Theopolitical Symbolism of Hijab and Comments Following


Nun-Devoted Hijab-Oppressed

 

An Intro by John R. Houk

© April 15, 2014

 

Dr. Bill Warner (PhD) is a Counterjihad author and speaker that has a blog called Political Islam and operates a website called Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) which is a publishing house for Bill Warner’s writings. Many of those writings are free or low cost and can be found in a PDF format. I have no explanation as to why; however Warner lately has not been posting on the Political Islam main page lately BUT has been posting little mini-seminars in the Youtube format that Political Islam subscribers are notified about.

 

I am cross posting one of these videos in which Dr. Warner talks for a little over 7 minutes on the significance of the symbolism of the hijab worn by Muslim women dedicated to Sharia Law. You will find that interesting.

 

Then after the video I decided to cross post the comments that have been posted up to the time of today’s reading which is April 15, 2014. Most comments are short and appreciative of the mini-video seminar. However you will get to a person who calls himself John Islam. I tried to see if there was a significant Muslim apologist by that name but discovered that there are people with that name ranging from business in the UK and everyday social sharers on Facebook and Twitter some from nations other than the USA. I did find one person on Blogger with that name but his interest appears to be in Motocross and I had the impression he had passed away. None of those John Islams appeared to be an activist Muslim apologist.

 

The John Islam that leaves a comment on Dr. Warner’s video is critical of his analysis followed by some Youtube links which I will post but not the actual videos. You’ll have to check on the message of those Youtube links on your own.

 

Then there are to commenters that are critical of John Islam’s criticism (Éamonn Gavin and person going by Lidia). Lidia provides the most pointed criticism to John Islam.

 

I’ll finish with an about page pertaining to Dr. Bill Warner from the Political Islam blog.

 

JRH 4/15/14

Please Support NCCR

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

The Political Side of the Hijab

 

By Bill Warner

April 7, 2014

Political Islam

 

Bill Warner Video

 

++++++++++++++++++++

COMMENTS

 

“I attended your lecture in Bartlett, TN. I certainly found it enlightening. Thank you for your efforts against this onslaught against our country.”

 

Sharon Story — April 7, 2014 @ 9:28 PM

_________________

“Thanks Bill for the great message, absolutely agree with all your words, have good experience living in Muslim country and seeing the problems you described. Somehow we should bring all these issues described in this web to our government for taking action now otherwise it will be too late.

European countries are almost lost and I don’t think they have any chance or possibility to change anything now or in the future, United State is a next victim.”

 

Garry — April 8, 2014 @ 2:52 AM

_____________________

“Bill Warner’s claim that the hijab is the equivalent of a statement of fanaticism is proved in the following video. Hijab-wearing women are asked a simple question: “Is Sharia BARBARIC?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1QIXCNbD_xk#t=197

 

democracyistheanswer — April 8, 2014 @ 6:06 AM

__________________________

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QIXCNbD_xk

 

democracyistheanswer — April 8, 2014 @ 6:10 AM

___________________________

“Another foolish statement by BILL WARNER….

Hijab is too distinguished between Kafir and the Pious Muslim called Muslimah.

When we are the majority, those women that are not covered according to Islamic Sharia LAW will be rape and be humiliated. So a Muslimah will be spared if she wears the Hijab. It is also designed for all Muslim man to be suppressed sexually as we cannot touch or try any means to direct a MUSLIMAH for sex.

Thus ALLAH came out with this grand solution that we can now look for kafir woman for rape and sodomy and all sort of sexual pervasion before on the kafir. This is sanctioned and approved in our Hadith and Koran. In our OIC country, we are having can rape any kafir and sanction in all OIC country.

We Muslim give thanks o ALLAH for allowed us MUSLIM to rape all white European women all over Europe from Sweden to Denmark and THERE IS NOTHING you can do.

 

[Blog Editor: This makes Islam a sick perverted religion. The God in the Judeo-Christian Bible never encourages rape because unbelievers deserve it!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fEhy0H3fsM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGIyc_3nziE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIrcNL9PfUU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6k9P7L3tYk

It will happen in TENNESEE and all over USA.

 

John Islam — April 8, 2014 @ 7:20 AM

___________________________________

“John Islam”, I am sure that at the back of it all you are something basically resembling a human being. It’s just a pity that that is not what presents itself in your writings. It is very sad that humanity has to deal with your sort. However, make no mistake about it – deal with you and your sort WE WILL!!!

 

Éamonn Gavin — April 8, 2014 @ 9:37 AM

______________________________________

Hi Dr. Bill Warner,

Thank you for your video. We are with you to crush these Islamic Demons.

 

THE TRUTH SEEKER — April 9, 2014 @ 3:07 AM

__________________________

Hi Bill,

I don’t have a problem with hijab if the woman is truly wearing it for cultural or religious reasons. Hijab sort of reminds me of the babushka. If the hijab is forced upon a woman or girl by her husband or family, that is wrong. Especially in a free civilized world. What really bothers me are the burkas/abayas with the hoods/full face covering. It looks very scary to me (in a spiritual sense). I think over 90% of muslim women would prefer not to wear them. I would rather they wear the hijab then the burkas/abayas. I believe burkas/abayas should not be worn in a free civilized world. I can understand why they wear it in third world countries. They are surrounded by men who will find any excuse to beat and rape them. It protects the woman from harm. It’s kind of sad. If you do see burkas/abayas worn in the West, it’s most likely forced upon them by their husbands who are using it for political reasons. Bill, you are right about that.

 
Remember Adam and Eve walked around naked in the Garden of Eden. When the devil deceived them, what was the first thing they did? They put on clothes. God was wondering why they had clothes on. Interesting isn’t it. Burkas/abayas with the hoods that have the full face covering are totally opposite of what God truly wants for us. I’m pretty sure he wants to see our beautiful faces in the sunlight.

As for John Islam who thinks Muslims should give thanks to Allah for allowing the rape and sodomy of all white European women and says there is nothing we can do about it. There is something we can do about it. In a civilized world, it’s called prison and deportation. It is happening everyday. For example, there was a Somalian man who raped a dying woman in Sweden. He was accused and then deported. It is cheaper to deport an immigrant than to put them in prison. It’s a better option, economically speaking. That goes for any immigrant, not just Muslims, who do not follow the laws of the host country they live in. And in the future, the Great King Henri de la Croix (the Cross) (aka Great Monarch, King of France, King of Europe) and his powerful army will eliminate from the face of the Earth all those murderers and rapists. He will be called, “Good King Henry.” John, Europe is not gone. You and your kind will be!

VIVE LA FRANCE! VIVE LA FRANCE! VIVE LA FRANCE! VIVE LA FRANCE! VIVE LA FRANCE!

 

Lidia — April 9, 2014 @ 11:50 AM

_____________________________

“Thank you Dr. Bill Warner for exposing the true Islam. I only hope and pray that the West will wake up soon before it is too late to face a nightmare, in the likes of john islam.

 

michael — April 12, 2014 @ 11:14 PM

_________________________

Theopolitical Symbolism of Hijab and Comments Following

An Intro by John R. Houk

© April 15, 2014

______________________________

The Political Side of the Hijab

 

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam

copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.

www.politicalislam.com

 

© 2007-2014 Political Islam

 

Bill Warner:

 

Bill Warner holds a PhD in physics and math, NC State University, 1968. He has been a university professor, businessman, and applied physicist.

He was a Member of the Technical Staff in solid-state physics at the Sarnoff Princeton Laboratories in the area of integrated circuit structures. During the energy crisis of the 80’s he founded and ran a company that specialized in energy efficient homes. For eight years he was a professor at Tennessee State University in the Engineering School.

 

Dr. Warner has had a life-long interest in religion and its effects on history. He has studied the source texts of the major religions for decades. Even before the destruction of the World Trade Center he had predicted the war between Islam and America. The day after 9/11 he decided to make the source texts of Islam available for the average person.

Dr. Warner’s training in scientific theory and mathematics shaped how he analyzed Islamic doctrine. The first step was realizing that the Islamic texts had been made deliberately difficult to read and comprehend. A program, the Trilogy Project (see below), was created to strip away the confusion in the texts. It became clear that Islam is not constructed on the same civilizational principles as the rest of the world. Simple statistical methods revealed that dualism and submission were the foundational principles of Islamic doctrine.

Statistical methods applied to the Islamic texts showed that:

 

 

— Islam is far more of a political system than a religion.


— There is no unmitigated good in Islam for the Kafir (non-Muslim).


— Islam’s ethical system is dualistic and is not based on the Golden Rule.


— Islamic doctrine cannot be reconciled with our concepts of human rights and our Constitution.


— The great majority, 96%, of all Islamic doctrine about women subjugates them.


— The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is more important than the Koran in a Muslim’s daily life.

Dr. Warner coined the term, Foundational School of Islamic studies, which holds that Islam is found in the Trilogy of Koran, Sira and Hadith. All evaluation of Islamic history and current activity is caused by the doctrine found in this Trilogy. Therefore, it is impossible to READ THE REST

CAIR and Brandeis U, the True Haters


Ayaan Hirsi Ali becomes US Citizen 4-25-13

Ayaan Hirsi Ali becomes US Citizen 4-25-13

 

John R. Houk

© April 12, 2014

 

VIDEO: Ayaan Hirsi Ali on The Kelly File

 

Posted by National Review

Published: Apr 10, 2014

Fox News Article in relation to video: Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaks out on Brandeis decision to withdraw degree 4/9/14

 

Megyn Kelly has been taking on CAIR quite valiantly over the “Honor Diaries” documentary. Probably Fox News is the only news network willing to expose CAIR there is a chance you don’t know what I am talking about when I say such a thing as CAIR condemns the documentary the “Honor Diaries” and condemns Megyn Kelly for exposing the Islamic misogynism of the Muslim-American organization with ties to the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas and to the radical Muslim transnational organization the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Whenever anyone criticizes Islam no matter how valid the criticism, CAIR (and all the Muslim Brotherhood/radical Islamic American affiliates) utilize the guilt trip Islamophobic racist canard against the legitimate critics. CAIR is brilliant in using combinations PC accusative racism and Legal Jihad to get companies, government agencies, schools AND universities to cave to the Islamic Supremacist will of the American-Islamic organization.

 

In the war of words being exchanged between CAIR and Megyn Kelly, Ayaan Hirsi Ali the recent object of CAIR venom was interviewed on the Kelly File. Brandeis University recently withdraw the offer of an honorary degree and a commencement speech from Hirsi Ali because CAIR contacted the University and expressed dismay the school was honoring her. The reason: CAIR pulled the Islamophobe-racist card from its hat of tricks to label Hirsi Ali a Muslim hater.

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali does have good reason to hate Islam as a religion. Her childhood through adult experiences at the hands of Islam is extremely nefarious. HOWEVER, when an organization like CAIR publically labels a person an Islamophobe hater they are drawing the general equivalence in the American minds to the racism against Black Americans such as Ku Klux Klan agitated violence. Hirsi Ali is NOT agitating for some kind of Islamic-style of relegating humans to second class oppressed citizenship and she is definitely NOT advocating the ethnic cleansing of Muslims as Hitler attempted and as the prophet Mohammed did do in the Arabian Peninsula in his lifetime of pillaging, enslaving, raping and forced conversions or die.

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is exposing the theological ideology of Islam which suppresses human rights toward non-Muslims, extreme punishment for Muslims breaking Sharia and the general abuse of females from childhood toward adulthood. This is not an expression of hate but of warning of what to expect in a Muslim dominated society. In Hirsi Ali’s case it is a warning based largely on her personal experience growing up as a Muslim in Somalia and the continued Muslim hate expressed toward her for abandoning Islam and telling people why.

 

ACT for America sent out an email that enables you to voice your support for Hirsi Ali and to inform Brandeis University they and CAIR are the true culprits for vilifying one who speaks the truth about Islam. I am posting that email so you can be an activist against this travesty perpetuated by CAIR and joined by Brandeis University. Then below the ACT for America email I am going to piece together a biography about Hirsi Ali which runs truly as an exposé of Islam’s true nature.

 

JRH 4/12/14

Please Support NCCR

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

VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION TO BRANDEIS’ SHAMEFUL ACT!

 

Sent by ACT for America

Sent: 4/11/2014 12:52 PM

 

“TO BECOME AMERICAN IS TO ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN HAVE A ROBUST DEBATE AND THERE IS NO BETTER PLACE TO DO THAT THAN ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES.”

– Ayaan Hirsi Ali

 

This week, Brandeis University disappointingly reversed its decision to grant an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a victim and vocal critic of Islamism and a longtime women’s rights activist. This brave woman has labored tirelessly in defense of the rights of women and girls worldwide – usually at great risk to her own personal safety.

While the entirety of her public comments has always been readily accessible and she, no doubt, had been vetted by the university as had all other honorees, a few recent actions caused Brandeis to reverse itself: a student involved in the Muslim Student Association (MSA) on the campus started a petition on Change.org; a faculty letter opposed to Ms. Hirsi Ali was circulated; and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) began to pressure the university.

(Click HERE to watch Fox News’ Megyn Kelly go toe-to-toe with CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper.)

Brandeis, in a released public statement, said they feel that Ms. Hirsi Ali is a

 

“compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights” and that they “respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world,” however, they “cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values.”

What exactly are Brandeis’s “core values?”

They certainly are not the same core values of the man for which the university is named, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice, Louis Brandeis, who coined the phrase, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants,” and who was a staunch proponent of the “frank expression of conflicting opinions” as “the greatest promise of wisdom…”

Brandeis University’s recent actions with regard to Ms. Hirsi Ali are shameful. They not only go against free speech protections afforded by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but they also send a clear message to persecuted and mistreated women and girls all across the world: Your suffering is not worth fighting for, nor is it worth discussing. This message empowers the men that mutilate and mistreat women, and the culture that condones it.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was right on the mark when she recently noted, “there’s always this fear that if you insult Muslims, there’s going to be some kind of violent repercussion,” adding that Brandeis is “not doing their students any favors, and they’re not doing their Muslim students any favors.”

Over the years, Ms. Hirsi Ali has received numerous death threats for her activism. It is unfortunate that, though those threats have not stifled her voice in defense of freedom and women’s rights, political correctness in the U.S. has managed to do so.

This is a time for Americans to speak up.

Our collective voice of 280,000 can make a difference in this matter. Can we count on your help today with the simple but very important Action Item noted below?

*** IMPORTANT AND TIME-SENSITIVE ACTION ITEM! ***

Please take a moment today to contact Brandeis University and express your strong opposition to their recent actions against Ayaan Hirsi Ali. We have provided all the contact information you need to take this action.

We have also written a sample call and e-mail script for you, to make this as easy as possible. (NOTE: The e-mail script is modifiable if you wish to convey the message in your own words. We ask that you please be respectful at all times.)

Click HERE TO CALL and click HERE TO E-MAIL.

Then, please pass this e-mail along to everyone you know.

Thank you. Together we are making a difference!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Editor JRH: Here is an excerpt of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s early experience as a Muslim. The context of bio though is to try to be understanding of Hirsi Ali’s displeasure with Islam but criticizes here methods of exposing Islam using Left Wing apologist line that there is a difference between Moderate Islam and Radical Islam. I’ll provide the link so you can read the whole thing but I am just sharing the biographical portion.

________________________

 

 

… A major factor contributing to her notoriety is the uncompromising and seemingly fearless manner in which she speaks her mind, evoking a wide range of reactions: from adulation to loathing among her non-Muslim readers and mostly resentment and anger among Muslims.

 

One of the more unusual aspects of her career, described in detail in Infidel, has been  its political side, which in the highly charged atmosphere of the early twenty-first century has perhaps inevitably had strong overtones reaching well beyond her personal life. …

 

CHILDHOOD AND ADOLESCENCE

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1969 as Ayaan Hirsi Magan. Her father, Western-educated Hirsi Magan Isse, a leader of his tribe and of the opposition Salvation Democratic Front, was imprisoned when she was two-years-old. Against her mother’s wishes he insisted that their daughters receive an education. He was also adamantly opposed to female genital mutilation, a tribal practice common in sub-Saharan Africa, but while he was in prison her grandmother had the extremely traumatic procedure performed on five-year-old Ayaan and her younger sister Haweya.

 

A year later her father escaped from prison, and her extended family began a series of moves: to Saudi Arabia (three years), Ethiopia (about a year), and Kenya (twelve years, with an interlude of several months in Somalia). Her father lived with the family at the beginning and the end of this period, but much of the time he was away.

 

Throughout most of this exile Hirsi Ali experienced the strict Saudi form of Islam. She and her sister attended girls’ schools. She also studied the Quran under male tutors at home or in outside classes. One tutor was sent away when she and her sister refused to give the book their attention, but he later returned and attacked her, beating her and hitting her head against a wall, causing a skull fracture that she believes nearly killed her.

 

Much later Hirsi Ali fell in with a youth group espousing the views of Egyptian writers Hasan al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) and Sayyid Qutb (now often called the father of radical Islam). She was inspired and enthralled with their ideas about “true Islam.” From the beginning, however, she experienced doubts, especially when the subject was the different roles of men and women. She began to find the rhetoric predictable and less inspiring, and the teachings inconsistent. Still, at nineteen she strongly approved of Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa of February 14, 1989, against Salman Rushdie, thinking that if he had insulted the Prophet he deserved to die.

 

All along, her adolescence was further complicated by a series of threatening attractions to males–her brother’s friends and her religious teachers and group leaders. She was especially disturbed when one of these wanted to kiss her while at the same time publicly preaching abstinence. She rejected another promising suitor when he turned out to be an atheist.

 

NEW HOME IN THE NETHERLANDS

 

In 1992 Hirsi Ali’s father promised her in marriage to a distant relative living in Canada. She was to go from Kenya to Canada via Germany, where she would visit relatives. At first she reluctantly went along. But while in Germany on July 24, she escaped the arranged marriage on an impulse by taking a train to the Netherlands, doing so under the ruse of visiting another relative. She sought and was granted political asylum there and received a residence permit. To keep her family from finding her, she gave the surname by which she is now known: Hirsi Ali.

 

But because forced marriage was insufficient grounds for refugee status in the Netherlands, she also claimed she had fled persecution in Somalia. The false information she gave on both these counts would later haunt her, though she confided the facts to those who knew her.

 

Hirsi Ali held various low-level jobs while learning Dutch and studying social work, skills she later used as an independent Somali-Dutch interpreter/translator for a variety of social agencies, including the National Migration Service. Working in this capacity from 1995 to 2001, she was horrified to learn, repeatedly, that Somali cultural practices like wife beating, female genital mutilation, and honor killings existed in the Netherlands.

 

In September 2000 she earned a master’s degree in political science from the distinguished University of Leiden. For the next several months she tried several different jobs without much satisfaction. Then in June 2001 Hirsi Ali was “thrilled” to be offered a job as a fellow at the Wiardi Beckman Foundation, the think tank of the Dutch Labor (social democratic) Party. Her first assignment was to investigate why many Muslim immigrants failed to be integrated into Dutch society and the threat this posed to the country’s welfare state.

 

THE INFIDEL

 

Hirsi Ali was just eight days into her job with the foundation when the events of September 11, 2001, unfolded. She and her colleagues gathered in horror around a television to watch coverage of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. After seeing Muslim children on television celebrating the tragedy, and checking Osama bin Laden’s justification of those attacks with citations of verses from the Quran and sayings of Muhammad, she became convinced that bin Laden’s claims were true. That is, she began to believe that Islam itself was responsible for those attacks. Moreover, the complacent response of the Dutch and their misunderstanding of Islam profoundly disturbed her.

 

During the following period of transition and introspection, Hirsi Ali’s research with the foundation began to convince her that Dutch multiculturalism, which created separate “pillars” or immigrant communities organized by culture or religion, made immigrants feel like members of a separate group rather than citizens of the nation. It became clear to her that this system let Muslim immigrants practice Muslim traditions–even some that contradicted Dutch law, in a way that most Dutch citizens would never tolerate among themselves. In short, the cultural relativists were endangering their own societies while Muslims, especially Muslim women, became victims of their own cultures.

 

During that year Hirsi Ali began to accept every opportunity to express her opinions in articles and on television. What she had to say about Islam and its treatment of women and about multiculturalism as practiced in Dutch society gained her the approval and admiration of some and the hatred of others. A few in the latter group made threats against her, requiring her to avoid being seen publicly and to travel with bodyguards.

 

In 2002 she read The Atheist Manifesto by Leiden philosopher Herman Philipse, given to her years before by her Dutch boyfriend. It deeply influenced her, giving her strength not only to denounce Islam but to acknowledge her disbelief in God.

 

Later that year Hirsi Ali switched from the Labor Party to the more conservative VVD Party (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, also known as the Liberal Party), and was persuaded to run for Parliament on the VVD ticket. The VVD’s primary mission is to staunchly defend the free market, advocating minimal government regulation. It views the government’s chief function as providing security. Its focus was made clear to her early on when an elder of the party quizzed her: “Why do you want to be with us? We’re entrepreneurs. What do you know about business?” She was ready for him, giving a long answer culminating in the sentence, “The oppression of women in Holland is against the philosophy of your party.” Accepted by the VVD, she won her seat. [Editor JRH: Bold emphasis mine – made to highlight a move that American Conservatives would concur.]

 

THE POLITICIAN

 

Hirsi Ali entered the lower house of the Dutch parliament on January 30, 2003. After this she became even more publicly critical of Islam and Islamic culture. In the process of leaving the faith she had come to regard Islam as a monolith–to think of it as unchanged since the time of the Prophet Mohammed… Finally, she had come to believe that wherever Islam is practiced it should be held responsible for any mistreatment of women.

 

The next three-and-a-half years were filled with a series of marked highs and lows. During 2004 she saw the publication in Dutch of her collected essays, lectures, and autobiographical accounts of her experiences as a translator, in which she forcefully expounded her militant atheism and her criticisms of the position of women in Islam. She also collaborated with well-known Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh on a short film she had written called Submission (the translation of the word “Islam”). In it, Quranic verses they saw as especially oppressive to women were written on the bodies of women wearing transparent clothing. As expected, the film, broadcast on Dutch television on August 29, 2004, infuriated the Muslim population and both filmmakers were threatened with death.

 

She had by now already been under the protection of bodyguards for two years, but van Gogh refused any protection. On November 2, 2004, in broad daylight, he was brutally murdered on an Amsterdam street. He was shot and stabbed, the knife left pinning a letter to his chest addressed to Hirsi Ali, threatening her and all other nonbelievers. She immediately went into hiding. The murderer was later apprehended and turned out to be a Moroccan Muslim immigrant. The death of van Gogh led Hirsi Ali into prolonged self-recrimination and perpetual fear for her life.

 

Still, during this same period she was honored by a long string of awards. One, in particular, on April 18, 2005, was her inclusion in Time magazine’s list of the year’s 100 most influential people in the world. The category was “Leaders and Revolutionaries,” and her profile was written by Irshad Manji. Seemingly undaunted, she prepared an English translation of her 2004 book, entitled The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam (2006).

 

She also came under close scrutiny by the Dutch government, ostensibly because of the false statements she had made when she first arrived. Thus on May 16, 2006, her Dutch citizenship was revoked and she resigned from Parliament. But a month later, after a fierce debate in Parliament, her citizenship was reinstated. She decided to retain it, and on the same day accepted an invitation from Christopher DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC, to become a research fellow there, beginning in September. She moved to the United States along with a team of bodyguards assigned to her by the Dutch government.

 

 

…  But her stay in the United States was abruptly cut short when the Dutch government announced that it would no longer be responsible for her security if she remained here. On October 1, 2007, Hirsi Ali returned to the Netherlands. It seemed to be the government’s intention for her to live there indefinitely under guard in a secret location, but she evidently thought otherwise, fighting publicly for the matter to be resolved to her satisfaction. Clearly she would be satisfied only with full government financing of her security together with complete freedom of her speech and mobility. As recently as November 21 [i.e. 2007], the outcome remained uncertain.

 

… (Absolute Infidel: The Evolution of Ayaan Hirsi Ali; By DAVID SCHAFER AND MICHELLE KOTH; The Humanist; 12/22/07)

 

___________________________________

Niall Ferguson, the television historian, has married Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the target of Muslim extremists, in an American ceremony attended by Henry Kissinger. (Henry Kissinger watches historian Niall Ferguson marry Ayaan Hirsi Ali under a fatwa; By Richard Eden; The Telegraph; 9/18/11 7:26AM BST)

 

_______________________________

Hirsi Ali is married to the British historian Niall Ferguson.[104] Hirsi Ali gave birth to a son, Thomas, in December 2011.[105] (Ayaan Hirsi AliPersonal Life; Wikipedia)

_____________________________

CAIR and Brandeis U, the True Haters

John R. Houk

© April 12, 2014

____________________________

VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION TO BRANDEIS’ SHAMEFUL ACT!

 

ACT for America Content, LLC. All Rights Reserved

 

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

You Might Be a Conservative If…


Left-Right differences pictorial

Last week I cross posted Mark Alexander’s “You Might Be a Liberal If…” which was a list with links profiling America’s deluded Left. Ergo I feel compelled to post this week’s Alexander post “You Might Be a Conservative If...”

 

 

Just as an aside yesterday I urged readers to place Danny Jeffrey’s Fix Bayonets Library on their resource list to be armed with information to confront Leftists ruining America. This Mark Alexander Post should also serve as a resource to counter Leftists with Conservative Principles that keep America good.

 

 

JRH 4/10/14

Please Support NCCR

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

You Might Be a Conservative If…

And Especially If…

 

By Mark Alexander

Email sent: 4/9/2014 1:07 PM

Link date: Apr. 9, 2014

The Patriot Post

 

Our conflict is not likely to cease so soon as every good man would wish. The measure of iniquity is not yet filled; and unless we can return a little more to first principles, and act a little more upon patriotic ground, I do not know when it will…” –George Washington (1779)

 

As a follow-up to my profile on the attributes of contemporary liberals, “You Might Be a Liberal If…,” I offer this look at the attributes associated with today’s conservatives.

 

Too often, political “Left v Right” labels are applied without conveying anything substantive about the beliefs or worldviews of the individual upon whom the label has been conferred.

 

So what’s in a name?

 

To answer that question, I’ve reviewed my own lists of conservative principles in order to better profile those who identify as “conservative.” Again, with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy:

 

You Might Be a Conservative If You…

 

…know the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men – Liberty and tyranny.

 

…embody the real spirit of Patriots’ Day.

 

…still “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.”

 

…believe George Washington is the quintessential model for presidential character.

 

…never lose sight of what’s Good and Right about America.

 

…would still give your life and fortune in defense of First Principles.

 

…fully understand that Liberty is endowed by our Creator.

 

…hold sacred your oath “to support and defend” the Constitution of the United States.

 

…know what “E Pluribus Unum” actually means.

 

…are a genuine American Patriot.

 

…believe that Liberty is colorblind and not a “white thing.”

 

…respect and abide by the plain language of our Constitution.

 

…understand the principle of Constitutional Federalism as reiterated by President Reagan’s executive order on Federalism.

 

…know that the Second Amendment makes all other rights possible.

 

…refuse to allow the Democrat Leftists to sell out the Second Amendment by international treaty.

 

…know that “gun free zones” are actually free-fire zones for mass murderers.

 

Comment | Share

 

…observe the true meaning of Memorial Day rather than heading to the mall for a great sale.

 

…honor our nation’s noble Veteran Patriots.

 

…think that Barack Hussein Obama and his NeoCom cadres are the greatest national security threat to American Liberty and our constitutional republic.

 

…recognize that ideological socialists have hijacked the once-noble Democratic Party.

 

…see the election of an utterly unqualified and inexperienced “community organizer” to the most powerful office in the world as proof of how profoundly naive and unserious the American public can be.

 

…are aware of Barack Obama’s history as a lifelong Marxist.

 

…find Obama’s ethnocentric America-hating theology antithetical to Liberty.

 

…credit the foreign policy fecklessness of our current president for having enabled the “Russian Spring.”

 

…still want John Kerry indicted for treason.

 

…are proud of, rather than ashamed of, our nation’s heritage of faith.

 

…abhor the oppression of our First Amendment rights to religious expression by DoD and other government agencies.

 

…reject the Leftist assertion that “faith and politics don’t mix.”

 

…know that the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in our Constitution, neither in text or spirit.

 

…understand that fatherhood is the foundation of Liberty.

 

…stand firm in defense of Judeo-Christian principles when confronted with the homosexual agenda.

 

…refuse to tolerate the Rainbow Mafia’s intolerance of divergent views, as with the recent persecution of Phil Robertson and Brendan Eich.

 

…don’t hesitate to offer others a “blessed Thanksgiving” or “Merry Christmas.”

 

…think protecting our borders is a national security issue, not a political football.

 

…understand that the 14th Amendment does not authorize citizenship for “anchor babies” and their kinfolk.

 

Comment | Share

 

…know that profiling potential terrorists is more effective than randomly patting down children and 80-year-old grandmothers.

 

…know that al-Qa’ida is thriving despite Barack Obama’s claims to the contrary.

 

…created a lot of wealth but have not retired from the front lines of the fight for Liberty.

 

…believe that free enterprise always trumps socialism.

 

…know that the near-economic collapse in 2008 was rooted in Democrat economic policies initiated by Bill Clinton in 1994.

 

…know that America may one day look like Detroit if we continue to elect Democrat “leadership.”

 

…know that the words “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” are a euphemism for “statist tyranny.”

 

…recognize the addictive evil of the ObamaNation Poverty Plantations.

 

…prefer to give people a hand up rather than a hand out.

 

…see clearly the hypocrisy of Obama’s rhetoric about “income inequality” while he lives like a king on redistributed wealth.

 

…reject classism and socialist class warfare.

 

…acknowledge Barack Obama as the modern-day master of the “BIG Lie.”

 

…are at risk of being on Obama’s IRS Enemies List.

 

…know that narcissism and tyranny are political collaborators.

 

…recognize that ObamaCare must be dismantled or it will accelerate the collapse of free enterprise.

 

…are well aware that Obama’s outright lies about ObamaCare were politically calculated.

 

…are not among the Left’s cadres of Earth worshipers.

 

…reject the Left’s global warming hysteria and recognize the Left’s real agenda is regulating free enterprise.

 

…are aware that recent evidence indicates the Earth may be cooling, not warming.

 

…are outraged by the Obama administration’s alteration of the Benghazi talking points in order to protect Obama’s foreign policy image ahead of the 2012 election.

 

…understand that “tolerance and diversity” are Leftist shorthand for “tyranny.”

 

…recognize race-baiting political hustlers for what they are.

 

…know that Barack Obama’s Leftmedia sycophants are perpetuating a fraud when they pretend to be “journalists.”

 

…view all violence against innocent victims as a “hate crime.”

 

…object to the Leftmedia blackout of black-on-white crime, which is statistically far more frequent than white-on-black crime.

 

…see the bankruptcy and desperation of the Democrat Party reflected its choice of Bill Clinton as its spokesman.

 

…are aware that the GOP’s “establishment Republicans” are a key element in the Democrats’ current “divide and conquer” strategy.

 

…view fratricidal political infighting as the biggest obstacle to restoring Liberty and Constitutional integrity.

 

…honor the real spirit of the grassroots Tea Party Movement despite its shameful misrepresentation by the Leftmedia.

 

Comment | Share

 

…understand that the model for restoring Liberty is Ronald Reagan and that our nation is at another Time for Choosing.

 

…appreciate what George Washington meant when he said, “Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.”

 

And finally, if you know that the most cost-effective way you can promote Essential Liberty, help restore constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and advocate for free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values, is to support The Patriot Post, you are most assuredly a Conservative – and a Patriot!

 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

 

Support the 2014 Patriots’ Day Campaign

Patriot Post Banner- Support Patriot Day

______________________________

© 2014, The Patriot Post.

 

From email:

 

*PUBLIUS*

 

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2014 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

 

##

 

Support The Patriot Post:

 

o   Donate Online

 

o   Donate by Mail

 

 

About The Patriot Post

 

About Mark Alexander

CAIR-Hitler Angry Kelly File Reports on ‘Honor Diaries’


Megyn Kelly

John R. Houk

© April 8, 2014

 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been doing its utmost to label the Clarion Project’s production of the documentary “Honor Diaries” as a load of manure produced by Islamophobic race-haters. You should note that if the lips of CAIR are moving there is a lie involved. The FBI has connected CAIR to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood as unindicted co-conspirators of the Holy Land Foundation Muslims that were convicted for illegally funding solicited donations in the USA to the Islamic Terrorist Jew-hating group Hamas which in turn is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. CAIR has been exposed in the book “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America” by some journalistic undercover work by Dave Gaubatz (P. David Gaubatz) and Paul Sperry (the two authors) with the actual undercover work by Chris Gaubatz. And a there are a host of other Counterjihad writers that have exposed CAIR which in turn has used Legal Jihad (or Lawfare) to try to silence the CAIR-critics. One that comes to mind is Andrew Whitehead of the ACAIR website. CAIR tried to shut down Whitehead with a defamation lawsuit. CAIR lost not willing to comply with Whitehead’s discovery request.

 

In connection to the Honor Diaries Megyn Kelly has been reporting on CAIR’s legal jihad to keep the documentary out of public venues. CAIR had successfully intimidated the University of Michigan to cancel a showing of the Honor Diaries that was to be aired in Dearborn (aka Dearbornistan), MI. Megyn Kelly in reporting this legal jihad by CAIR showed excerpts of the Honor Diaries. CAIR also made legal jihad threats against Kelly airing documentary excerpts on her Fox News show the Kelly File. Indeed I saw an ad today on Fox News that the Kelly File will again address the brutality of the honor killing culture of Islam on her Tuesday April eighth show.

 

Now in light of CAIR legal jihad against the Honor Diaries in an email I received today from WorldNetDaily I became aware of a parody video that incorporates Megyn Kelly, CAIR legal jihad AND a movie clip involving Adolf Hitler redubbed in English as if der Führer is addressing some kind of CAIR council meeting. IT IS HILARIOUS!

 

VIDEO: CAIR Reacts to Megyn Kelly’s Epic Smackdown!

 

Posted by Watchman OnTheWall

Published on Apr 3, 2014

 

JRH 4/8/14

Please Support NCCR

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 6


1st Continental Congress Prayer

By John R. Houk

© March 30, 2014

 

I began this post as a short introduction to Dougindeap’s comment on the post “Disputing Separation Church/State Part 2” left on my NCCR blog. However as I kept going and going (sorry about the length) I realized I just had to simply add this to the already part’s I had begun which prior to this post had reached Part Five. The way I handled this current post is by responding to Dougindeap’s Part Two comment in stages. If you wish to read Dougindeap’s Part Two comment before commencing my thoughts simply scroll down to the end of these thoughts where it is in entirety.

 

Dougindeap there is a context to the quotes. I sense that you cannot accept the context; which is the Founding Fathers’ belief in Christian Morality. There is only a controversy to the Founding Fathers’ stand on Christian Morality in Left Wing historical revisionism in the lack of understanding to the Christian gravitation toward American Deism. Many if not most of the Founding Fathers embraced a Christian Deism in varying degrees, but those degrees for the majority was the nearly universal context of Nature’s God – the Creator of Nature – being the Judeo-Context of God pertaining to a moral society. The few Deists that embraced the extreme deism from the evolution of the French Revolution was very low in rejecting morality as derived by Christianity. The great American Pamphleteer in Thomas Paine is an example of this small minority of American Deists that placed more stock in the goodness of man over the Biblical Truth of humanity’s Fallen Nature.

 

Dougindeap says,

 

In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken to distinguish between society and government and not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. (Thus, whether you offer one or one hundred quotations of the sort you have presented, matters not one wit.) Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted in earlier comments.

 

The Founding Fathers’ religious beliefs in Christian Morality were viewed as necessary to prevent those in government from morally degenerating. Thus preventing the government from corrupting was and is the point for Christian people to step into positions to keep government good. Without goodness in government society becomes morally bankrupt which lends to worse government and eventually the very elitist despotism that led the American Founders to rebel against British Crown rule. Indeed the Constitution kept the government out of religion with a secular government, BUT the Founders expected Christian Morality to be the measuring stick that kept government good.

 

Dougindeap your comment implies the word “blessing” had many meanings beyond what a Christian would consider a blessing derived from the 1828 edition of Noah Webster’s Diction. So I looked it up:

 

BLESS’ING, ppr. Making happy; wishing happiness to; praising or extolling; consecrating by prayer.

BLESS’ING,n. Benediction; a wish of happiness pronounced; a prayer imploring happiness upon another.

1. A solemn prophetic benediction, in which happiness is desired, invoked or foretold.
This is the blessing wherewith Moses–blessed the children of Israel. Deu 33.

2. Any means of happiness; a gift, benefit or advantage; that which promotes temporal prosperity and welfare, or secures immortal felicity. A just and pious magistrate is a public blessing. The divine favor is the greatest blessing.

3. Among the Jews, a present; a gift; either because it was attended with kind wishes for the welfare of the giver, or because it was the means of increasing happiness.

Take, I pray thee, my blessing that is brought to thee. Gen 33. (Webster’s 1828 English DictionaryBlessings; http://sorabji.com/1828/. [Noah Webster’s1828 American Dictionary of the English Language is regarded by many as the finest English dictionary ever published. The dictionary is available in many forms.])

 

Dougindeap you have to explain to me what in this definition is weighted to a non-religious meaning.

 

Dougindeap says,

 

The Constitution’s establishment of a secular government is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. (Bold Emphasis Blog Editor)

 

As I pointed out the bold print above is or at least was true in one direction; i.e. keeping government out of religion, but not the other direction of keeping religion out of government. This is a truer statement: Secular in government and religious in moral foundation of government. And when the Founding Fathers would say “religious” or “religion” they were speaking of Christianity and NOT Secular Humanism. AGAIN, this is the context of the Founding Father quotes AND this makes those quotes extremely relevant.

 

Dougindeap uses selective Left Wing historical revisionism in using the most Christian of the Founding Fathers in John Adams and the ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli between the USA and the Barbary Pirates. You can find a concise evaluation of the Treaty of Tripoli at Ministers-Best-Friend.com. You should read that entire evaluation; however after the Dougindeap quote from his comment I am offering an excerpt to get the truth out there about Left Wing revision history.

 

Dougindeap says,

 

Lest there be any doubt on this score, note that shortly after the founding, President John Adams (a founder) signed, with the unanimous consent of the Senate (comprised in large measure of founders), the Treaty of Tripoli declaring, in pertinent part, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” No need to resort to reading tea leaves to understand that. This is not an informal comment by an individual founder, but rather an official declaration of the most solemn sort by the United States government itself. Note that the Constitution provides that treaties, apart from the Constitution itself, are the highest law of the land.

 

Ministers-Best-Friend.com’s excerpt:

 

 

INTRO: In this Law Commentary we seek set the record straight about the paragraph quoted from Article 11 – assumeded (sic) – of the Treaty of Tripoli ratified by Congress on June 10, 1797during President John Adams’ administration. If there is one thing about the Treaty of Tripoli which anti-Christians cannot escape, it is the fact that no matter how you cut it, the supposed “non Christian section” (Article 11) of that treaty cannot be validated.

 

Wanting to disprove America’s Christian heritage, the Treaty of Tripoli cannot logically or historically be referenced as any “evidence” against the USA as a Christian nation whatsoever. The current modern Treaty of Tripoli so prevalent on the internet and many books and booklets, is totally fraud, a deliberate document of deceit, absolutely false, a complete forgery, and …

 

 

Furthermore, that one of only few presidents to ever be accused of atheism in a Presidential campaign – President Thomas Jefferson (holding “unusual Christian beliefs by any account”) that he led this effort to correct the forged document that made it “seem” the USA was not founded upon Christianity, is all the more compelling when carefully considered.

 

 

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, and James Monroe, all worked to correct the “forged and fraudulent” Treaty of Tripoli floating in the Arabic world at that time.

 

Nevertheless, because this topic arises so often among people who have never actually studied the subject matter in the first place, an expose’ of the facts surrounding that treaty is long overdue. Let the record speak for itself.

 

The section in question, Article 11 of that treaty reads as follows:

 

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” [Note: “Musselmen” means Muslim]

 

(source): Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America , Hunter Miller, Documents 1-40 :1776-1818 Washington : Government Printing Office, 1931. – Treaty of Tripoli

 

 

Short version of explaining the misunderstanding about the “Treaty of Tripoli”

1) There is no original Treaty of Tripoli in existence anywhere and there hasn’t been for well over 200 years.

 

2) The U.S. ratified Treaty of Tripoli cited today as “the original” was an English version copy of an Arabic version copy of the Arabic original (now missing).

 

3) There is NO Article 11 in the Arabic version of that treaty, experts now agree that Article 11 was spuriously inserted into the English copy, and most probably by the America diplomat Joel Barlow, who helped negotiate the treaty and who was himself a skeptic of Christianity.

 

4) When the tampered English translation version was presented to Congress for ratification in 1797, in spite of Article 11 inserted and included, they had to pass the treaty anyway out of political expedience and immediate urgency to quickly stop the carnage of militant pirate attacks upon American merchant ships in the Mediterranean Sea. Because of the situation at hand, there would be no time tore-draft such a treaty and run it through the diplomatic channels again.

 

5) Eight years later when America gained a military upper hand on the situation, this Treaty was renegotiated in 1805-6, and the “non-Christian” Article 11 phrase was conspicuously removed and absent!

 

6) Those who attempt to use the Treaty of Tripoli as so called evidence proposing that this nation was not founded on the Christian religion, typically ignore the Treaty of Paris of 1783, which formally ended the Revolutionary War.

 

This Treaty, negotiated by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly a foundational document for America, because by this treaty Britain recognized the independence of the United States as a nation. The Treaty of Paris of 1783 begins with the words, “In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity… It having pleased the Divine Providence” *

 

No qualified historian or explanatory references of any Congressional records have ever questioned, in the least, the validity of those revealing words of that treaty, as they do concerning the falsified Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. *(Treaty of Paris, 1783; International Treaties and Related Records, 1778-1974; General records of the United States Government, Record group 11; National Archives)

 

7) The Treaty of Tripoli argument used against Christian America on the part of secular humanists (their “strongest” isolated claim that America was not established upon Christianity) is one based on a shallow examination of a the document. Its claimed “non-Christian part” is readily admitted by non-biased experts to have either been fraudulent or some entry that is unaccounted for. By any standard, the argument lacks credibility due to its obviously spurious nature.

 

 

Joel Barlow was a known Christian critic, and it was Barlow who translated the original treaty from Arabic into English, which is the version that President John Adams and the US Congress ratified.

 

It is no surprise then, from the definitive study on the Treaty of Tripoli in the Hunter Miller Notes, Government Printing Office 1931 under “NOTE REGARDING THE BARLOW TRANSLATION”, that we read:

 

“As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” does not exist at all.

 

There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli.

 

How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.”

 

4

 

It’s interesting to see that the controversial “Article 11” was in some form of ascribbled (sic) letter.

 

If Barlow didn’t outright insert it himself, a likely explanation is that the Dey of Algiers wrote this note on the Treaty face to alleviate any worry of the Pasha of Tripoli about entering into a Treaty with an “infidel” (non-Islamic) nation like the United States.

 

The translator assumed this was part of the Treaty and translated it along with the rest of the document. More than likely the clauses of the original document (missing forever) were not numbered, so the translator would have numbered this as Clause 11 between Clauses 10 and 12, as he progressed in trying to organize it.

 

Concerning the true original text of the Treaty, it is documented that none now exists: “— (T)he first source of the texts of those collections was clearly a now missing copy, as is shown by the fact that they include a certification of the text as a copy – “The 1930 Annotation in 2ND Part Treaty with Tripoli 1796: Hunter Miller’s Notes, U.S. Govt .Printing Office

 

So the truth is that the original treaty was written in Arabic and presented to the Barbary Muslim nations in that manner, yet the Arabic treaty has no strange Article 11 in READ ENTIRETY (Blog Editor: Yes this is an excerpt and still there is much more. Read the entire post for the full benefit.)

 

The excerpt is lengthy but is very important for my fellow Conservatives to know that the Left Wing history revisionists are either misinformed or deliberately misleading people on John Adams claiming the USA is in no way founded on Christianity.

 

Dougindeap says,

 

It is instructive to recall that the Constitution’s separation of church and state reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement was linked to another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.

 

When the U.S. Constitution became the Law of the Land in 1789, the First Amendment (1791) and Church-State Establishment was interpreted to be reserved for each individual State which the Federal government would stay aloof but by NO MEANS mandated disestablishment of any of the State Constitutions that specified a State Church.

 

Nor did disestablishment come about as a consequence of the 1787 Constitution 217 or because of the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791. Nor was disestablishment spurred forward as a downstream consequence of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Rather, disestablishment was a state-law affair that had already been percolating in some states when they first adopted constitutions in 1776 and which continued on until completed in 1833. Each state that once had an established church has a unique story to tell on its path to the adoption of religious voluntaryism.

 

… As to the First Amendment, it was well understood at the time of its ratification that the religion clauses (indeed the entire Bill of Rights) were adopted out of a felt need to restrain the new national government. 219 Thus the Establishment Clause, by its terms and its design, was to preserve—as a matter of residual state sovereignty—full authority in the states concerning how the law was to deal in any frontal way with the thorny matter of religion. 220 Indeed, it is not too strong to say that during the early republic, the First Amendment was of little use as a standard around which to rally the forces in support of disestablishment. 221 Rather, disestablishment was a state-by-state affair, and hard work at that. It was a veritable slog with the path forward marked by local concerns and local personalities, as opposed to an issue that some continental-spanning crisis had elevated to a matter of national importance. 222 (Dissent and Disestablishment: The Church-State Settlement in the Early American Republic; By Carl H. Esbeck; BYU Law Review; 11/1/04; Pg. 1449, 1450)

 

This historical fact pointed out by Esbeck further demonstrates that Christian Morality was the measuring stick for government. The First Amendment simply delegated the specifics to the several sovereign States of the early American Republic. The only guarantee was that the Federal government would make no law interfering or establishing a Christian Church on the Federal level.

 

Dougindeap’s point about a disestablishmentarian movement is correct but not because Americans were demanding secularism to overrule Christian Morality that was still considered the bedrock of good government. Rather the disestablishmentarianism movement proceeded because the Second Great Awakening (See Also HERE) spurred the growth of Protestant Denominations that essentially eclipsed and/or challenged the two most influential Denominations prior to the Second Great Awakening. The two mainstay Denominations were the Episcopal Church (formerly Anglican prior to the Revolutionary War) and Congregational Church. The Second Great Awakening spurred the Methodist Church and the Baptist Church to surpass the former majority Denominations in membership. AND THIS is what spurred disestablishmentarianism in the USA. Individual faith became more important than State institutionalized Established Churches which were typically either Episcopalian (the most preeminent) or Congregationalist. This was not a lack of interest of Christianity in government but rather a greater interest in individual Denomination members doing their part to promote good Christian men for Public Office. Of course this meant that prayer still occurred in schools supported by taxes. This meant the continued use of Public Institutions to give honor to God Almighty in the demonstration of Christian affirmation on Court Buildings, Public Buildings, City Buildings and so on to promote the general welfare of the blessings of the Christian God upon American citizens and government.

 

The American religious impulse had become popularistic, personalistic, and democratic. 241 The work of the faith was less focused on the institutional church and more on each individual; lesser attention was given to correct doctrine while greater emphasis was placed on practical living. 242

 

 

If a religious establishment is measured by the legal authority to assess taxes for church support, then disestablishment occurred in the remaining states in the following order: North Carolina (1776), New York (1777), Virginia (1776−1779), Maryland (1785), South Carolina (1790), Georgia (1798), Vermont (1807), Connecticut (1818), New Hampshire (1819), Maine (1820), and Massachusetts (1832−1833). Disestablishment in Virginia, 245 and to a lesser degree its occurrence in Connecticut and Massachusetts, has been written on extensively. (Ibid. pp. 1456, 1458)

 

Dougindeap finishes his comment on an Alex de Tocqueville quote observing that Americans had declared to him “…that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state.” The de Tocqueville quote continues: “…I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.”

 

Frankly I suspect Dougindeap was setting me up for an oft used quote attributed to de Tocqueville in the seminal work “Democracy in America,” but in which scholars have discovered is not actually in the de Tocqueville book:

 

America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (Found on a webpage that has a series of de Tocqueville quotes melded together as if they were written as one thought promoting Christianity as America’s foundation – http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/onug/detocq.html)

 

The America is great because America is good quote has been used so much it has become a lexicon adage about America attributed to de Tocqueville. Prominent politicians and American leaders including a couple of U.S. Presidents have repeated the adage. Sadly the phrase is not found in “Democracy in America”.

 

John J. Pitney, Jr. wrote about the spurious quote:

 

… Nowhere do they appear in Democracy in America, or anywhere else in Tocqueville.

 

The authenticity of the passage came into question when first-year government students at Claremont McKenna College received an assignment: Find a contemporary speech quoting Tocqueville, and determine how accurately the speaker used the quotation. A student soon uncovered a recent Senate floor speech that cited the “America is great” line. He scoured Democracy in America, but could not find the passage. The professor looked, too – and it was not there.

 

Further research led to reference books that cautiously referred to the quotation as “unverified” and “attributed to de Tocqueville but not found in his works.” These references, in turn, pointed to the apparent source: a 1941 book on religion and the American dream. The book quoted the last two lines of the passage as coming from Democracy in America but supplied no documentation. (The author may have mistaken his own notes for a verbatim quotation, a common problem in the days before photocopiers.) The full version of the quotation appeared 11 years later, in an Eisenhower campaign speech. Ike, however, attributed it not directly to Tocqueville but to “a wise philosopher [who] came to this country ….”

 

 

It’s a shame that politicians are using a knockoff product when the real thing is so fine. Democracy in America offers profound analyses of the roles of religion, morality, and voluntary action, though its insights are subtler than the purple prose of the counterfeit.

 

 

Of course, after decades of repetition, it has in fact become an old adage. It just isn’t Tocqueville’s. (THE TOCQUEVILLE FRAUD; John J. Pitney, Jr.; The Weekly Standard; article found at Tocqueville.org; 11/13/1995)

 

So de Tocqueville’s legend did not actually pen, “America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” Nonetheless it does not make it any less true!

 

Here are some actual quotes that can be found in de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”. These quotes show the observation that Church/State separation only flows in one direction, viz. government separated from Christianity but not Christianity being separated from government (not necessarily in order):

 

“Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of free institutions. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all the Americans have a sincere faith in their religion, for who can search the human heart? but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation, and to every rank of society.”

 

***

 

“… Society has no future life to hope for or to fear; and provided the citizens profess a religion, the peculiar tenets of that religion are of very little importance to its interests. Moreover, almost all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same.

 

It may be believed without unfairness that a certain number of Americans pursue a peculiar form of worship, from habit more than from conviction. In the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy must be common; but there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.”

 

***

 

“… Religion perceives that civil liberty affords a noble exercise to the faculties of man, and that the political world is a field prepared by the Creator for the efforts of the intelligence. Contented with the freedom and the power which it enjoys in its own sphere, and with the place which it occupies, the empire of religion is never more surely established than when it reigns in the hearts of men unsupported by aught beside its native strength. Religion is no less the companion of liberty in all its battles and its triumphs; the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledge of freedom.”

 

***

 

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.

 

I have known of societies formed by the Americans to send out ministers of the Gospel into the new Western States to found schools and churches there, lest religion should be suffered to die away in those remote settlements, and the rising States be less fitted to enjoy free institutions than the people from which they emanated. I met with wealthy New Englanders who abandoned the country in which they were born in order to lay the foundations of Christianity and of freedom on the banks of the Missouri, or in the prairies of Illinois. Thus religious zeal is perpetually stimulated in the United States by the duties of patriotism. These men do not act from an exclusive consideration of the promises of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause; and if you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to find how much value they set upon the goods of this world, and that you meet with a politician where you expected to find a priest. They will tell you that “all the American republics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is, therefore, our interest that the new States should be religious, in order to maintain our liberties.”

 

***

 

Contented with the freedom and the power which it enjoys in its own sphere, and with the place which it occupies, the empire of religion is never more surely established than when it reigns in the hearts of men unsupported by aught beside its native strength. Religion is no less the companion of liberty in all its battles and its triumphs; the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledge of freedom.

 

It is clear from these quotes that the Frenchman de Tocqueville admired that government did not interfere in the realm of religion/Christianity, but he also observed that Christianity so embedded in the American did indeed fortify America and that this indeed made America good. Even though did not say it would be a great analytical summation to say of de Tocqueville observations, “America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

 

JRH 3/30/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Dougindeap Comment to: Disputing Separation Church/State Part 2

(NCCR)

 

By Dougindeap

March 22, 2014 at 11:17 AM

 

You offer a string of contextless quotations with the evident aim of showing the religious views of various founders–as if that is the way history is understood or the Constitution is interpreted. Hardly.

 

While the religious views of various founders are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another and held views such as you note regarding religion. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken to distinguish between society and government and not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. (Thus, whether you offer one or one hundred quotations of the sort you have presented, matters not one wit.) Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted in earlier comments. Indeed, that aspect of the Constitution was noticed and discussed in the debates about its ratification, since some were disappointed the Constitution did not acknowledge a deity. Imagine their surprise at all you would now make of the Constitution’s allusion to the “blessings of liberty.” Suffice it to say that the term “blessing” has religious and non-religious meanings and usages. See Webster’s Dictionary (1828).

 

The Constitution’s establishment of a secular government is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.

 

Lest there be any doubt on this score, note that shortly after the founding, President John Adams (a founder) signed, with the unanimous consent of the Senate (comprised in large measure of founders), the Treaty of Tripoli declaring, in pertinent part, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” No need to resort to reading tea leaves to understand that. This is not an informal comment by an individual founder, but rather an official declaration of the most solemn sort by the United States government itself. Note that the Constitution provides that treaties, apart from the Constitution itself, are the highest law of the land.

 

It is instructive to recall that the Constitution’s separation of church and state reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement was linked to another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.

 

This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment:

 

“On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).

 

____________________________________

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 6

By John R. Houk

© March 30, 2014

_____________________________________

Dougindeap Comment to: Disputing Separation Church/State Part 2

 

Edited by John R. Houk

© Dougindeap

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 5


G. Washington- Rightly Govern only by God & Bible

John R. Houk
© March 26, 2014
 
Here we go continuing to refute Dougindeap’s false belief the Church/State separation is as much a part of the Constitution as are the separation branch powers and checks and balances.
 
Similarly, they [i.e. the Founding Fathers] did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by … (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. (Dougindeap from: The Commonality between Leftist Paradigms & Scientific Theories; SlantRight 2.0; 3/13/14)
 
Dougindeap’s point two is vaguely cryptic. What in the world does he mean by “… they actually separated them by … (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers”?
 
An accurate statement might be seen in a rearrangement of the word order of the Dougindeap quote. How about something like:
 
The Founding Fathers separated powers (since power resides in the government that being separated must refer to the constitutionally defined Branches] by (2) according limiting government by enumerated the Branch powers.
 
This reordering of wording is a point I can get on board with because is a bit more clarity to extract an understanding. The Founding Fathers intent with the Constitution was to limit government in the context of affecting personal Liberty of American citizens. The object of employing checks and balances between the Branches was so that no single Branch could achieve despotic unchecked power over the government and hence over Americans promised Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as a way of life.
 
Government was to be limited to enforcing the rule of law that should be designed for the general welfare according to the moral of Nature’s God – the Creator – Who has placed the measuring stick for what is right and wrong for a good society.
 
I have established in Part Two that the Original Intent of the phrase of “general welfare” of the Constitution’s Preamble was in relation to the framing of Nature by Nature’s God the Creator. I quoted the Father of our Nation George Washington followed by an observation:
 

“No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts in the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. — Every step, by which they have been advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”
George Washington (Quote found, “SEVENPRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY: I LIBERTY IS OF DIVINE ORIGIN; By J. David Gowdy; Institute for American Liberty; Copyright © 1996)
 
As far as Liberty is concerned the Founding Fathers in the majority that religion (meaning Christianity in the 1780s) was essential for a virtuous and moral society to remain cohesive in the practice of Liberty or chaos will ensue that will only despotic rule could quell. (Disputing Separation Church/State Part 2)
 
The should and must recognize that this provides a context for the First Amendment that Justice Hugo Black must have willfully ignored in the majority decision of Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 which ONLY THEN not only upheld the intent of keeping government out of religion BUT ALSO extra-constitutionally added that religion must not have any contact with a taxpayer supported government operation on a Local, State and Federal basis.
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Bold Emphasis Mine First Amendment)
 
There is no place in the First Amendment that enumerates that Christianity should not be the moral basis for the rule of law foundation in the U.S. Constitution. That which is enumerated is that Congress – the vehicle for legislating law and establishing a government budget – MUST not make any laws establishing an established religion (meaning in the 1780s the Christian Church). And the First Amendment specifically enumerates that Congress shall prohibit the “free exercise” of religion (AGAIN meaning the Christian Church in the 1780s).
 
ERGO Dougindeap is wrong that the Founding Fathers created a Constitutional paradigm of Separation of Church and State in the sense that American practicing Christians must keep their faith out of the government. In relation to the State the only enumeration of power separation is that the government must stay out of the worship business of the Church in not establishing the preeminence of one Denomination over another Denomination whether that be Protestant, Catholic and by extension the Eastern Orthodox Churches that were not common in the USA in the 1780s and 1790s.
 
End of Part Five
 
o   Part One
 
o   Part Two
 
 
o   Part Four
 
 
JRH 3/26/14

Please Support NCCR

SLMP women empowerment


Shamim Masih (right) & Christian Female Trade Craft

Sohail Johnson (Left) Shamim Masih (Right) Christian Women Trade Craft

 

Shamim Masih writes a human rights report displaying encouragement for upward mobility for Pakistani Christian women.

 

JRH 3/21/14

Please Support NCCR

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

SLMP women empowerment

Visible and engaged – Christian women are breaking into industry

 

By Shamim Masih

Sent: 3/21/2014 7:14 AM

 

ISLAMABAD: Research shows women wait to be invited to participate in new opportunities. They think differently than men and this difference can be a powerful source of competitive advantage. By providing women with the necessary experiential entrepreneurial training to leverage women’s unique skills and perspectives for new business creation, we can transform them from employees to employers. Access to employment is a serious problem for Pakistani Christians. Well-educated, young Christian men and women are not able to find employment.

  

The good news is that there is definitely a push to get girls into the tech arena. When a woman earns an income, she reinvests 90 percent of it in her family, meaning her whole community benefits. With the resources to establish her own business, her children receive better nutrition and improved school access, while other women and their families benefit from the knowledge she shares.

 

Sharing Life Ministries Pakistan (SLMP) program on women empowerment was successfully piloted in the fall of 2011 and provides women with entrepreneurial skills. By providing new skills to the degreed individuals who are interested with necessary training for new business creation, they propose helping to create new technology based company that create the jobs of the future. Sohail Johnson chief of SLMP said that we recognized that not everyone can be an entrepreneur but a key component of the program is the creation of teams that are mentored by an experienced entrepreneur who will capitalize on the individual skill sets of each participant.

 

Under this skill enhancement program, SLMP had trained more than 980 minority women in recent three years. Kiran Younis, 23, having 8 family members earn some reasonable amount for her family. She had never been to school because her father has low income; since she got training a chance at SLMP, she planned to send her young ones to school for an education. Mehak Shuakat, 25, joined SLMP two years back and now is earning an average income of 5000 [Rupee] per month, supporting her parents.

 

Schooling in addition to a fiscal empowerment brings an adjustment to a completely new generation. We wish that social rights activists will start working upon these types of collections as a substitute to losing occasion [to work] in addition to [including] methods throughout other pursuits. 

 

_______________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Everything in brackets are placed by the Editor

 

© Shamim Masih

Special Correspondents

Daily Khabrian (PakBiz.com description) & Channel – 5

Human Rights Activist

 

Snapshot of Human Rights Activism from 2011

Christian Rights Activist
Freelance Journalist
 

Secretary General of Information

Pakistan Christian Congress

 

Shamim Masih’s Donate/Support info:

 

Editor: For Americans especially, I have discovered the best way to donate to Shamim Masih is via Western Union sending to a Western Union agent in Islamabad.

 

FOR USD TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank:
                        MASHREQ BANK, NEW YORK
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC:
        MSHQUS33
Beneficiary Bank:
                        JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC:
                JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank:
        70008227
Title Of a/c
                               Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number:
                405527

Top of Form

IBAN #                                        pk80jsbl9530000000405227

FOR GBP TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank:
                        MASHREQ BANK, LONDON
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC:
        MSHQGB2L
Beneficiary Bank:
                        JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC:
                JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank:
        00010855
Title Of a/c
                               Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number:
                405527
IBAN #
                                       pk80jsbl9530000000405227

FOR EURO TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank:
                        MASHREQ BANK, LONDON
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC:
        MSHQGB2L
Beneficiary Bank:
                        JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC:
                JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank:
        10847
Title Of a/c
                               Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number:
                405527
IBAN #
                                       pk80jsbl9530000000405227

 

Obama’s DoD v The Constitution


I am a huge fan of The Patriot Post and Mark Alexander. Indeed, I have a Patriot Post banner on my SlantRight 2.0 blog in which you can click to receive a free subscription of the online magazine in your inbox.

 

On Wednesday Alexander posted an exposé of the United States Air Force Academy’s persecution of religious freedom in which points a finger at guess who for officially instituting such a policy? If you are a Conservative you KNOW it was the America’s own Marxist-in-Chief President Barack Hussein Obama. The atheist tool needling Obama’s military policy at the Air Force Academy (AFA) is Mikey Weinstein.

 

I am cross posting Mark Alexander’s essay below in its entirety. Interspersed throughout the essay are “Comment” and “Share” links which I am leaving intact. Feel free to utilize them but note the links are under the auspices of The Patriot Post and not my blog.

 

JRH 3/21/14

Please Support NCCR

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

Obama’s DoD v The Constitution

Suppressing 1st Amendment Religious Expression in the Air Force

 

By Mark Alexander 

Mar. 19, 2014

The Patriot Post

Email Notification Sent: 3/19/2014 1:07 PM

 

“God who gave us life gave us Liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.” –Thomas Jefferson (1774)

 

 

Yet another case of BO’s D-O-D v G-O-D…

 

During the rancorous debates that preceded passage of the 2014 DefenseUSAFA Free Thinkers ad - Ask an Atheist Day budget – the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 – one of the proposed amendments was designed to protect the First Amendment rights of members of the Armed Services.

 

The NDAA as signed by Barack Hussein Obama in December of 2013 included an amendment based on the protective rights language proposed by Rep. John Calvin Fleming (R-LA). Regarding that amendment, Fleming noted: “The conscience rights of our men and women in uniform and their chaplains must be protected. While existing protections have focused on their beliefs, my amendment will extend that protection to the liberty granted by the U.S. Constitution, namely the freedom to exercise those beliefs in speech and actions. This amendment is aimed at stopping the unjust threats and reprimands against service members who have been speaking or acting in accord with their deeply held beliefs, while ensuring that military necessity and readiness are not compromised.”

 

Indeed, Section 532 of the NDAA, the “Enhancement of protection of rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces and chaplains of such members,” was implemented as a first step toward achieving that goal.

 

Last week, however, the Air Force Academy, with a little help from perennial atheist agitator Mikey Weinstein, tested the protection of those rights. Recall that Weinstein heads the “Military Religious Freedom Foundation,” or what would be more aptly named the “Military Freedom From Religion Foundation.” (Other Service Academies are not burdened with Weinstein because he has made the AFA his testing ground for atheist challenges.)

 

One of Weinstein’s resident cadre of campus atheists complained to the Academy’s Superintendent, Lt. Gen. Michelle Johnson, about a Bible verse posted on a Cadet’s dorm door whiteboard: “I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me…” (Gal. 2:20) Those erasable whiteboards are on all Cadet doors, and they are used for personal messages and statements. There is no AFA restriction on what can be posted on them, and Cadets have a respectful understanding of what might be offensive to others – which most assuredly should not include a Bible verse.

That notwithstanding, it was promptly “suggested” to the Cadet that he remove the Bible verse, even though such posts are common.

 

Johnson claimed in an official statement, “The scripture [on the Cadet’s door] could cause subordinates to doubt the leader’s religious impartiality.”

 

Really?

 

On Tuesday of this week, a Cadet with the same leadership rank and position in his squadron as the Cadet who posted the Bible verse on his dorm door, invited the entire Cadet Wing, both in a public announcement to the Wing assembled and by official AFA email, to the “Ask and Atheist Day” event. The event flyer was advertised all week on Academy bulletin screens.

 

So, are we to believe then that promoting atheism to the entire Cadet Wing through official channels does not raise doubts about “the leader’s religious impartiality”?

 

The Cadets who contacted me about the atheist event indicated that they were not objecting to the promotion of that event, but to the hypocrisy of that promotion, versus a fellow Cadet being asked to remove a Bible verse from his door. Obviously, only the Christian expression of faith is the target of AFA discrimination, and it is Johnson’s “religious impartiality” which should be in contention.

 

AFA Cadet White Boards with Scriptures

 

Of note, Johnson’s press release stated, “While we swear an oath to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States, Airmen are also bound by [Air Force Instruction 1-1].” (Shouldn’t that read “Airpersons”?) Instruction 1-1 is a regulation put into place in 2009 by Obama’s DoD administrators to suppress religious speech.

 

Johnson’s reference to “swear an oath” is ironic, given that, as The Patriot Post first reported last year, somebody at the AFA removed the words “So Help Me God” from the Officer and Enlisted Oaths in the AFA’s official handbook. Those words were removed in 2010 and are still AWOL from the current handbook – in violation of federal statutes and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

 

My column, “End Run on ‘So Help Me God’,” details this omission, and the matter is now the subject of a Freedom of Information Act inquiry to determine who removed those words and why. (I bet Mikey Weinstein’s name pops up.) Suffice it to say that removing “So Help Me God” from official oaths is a far more egregious offense than the current dispute over the Bible verse, but both fall into the same category of faith suppression. However, we may never get an answer given that “the most transparent administration” has stonewalled far more FOIA requests than any other administration.

 

Comment | Share

 

Regarding the whiteboard Bible verse, Weinstein told Fox News that it “clearly elevated [fundamentalist Christianity] over all others at an already virulently hyper-fundamentalist Christian institution.” He added, “It massively poured fundamentalist Christian gasoline on an already raging out-of-control conflagration of fundamentalist Christian tyranny, exceptionalism and supremacy at USAFA. You cannot put a picture in front of your room of a white person whipping a black person. You can’t put a picture of anything that’s denigrating outside your room.”

 

Got that? Posting a passage from the Bible on one’s personal whiteboard is akin to posting a picture “of a white person whipping a black person.” (Shades of Joseph Goebbels in Weinstein’s über -hyperbolic rhetoric.)

 

Former spec ops commander Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin (USA Ret.) says, “The very troops who defend our religious freedom are at risk of having their own taken away. The worst thing we can do is to stop Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, especially the chaplains, from the free exercise of their faith. … If a scripture scares [the AFA administrators] this much, then [some of those they are training] may not be very effective when confronted by a committed enemy who is willing to die for his or her beliefs. This academy should be training warriors. Scripture is hardly a threat.”

 

 

The AFA’s leadership malfeasance spilled over into Air Force budgetA.F. Secretary Deborah Lee James & A.F. Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh testimony before Congress last Friday, with both Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James and Air Force Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh being asked for a detailed explanation of why the AFA is suppressing religious expression. Reps. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Michael Turner (R-OH), Mike McIntyre (D-NC) and Randy Forbes (R-VA) pressed for answers.

 

Lamborn noted, “The Air Force Academy is in my district, and … I’m very disturbed by what happened with this Cadet. I think it’s a suppression of religious rights.” He has written a letter of protest to Johnson, noting, “We are asking future officers to perhaps give even their very lives to protect and defend the Constitution and yet denying them rights from that same Constitution.”

 

As Forbes put it to Sec. James, “Can you imagine a young Cadet when he’s forced with the entire chain of command coming in there and telling him basically this is inappropriate?” He objected further, “Perhaps most offensive, the Air Force said this was a teaching moment, that the Cadet’s action of putting the Bible verse on [the whiteboard] was inappropriate based on leadership principles.”

 

Forbes then asked Gen. Welsh, “What other inspirational quotes have Cadets been forced to remove from their personal whiteboards other than verses from the Bible?”

 

Welsh insisted the “single biggest frustration I’ve had in this job is the perception that somehow there is religious persecution in the United States Air Force.” He added, “We remove hundreds of quotes from those boards. … You have to get the facts right on every one of these cases.”

 

Now, I’ve met Gen. Welsh, and I found him to be in possession of strong character and leadership qualities – and a devoted Christian. But if he’s been told that the AFA has removed “hundreds of quotes from those boards,” I for one would like to see the evidence of those removals, preferably without issuing another FOIA request. According to a response I received from Gen. Welsh regarding the issue of “So Help Me God” being removed from the AFA’s official handbook, he was told that was “a printing error on a wall calendar,” not an obvious omission from the handbook.

 

Memo to Gen. Welsh: You can’t “get the facts right” if somebody at the AFA is feeding you misinformation.

 

Comment | Share

 

So what now?

 

To ratchet up the stakes, some AFA Cadets are standing their ground in protest by posting this offensive note on their door whiteboards: “IN GOD WE TRUST”. By “offensive,” I mean an offensive strategic move to challenge the culture of religious suppression at the AFA. (The Patriot Post is offering 4″x6″ stickers with our flag over the words “IN GOD WE TRUST” free of charge to Cadets at any service academy. E-mail GodTrust@PatriotPost.US to inquire about obtaining quantities of these stickers.)

 

US Flag - In God We Trust

 

Of course, Mikey Weinstein is furious: “This is an absolutely horrible, shameful disgrace. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such an open rebellion like this happening at any military academy. It’s like they’re sticking their middle finger up at what the academy did.”

 

Will AFA Superintendent Johnson demand our National Motto be removed from her Cadets’ doors?

 

If so, a religious Liberty coalition, including the Family Research Council, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Liberty Counsel, the Liberty Institute and the Thomas More Law Center, announced they will provide legal defense for any Cadet brought up on charges.

 

Liberty Institute attorney Mike Berry believes the AFA actions are a direct violation of Section 532 of the NDAA as noted previously, saying, “If the Cadet didn’t violate any rules, then why was the quote removed? … This is not only morally wrong, it’s illegal. … We met with Col. Paul Barzler, the Air Force Academy Staff Judge Advocate [and] pointed out that under the Constitution, federal law, and military regulations, Cadets have the right to religious exercise. I was shocked when he responded that [according to Obama’s DoD policy] the term ‘religious exercise’ does not include written or verbal speech.”

 

Personally, I’m not sure why anyone would be shocked at any directive from the Obama administration.

 

Under the pretense of “religious tolerance,” Obama’s administration has been advancing his mandate to remove all expressions of faith from government forums. This eradication serves the Left’s strategic objective of replacing Rule of Law with the rule of men – because the former is predicated on the principle of Liberty “endowed by our Creator,” while the latter asserts that Liberty is the gift of government.

 

Stand your ground, Cadets!

 

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

___________________________

© 2014, The Patriot Post.

 

About The Patriot Post

 

The Patriot Post is a highly acclaimed advocate of Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and the promotion of free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We believe, as did our Founders, that Essential Liberty, and Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution, must be defended at any cost. “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (Ben Franklin) · “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” (John Adams) · “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” (Thomas Jefferson) · “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.” (Thomas Paine) · “It does not take a majority to prevail…but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. … If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” (Samuel Adams) · “Give me liberty or give me death!” (Patrick Henry) · “Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!” (George Washington)

 

The Patriot Post — inspired byREAD THE REST

 

From Email Version:

 

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2014 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

Radical Islam Shaking & Moving U.S. Govt.


MB-Marxism in USA

John R. Houk

© March 12, 2014

 

Counterjihad writers have long asserted the Islam fingered as Radical has not only infiltrated the United States of America by forming NGOs with the stamp of legality BUT ALSO have been infiltrating the U.S. government itself. The government infiltration began in the Bush Administration even though it was President G. W. Bush that correctly defined a new era of unconventional war as the Global War on Terrorism (GWTO). Under the Leftist Administration of President Barack Hussein Obama Radical Islamic associated Muslims has increased alarmingly.

 

Here are just a few Radical Muslims (some often pretend to be Moderates) either on the government payroll or are very influential as a mover and shaker in the U.S. government.

 

o   Arif Alikhan  (See Also HERE) – Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

 

o   Mohammed Elibiary (See Also HERE) – Homeland Security Adviser.

 

o   Rashad Hussain (See Also HERE) – Special Envoy to the (OIC) Organization of the Islamic Conference.

 

o   Salam al-Marayati (See Also HERE) – Obama Adviser, founder of Muslim Public Affairs Council and its current executive director.

 

o   Imam Mohamed Magid (See Also HERE) – Obama’s Sharia Czar, Islamic Society of North America.

 

o   Eboo Patel (See Also HERE) – Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships. (Last six names gleaned from FrontPageMag.com. Further info leaks added by Google search)

 

o   Huma Abedin (See also HERE) – Longtime assistant, advisor and confidant of Hillary Clinton – Senate Days and Secretary of State Days.

 

o   Suhail KhanKhan convinced then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich to reserve a room in the Capitol for Muslims to pray.  Khan was working for Tom Campbell, a Republican congressman from a heavily Muslim district in Northern California, to eliminate the Justice Department’s use of so-called “secret evidence” in deportation cases involving Arab immigrants suspected of terrorism. After George W. Bush’s presidential election victory in 2000, Khan became a staff member in the White House Office of Public Liaison (OPL), where he was given responsibility for selecting which Muslims would be allowed access to the President and his team.  Khan was removed from the OPL and was given a political appointment in the Department of Transportation. He spent the rest of the Bush administration there, ultimately serving as the Assistant to the Secretary for Policy. In that capacity, Khan had access to classified information on such matters as port, rail, waterway and highway security, as well as the movement of nuclear weapons and other hazardous materials.

 

o   Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN-5) [See Also HERE] – One of those strange bedfellows of a Left Wing Democrat and an associate of the Black Supremacist Nation of Islam (NOI) and a host of Radical Islamic American organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood of which many are linked to Islamic terrorists.

 

o   Dalia Mogahed An advisor to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

 

This is hardly an exhaustive list. I just gave up digging for now.

 

Most of the prominent Muslim-American organizations are linked to Radical Islam. Many of these organizations go out of their way to build an image of the politically correct concept of Moderate Islam. This is an outright deception. These Muslim-American organizations follow the ideological line of the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Wahhabis, Turkish Islamists and Pakistan Islamists are the ones that come to mind. Here is a chart of the Muslim Brotherhood linked Muslim-American organizations and note some of these are tied to Islamic terrorists or support the goals of Islamic terrorism.

 

All the organizations I have in mind above link themselves to Sunni Islam. You need to know there are Shia Radical Islamic organizations penetrating the USA as well. The Shias are supported by the Twelver nutcases of Iran. The biggest Shia Islamic Terrorist organization is Hezbollah the client terrorists of Iran in Lebanon focused on Jew-hatred and itself stretching a global network.

 

ACT for America via email sent an essay by John D. Guandolo that was written with the intent expose Radical Islamic organizations in America are attacking Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser with impunity. For those that believe Islam has a moderate side Dr. Jasser is considered a Moderate Muslim even to the extent of transforming the Islamic religion into a modern version in which the harsher points of Sharia and Muslim traditional intolerance are excluded. As you can tell from my tone I have been moving away from the concept that Islam can transform as long as Mohammed and the Quran are held as the veritable word of Allah to humanity. For this to happen would be an overhaul that I cannot see ever happening – at least in my life time.

 

But enough of the ifs and maybes of the possibility of a new Islam. The point you need to pay attention to in Guandolo’s essay is his break down of the nefarious connections the Muslim Brotherhood tentacles has in America in an astoundingly legitimate manner with NO One willing to take a stand that is a real leader in our nation out of fear.

 

What is that fear?

 

That fear is the brainwashing of our society to the political correctness that multiculturalism enhances our American way of life when in reality the American way is diluted. America has become so diluted with multiculturalism that the inherent traits of Americans are disappearing. As those traits disappear, that which makes America good ceases to exist.

 

Off the top of my head some of those traits are:

 

o   American Individualism.

 

o   The intense desire for individualism leads to a hunger for Liberty and Freedom.

 

o   Liberty and Freedom led our Founders to construct a Constitution codifying them and making it difficult for a government to terminate Liberty and Freedom.

 

o   Our heritage was largely established on the values of Christians coming to America to worship their faith without government interference YET with a definite inculcation of Christian Morality in the development of the rule of law and the social mores of American community.

 

o   A government accountable to the people rather than a government accountable to an individual or an oligarchic group (such as European nobility).

 

I’m sure others can think of other points that made America good. Left Wingers need not add their Living Constitution Separation of Church/State nonsense.

 

Below is the ACT for America email with the John D. Guandolo essay.

 

JRH 3/12/14

Please Support NCCR

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

CAIR’s Attack on Zuhdi Jasser’s Funders Begs the Questions:
Who is CAIR and Where Does Its Money Come From

 John Guandolo

 

By John D. Guandolo

Sent: 3/10/2014 9:25 AM

Sent by: ACT for America

 

Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), served for eleven years as a medical officer in the United States Navy where he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal. Dr. Jasser is a Past-President of the Arizona Medical Association, and currently has a private practice in Phoenix specializing in internal medicine and nuclear cardiology.

Dr. Jasser, as many are aware, is an outspoken critic of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement in the United States, and is harshly critical of those seeking to impose sharia (Islamic Law) in America. He strongly supports the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Zuhdi Jasser is a patriot, an American hero, and a Muslim – which is why Hamas (doing business as CAIR) is attacking him.

Last week, Hamas (dba CAIR) launched yet another assault on Dr. Jasser. In 2012, CAIR unsuccessfully tried to block his appointment to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), where he currently serves. CAIR is calling on the USCIRF to investigate the sources of funding for Dr. Jasser’s organization AIFD.

The fact that a Hamas organization like CAIR could operate so openly in the U.S. without disruption from the current administration is, in and of itself, astonishing. CAIR’s brazenness in attacking an honorable American like Dr. Jasser begs questions that must be answered – Who is CAIR and Where Does Its Funding Come From?

Let us together take a walk through the place CAIR never wants us to go – into the land of facts and evidence.

CAIR was incorporated in 1994 by Nihad Awad, Omar Ahmad, and Rafeeq Jaber. All three of these men were leaders of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), a now-defunct Hamas organization in the U.S. Musa Abu Marzook, the Deputy Political Chief for Hamas and the Leader of Hamas in the United States (Chairman of the U.S. Palestine Committee), was a member of the IAP Board of Directors. FYI, Hamas is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the U.S. government.

In 1993 and 1994, Omar Ahmad served as the National President for IAP, and from 1994-2005 was the Chairman of the Board for CAIR. Omar Ahmad was also on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Palestine Committee (Hamas). Rafeeq Jaber served as the National President of IAP from 1996-98 and 1999-2005.

U.S. government prosecutors and the Department of Justice identify CAIR as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee, which is Hamas in the United States.

In 1993, the leaders of the U.S. Palestine Committee (Hamas) met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The meeting was covered by the FBI via physical surveillance, microphones in meeting rooms, and wiretaps on phones. An “Action Memo” from FBI’s Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Dale Watson declared this was a “Meeting among senior leaders of Hamas, the HLFRD, and the IAP.” FBI analysis of the Philadelphia meeting, which was entered into evidence at the US v Holy Land Foundation (hereafter “HLF”) trial reveals “All attendees of this meeting are Hamas members.” Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad were present at this meeting.

Recorded conversations of this meeting captured Awad and Ahmad discussing the creation of a new public relations organization for Hamas which investigators testified was CAIR, created in summer of 1994, less than a year after the Philadelphia meeting.

The HLF Indictment (2004) states: “The purpose of this (1993 Philadelphia) meeting was to determine their course of action in support of Hamas’ opposition to the peace plan and to decide how to conceal their activities from the scrutiny of the United States government.”

In a 2004 FBI raid at the Annandale, Virginia residence of Ismail Elbarasse, a senior Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood (MB) operative, the archives of the U.S. MB were discovered. One of the documents found lists the leaders of the U.S. Palestine Committee (Hamas) – the names of CAIR founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad (alias Omar Yeheya) are on that list.

Because of the overwhelming evidence that CAIR is a Hamas entity, U.S. prosecutors list CAIR as a member of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee (Hamas) and as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial – the largest Hamas and terrorism financing trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history.

In the government filing requesting a denial of CAIR’s motion to have its name removed from the Unindicted Co-Conspirator list in the HLF case, U.S. prosecutors state, “The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood created the U.S. Palestine Committee, which documents reflect was initially comprised of three organizations: the OLF (HLF), the IAP, and the UASR. CAIR was later added to these organizations…the mandate of these organizations, per the International Muslim Brotherhood, was to support Hamas.”

In his ruling, the federal Judge in this case, Jorge Solis, stated: “The Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, and NAIT with the HLF, the Islamic Association of Palestine (“IAP”), and with Hamas.”

The question of why the President of ISNA sits on the Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Committee, works directly with the Secretary of State, briefs National Security staffs, moderates panel discussions at CIA Headquarters, and has been given awards by the FBI will have to be addressed at a later date.

Is anyone else wondering how CAIR and its leaders are allowed to operate freely and unimpeded in America, with their headquarters only a block from the U.S. Capitol?

More evidence…

In the December 2007 government filing in the US v Sabri Benkhala appeal, the government stated: “From its founding by the Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.” So, CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood organization which supports terrorists. It would appear federal law is being violated here.

This would explain why CAIR has a long record of defending jihadis and jihadi organizations, while publicly condemning the counterterrorism efforts of the U.S. government and local law enforcement. Noteworthy is CAIR’s vigorous defense of Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook after his arrest, and their criticism of our government for its investigation and indictment of the Holy Land Foundation – another Hamas entity.

What do senior government officials who have seen the evidence have to say about CAIR?

Former FBI Assistant Director Steve Pomeranz stated: “By masquerading as a mainstream public affairs organization, CAIR has taken the lead in trying to mislead the public about the terrorist underpinnings of militant Islamic movements, in particular, Hamas.”

In a 2003 Senate Sub-Committee hearing on radical Islam, Senator Charles Schumer stated, “To make matters worse, the prominent members of the Council’s (CAIR’s) current leadership who you Mr. Chairman invited to the hearings today – they declined to testify – also have intimate connections with Hamas.”

In June 2009, on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Frank Wolf (VA) gave a lengthy speech in which he laid out a great deal of the evidence against CAIR and its ties to Hamas. The transcript of this speech can be found at http://wolf.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/wolf-gives-major-floor-speech-on-fbis-cooperation-with-cair

In a letter dated April 28, 2009 from the FBI’s Assistant Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, to U.S. Senator John Kyl (AZ), the FBI leader details why the FBI cut off all formal ties to CAIR and identifies it as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial because of its relationship with Hamas.

In a letter dated February 12, 2010 to U.S. Congresswoman Sue Myrick (NC) from Assistant U.S. Attorney General Ronald Weich, Mr. Weich wrote “Enclosed (is)…evidence that was introduced in that trial (US v HLF) which demonstrated the relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, and the Palestine Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and Hamas.”

For those of you who forgot Junior High School math, please allow me to review: If A=B and B=C, then A=C. There is a relationship between CAIR and the U.S. Palestine Committee. There is a relationship between the U.S. Palestine Committee and Hamas. Therefore, there is a relationship between CAIR and Hamas. As was previously stated, on the order from the International Muslim Brotherhood, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood created the U.S. Palestine Committee to raise “media, money, men and all that” for Hamas. The U.S. Palestine Committee created four organizations to support Hamas with propaganda, money, and recruits: The Occupied Land Fund (which became the HLF), the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), and CAIR.

In the sporting world we call this a slam dunk. But what about the money CAIR receives. Certainly if they are attacking Dr. Jasser and his organization for improprieties in his sources of funding, CAIR must be squeaky clean, yes?

No, actually.

Actually, the Hamas front called the Holy Land Foundation provided CAIR with $5,000 of seed money shortly after CAIR was founded, and, in return, CAIR raised money for HLF. Is there another violation of U.S. law here?

CAIR has also received funds from overseas organizations like WAMY (World Association of Muslim Youth) and IIRO (International Islamic Relief Organization). Both WAMY and IIRO are Saudi-funded groups whose U.S. offices were raided by the government because of their possible ties to Hamas and Al Qaeda.

Most notably, In 1999, CAIR received $250,000 from a Saudi-based bank headed by the former Director of the Muslim World League (MWL). Osama bin Laden identified MWL as a primary source of funds for Al Qaeda. Federal investigators raided MWL’s U.S. offices. It is not a far reach to see that CAIR received money from a source the leader of Al Qaeda recognized was a “primary” source of funding for AQ.

It should be noted the information in this article is a small amount of the massive evidence revealing the Council on American Islamic Relations is a Hamas entity whose role in the greater Islamic Movement here is to “support terrorists” as the U.S. Department of Justice has stated. They do this in a variety of ways. As a matter of fact, CAIR’s website acknowledges that all money donated to it via zakat goes to jihad fisabillillah – the seventh category under Islamic Law – but maybe we should save that discussion for another article.

As CAIR launches its attacks against honorable Americans like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser who are standing firm on the truth about a real and present threat to the American people and our nation, another question must be asked…

Where are the U.S. agencies charged with protecting and defending Americans like Dr. Jasser, and why are they not shutting CAIR down, arresting its leaders, and seizing all of its assets? Maybe they haven’t seen the facts.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Blog Editor: As I was doing a little reading on the info in these posts I came across a video presenting a Brigitte Gabriel speech about Radical Islam in the USA (55 minutes). I found it interesting enough to include it here.

 

VIDEO: BRIGITTE GABRIEL

 

Published by RamonaTEAD

Published on Nov 16, 2012

 

An Evening with Brigitte Gabriel, hosted by Ramona TEA’d that the Ramona Mainstage, August 2, 2012.

_______________________________

Radical Islam Shaking & Moving U.S. Govt.

John R. Houk

© March 12, 2014

_____________________________

CAIR’s Attack on Zuhdi Jasser’s Funders Begs the Questions:
Who is CAIR and Where Does Its Money Come From

 

John Guandolo is the founder of UnderstandingtheThreat.com and the author of the book Raising a Jihadi Generation, detailing the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement in the United States. He works closely with ACT! for America and helped with the creation of ACT’s Thin Blue Line Project which educates law enforcement, military, and intelligence professionals about the threat from the Muslim Brotherhood’s Movement, and gives them investigative tools and strategies for addressing this threat. Mr. Guandolo is a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, a former active duty combat Marine Infantry and Reconnaissance Officer, and a former Special Agent with the FBI. For more information, please go to www.UnderstandingtheThreat.com.

 

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

Please! Quit Trusting the Lies from Obama


Lying to Believe in - Change U-Can Trust

 

John R. Houk

© March 4, 2014

 

President Barack Hussein Obama has lied to American voters before he was even elected to Office in 2008.

 

Jeremiah Wright went from mentor to I have not heard any White-hatred sermons.

 

BHO lied about barely knowing Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were Communist terrorists in their younger days (and remarkably used the very American laws they railed against to get away with their violence via some Court technicality). Dear God in Heaven BHO had election/Community Organizing meetings in the Ayers/Dohrn living room.

 

BHO lied about his connection to Tony Rezko – who committed fraud and extortion. In 2003 BHO was at a farewell party for Rashid Khalidi – a promoter of then State Department designated terrorist organization PLO and friend of Yasser Arafat – delivering vitriolic hate-speech toward Israel. The proof of Obama’s Israel-hatred was recorded on a mysterious tape procured by the LA Times. The LA Times only released enough info from the tape during the 2008 Presidential campaign to remind BHO to be more favorable toward Palestinians. The LA Times has steadfastly refused to make the entire tape available to the public. Why? It would prove Obama is a liar about public statements his Administration is a friend of Israel.

 

Father Michael Pfleger is in the same mold as Jeremiah Wright except he is a Roman Catholic White man. Pfleger’s Chicago parish is mostly Black and rather than show the nature of Christ or even the official line of the Roman Catholic Church Pfleger has embraced the same White-hatred Left Wing ideology of the Black Liberation Movement as has the racist Reverend Wright. Prior to Obama’s 2008 election Pfleger publically stated he had known Obama for over 20 years. Pfleger is one of a number of Chicago religious leaders (Protestant – Wright, Islam – Farrakhan and Catholic – Pfleger) that cooperated with then State Senator Obama to use racial profiling that Illinois law enforcement picked on Black people for the reason of a higher rate of Black incarceration.

 

As a young man Barack Obama had a great affinity to the man known as the founder and/or godfather of Critical Racial Theory (CRT) in Derrick Bell. The simple explanation of CRT is that Whites are permanent oppressors and Blacks are permanently oppressed – err unless changes occur in society. Bell himself proclaims that CRT is highly influenced by Marxist ideology – rich Capitalists vs. oppressed proletariat-worker class. Obama’s ideological affection for race baiting Marxist Bell is evidenced by the young Obama introduction of Bell at a Left Wing protest while Obama was at Harvard:

 

VIDEO: EXCLUSIVE Unedited Obama Race Video Unveiled

 

The Left Stream Media (aka MSM) had gone to great lengths to brandish Obama’s connection to Bell as a non-starter; however BHO’s past radical associations’ show the Bell-connection is more of additional info of the current President hatred of America as it is under the U.S. Constitution.

 

Marshall Davis a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA was a mentor of the young Obama thus shaping our current President’s world view. Respected Conservative journalist Trevor Louden excerpts an American Spectator article showing Obama’s most trusted advisors David Axelrod (Left Obama’s Administration just before 2012 election) and Valerie Jarrett ALSO had a close connection to the Davis-Communist admiration society. Louden speculates at the end of his post, “Manchurian Candidate, anyone?

 

Undoubtedly this is not an exhaustive look at the picture that President Barack Hussein Obama is a lying deceiver to American voters due to the building up his anti-American and anti-Jewish world view.

 

To drive the point home that Obama is a calculated liar to fool voters is this page that has linked documentation of the President’s lies from campaign promises for 2008 through his fifth year in Office:

 

http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies

 

Also you can check out title from InvestmentWatch Blog dated September 17, 2013:

 

The Complete List of Barack Obama’s Scandals, Misdeeds, Crimes and Blunders

This list is huge and I make sure to post the date Obama’s lies, scandals and crimes seems to grow longer and longer each month. Which begs the question: When will the Left oriented MSM finally admit their transform America Leftist utopian President is more about destroying the foundations of America rather than preserving the American way of life that makes America good?

 

Now Leftists and Conservatives alike (if they made down this far) are probably wondering, “Why should I care about this rehash of facts – head buried in the sand if you are an American Leftist and ‘forget about it’ Conservatives who look to the next two election cycles to reverse the curse of Obamunism (or the blessing of Obama transformation for the Left)?”

 

Here is why – and I am really just picking one reason for my train of thought: Americans on the Left and the Right still support the right for Israel’s existence apart from the Muslim Jew-hatred ingrained into Islamic society via their holy writings and journalistic commentaries. The one difference between Left Wing and Right Wing Americans is the path to maintain Israel’s existence. The Left has fallen for the ‘Land for Peace’ idiocy. Center-Right Paleoconservatives and Establishment Republicans have also fallen for the idiocy of ‘Land for Peace,’ but perhaps not quite as much land as the Left believes their fallacy would solve. Then there are the Conservatives and the Christian Zionists (yep, I’m one of those) that either see that ‘Land for Peace’ is an equation that will lead to Israel’s demise and probable the next genocidal Holocaust of Jews or we Christian Zionists concurring but adding that the Land of Israel is a God-given paradigm right out of the Word of God. Regardless of the perceived viable path to preserve Israel’s existence the Left (for the most part) and the Right agree Israel’s right to exist should be a global guarantee.

 

Overwhelmingly American voters’ support Israel’s right to exist as opposed the Arab and Muslim desire to destroy the Jewish State of Israel. Thus at a time when a significant amount of voters may be watching President Obama speak because of the prime time nature of the coverage of the State of the Union Address the Leftist messiah told Americans:

 

President Obama also spoke about the peace process between Israel and Palestinians. The president openly declared Israel as a Jewish state, a point that the Palestinians refuse to acknowledge and that has led to numerous failures of past peace talks.

 

As we speak, American diplomacy is supporting Israelis and Palestinians as they engage in difficult but necessary talks to end the conflict there; to achieve dignity and an independent state for Palestinians, and lasting peace and security for the State of Israel – a Jewish state that knows America will always be at their side,” Obama told Congress. This statement received a standing ovation from both Democrat and Republican legislatures. (Bold Italics MineState of the Union Address: Obama Takes Soft Stance on Middle Eastern Policy; By Lea Speyer; Conservative Musings; 1/29/14 12:57 pm)

 

Just in case you missed the Obama promise: “… a Jewish state that knows America will always be at their side”.

 

Here comes the Obama threat that makes that a lie:

 

‘Bibi’, the President all but said, ‘if you don’t accept the peace plan that my Secretary of State hasn’t even released yet, you will ruin your country.’ The interview was released for publication almost the very moment as Netanyahu’s plane departed to meet with Obama in Washington.

 

In addition to droning on about the growing dangers posed by increasing Israeli settlement ‘expansion’, the “rights” of Palestinian refugees, the historic “moderation” of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and the reasonableness of the Iranian regime, President Obama used the interview with Goldberg to issue ominous new threats and dire warnings against the Jewish state if it did not agree to accept his plan to shrink Israel back inside the 1949 armistice lines.

 

Obama tells Goldberg that it isn’t really the Palestinians who need to change. It is Israel. Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians is essentially the result of steps Israel takes to prevent such terrorism. The best way to change the Palestinian Authority’s incitement to – and celebration of blood curdling violence against Jews – is for Israel to change its housing policy.

 

Nothing new here. This has been the President Obama’s basic position since long before he ever ran for public office; and a position shared by most of the international community.

 

What is new about Obama’s latest interview are his threats. If Israel doesn’t do what Obama decides Israel should do, then Israel should no longer expect the U.S. to support it: “If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction – and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the past couple of years – if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguously sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the fallout is going to be limited.” (Bold and Italics are mine – AS WORLD ORDER IMPLODES, OBAMA PROMISES TO ACT… AGAINST ISRAEL; By THOMAS ROSE; Breitbart; 3/3/14)

 

Not surprisingly this Obama lie is not getting a lot of American press. Rather the press is focused on the goings on in Ukraine. Ukraine is a crisis but selling out Israel to a potential Muslim executed Holocaust of Jews is a disaster of huge moral dimensions. The above Breitbart quote was discovered like on page 5 of a Bing Search. I had gone through 20 pages of a Google Search and found zero. I was alerted to this Obama threat of betrayal to Israel from being on the email list of the Times of Israel that had two titles relating to the Obama threat:

 

Obama: US won’t be able to defend Israel if peace talks fail

Israel can expect to face international isolation and possible sanctions from countries and companies across the world if Benjamin Netanyahu fails to endorse a framework agreement with the Palestinians, US President Barack Obama cautioned on Sunday ahead of a meeting with the Israeli prime minister

 

But if Netanyahu “does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach,” Obama said.

 

“There comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices,” he said.

 

The president went on to stress that he would convey to Netanyahu, in the spirit of the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder, that the prime minister could lead Israel toward peace if he chose to do so.

“If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who?” Obama said.

 

The president went on to condemn in no uncertain terms Israel’s settlement activities in …

 

“If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction — and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time — if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited,” Obama said.

 

The president added that Israel must come to a decision over its future character and weigh whether its current policies are conducive to achieving its true aspirations.

 

“Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank?” he inquired of the Israeli public.

 

“Is that the character of Israel as a state for a long period of time? Do you perpetuate, over the course of a decade or two decades, more and more restrictive policies in terms of Palestinian movement? Do you place restrictions on Arab Israelis in ways that run counter to Israel’s traditions?” he asked.

 

Obama further stated that in his opinion, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas “has proven himself to be somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve” the conflict.

 

Asked whether he felt Abbas was sincere about his willingness to recognize Israel and its right to exist, the president replied that he was sure that was the case. (Obama: US won’t be able to defend Israel if peace talks fail; By ADIV STERMAN; Times of Israel; 3/2/14 11:51 pm)  

 

What a load of – Left Wing hate Israel – love Arabs that call themselves Palestinians – load of disinformation crap this is from the Liar-in-Chief.

 

Obama presumed to tell the public if Netanyahu had a better plan the Prime Minister should “articulate an alternative approach”. Netanyahu has been very publically upfront about an alternative approach and it is simple; viz. that PA President needs to agree that Israel is a Jewish State, all of Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel and Israel’s borders are defensible when Arabs – cough – like psycho-Palestinians decide to invade Israel to drive Jews into the sea.

 

Imagine the look down at your nose of hubris as a Left Wing Gentile saying publically he would tell Prime Minister Netanyahu, “…in the spirit of the Jewish sage Hillel the Elder, that the prime minister could lead Israel toward peace if he chose to do so.”

 

Also in light of the very simple defined acknowledgments from PA President Abbas, Obama has the hutzpah to say, “…Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas ‘has proven himself to be somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve’ the conflict”.  Here is a 1/22/14 refutation to the lie to Obama’s statement that Abbas is committed to nonviolence:

 

Mahmoud Abbas’ Party Threatens to ‘Bomb Tel Aviv’

The Fatah party of Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has posted threats to bomb Tel Aviv on its official Facebook page.

 

The threats came in the form of a video by Fatah’s armed wing – the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade – which threatened to turn Tel Aviv “into a ball of fire”, as well as escalated rocket fire on Israeli civilians.

 

Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade has been declared a terrorist group by the US, EU, Israel and Canada, among others.

 

The post was spotted on Tuesday and translated by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), which regularly monitors PA media for incitement and anti-Semitism. Excerpts from the eight-minute video can be seen below:

 

VIDEO: Fatah publicizes threats to bomb Tel Aviv on its official Facebook page

 

The threats come despite the fact that the Palestinian Authority is engaged in “peace negotiations” with Israel, and bolster claims by Israeli leaders that the PA is not really serious about finding a peaceful political solution to the conflict.

 

The Israeli government only recently released its annual “Palestinian Incitement Index“, which showed that incitement against Israel and the Jewish people is continuing on official media channels including – inter alia – by bodies that are very close to the PA Chairman and in educational and religious networks.

 

The findings also show that during the period of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, not only did incitement not lessen, in certain areas it even increased, and that recently, the use of prominent Nazi elements – such as the image of Hitler – has also increased.

 

 

Such incitement ranges from the glorification of Nazism and the lionization of Adolf Hitler, to programs on official PA television featuring heavily-stereotyped Jews as villains (and encouraging violence against them), and various TV and radio shows which literally wipe the Jewish state off the map.

 

In at least one case, a terrorist who went on to murder an off-duty Israeli soldier used official PA TV to send a coded message of his plan to his jailed brother.

 

But the involvement by the PA in diplomatic talks and the simultaneous calls for continued violence by its official organs may not be as contradictory as it seems.

 

Another video exposed earlier this month by PMW revealed – not for the first time – how PA officials view negotiations, and subsequent Israeli concessions, merely as a “first stage” in the ultimate destruction of Israel, after which terrorism can be resumed “more effectively”. (Mahmoud Abbas’ Party Threatens to ‘Bomb Tel Aviv’; By Ari Soffer; Arutz Sheva 7 – IsraelNationalNews; 1/22/2014, 8:20 PM)

 

So much for Obama’s Foreign Policy acumen and veracity.

 

Since Obama stabbed Netanyahu in the back – AGAIN, the Israeli Prime Minister responded to the Obama threat to throw Israel under the bus:

 

Netanyahu on Obama’s critique: I won’t give in to pressure

Blame for the morass in the Middle East peace process lies squarely with the Palestinians, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said late Sunday, hours after US President Barack Obama was quoted saying that Washington would be hard-pressed to defend Israel should talks fail.

 

Netanyahu made the remarks upon landing in Washington, where he was to meet Monday with Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry, who is managing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Netanyahu and Kerry will also speak at the conference of the AIPAC pro-Israel lobby in the capital.

 

Before boarding his plane to the US, the prime minister said he had rejected pressures in the past and would continue to do so.

 

… (Netanyahu on Obama’s critique: I won’t give in to pressure; By ARON DÓNZIS; Arutz Sheva 7 – IsraelNationalNews; 3/3/14 8:30 am)

 

JRH 3/4/14

Please Support NCCR