ungodly abomination of homosexual marriage. This time Chief Justice Roberts went with the godly side but was a part of four losing Justices that lost out to four thumbing their noses Leftist Justices and Centrist Justice Anthony Kennedy placed the USA in a dangerous spiritual position in the eyes of God Almighty.

Late last night Robert Smith submitted a post expressing his displeasure with how the three constitutional Branches of our Federal government are forsaking the Constitution. Smith concludes that the unconstitutional government movement will lead to one of two actions: 1) America’s Constitution gets a reset button of Original Intent at the ballot box. 2) Barring the peaceful action of the ballot box, a Revolutionary War-style rebellion will occur with the Americans that are tired of the tyranny of the ungodly Left.

After the Robert Smith post I’m going to cross post the informative story I find most relevant to the Sodomizing of America by five ungodly Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

JRH 6/26/15

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Degrading OUR Constitution

By Robert G. Smith

Sent: 6/25/2015 11:07 PM

The Constitution is being ripped asunder by the POTUS and the SCOTUS. The POTUS is determined to destroy our country. This is so the Transnational Bankers, Global Politicians and Islamists will have an easier task of subjugating the people of our country and making them accept a NWO and Islam as the one true religion.

In the SCOTUS you have Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who believes the Constitution has out lived its usefulness. [And we have] one Elena Kagan, who believes the Constitution should be supplemented by Sharia Law. And Chief Justice John Roberts who perceives himself as a member of the House of Representatives.

It is becoming clear that the American People must take matters into their own hands. Hopefully by the ballot box, but if necessary by armed intervention.

They have taken the most sought after health care in the world, emasculated it and made it so costly no one can afford it. The number of citizens who did not have health care prior to O-Bama Care was so small they could have been provided governmental health care paid for, many times over, by the billions already spent by O-Bama Care.

It makes me heartsick to see the country and the Constitution I fought for in three wars so maligned so corrupted by those who have never turned a finger to protect our country and our way of life. This must be corrected. How? I do not have the answers, but I hope it is by the ballots and not the bullets.

We have a Congress that is doing very little to better the situation. They must be replaced by true Conservatives, those who truly love our country.

Most of our voters do not comprehend the serious nature of the problems facing our country today. They are lackadaisical when it comes to checking the backgrounds of those we choose to represent us. They continue to send to Congress people who have only their own selfish interests in mind. This must be stopped!!

To vote for a Liberal only ensures the continuation of the situation we now have. The liberals must be replaced by true Conservatives and not by the many RINOs – Republican In Name Only – that we now have serving in Congress; i.e. Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, and the list goes on.

I hope to see a peaceful change in the direction our country is following but I do hope to see a change!!!!

PSG [ret.] R. G. Smith

________________________

Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?

By Ryan Anderson

June 26th, 2015 4:28 pm

SCOTUSblog

Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the author of the forthcoming book Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. His amicus brief was cited in Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion in Obergefell.

As the four dissenting opinions make abundantly clear, today’s ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges had nothing to do with the Constitution. This ruling is perhaps as clear of an example of judicial activism as any we have seen in recent years – or are likely (hopefully) to see in the future. The majority of the Court simply replaced the people’s opinion about what marriage is with its own. Nothing in the Constitution supplies an answer to the question What Is Marriage? And none of the purported rationales can justify the Court redefining marriage everywhere.

This ruling will likely cause harm to the body politic: to constitutional democratic self-government, to marriage itself, to civil harmony, and to religious liberty. Because of space constraints, I highlight these four harms with quotations solely from Chief Justice John Roberts’s dissent. (Needless to say, they could be amplified with quotations from Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.)

First, the ruling will cause harm to constitutional democratic self-government. As Roberts notes, “this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise ‘neither force nor will but merely judgment.’” Roberts continues:

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal argu­ments for requiring such an extension are not. The fun­damental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Indeed, Roberts repeatedly argues that in Obergefell the Court has simply Lochner-ized – “the majority’s ap­proach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that char­acterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York.”

Second, the ruling will cause harm to marriage itself. Roberts notes that marriage “arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.” But redefining marriage makes it more about the romantic desires of the consenting adults involved than about the needs or the rights of children involved to a relationship with their mother and father.

Indeed, the judicial redefinition of marriage to exclude the marital norm of male-female sexual complementarity raises the question of what other marital norms may be excluded. Roberts writes: “One immediate question invited by the majority’s posi­tion is whether States may retain the definition of mar­riage as a union of two people.” Roberts continues:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of mar­riage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradi­tion, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex mar­riage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond be­tween three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the oppor­tunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subor­dinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous rela­tionships?

For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs – or rights – of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Third, the ruling will cause harm to civil harmony. When fundamental policy changes are made by Court rulings that have no basis in the Constitution, it makes change harder to accept – because it casts doubt on the change itself. As Chief Justice Roberts points out,

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex mar­riage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

Yet in the middle of such a robust debate, the Court “seizes for itself a ques­tion the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that ques­tion. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own ‘under­standing of what freedom is and must become.’” This will make the redefinition of marriage less accepted – more contested – in the United States. Roberts elaborates:

The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people. And they know it. Here and abroad, people are in the midst of a serious and thoughtful public debate on the issue of same-sex marriage. … This delib­erative process is making people take seriously questions that they may not have even regarded as questions before.

When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the re­sults. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate.

But today the Court puts a stop to all that.

The Court had no reason – no basis in the Constitution – to short-circuit the democratic process. No reason to put a stop to the national discussion we were having about the future of marriage. Roberts continues, “There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide.” Just so.

Fourth, the ruling will cause harm to religious liberty. As Roberts notes, the decision “creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution.” When marriage was redefined democratically, citizens could accompany it with religious liberty protections, but “the majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommo­dations.”

Most alarmingly, the majority opinion never discusses the free exercise of religion. Roberts notes, “The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to ‘advocate’ and ‘teach their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to ‘exercise’ religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.”

Indeed, as Roberts notes, “Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.” Why can they take no comfort? Because “the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate.” Over and over and over again, the majority attacks the Americans who stand for marriage as the union of husband and wife. And as Robert notes, “These apparent assaults on the character of fair minded people will have an effect, in society and in court. Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous.”

Indeed, “[i]t is one thing for the major­ity to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray every­one who does not share the majority’s ‘better informed understanding’ as bigoted.”

In conclusion, because the Court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom, we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association, and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant setback to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.

Recommended Citation: Ryan Anderson, Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 26, 2015, 4:28 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/symposium-ryan-anderson/

Further Reading on SCOTUS Homosexual Abomination Marriage

SUPREME COURT: ‘GAY MARRIAGE’ LEGAL NATIONWIDE – By BOB UNRUH; WND; 6/26/15

John-Henry Westen: U.S. Supreme Court rules against God and human natureLife Site News; 6/26/15 10:19 am EST

SCOTUS Endorses Same-Sex MarriageBy John J. Bastiat; The Patriot Post; 6-26-15

Gay ‘marriage’ ruling opens door to polygamy and religious persecution: Dissenting justicesBy Ben Johnson; Life Site News; 6/26/15 1:14 pm EST

SCALIA: MARRIAGE RULING ‘THREAT TO DEMOCRACY’ – By ART MOORE; WND; 6/26/15

___________________

USA in Trouble when SCOTUS Ignores Constitution

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

___________________________

Degrading OUR Constitution

 

© Robert G. Smith

______________________________

Symposium: Judicial activism on marriage causes harm: What does the future hold?

 

© 2015 SCOTUSblog

Exploring Muslim Jew-Hatred


John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

I find the fact that the Israeli government pulled their video “Open your eyes. Terror rules Gaza” exposing the reality that Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organization, under Western Pressure, QUITE ANNOYING. But it should come as no surprise. Jew-hatred has been around since Biblical times. The descendants traced from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have face many occasions in which Jew-hatred with the object of destruction came sometimes justly but most often UNJUSTLY.

The Bible records God Almighty allowed punishment against the Hebrew tribes (ultimately called Jews after the last surviving Davidic Kingdom of Judah) for slipping away from their Covenant. The Jews experienced unjust destructive violence first for desiring an independent Jewish nation (Maccabees vs. Syrian remnants of Alexandrian Empire), independence from Roman suzerainty (experiencing mass dispersion after Bar Kochba [or Kokhba or Kokba]) revolt, obsessive Christian persecution from Europeans [See Also HERE] (Christ-killer blood libel and world domination blood libel) and as well as Muslim persecution encoded in the Quran (among other Islamic writings through to this present day).

Since the last Diaspora forced by the Romans the Jews living in their God ordained land was a minority UNTIL – the 20th century. Toward the end of WWI the British through the Balfour Declaration (1917) promised a return of the Jews to their Biblical Homeland. As a European power that was a member of the winning team in WWI the newly formed League of Nations awarded Administration of the Holy Land as the British Mandate of Palestine in 1922. There were 28 Articles in the Palestine Mandate and here is the introduction or preamble (uncertain if there is an actual name for that section):

The Council of the League of Nations:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows: READ THE REST (The Palestine Mandate; The Avalon Project – Yale Law School; Ratified July 24, 1922 – Avalon Copyright: © 2008 Lillian Goldman Law Library)

Largely due Jewish scientist (Pro-Zionist Chaim Weizmann) aid to the British war effort (Pronounced by PM Lloyd George but denied by Weizmann) clearly the land to be labeled Palestine was created as a future sovereign national Homeland for the Jewish people. (See more precise data at JewishHistory.org)

Just an aside here. Everyone should realize the name “Palestine” was derived from the Roman Emperor Hadrian attempt to wipe all things Jewish away after Bar Kochba’s short lived Israel liberation movement. Hadrian renamed the Jewish Homeland Palestina. The anglicized version is Palestine. Hadrian purposely used longtime enemies of Israel (i.e. the Philistines) that had zero racial connection to the Jews to wipe all things Jewish off the Roman map.

The British original intention for the name “Palestine” during the mandate to reference Jews not Arabs. The Arabs only started to adopt the name (HERE and HERE) Palestinian after 1967 when Israel defeated several invading Arab armies recapturing Judaea/Samaria and Gaza. Those areas had been occupied by invading Arab armies in 1948 trying to destroy the nascent declared Independent State of Israel who then had the purpose to drive Jews into the sea.

Now it looks like the United Nations are flowing with the propaganda originating from the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians. The UNHRC Report blames both Israel and Hamas; however Israel points out there are many holes in accusations against the IDF for war crimes.

Here is a press release attributed to Israel’s office President emailed to me via Ari Bussel on June 22 which indicates Israel read the report prior to the public release:

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin’s response to the UN report

Forwarded from Ari Bussel

Forward sent: 6/22/2015 12:18 PM

Communicated by the President’s Spokesperson

22 June 2015 / 5 Tammuz 5775

Government Press Office (GPO) English Homepage

“Just one year has passed since the Israel Defense Forces were required to stand, as a protective edge, for the people of Israel. We lost many of our loved ones, and we still await the return of two of our late sons, and we still hope for the recovery of the wounded. Also last summer, the IDF proved its strength, ability, and above all, its uniqueness, and the ethical and moral place which it holds.

I am proud, as all of Israel should be proud, of the moral strength, and the military abilities of the Israel Defense Forces. I do not see how anybody could judge us and tarnish our name. The moral dilemmas which we face require split-second decisions, when we have a duty and a right to defend the citizens of Israel – women, children, babies – under attack, and when our enemy tramples international law and uses its people as human shields.

As strong as we are, and as sophisticated as our capabilities are, it is incumbent upon us to ask: When do we use force, how do we use it and for what purpose. I have no doubt that the soldiers and officers of the IDF know to ask this question in a timely manner, and to make difficult decisions in real time, without the need for investigations by external bodies. Only one who understands what force is, understands it limits.”

For further details: Jason Pearlman, Foreign Media Advisor, jason@president.gov.il

Here is the full PDF of the UNHRC Report (my PDF copy has 183 pages).

Here is a letter from a high level international military group that essentially refutes the UNHRC Report accusations against Israel (published on June 12).

Here is the Israeli government investigative PDF report on operations of the IDF (Operation Protective Edge) and Hamas prosecution of the Gaza conflict: The 2014 Gaza Conflict – 7 July – 26 August 2014: Factual and Legal Aspect released in May 2015 (277 pages).

And here is some selected excerpts from Legal Insurrection about the truth who actually committed war crimes in the Gaza Conflict:

False statistics about civilian casualties were put out by Hamas ministries and then adopted without question by the UN, “human rights” groups, and the media to create the narrative that “most” or “almost all” or the “vast majority” of deaths were civilian.

Critics of Israel have yet to explain how Israel was supposed to stop Hamas from firing rockets, tunneling under the border, or landing commandos by sea without firing into the civilian areas from which Hamas was operating.

During the 2014 Gaza conflict, we covered the deliberate Hamas tactic of firing from civilian areas (including those next to hospitals and apartments,) as well as how Hamas used the main Gaza hospital as a military headquarters. Almost all of this was covered up by the media:

· Hamas: We intimidated reporters into not covering rocket firing

· Foreign Press Assoc protests “blatant, incessant, forceful and unorthodox” Hamas intimidation

· Watch Hamas set up and fire rocket next to residential buildings

· Hamas hides in, under and around Gaza’s main hospital, and the media covers it up

·Media cover- up of Hamas crimes starting to unravel

· More media cover-up for Hamas exposed

We were well aware of the allegations made by some governments, the United Nations, human rights groups and the media, that Israel acted outside the laws of armed conflict in Gaza. Some have suggested that the IDF lacked restraint or even deliberately targeted innocent civilians.

Our findings lead us to the opposite conclusion. We examined the circumstances that led to the tragic conflict last summer and are in no doubt that this was not a war that Israel wanted. In reality Israel sought to avoid the conflict and exercised great restraint over a period of months before the war when its citizens were targeted by sporadic rocket attacks from Gaza. …

Hamas launched attacks against Israel from the heart of its own civilian communities in Gaza and positioned its munitions and military forces there also, including in schools, hospitals and mosques. As well as carefully documented IDF evidence of this, we have viewed international media footage confirming several cases and are aware of senior Hamas officials’ own claims to have used human shields. …

Measures taken to warn civilians included phone calls, SMS messages, leaflet drops, radio broadcasts, communication via Gaza-based UN staff and the detonation of harmless warning explosive charges, known as “knock on the roof”. Where possible the IDF sought also to give guidance on safe areas and safe routes…. [Bold text this Blog Editor]

READ ENTIRETY (Getting the Gaza “war crimes” truth out, before the UN lies; Posted by William A. Jacobson; Legal Insurrection; 6/14/15 9:00pm)

The sad fact is Hamas and Palestinian Authority Arabs that call themselves Palestinians have been engrained with Jew-Hatred ever since the days of their false prophet known as Mohammed (or Muhammad or Mohamet or whatever). As I wrote earlier the Jew-Hatred is in the Islamic considered holy writings are rampant. Indeed, Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf has been a perennial best seller in Muslim markets from WWII until this present day.

This brings to the inspiration of this expose on Muslim Jew-Hatred (sugar coated by the word ‘Antisemitism’). I read a Middle East Quarterly post on the creep that exploited the Muslim encoded religious hatred of Jews to do all he could to keep Jews from returning to their Homeland before and after WWII. The notorious figure was Muhammad Hajj Amin Husseini who managed to squirrel his way with British help to become the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. This nefarious individual actually hooked up with Adolf Hitler himself to find Nazi support in aiding der Further in the Nazi Final Solution for Jews in the Muslim world. Husseini began by recruiting Bosnian Muslims to be Muslim Waffen SS Jew exterminators in the Eastern European area in what would be a Communist Yugoslavia after WWII.

VIDEO: Nazi Palestinians and the holocaust: the muslim Bosnian Waffen SS

Posted by Rauhanuskontoko

Posted on Apr 4, 2012

Nazi palestinians: Heinrich Himmlers and mufti Haj Amin Al-Husseinis plan to exterminate the jews. Palestinians and the holocaust: the muslim Bosnian Waffen SS

Egyptian Yasser Arafat who eventually led the PLO and then the PA, a consummate terrorist in his own right was an early disciple of al-Husseini at age 16. Arafat hero worshipped the old Grand Mufti so much that some sources list Arafat as a nephew, others as a distant cousin and others as a close hero worshipper.

And now it is time to read the MEQ story on the founder of modern Muslim Jew-hatred – Muhammad Haj Amin al Husseini (or the remarkable amount of alternative spellings).

JRH 6/26/15

Please Support NCCR

**************************

Hajj Amin Husseini’s Anti-Semitic Legacy

By Boris Havel

Summer 2015

Middle East Quarterly

The Jerusalem mufti, Muhammad Hajj Amin Husseini (left), meets with SS-Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler, April 1943.

The Jerusalem mufti, Muhammad Hajj Amin Husseini, leader of the Palestinian Arabs from the early 1920s to the late 1940s, is widely known for his close collaboration with the Nazis during World War II. Aspects of the collaboration remain to be more thoroughly scrutinized.[1]However, and without discounting his culpability for the collapse and dispersal of Palestinian Arab society (or al-Nakba, the catastophe, as it is called by Palestinians and Arabs), Hajj Amin’s role in shaping Muslim perceptions of Jews might be a far more important and lasting legacy than his political activism in Palestine, Germany, or elsewhere.[2] An important source supporting this fact is a booklet he authored for Muslim soldiers enlisted in the Nazi SS division in Bosnia.

During the mufti’s stay in Berlin in 1941-45, he befriended Hitler’s right-hand man, Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler. Himmler’s fascination with Islam and the mufti’s zealous support for the Nazi cause resulted in several common enterprises, notably the establishment of a volunteer Waffen-SS division in Bosnia, made up mostly of Bosnian Muslims, later named the Handzar division. Most books about the division display photographs of its soldiers—distinguishable by its insignia on uniform lapels and fez headgear—reading a booklet titled Islam und Judentum—most certainly the German version of the mufti’s Croatian or Bosnian pamphlet Islam i židovstvo (Islam and Judaism).

In whatever language the pamphlet was originally written, the intended readers were Muslims (Bosnian or otherwise) and not Germans. This author has been unable to locate a German copy of the pamphlet, but it is reasonable to regard the text written in the language of the Bosnian Muslims (at the time called Croatian) as the most relevant. A translation of the booklet is presented below, followed by an analysis of its significance and far reaching implications.[3]

Islam and Judaism (Islam i židovstvo)

For us Muslims, it is unworthy to utter the word Islam in the same breath with Judaism since Islam stands high over its perfidious adversary. Therefore, it would be wrong to carry out comparison of those two generally different counterpoints.

Unfortunately, it is insufficiently known that animosity between Islam and Judaism is not of a recent date. It reaches long back in history, all the way to the time of the Prophet Muhammad. This short historical overview will demonstrate the importance and perfidiousness of Jewry and its animosity toward the founder of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad.

Jews are known in history only as a subjugated people. Their vulgar[4] nature and insufferable stance toward the nations that offered them hospitality, and toward their neighboring nations, are the reason that those same nations had to resort to [certain] measures in order to suppress a Jew’s efforts to obtain his[5] desire by force.

The history of antiquity shows us that the pharaohs were already forced to use all means against Jewish usury and Jewish immorality. Ancient Egyptians finally expelled the Jews from their land. Led by Moses, the Jews then arrived in the Sinai desert.

Arab theologian Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari [839-923 C.E.] narrates that the Jews even wanted to kill their leader and savior Moses when he came back from Mount Sinai. Because of that, God punished them, and they had to meander in the wilderness for forty years. It should have brought them to their senses, and the new generation should have been cleansed from the low esteem of their fathers.

Following that, the Jews spread like locust all over the Arab peninsula. They came to Mecca, to Medina, to Iraq, and to Palestine, which is the land of milk and honey. The group of the Jews that came to Syria and Palestine was now under Roman rule. The Romans, however, soon discerned the peril that threatened the land from the Jews, and so they introduced harsh measures against them. Besides that, a serious, contagious illness of plague erupted, which was by common opinion brought into the land by Jews. When even medical doctors stated that the Jews were indeed the source of the infection—and their opinion was obviously correct—there arose among the people such upheaval against the Jews that many Jews were killed. In addition, that event is the reason why the Jews have been called “microbes” in Arabia to this very day.

The mufti of Jerusalem, Muhammad Hajj Amin Husseini, visits the volunteer Nazi Waffen-SS division in Bosnia, made up mostly of Bosnian Muslims. The mufti was instrumental in the division’s formation.

The Arabs have a particular understanding for introducing forceful measures against Jews in Germany and for their expulsion from the country. After the [First] World War, England and America enabled the Jews to settle in Palestine and to establish a Jewish state there. Jewish excrement from all countries assembled there, rascally striving to seize the land from Arabs. And indeed, they succeeded in buying land from the poorest of the poor and from unscrupulous landlords. By doing so, they took poor widows’ bread and stole food from children to fatten themselves.[6] When the Arabs opposed the Jewish settlement, the Jews did not shun bloody murders. So they robbed many families of their livelihood and threw the families into misery and troubles. (God will punish them for those disgraceful deeds).

The Jewish struggle against Arabs is nothing new for us, except that as time passed, the location of the battlefield changed. Jews hate Muhammad and Islam, and they hate any man who wishes to advance the prosperity of his people and to fight against Jewish lust for possessions and Jewish corruption.

Struggle between Jews and Islam began when Muhammad fled Mecca to Medina where he created the base for the development of Islam. At that time, Jews were merchants, already permeated with guile, and they understood that Muhammad’s influence, in both the spiritual and business spheres, could turn into a danger for them. Thus they were possessed by a deep hatred toward Islam; hatred that intensified as Islam was growing more solid and powerful. The Jews breached the agreement they had concluded with Muhammad in Khaibar, of which we shall speak later. Moreover, their rage grew immensely when the Qur’an revealed the deepest inclinations of their soul, their heartlessness, and unscrupulousness by which their ancestors had been commonly known. At that time, the Jewish methods were already the same as they are today. Their weapon has been, as always, slander and quarrel, and so they attempted to humiliate Muhammad in the eyes of his followers. They claimed that he was a deceiver, an enchanter, and a liar. When they did not succeed in this, they attempted to undermine Muhammad’s honor by spreading a rumor that his wife Aisha committed adultery. The purpose of spreading such a rumor was to sow doubt in the hearts of Muhammad’s followers.

When that failed, they tried to show Muhammad’s teaching in a bad light. With that purpose, several Jews converted to Islam; only a few days later, they returned to the Jewish faith. When asked why they changed their mind so suddenly, they replied that they were very willing to settle in Islam but found that all of it is nothing but a lie. The following Qur’anic verse alludes to that:

Many of those knowledgeable in the Scriptures attempt to somehow render you infidels again by converting to our religion. It was, though, nothing but their souls’ envy, when they comprehended truth.[7]

When the Jews understood that they would not reach their goal by the means used until then, they started to ask Muhammad various meaningless and unsolvable questions. Thus, they wanted to convince others that Muhammad was poor in knowledge and wisdom. However, that method achieved no success. As they were thus persuaded that Islam was deeply rooted in the hearts of the Muslims, they commenced with the attempts to destroy the Muslims. Pursuant to that goal, they paid some non-Muslim tribes to fight against Muhammad. The almighty God, however, wanted it differently. With iron fist, Muhammad defeated the rebellious tribes and conquered their city. The Jews could not bear such a defeat, and so they decided to destroy Muhammad in every way. They hired men to murder him.

The Medina Jews lived in the city district of Banu Nadir. When Muhammad came to Medina, he concluded a contract with them. One day he set out to that city district, accompanied by only ten companions, to talk to the Jews and to try to convert them to Islam. Muhammad explained the principles of Islam to the Jews, and they seemed very interested and open-minded. Yet as Muhammad was talking in a friendly way with some of the Jews, another group prepared an attempt on his life. They persuaded a man to throw a piece of rock on Muhammad’s head. Surely Muhammad would have been killed were it not for God, who warned him. An inner voice advised him to leave that place, and so the treacherous Jews could not carry out their design. Consequently Muhammad sent a companion to deliver his message to the Jews to leave the city within ten days. They had breached the contract they concluded with him by trying to take his life. Any Jew found in the city after those ten days would be punished by death.

However, some of the Jews, who outwardly accepted Islam but in their innermost remained Jewish, persuaded other Jews not to leave the city. When the ten days passed, Muhammad was forced to expel the Jews from the city by armed force. Part of the Jews fled to Khaibar and part to Syria.

The Jews who fled to Khaibar, however, would not concede defeat and decided to avenge themselves on Muhammad. For that purpose, they turned to other Khaibar Jews and to the Jews of Taima and of Wadi Qura. Together they plotted a conspiracy: With large sums of money, they agitated non-Muslim Arab tribes to attack Medina. When Muhammad discovered their plan he quickly armed his men and set out toward the plotters’ base in Khaibar. Muhammad’s companions captured Khaibar and expelled most Jews from the site. With the remaining Jews, Muhammad concluded a contract by which peace was guaranteed.

Only after that devastating defeat [of the Jews] could an Islamic Empire peacefully develop. But when one takes into account the Jewish significance, it was not to be wondered that Jews, in spite of the agreements made, did not abandon their plans and continued to try to destroy Muhammad by all available means. They invited him to a feast, and he accepted the invitation suspecting no evil. In front of him was placed a roasted lamb prepared by the Jewess Zainab, wife of Sallam ibn Mishkam.[8] The [topic of] conversation around the table was the contract and a peaceful life in mutual agreement in which they now lived. Muhammad had not the slightest suspicion about treason. The Prophet and his faithful companion Bashr ibn Bara each took a piece of lamb meat. Muhammad, however, did not swallow his bite because its taste made him suspicious.

“The bone tells me that the lamb was poisoned,” he said and called the Jewess Zainab to ask whether the meat had been poisoned. She answered, “You know I am highly esteemed by the Jews, and I acknowledge that I have poisoned the lamb. In so doing, I thought that if you were a king, I would only kill a king, but if you were indeed a prophet, you would know that the meat had been poisoned.”

Muhammad’s companion soon succumbed to the poison’s effect, whereas Muhammad, despite spitting the poisonous bite, later suffered various health disorders, and the impact of the poison had always been evident. Some historians even believe that Muhammad’s death was a consequence of that poisoning. In this matter, they refer to a hadith by Abu Huraira, whereby the Prophet said shortly before his death, “The effect of Khaibar’s feast will manifest in me until I die!”[9]

We, the Muslims, must always bear in mind the Khaibar feast. If the Jews betrayed Muhammad in such a way, why wouldn’t they treacherously persecute us today with the purpose of destroying us?!

Many books about the Waffen-SS division in Bosnia display photographs of its soldiers reading a booklet titled Islam und Judentum—most certainly the German version of the mufti’s Croatian or Bosnian pamphlet Islam i židovstvo (Islam and Judaism). The booklet offers a stark illustration of the lengths taken by the mufti to demonize Jews and Judaism and clearly was produced for propaganda and incitement purposes.

Now, the Jews were persuaded that Muhammad was immune to their attacks. Therefore, they made a decision to spread discord among the Arab tribes, so as to break the power of Islam. When Muhammad went back to Medina, he succeeded in reconciling the Arab tribes of Kawsha and Karasha,[10] which had been fighting each other ceaselessly for 120 years. In doing so, he significantly strengthened Islam’s position. Members of those two [formerly] hostile tribes became brethren in Islam, and peace
entered the city. In this regard, the Jews tried to undermine the Islamic empire.

A revengeful old man by the name of Shas ibn Qais one day walked with his friends and came across an assembly of the reconciled tribes held in city square. He could not bear to see how [the members of] those two tribes, formerly at war with each other, now communicated nicely, and so devised a hellish plan. He sent to their assembly a friend of his, knowledgeable in war poems, and persuaded him to recite some of his old poems that were full of hatred. That Jew, an outstanding orator, came indeed to the assembly and started to recite old war poems of both tribes. By doing so, he managed to find in each tribe a man in whom old hatred flared up. Those two men started to fight each other and then urged their fellow-tribesmen to take up arms. An immense tragedy would have ensued were it not for Muhammad, who learned about the fight amongst brethren and hurried up to the battlefield.

“Oh my God, are the old times returning even while I am still amongst you!” he shouted. “When I gave you Islam as religion, the old fratricidal discord was buried, and you became brothers in your hearts. Do you wish to slip into infidelity again?”

Both tribes understood that disturbances among them were sown by the Jews alone. They threw away their weapons and asked God for forgiveness, and then they hugged each other and concluded a new brotherly alliance. Regarding Shas ibn Qais the Jew, it is said in the Qur’an,

Oh, you scribes,[11] why do you prevent the believer from walking on God’s path when you are witnesses yourselves? But God is not blind for what you do.[12]

Regarding the tribes of Kawsha and Karasha, the Qur’an said,

Oh, you who believe, would you listen to those who received the Scripture, so that they would turn you into unbelievers again, after you have received faith! How can you be infidels when God’s words were read to you, and his apostle is among you? He who holds unto God has already been introduced to a straight path.[13]

Notwithstanding their attempts, the Jews never succeeded in spreading division among Muhammad’s followers and in dragging them back into infidelity. However, even after all these events should have taught them the futility of their efforts, they persistently continued to carry out their devilish plans. Once, they tried by deceit to even bring down Muhammad himself.

There was a quarrel between two Jewish tribes, and the side that was wrong held an assembly and sent its leaders to Muhammad. Those Jewish leaders said to Muhammad, “You know that we are influential people. If you support us in our dispute with our opponents, we will apply all our influence to make all Jews convert to Islam.” Muhammad, of course, dismissed them. There is a verse in the Qur’an about this event:

Be careful to make decisions according to what God has revealed and not to consider their desires. Keep your guard toward them so that they would not even partially shift you from what God has revealed to you. If they rebel, know that God will surely punish them for a part of their sins. There are, indeed, many men who are evildoers.[14]

Another example of Jewish subversive action was recorded by Ibn Abbas. At the time when Muhammad went from Mecca to Medina, prayers were directed toward Jerusalem. However, it lasted only for seventeen months. Then Muhammad received God’s revelation that the direction of prayers should be Mecca, and ever since, prayers are uttered with faces turned to Mecca. The Qur’an says about this:

We see how you turn your face toward heaven, and we would like to give it a direction which you will like: Turn your face toward the holy place of prayer; wherever you find yourselves, turn your face in that direction. Don’t you see that even those who had received the Scripture know that it is the truth before their Lord? And God is never heedless of what they do.[15]

When the Jews found out about this Qur’anic verse, they were angered and asked Muhammad to return to the previous direction of prayer, which was Jerusalem. Were he to do so, they promised, all Jews would accept Islam. Muhammad, however, did not allow himself to be led astray by such a proposal and to transgress against God’s command. We find the following in the Qur’an about that:

The direction to which you used to turn in prayer until now we have changed only for the purpose of distinguishing those who follow apostles from those who turn on their heel. That was surely difficult but not for those led by God. And God does not want to destroy your faith because God is full of goodness and compassionate to men.[16]

Here is another example how the Jews did not hesitate to stab Muhammad in the back at the time of his utmost distress. When Muhammad won the Battle of Badr, he sent a messenger on his own camel, because that camel was the fastest, to carry the news about his victory to Medina. The Jews, however, tried to bring confusion into the Muslims’ ranks by spreading false rumors that Muhammad had been killed in the battle. As evidence, they pointed out that Muhammad’s camel returned to the city with another rider.

When even that design failed, the Jews turned to Mecca to incite Muhammad’s enemies against him. Moreover, they declared their readiness to support the Meccans in their fight against Muhammad with an army of theirs. When the pagans of Mecca asked the Jews—since the Jews had received the Holy Scripture even before Muhammad—whether or not Muhammad’s religion was good, the Jews answered, “You know that we are men of letters. Believe us, therefore, when we tell you that your religion is much better.” The following verse is in the Qur’an about this:

Don’t you see those who received the Scriptures? They believe in Jibt and Taghut [superstition and idolatry], but they nevertheless say about pagans that their way is better than believers’ way. Those are the ones whom God has cursed, and he who was cursed by God cannot be helped.[17]

As we see, that curse came true. Without a homeland, the Jews are scattered throughout the whole world, and nowhere do they find true help and support. Another Qur’anic verse reads:

You will certainly find out that the greatest animosity toward the believers foster the Jews and the pagans.[18]

That idea has been even better expressed by words of Muhammad: “It will never be possible for you to see a Muslim and a Jew together without secret intention in the [heart of the] Jew to destroy the Muslim.”[19] Abu Huraira passed to us the following hadith:

Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims completely destroy the Jews, and when every tree with a Jew hidden behind will say to the Muslim, “There is a Jew behind me, kill him!” Only the gharqad tree, which is a small bush with many thorns growing around Jerusalem, will not participate in it because it is a Jewish tree! [Bukhari-Muslim VIII, p. 188].

Assessing the Pamphlet

The booklet Islam and Judaism offers a stark illustration of the lengths taken by the mufti to demonize Jews and Judaism. Qur’anic passages are freely paraphrased without reference to sura and verse while apparent quotations (like those about Jews converting insincerely to Islam in order to drag Muslims away from their faith) are nowhere to be found in the Qur’an, certainly not in the translation by Muhammed Pandža and Džemaluddin Čaušević[20] used by Yugoslav Muslims since 1937. Indicating the pamphlet’s clear propaganda and incitement purpose, this sloppiness reflected both Hajj Amin’s poor religious credentials and his apparent conviction that the pamphlet would not be subjected to critical scrutiny or even read by believers well-versed in the Qur’an. For, though bestowed with the title of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Mandatory Palestine’s highest religious authority, it was common knowledge at the time that Hajj Amin did not possess the necessary religious credentials for such a lofty post. Indeed, he even failed to make the final short-list for the mufti’s post having received only nine of the electors’ sixty-four votes; but the Husseinis and their British champions forced one of the final three candidates to step down in his favor, paving the road to his appointment.[21]

Some of the pamphlet’s assertions indicate the mufti’s deficient familiarity with Islamic history and theology. Nor was Hajj Amin averse to introducing novelties and fabrications for the purpose of defaming Jews. His text contains details with an unconventional interpretation of Qur’anic accounts, some of them erroneous. He accuses the Jews of having “attempted to undermine Muhammad’s honor by spreading a rumor that Muhammad’s wife Aisha committed adultery.” But renowned Islamic scholars, including Tabari, to whom the mufti refers in the booklet, do not mention the Jews at all in the context of this event: Aisha’s accusers were all Arabs. Some came from the tribe of Kharzaj; at least one was from the Quraish, Muhammad’s tribe, and another was the sister of Muhammad’s wife. Their names are listed in both Ibn Ishak’s and Tabari’s accounts of the event. After God revealed Aisha’s innocence to Muhammad, some of the accusers were punished by flogging.[22]

Furthermore, the mufti claimed that Muhammad attacked Khaibar because its Jews bribed Arab tribes to attack Medina. The sources, however, do not mention any such activity by the Khaibar Jews. Khaibar was in alliance with the Arab tribe of Ghatafan—which at this point seemed to be rather defensive—with the Quraish, and with the Persians. Muhammad’s attack occurred shortly after he concluded the peace of Hudaibiya (March 628) with the Meccans. It is hard to envisage that Muhammad’s enemies would plot an attack from the north without Meccan support. On the contrary, it seems that he concluded the peace of Hudaibiya to secure his southern front so as to be able to attack the Khaibar Jews, whose Persian allies had just been defeated by the Byzantine army.[23]

There remains a deep connection between Islamism and Nazism based on the common characteristics of racism, nationalism, religious bigotry, and intolerance. Hitler’s Mein Kampf has been a bestseller for years in predominantly Muslim countries, including the Palestinian Authority and Turkey.

There was, however, an event reminiscent of the mufti’s story that occurred a year earlier. The Jews of Medina had invited the Quraish and Ghatafan tribes to attack Muhammad. It was at this point, after the Battle of Badr, that the Quraish asked the Jews whose religion was better, theirs or Muhammad’s. Encouraged by the Jews, the two tribes marched on Medina, and their subsequent abortive attack came to be known as the Battle of the Ditch. After their retreat, Muhammad attacked Medina’s Jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza.[24] It seems likely that the mufti—unless he intentionally invented stories, a possibility that cannot be ruled out—confused the episode of the Banu Quraiza with that of Muhammad’s war on Khaibar.

Far more important than these technical details and idiosyncratic interpretations are the novelties the pamphlet introduces in Islamic political discourse regarding the Jews. By combining the Islamic canon with pre-Christian and Christian anti-Judaism, it attributes strengths and powers to Jews that cannot be found in Islamic tradition by portraying them as far more cunning and successful in their vicious designs than previous mainstream Islamic thought had recognized or permitted.

A simpler example of this anti-Jewish eclecticism can be found in the mufti’s accusation that Jews brought plague to Arabia. This statement evokes medieval European myths with similar themes. More significant is the notion that Muhammad’s death might have been a result of poison given to him by a Khaibar Jewess.

To be sure, Ibn Ishak and Tabari do mention how during the illness that led to his death Muhammad spoke to Umm Bashr, mother of his poisoned companion, and complained about his pain, caused by poisonous meat he had tasted three years earlier.[25] However, in classic Islamic thought, this tradition was not interpreted as proof that the Jewess had succeeded in her attempt on the Prophet’s life but as a desire to attribute to the Prophet the highest of virtues: martyrdom. In Ibn Ishak’s words, “The Muslims considered that the apostle died as a martyr in addition to the prophetic office with which God had honored him.”[26] Tabari repeats this explanation, as does Ibn Kathir (1300-73), who referred to eight different hadiths asserting that Muhammad had been warned by God about the poison: proof of his being a genuine prophet. Conversely, Ibn Kathir states that “the Messenger of God died a martyr.”[27]

The core theme of all these traditions is the Prophet’s martyrdom and not the Jews’ lethal craft; the reader is left with the clear impression that the two phenomena were unrelated. In contrast, the mufti’s pamphlet establishes the link and changes the emphasis from the Prophet’s virtue to the Jews’ mendacity. Apparently, his intention was to draw parallels with Christian traditions regarding Christ’s killing by the Jews. This accusation was intended to provoke more anger among Muslims, but it also violated Islamic tradition and theology.

The implications of the mufti’s claim that the Jews were successful in killing Muhammad despite God’s warning imply that Jews possess the power to defy God’s will. Such a blasphemous thought would be worse than Christian accusation of deicide. Jesus overcame death, and by his suffering, death and resurrection brought salvation to his community of believers; however, Muhammad not only remained dead but also failed to appoint his successor due to the rapid progression of his illness and his sudden, untimely demise. Consequently, the umma was split by different claimants to authority, and the dispute eventually led to the fiercest internecine strife in the history of early Islam, known as the fitna.

While the mufti’s Palestinian successors would not tire of reiterating this story (as late as November 2013, Palestinian Authority minister of religious affairs Mahmoud Habbash claimed that Yasser Arafat was poisoned by the Jews just as they had poisoned the Prophet Muhammad to death),[28]most contemporary Islamic scholars have a different understanding of this hazardous theology; inasmuch, the accusation that the Jews killed the Prophet has largely faded as a theological theme with mainstream Islamic commentary viewing the Jews, along the Qur’anic derision, as “adh-dhilla wa-l-maskan,” translated by Yehoshafat Harkabi as “humiliation and wretchedness.”[29] Bernard Lewis further explained:

The outstanding characteristic, therefore, of the Jews as seen and as treated in the classical Islamic world is their unimportance. … For Muslims, he might be hostile, cunning, and vindictive, but he was weak and ineffectual—an object of ridicule, not fear. This image of weakness and insignificance could only be confirmed by the subsequent history of Jewish life in Muslim lands.[30]

Departing from this conventional view, the mufti did not interpret contemporary events as a new historical phenomenon to which Muslims should respond in a new, ad hoc manner. Instead, he traced Jewish accomplishments of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, and the alleged Jewish power and ambitions, to supposed Jewish activities at the time of Muhammad. In doing so, he created a precedent, later followed by prominent Islamic actors in the Middle East and elsewhere, particularly after Israel’s stunning military victories over its Arab adversaries. Thus Hamas accuses the Jews of “wiping out the Islamic caliphate” by starting World War I and of starting the French and the communist revolutions, establishing “clandestine organizations” and financial power so as to colonize, exploit, and corrupt countries.[31] Likewise, former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Muhammad accused Jews of ruling the world by proxy.[32] Attributing such gargantuan accomplishments to the Jews, many of them at the expense of Muslims, presents a theological innovation with an immediate political consequence. Linking early Islamic with medieval Christian depictions of Jews results in their portrayal as “a demonic entity,” thus making their “extermination legitimate.”[33]

++

Boris Havel holds an M.A. in comparative religion from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Ph.D. in international relations and national security from the University of Zagreb. He works at the Croatian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and teaches at the Biblical Institute, Zagreb, Croatia. His most recent book is An Overview of the History of Israel: From Abraham to the Modern State (Izdanja Antibarbarus, 2015).

[Foot Notes]

[1] Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers, Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine, trans. Krista Smith (New York: Enigma Books in Association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2010), p. viii.

 

 

[2] Boris Havel, “Haj Amin al-Husseini: Herald of Religious Anti-Judaism in the Contemporary Islamic World,”The Journal of the Middle East and Africa, 3 (2014): 221-43.

 

 

[3] The following text has been translated from the original pamphlet: Veliki Muftija Jeruzalemski Hadži Emin el-Huseini, Islam I Židovstvo (Zagreb: Hrvatski tiskarski zavod, 1943). I wish to thank the staff of the National and University Library in Zagreb for tracing the booklet. The Qur’anic verses and hadith are translated as they appear in the original text.

 

 

[4] The word “prostačkoj” can also be translated as: obscene, dirty, or indecent.

 

 

[5] This word was written in singular in the original text and introduces the notion that the average Jew was such; by referring to “a Jew,” the author refers to the whole people.

 

 

[6] The mufti fails to note that prominent members of his own family, including his father, were among the “unscrupulous landlords” selling plots of land to the Jews. See Efraim Karsh, Palestine Betrayed (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), pp. 15-19.

 

 

[7] Sura 2:109.-Ed.

 

 

[8] Ibn-Ishak, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s “Sirat Rasul Allah” by A. Guillaume(Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2004; repr., 1967), p. 516; Tabari, The History of al-Tabari [Ta’rikh al-Rusul Wa-l-Muluk] (New York: State University of New York Press, 1987-97), vol. VIII, pp. 123-4.- Ed.

 

 

[9] Bukhari’s Hadith, 4.394.-Ed.

 

 

[10] The author probably refers to the Arab tribes of Aws and Kharzaj though the transliteration (Kauša i Karaša) barely resembles those names.

 

 

[11] The word “pismenjaci” refers to the “People of the Book” (sljedbenici knjige in Čaušević-Pandža).

 

 

[12] Sura 3:99.-Ed.

 

 

[13] Sura 3:99-101.-Ed.

 

 

[14] Sura 5:41-5.-Ed.

 

 

[15] Sura 2:144-9.-Ed.

 

 

[16] Sura 2:142-3.-Ed.

 

 

[17] Sura 4:51-5.-Ed.

 

 

[18] Sura 5:82.-Ed.

 

 

[19] There is no Qur’anic verse with this message. The mufti perhaps refers to a non-canonical hadith or obscure tradition.

 

 

[20] Muhammed Pandža and Džemaluddin Čaušević (eds.), Kuran, Sedmo Izdanje (South Birmingham: Islamic Relief, 1937-89). Though the Qur’an condemns those who falsely feigned Islamic belief (e.g., sura 2:8-9, or sura 63), this condemnation does not specifically apply to the Jews but rather to the wider category of “hypocrites.”

 

 

[21] Karsh, Palestine Betrayed, p. 17; David Dalin and John Rothmann, Icon of Evil: Hitler’s Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam (New York: Random House, 2008), p. 252.

 

 

[22] Ibn-Ishak, The Life of Muhammad, pp. 492-9; Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, vol. VIII, pp. 57-67; Qur’an: sura 24:11-26.

 

 

[23] Michael Lecker, “The Hudaybiyya-Treaty and the Expedition against Khaybar,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 5 (1984), pp. 1-12.

 

 

[24] Ibn-Ishak, The Life of Muhammad, pp. 450-69.

 

 

[25] Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, vol VIII, p. 124.

 

 

[26] Ibn-Ishak, The Life of Muhammad, p. 516.

 

 

[27] Ibn-Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), trans. Trevor Le Gassick (Reading: Garnet Publishing, 2000-06), vol. 3, pp. 283-7.

 

 

[28] Palestinian Authority TV, Nov. 8, 2013; “PA: Arafat was poisoned by Jews like Islam’s Prophet Muhammad,” trans. Palestinian Media Watch, Nov. 12, 2013.

 

 

[29] Yehoshafat Harkabi, Arab Attitudes to Israel (Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press, 1972), p. 220.

 

 

[30] Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites (London: Phoenix, 1997), pp. 117-39.

 

 

[31] See, for example, “Hamas Covenant 1988,” Yale Law School Avalon Project, accessed Mar. 14, 2015.

 

 

[32] CNN, Oct. 16, 2003.

 

 

[33] Moshe Sharon, Jihad: Islam against Israel and the West (Jerusalem: Moshe Sharon, 2007), pp. 77-8

_________________________

Exploring Muslim Jew-Hatred

John R. Houk

© June 26, 2015

_________________________

Hajj Amin Husseini’s Anti-Semitic Legacy

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

©1994-2015 The Middle East Forum

DONATE

Nails to the Coffin Holding the Constitution


John R. Houk

© June 24, 2015

Ted Cruz originally favored TPP, but he has seen the light of his corrupt GOP Leadership RINOs pushing backroom deals. NOW Senator Cruz opposes this threat to our sovereignty, Constitution and immigration laws.

Apparently journalist political wags predict TPP to pass an up or down vote on the Senate floor today-Wednesday. As I am writing this it is about 4:53 PM I have discovered TPP has passed the Senate; thus thanks to the GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner TPP advances to President Barack Hussein Obama’s desk for signature:

The Senate on Wednesday cleared legislation that will strengthen President Barack Obama’s power to negotiate a Pacific trade deal, ending a weekslong struggle to lift the measure out of the political quicksand that repeatedly came close to trapping it in both chambers.

The legislation, passed 60-38, will give Mr. Obama “fast track” authority that allows him to submit trade deals to Congress for an up-or-down vote without amendments. Negotiators have said that process is crucial to completing the 12-nation trade deal with countries around the Pacific Ocean, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Already approved by the House, the bill now heads to the White House for Mr. Obama’s signature. Its passage delivers a rare legislative victory for the second-term president whose agenda has largely stalled in a Congress now fully controlled by Republicans.

Wednesday’s vote capped a fitful campaign that joined the White House, top GOP leaders and centrist Democrats to push through Congress legislation that both ends of the political spectrum opposed. Liberals viewed expanded trade as detrimental to U.S. jobs, while conservative members didn’t want to expand Mr. Obama’s authority. (Fast-Track Trade Bill Clears Senate; From Dow Jones Newswires; Fox Business; 6/24/15)

Senator Cruz indicated he changed his mind from supporting fast tracking TPP/TPA finally becoming cognizant of Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell lies in secretive backroom deals. Especially pertaining to immigration. This would mean he was one of 38 nays in the up and down vote taken today on TPA out 60 treasonous yeas.

It is too late to pressure your Senator about the outcome which gives Obama near dictatorial powers in trade agreements that will further “fundamental transformation” of America agenda, it appears that the 2016 election cycle will be America’s last chance to rid the USA of self-deluded Democrats and RINO/Establishment Republicans. If you have a Republican as your Representative or Senator who claims a Conservative pedigree yet voted a “yea” for TPP/TPA and associated acronyms deleterious to an Original Intent Constitutional government, that Republican is either lying or self-deceived. Get rid of that Republican in the Primaries and of course the Democrat in the General Election.

A successful Democrat and GOP Establishment election in 2016 could represent the last nails in the coffin containing the Constitutions intended Liberty and Freedom.

JRH 6/24/15

Please Support NCCR

***************************

TED CRUZ: OBAMATRADE ENMESHED IN CORRUPT, BACKROOM DEALINGS

By Colleen Conley

June 23, 2015

Tea Party News Network

In an exclusive at Breitbart, Ted Cruz writes today of the corrupt back room dealings and changes to TPA since he initially voted for the bill in the Senate.

In his article, Cruz states that in general, he “believes that free trade is good for America, but regarding TPA, Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington back room deal-making. He also writes that he has “serious concerns that it would open up the potential for sweeping changes in our laws that trade agreements typically do not include.”

Cruz goes further to write:

“Since the Senate first voted on TPA, there have been two material changes.”

“First, WikiLeaks subsequently revealed new troubling information regarding the Trade in Services Agreement, or TiSA, one of the trade deals being negotiated by Obama.”

“Despite the administration’s public assurances that it was not negotiating on immigration, several chapters of the TiSA draft posted online explicitly contained potential changes in federal immigration law. TPA would cover TiSA, and therefore these changes would presumably be subject to be fast-track.”

Cruz says that when TPA last came up for a vote in the Senate, both he and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) introduced amendments that would have barred fast-track treatment for any trade agreement that attempted to impact immigration law, but two other Republican senators objected, and thus they were both denied votes on their amendments. He goes on:

“At the time that Sessions and I introduced our amendments, many said our fears were unfounded. But now we have far more reason to be concerned.”

“Second, TPA’s progress through the House and Senate appears to have been made possible by secret deals between Republican Leadership and the Democrats.”

Cruz explains that TPA was blocked by a group of senators led by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), “both of whom were conditioning their support on the unrelated objective of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.” Said Cruz:

“The Ex-Im Bank is a classic example of corporate welfare. It is crony capitalism at its worst, with U.S. taxpayers guaranteeing billions of dollars in loans for sketchy buyers in foreign nations. Ex-Im is scheduled to wind down on June 30. But powerful lobbyists in Washington want to keep the money flowing.”

Cruz suspected that Republican Leadership had promised supporters of Ex-Im a vote to reauthorize the bank before it winds down. When he asked Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) what precise deal had been cut to pass TPA, McConnell stated me “that there was no deal whatsoever.”

Taking McConnell at his word that there was no deal on Ex-Im, Cruz voted yes on TPA.

When the vote went to the House, Democrats opposed TPA en masse. Boehner then cut a deal with Democrats and “punished conservatives, wrongly stripping of one of his subcommittee chairmanship, and reportedly threatening to strip other conservatives of their chairmanships as well”.

Why does Republican Leadership always give in to the Democrats? Why does Leadership always disregard the promises made to the conservative grassroots?

Cruz finishes his article, writing:

Enough is enough. I cannot vote for TPA unless McConnell and Boehner both commit publicly to allow the Ex-Im Bank to expire—and stay expired. And, Congress must also pass the Cruz-Sessions amendments to TPA to ensure that no trade agreement can try to back-door changes to our immigration laws. Otherwise, I will have no choice but vote no.

There’s too much corporate welfare, too much cronyism and corrupt dealmaking, by the Washington cartel. For too long, career politicians in both parties have supported government of the lobbyist, by the lobbyist, and for the lobbyist – at the expense of the taxpayers. It’s a time for truth. And a time to honor our commitments to the voters.

Conservatives rightly do not trust President Obama. With a deal this big, kept out of the public eye, and supported by Obama and traitorous Republican leadership in both chambers, we smell a rat. Thankfully Cruz has seen the light.

UPDATE: Despite Cruz’ change of mind regarding Obamatrade, a 60-37 motion on Tuesday in the Senate to end debate on TPA sets up a vote for final passage on Wednesday. If the Senate approves fast-track or trade promotion authority (TPA), it would then be sent to Obama’s desk to become law.

Contact your Senator NOW to demand that they reject TPA, which would give Obama unprecedented powers and hurt American workers. You can also sign The Tea Party petition to Oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership HERE.

___________________

Nails to the Coffin Holding the Constitution

John R. Houk

© June 24, 2015

__________________________

TED CRUZ: OBAMATRADE ENMESHED IN CORRUPT, BACKROOM DEALINGS

 

Copyright © 2015 TPNN · TEA PARTY NEWS NETWORK  · ALL RIGHTS RESERVED