theway2k

John R. Houk

© March 10, 2010

I wonder what Judaism stand on evil is?

In the Rabbinic period between 70-500 C.E., the rabbis constructed a theodicy by arguing that God created every human being with a yetser tov or “good urge,” and the yetser ha-ra, “bad urge.” They asserted that both urges were necessary because the bad urge provided individuals with the libido or energy that they needed to use for productive purposes like building houses, marriage, having children, and conducting business. However, if not channeled in the appropriate way, the yetser ha-ra could become the source of evil. The rabbis also tried to explain why the righteous suffer by arguing that if a righteous person suffers in this world, he or she will be rewarded in olam ha-bah, the “World to Come,” when all the righteous souls will be reunited with their bodies after the Messiah comes. (Patheos.com)

… G-d created the Evil Inclination, the angel called Satan, whose job it is to tempt us to do evil. If we ignore the Evil Inclination, then we get closer to G-d, and become more holy. By doing so, we merit the reward of the ultimate goodness. G-d also gave us Commandments, and the Tempting Angel tempts us to find reasons not to keep those Commandments. By ignoring the temptations, and fulfilling G-d’s Commandments, we become more spiritual, and our souls gain more power over ourselves. (BeingJewish.com)

The notion of good and evil is an intricate inconsistency, a paradox of sorts. In Judaism, despite clear definitions of how good and evil exists, the topic still remains complex. If G-d has a Master plan, then how can free will exist? And, yet, very clearly – Judaism states that evil is a result of man’s free will.

…

The Yetzer Hara or evil inclination is not something outside of us but something within. But, the Yetzer Hara is not a bad thing. If it didn’t exist, being a pious individual would be relatively simple. With the evil inclination, however, we are in a constant battle against our own selfishness and desires.

Our Yetzer Hara leads us to believe that this world is all there is. So, we yearn for more – more toys, more money, more vacations, more power in our job. It is only this yearning that can ultimately bring us back to that which is absolutely true. It is our ability to overcome the desire of the Yetzer Hara and live life as intended by G-d that allows us to fully grasp the meaning of our existence.

…

Here are some action ideas for your Yetzer HaTov (the good inclination):

*Make a list of your values and then write out how you actively live those values in your daily life.

*Take time to volunteer. Giving to the community has a powerful impact on your view of the world.

*Live simply. Clear out the clutter in your home, your mind and your family life.

G-d created us with a Yetzer Hara, the evil inclination, so that we might overcome the desires that lead us astray and choose – with our free will – to walk on G-d’s intended path. (Lisa Pinkus)

These are three website that roughly agree on the existence of evil in Judaism. Out of full disclosure it seems that the Judaic view of evil has different perceptions based on the time period and/or the type of evil that directly affected Jews. One can look at many examples. The example that is most familiar is the Nazi perpetrated Holocaust of WWII.

It seems in Judaism God created humanity with good and evil with evil being the superior urge. Focusing on good submerges the evil inclination. The battle to submerge evil actually is perceived as good for it motivates good work, training a good family, doing good to others and so on. The inclination toward evil ends after the Messiah comes.

Quite possibly the Judaic view of evil also differs between Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed; but here ends the extent of my armchair search of how evil is perceived in Judaism.

Now let’s look on the perception of evil in my favorite religion to criticize – Islam.

The Islamic faithful have wrapped a theology concerning evil and good that is amazingly sanitized in comparison to the actual totality of the Quran, Hadith and Sira. The Islamic theology that includes a doctrine of Abrogation is not quite so spiritually appealing as that presented to the Muslim practicing the “inner struggle” jihad or to the kafir (unbeliever) receiving da’wa persuasion to convert to Islam. Below are the enticing words of how Islam deals with the problem of good and evil:

… Suffering is either the painful result of sin, or it is a test. 

In the latter view, suffering tests belief; a true Muslim will remain faithful through the trials of life.  But suffering also reveals the hidden self to God.  Suffering is built into the fabric of existence so that God may see who is truly righteous.  In other words, God not only allows the various agonies and struggles of life, but has a purpose for them.  Suffering opens up the soul and reveals it to God.  God uses suffering to look within humans and test their characters, and correct the unbelievers.

Suffering is also a painful result of sin.  In Islam, sin is associated with unbelief.  Muslims surrender to God’s will, and find peace in that surrender.  Sometimes people forget to listen to the prophets, and fail to serve God in all that they do.  This is the state of unbelief, called kufr, which literally means to forget through hiding of the truth. Therefore someone who is a kafir is someone who has purposefully forgotten the Lord. They become preoccupied with their own particular needs and their passions.  Islam does not condemn human passions or human needs, seeing them as a necessary part of a full and useful life.  But when people forget to serve God, these needs and passions can enslave them.  They begin to misuse their divine gifts of intelligence, will, and speech.  Enslaved by lust, and by cravings for wealth and pleasure, they do evil and destructive things.  These moments of unbelief can happen to anyone, and when people realize their mistake, they suffer.  Seen in this light, suffering is not only painful, but a lesson.  It reminds humans of the truth of God’s revelation.

Although all people are imperfect and vulnerable to kufr, Islam does not teach that they are essentially evil.  When they realize their sin and make amends with true remorse, God forgives the sin.  Genuine repentance is all that is needed to restore humans to a sinless state.  However, individuals are always vulnerable to it, and sin and suffering are serious matters.  The great struggle, or jihad, of human life is the struggle to perfect one’s heart and live in total submission to God.  It is possible to be a perfect Muslim, since God does not ask anyone to do anything that is beyond his or her ability.  But perfect Muslims, like prophets, are very rare individuals.  Most must be vigilant and always begin with the intention to do good. (Islam Suffering and the Problem of Evil)

All of creation is journeying toward God, and the world will end on some unknown day. The Last Day has many names in the Quran, including the Day of Reckoning, the Day of Distress, the Day of the Gathering, the Great Announcement, and quite simply, The Hour. At the end of time, all people will be rewarded or punished according to how well they followed the instructions contained in God’s revelations to his prophets. God will resurrect the dead, and each person will be judged directly by Allah according to his or her intentions and deeds. Islam teaches that God is more merciful than He is wrathful. Each person’s deeds will be weighed in a balance, and if the evil deeds outweigh the good deeds, the person will be condemned to the eternal flame. If the good deeds outweigh the evil deeds, then the person will be rewarded with paradise. The Quran says that each person receives a book that contains an account of all of his or her deeds. If the book is placed in your right hand, you are destined for eternal bliss. If the book is placed in your left hand, you are destined for eternal flame. (Patheos.com)

In short, Muslim theology is the theology that derived from the Koran and the Prophetic traditions. The contents of Muslim theology can be divided into theology proper, theodicy, eschatology, anthropology, apophatic theology and comparative religion. These branches or divisions of Muslim theology can be found in the Holy Koran and the Prophetic traditions. The theology profer refers to the nature of God or Allah such as His essence and attributes and His relation with humans and other created beings, the relationship between the creator and the created. Theodicy is related to Allah as the creator and the existing of all the evil and suffering in the world with the premise that Allah is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. The main questions dealt in theodicy are the problems of evils and sufferings taking place among human beings and their relation to Allah’s three attributes namely omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Eschatology is literally understood as the last things or ultimate things and in Muslim theology, eschatology refers to the end of this world and what will happen in the next world or hereafter. Eschatology covers the death of human beings, their souls after their bodily death, the total destruction of this world, the resurrection of human souls, the final judgments of human deeds by Allah after the resurrection, and the rewards and punishments for the believers and non-believers respectively. The places for the believers in the hereafter are known as the Paradise and for the non-believers are the Hell. (EconomicExpert.com)

In Islam evil is a part of life that Allah uses to keep the faithful away from kufr (unbelief in Allah) and to turn the kafir from kufr. The simple flowery excerpts of Islam’s use of evil are a bit more complicated in practice.

In Islam the “no compulsion in religion” is abrogated to use death to prevent apostasy and the use of death if da’wa fails to turn kafir from kufr. Allah’s mercy for a kafir that has chosen a path of the dhimmi means a life of humiliation under the thumb of the ummah. The kafir who dares to resist humiliation or insults Allah, Mohammed or Islam is worthy of death. A woman who dishonors her father, husband or family is worthy of at least a beating but can include death. In Islam rape and murder are forbidden except against a kafir practicing kufr. Mohammed received a revelation that it was ok to execute the male losers of a battle in a not very nice way. After which the beautiful women could be used as sex slaves. The property of the losers whether execute or spared is to be divided between the winning Muslims with a bonus share going to the all perfect merciful prophet as directed by Allah. Brutal wars of aggression are justified as the lesser jihad to expand the global influence of Islam in this present life.

The above examples that I provide is an expansion of the meaning of evil in Islam. Really the full practice of Islam as provided by Mohammed’s example is a demonstration that the theo-political religion he founded is inherently evil. My accusation of evil-Islam is purely an armchair observation on my part and not the opinion of a scholarly expert. Because of this I realize I open myself to a lot of ad hominem attacks from the Muslim faithful and the Islamic apologist. Nonetheless, I am just calling it as I see it from the reading of history and the displays of current events. If I receive evidence to the contrary I am open to it; however the evidence of pointing out what atrocious acts Christians did in the name of Christ or Jews did in the name of Yahweh (Torah) as justification is weak. Please justify acts that I call evil on the merits of the so-called revelation of Allah via Mohammed and as interpreted in the traditions of the Hadith and Sira. As far as atrocities ascribed to Christians who claim to be doing God’s work, it is a reach. The Just War is to insure safety from an unjust invader. Christian Scriptures specifically rail against Christians who work acts of evil that is justified by the holy writings of Islam/Mohammedanism.

There is one other element that exists as a political ideology yet is as dogmatic as a religion. That ideology is Marxism. Marxists look to a manmade utopia in which personal ownership and the government ceases to be the rule of law. Rather it is the egalitarianism of the proletariat that is the foundation for the rule of law. The proletariat is the former labor-working class whose fruit of production was owned by the Bourgeoisie benefit.

Communist thinking believes Capitalism, ownership, a pyramid of classes, individualism apart from the collective and ultimately government is evil.

Like the flowery words of Islam enticing adherents yet ignoring the reality of the repression inherent in Islam, Marxist/Communism sets forth lofty goals for the betterment of humanity without elaborating to the masses the means to the utopian ends.

The history of Marxist oriented violent revolutions in nations the West would label as Communist is horrific. At the end of WWII the victors were incredulously horrified on just how evil Hitler and his Nazi machine were. Between Jews, other considered non-Aryan people (e.g. Gypsies), the mentally deficient and the physically deficient; Nazi Germany was responsible for the genocide of about 12 MILLION people. The number of dead and how the deaths were perpetrated seemed evil incarnate when the carnage was revealed publicly.

The means toward achieving Communism dwarfs that number. As a brief example let’s look at the genocide of people accomplished Lenin/Stalin Soviet Union, Mao’s Communist China and the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia. The numbers expand in considering other Marxist revolutions but the three just mentioned are easily accessible by a search engine.

·       The old Soviet Union (With Stalin as the worst): 58,627,000.

·       Communist China (Mao Zedong as the worst): 73,237,000.

·       Khmer Rouge Cambodia (Pol Pot as the perpetrator): 2,627,000.

The total genocides for these three Communist regimes: 134,491,000. (Source)

Now that is some EVIL! Communist genocide makes the Nazi genocide look like peanuts.

The evil of Islamic conquest in the so-called glory days in which present day purist Muslims wish to return to, have huge numbers dead people in its wake:

·       Christians: 60,000,000

·       Hindus: 80,000,000

·       Buddhists: 10,000,000

·       Jews: Difficult to determine thousands which is ironic considering today’s Middle Eastern Muslim attitude toward Jews.

Rough Total: 270, 000,000 (Tears of Jihad)

These numbers do not include Persian Zoroastrians or Muslims that chose apostasy.

Now Marxist genocide achieved their dastardly numbers only in the 20^th century while the Muslims empire builders accomplished their dastardly numbers from Mohammed’s conquest of Medina in the early 600’s AD until the cessation of the last Muslim empire of the Ottoman Turks in 1918 AD.

I don’t know which is worse. The 134,491,000 killed in a century by Marxists or the 270,000,000 killed by Muslims in the name spreading Islam as directed by Mohammed, the Quran, Hadith and Sira. The Marxist glory days of forcing people to accept a transformed society was roughly 50% of that the Muslims killed in little over a millennium. Both the Marxist and Muslim goal were to transform society to a set of beliefs by any means necessary at the cost of human lives that might rock the boat.

Friends, this is EVIL! Depending on one’s faith it is the fault self-imposed by humanity, deity or Satan.

I personally belong to the group of Christians that will not blame God. All that is nefariously evil is the result of Lucifer’s fall and then Adam’s fall. The fall means that which was created good had something removed; i.e. right standing with God Almighty. God so loved the creation which proceeded from Adam that He provided a way for right standing to return to humanity through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ (son of man and Son of God). Christ’s Redemption raises the human spirit to right standing in preparation for full Redemption at Christ’s Second Coming.

Christianity as most religions concerned about the state of humanity believes in overcoming evil with good. Islam believes in created a male dominated by the evil killing the unbelieving (kufr) to prepare humanity for the Muslim paradise.

The origin of evil and its eradication is abstractly subjective. Nonetheless, one’s attention should be wary of any theo-political ideology that utilizes evil proclaiming it will lead to ultimate good. That is a lie.

End of Part Two. Review Part One

John R. Houk

© March 9, 2010

In spite of the best efforts of Leftist utopians there is classical evidence a global war is in planet Earth’s future. Islamic purists dream of the glory days when Islamic empire was spread by the sword with a goal of global conquest to establish a theo-political Islamic Supremacist world.

I think most people would agree that war is evil. Thinking metaphysically or theologically, why is there evil in human civilization? In religions that believe in a Creator-deity, why would the deity allow evil to exist?

Just out of full disclosure I have to own up to the fact I am neither a theologian nor a philosopher. I am uncertain that I am even qualified to be an armchair theologian or philosopher. I am one who dabbles in contemplation. Contemplation is an exercise that does not require a formal degree or a path of expertise. Certainly there are many that believe contemplation is a matter of expertise in which the exercise thereof is a ritualized practice which is attained by experience. The reality is any individual is capable of a moment or period of inner reflection in which flashes of insight is possible.

The only problem with individual contemplation is the heart of the individual. The more Light one’s heart possesses the better the individual’s insight will work toward the good of the individual or the many. The more darkness one’s heart possesses the more an insight will work toward evil for the individual or the many.

This returns us back to the query of a Creator-deity and evil. How or why can a deity who is representative of absolutes hence absolute good, allow the existence of evil in His creation? Is it not contradictory that absolute good would create and allow the existence of evil?

I like this explanation from Come Reason Ministries (Christian perspective):

The problem here is that you have a faulty premise. Evil and sins are not “things” in and of themselves. They do not exist autonomously. Rather, they are the absence of the perfect which God did make. This becomes complicated, so let me give you a couple of examples. I have the ability to create a vacuum of space. Now I do this not by making something out of materials, but by removing all the air and particles out of that space. The void that remains is what we choose to label a vacuum. It isn’t a thing in itself, but it is a term we use to state that everything else is gone. Likewise we use the term cold to describe a lower temperature. Any air conditioner man can tell you that to cool something down you don’t put cold in, but you have to take heat out! Cold is the absence of energy that causes heat.

Sin and evil are regarded the same. These things cannot exist as “things” that are independent of circumstances, but are the labels given to actions or characteristics that do not meet the goal of perfection. Now, you might say “Aha! If these things are actions that can be performed, then they must exist autonomously.” That is not true. My wife recently suffered a very severe dislocation of the elbow. All of her bones were misaligned. If she could have stood the pain, she was able to bend her arm in ways that are impossible for you and I to duplicate. Our arms just cannot bend behind themselves like that. Now, just because she possessed this ability, we did not consider it an asset to be attained, but we rightly sought medical attention to put the elbow back together so it would function properly. We knew if we left it that way, there would be more detriment to her overall ability than asset.

Just like that broken arm, evil and sin are the painful results of a fall. The world and all that is in it was created perfect, but the fall of man created ramifications and consequences that we are still struggling with today. They are not abilities or goals to be achieved, but they are the terms we use to convey the idea of absence of righteousness. This is why when someone reads that God cannot lie and they try to claim that God could not be omnipotent because He lacks something, they are mistaken. The act of lying is really an act of not being able to tell the truth. When you ask why God allowed humans to have the capability for evil, you are not framing your question fairly. You might as well ask why did God create us with joints that could be broken. He did not want us to break His rules, but once we did (and every one of us has) He had to take steps to repair the state we are in.

The point is God did not create or establish evil. All the Creator created was created good. When righteousness (rightness or right standing) was removed the good then the absence of the circumstances which makes perfect transmutes good to degrees of evil. Good becomes twisted and hence the explanation of inherent evil in humanity and creation. For good to return in absolute terms, that which was removed must be restored. In Christianity that which is returned is the Righteousness (rightness or right standing) of God in Christ Jesus. After one meets the terms to be in Christ the untwisting of evil in the human spirit is straightened restoring the good to the human inner spirit which many Christians believe is the real person as opposed to the outward decaying flesh still under the circumstance of the absence of righteousness.

Christianity looks for the return of Christ to complete the full restoration of righteousness that is absent from a corporeal ever decaying physical material plain.

Now let’s look at the explanation of evil from some of the world’s religions other than Christianity. Again I need to remind you the exploration is armchair and not expert. In this case the exploration is the courtesy of a search engine, mostly Google.

Evil Buddhism

Evil is the perpetuation of illusion by the factors that fuel the chain of dependent origination (paticca-samuppada). Ignorance in perceiving that the world is impermanent, devoid of a self and in constant becoming leads to suffering. The Buddha proclaimed that in fact the whole of existence is suffering:

The Noble Truth of Suffering (dukkha) is this: Birth is suffering; aging is suffering; sickness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are suffering; association with the unpleasant is suffering; dissociation from the pleasant is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering - in brief, the five aggregates of attachment are suffering (Samyutta Nikaya 56,11).

There are three fundamental defilements of the mind that combine and interact leading to suffering: greed (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (avidya). Their origin is desire to experience existence in personal form. As personhood is nothing but an illusory result of the temporary gathering together of five aggregates, the desire to perpetuate the illusion of personal existence produces suffering, so its extreme solution must be the abolition of personhood. There is no suffering if there is no person left to experience it. (The problem of evil in world religions)

Here is a good summation of evil in Buddhism:

… The important point is that in Buddhism “good” and “evil” are less about moral judgments than they are, very simply, about what you do and the effects created by what you do. (Buddhism About.com)

I wonder what Buddhism’s creation myth is? Anyway, evil exists because sentient humans exist. It is not that evil is inherent in Buddhist thought, rather human life itself is suffering. Humans tend to make decisions that perpetuate suffering; hence there is evil in being attached to this life.

Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha) was a part of Hinduism before his (ahem) enlightenment. Hinduism is the major religion of India – a very populous nation. On a side issue Islam is probably the second largest religion in India. This never would have happened except Muslim conquerors took the sword with incredible brutality to convert or (initially) kill Hindus for that religion is considered polytheistic by monotheistic religions. In Islam’s conquest of the Christian Middle East and North Africa the inhabitants were (officially) given the option of convert, non-rights dhimmis or death. Christians (and Jews) benefitted from Merciful Mohammed’s inclusion of Judeo-Christianity as people of the book. In Islam polytheists are particularly heinous in their existence; ergo the choice of convert or die. The amazing thing about Muslim repressive brutality in India is that Hinduism was able to survive as the majority religion whereas Christianity was reduced to a minority status in the Middle East and North Africa. I could speak volumes more as to the reason for this but that would digress from the thoughts about the existence of evil.

At any rate, Hinduism’s thoughts on the existence of evil run something like this:

Hindu Vedas

In the hymns addressed to Varuna evil is a matter of humans not fulfilling his laws or not performing the ritual properly. … Those who commit evil deeds must repent before Varuna (Rig Veda 5,85) and try to repair their evil deeds through ritual sacrifices.

Hindu Upanashads

The Upanishads ground a pantheistic perspective on Ultimate Reality and introduce karma as the explanation of evil in the world. Ignorance launches karma into action and karma brings suffering. As the manifestations and dissolutions of the world have no beginning and no end, so is karma, meaning that suffering is a part of the eternal cosmic cycle. Suffering in the present life is the natural consequence of past lives’ ignorance and it has to be endured without questioning.

Evil in Samkhya-Yoga

Although the Samkhya and Yoga darshanas are not pantheistic, they follow a similar view in defining evil. It is a matter of how much one is caught in the psycho-mental illusions generated by the primordial substance (prakriti). Two of the three gunas (rajas and tamas), are causing the manifestations of what we call evil in the world, both in the physical and in the mental realm.

Hindu Epics and Puranas

The writings of Hindu theism adopt a middle way in explaining evil, between the dictates of karma and the responsibility of the gods in producing it as sovereign agents in the universe. As these two elements are irreconcilable and mutually exclusive, the solutions to the problem of evil are themselves contradictory. The character of the gods becomes quite ambiguous in the Epics and the Puranas. They are responsible for producing both good and evil. …

…

These ambiguous solutions to the problem of evil in Hindu mythology are caused by the fact that the gods cannot be at the same time sovereign, and in tune with karma. If the gods are responsible for the existence of evil in the world, they either create it willingly, and then are evil themselves, or are forced to create it by the higher law of karma, and then are weak.

The source of the complicated Hindu explanation of the existence of evil is evolutionary and variegated as the periods of time their holy writings were written. I say variegated because I am unsure if the concepts of evil’s origination evolved linearly or is accepted according to a particular Hindu sect or both.

Evil in Hinduism seems to be a combination deity causes and/or the result of human existence in the realm of choices, karma and suffering. It seems to me old Gautama focused his enlightenment on Hindu’s suffering-karma paradigm.

Taoism originated in China and today is practiced in the China-Southeast Asia area. This is Taoism’s concept of evil.

Since any aspect of the world is a manifestation of the Tao, corresponding to a different participation of the Yin and Yang principles, nothing can be considered to be essentially evil in the world. Even if Yin is termed as a negative principle, it never manifests itself alone. …

…

Every positive factor involves its negative or opposing one. What is usually called evil, as physical and mental manifestation, is the result of a lack of balance between the two opposing principles and corresponds to a bigger participation of the Yin principle. Evil belongs to the nature of the world, so humans have to subscribe to the universal harmony and respect the equilibrium of the two polarities. Tao is eternal and so are the two principles Yang and Yin, so that good and evil must be eternal, as necessary elements of our world.

In Taoism it appears evil is a part of eternity and is manifested when Yin and Yang are out of balance. The more balanced harmony the more there is good.

Sikhism is one of the world’s largest religions. Here is Sikhism on evil.

Sikhism does not have a concept of the devil as in Christianity. Sikhs believe that demons are entities which are driven solely by ego. Sikhism teaches that ego is the prime cause of evil doing. Ego has five basic components:

·       Pride

·       Lust

·       Greed

·       Attachment

·       Anger

Sikhs believe that involvement with ego creates a state of duality. The soul experiences a sense of separation from the divine, which causes all suffering.

Sikhism is a monotheistic religion derived largely from Hinduism. God does not originate evil for he is pure. Humanity is evil as long as a person or persons choose wrong actions. Ego-self is the source of all evil and the way to be one with God is empty one’s self of ego. Sikhs are not big on ritual however the source of the path to divine oneness is based on the action of the person.

How does Baha’i deal with the origin of evil?

…

Undeserved Suffering

All suffering, including that caused by natural disasters, are God’s will as a punitive, educational, or remedial response to individual or to humanity’s denial of God and disobedience to the Divine Commands. All of humanity suffer when one commits wrong, and all benefit when one does good. The best often suffer the most for humanity’s misdeeds. Nonpunitive suffering is part of God’s plan to challenge the soul with adversity. Suffering educates the sufferer and aids spiritual growth toward perfection. Suffering helps people to remember God in their grief. The suffering of innocents will be greatly rewarded in the world to come. (BeliefNet)

The Baha’i stand on evil is a bit muddled. The Baha’i God creates everything yet takes credit for causing suffering for humanity as a lesson toward perfection to bring a person or humanity closer to God. The Christian God is often given credit for suffering (acts of nature, war and so on). Insurance companies blame divinity by separating ‘acts of God’ in certain insurance policies. In Christianity Satan is the one that should be blamed for suffering. The Christian God will withdraw his hand of protection and mercy from a person or people that have separated them self from the Justice of God’s morality.

Look at Part Two Tomorrow

Homosexuals continue to attack Christian Morality website Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH).

JRH 2/28/10 (Hat Tip: SolidSnake)

Greater Israel

Sovereign Self-Defense is a Machiavellian Path

John R. Houk

© February 25, 2010

I initiated this post as a lead up to an article entitled, “Israel’s Right to Self-Defense.” As I got into the prologue I realized that I was writing an ever so small essay on Israel’s modern emergence. That is nothing novel at any of the blogs I write on. One could probably search those blogs and find many posts of similar content. This should signify my passion as a Christian Right/Zionist believer that Israel must exist for the return of our Messiah the Lord Jesus Christ.

Honestly I don’t know the specifics of Christian Zionism other than its support for the nation Israel. My position is God Almighty gave the Land to Abraham and was initially possessed by the Hebrew Tribes by Moses and his successor Joshua son of Nun. The promised possession to the Jews is for perpetuity and was based on the Chosen People’s faithfulness to Yahweh. The various Jewish Diasporas (Assyrian expulsion, Babylonian expulsion and Roman expulsion) are evidence the Jews (or at least its ruling elites) stepping into faithlessness. The Promise was and is always for a Divinely protected return culminating with the House of David being returned to the throne of Israel. The Christians believe that is the Second Coming of Christ. Now the eschatology of how Christ returns to reign may differ among various Christians; nonetheless the centrality of it all is that the Resurrected Jesus Christ returns to ultimately rule and reign of the new earth and the new Heaven with the New Jerusalem as the capital city. Hence there is the importance of a restored Jewish homeland.

A Jewish homeland is a right for Jewish people. The land designated as the Palestine Mandate after the Allied victory in WWI in which the primary powers Britain, France and later the U.S. defeated the Germany of Kaiser Wilhelm, Austro-Hungary Empire and Ottoman Turkey. Basically the Brits and the French carved up the non-Turkish part of the Ottoman Empire which included the land which became known as the British Mandate for Palestine in 1920.

The Brits actually expelled Ottoman troops from Palestine (or at least Jerusalem) Dec. 17, 1917. The Brits expecting victory combined with prominent Jewish resources in Britain pronounced the Balfour Declaration in November 1917. Regardless of the intent of the Balfour Declaration, the effect was to create a national homeland for Jews who had been the butt of European persecution for hundreds of years. Take note this is a little over thirty years before Hitler’s Nazis gave a genocidal meaning to the word Holocaust by exterminating about six millions Jews (and about that many more of races and disabled people not fit for the conceived German master race).

It is obvious that international guilt found its way to the victorious Allies of WWII after the full measure of the horror of the Nazi directed Holocaust became public knowledge. The guilt sealed the deal of a Jewish National Homeland even though the Brits had taken some steps back from promises made out their own National Interests. The ever shrinking Empire of the British needed economic allies to offset the evaporating wealth that British Empire administration provided. When it became evident the desert sands and barren lands controlled by Muslims possessed petroleum, British moral obligations were overridden by British National Interests.

Zionist Jews of the British Mandate still had an inside track to nationhood; however British administration kept finding excuses to aid the now jealous Muslim-Arab inhabitants of the British Mandate. Initially Transjordan (today’s Jordan) was to contain Muslims and the eastern Palestine part was to contain Jews. The problem for the Jews is the land envisioned between the League of Nations and finalized (in writing anyway) by the newly created United Nations shrank immensely. The Palestine promised to Jewish Zionists would further be subdivided with the larger portion of Palestine becoming Arabic (mostly Muslim) next door to the already sovereign nation of Transjordan.

Greedy Muslim nations carved into existence by Britain and France surrounding Palestine would not even accept the tinier sliver Palestine intended for a Jewish homeland. The Brits pulled out unconditionally to let the cards fall where they may. The surrounding Muslim nations attacked the Jewish National Homeland portion of Palestine. The Jewish-Zionists declared the independent nation of Israel while the Brits were leaving and the Arabs were invading all in 1948.

The point is Israel has the right to exist and to self-determine their future without international pressure. Take note the Jews were as much Palestinians as the Arabs were. The invading Arab nations and independent Arab armies had taken upon themselves to once again eradicate Jews from their ancestral homeland.

The miracle of 1948 is that multiple Jewish militias united to defeat the invading Arab armies. Unfortunately in 1948 a British General led Transjordan’s army to the heart of Jerusalem dividing the Holy City between Israel and Transjordan. The land occupied by the Transjordanian army was eventually unilaterally annexed. Transjordan became Jordan and called their original land east of the Jordan River the East Bank and the annexed occupied land west of the Jordan River the West Bank.

The Arabs that were encouraged to flee the Jewish Homeland prior to the Muslim invasions mostly congregated in Jordan occupied West Bank. Jordan accepted citizenship of some those Arabs but for the most part these Arab refugees and their current descendents were held Stateless as an excuse to eradicate Israel.

In one of the Arab invasions to destroy Israel, Jordan lost handily. Israel thus in 1967 regained old Palestine Mandate land occupied by Jordan in 1948. This included the re-uniting of the Holy City Jerusalem.

Today these highly propagandized Stateless Arabs have adopted the name Palestinians with the continued goal to eradicate Israel.

Israel has attempted time again to be generous to allow a creation of a Palestinian State in the midst of their ancestral land with the ruling terrorist elites of the Palestinians shooting down nationhood on terms that would provide security for Israel. I believe God was in that, for the Palestinian Muslims have become propagandized in Jew-hatred there is no way for a peaceful co-existence of two States – one Jewish and one Muslim.

And yet military and economic powers of the West are forcing this Two-State Solution upon Israel even though a Palestinian State will be an existential threat to Israel.

Just as during independence in 1948, Israel has the right to self-defense in 2010 or anytime in the future. Palestinians have used terrorism effectively against Jewish civilians at least since the days Yasser Arafat came on the scene in the 1960’s. Some might even argue Muslim-Arab terrorists were very active before 1948 at the instigation of Arafat’s uncle Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Al-Husseini had personally hooked up with Adolf Hitler as a partner in the extermination of Jews. Al-Husseini even organized some Slavic Muslim Nazi SS units to aid the Holocaust effort of Hitler.

Israel has developed a tactic to bring justice to Islamic pseudo-Palestinian terrorists who are either Stateless, protected by terror supporting rogue nations or are a citizen of a Muslim nation (the later is the lesser case). That tactic is the assassination of Islamic terrorist leaders who have orchestrated terrorist attacks in Israel or against Israeli Jews abroad.

The tactic is controversial among Western hypocrites yet typical among Muslims themselves in Islamic nations. Israel has owned up to some assassinations and not to others. Since the Israel does dispense justice to Islamic terrorists, arrogant Muslims (terrorist or government) have often placed the blame on Israel to stave off the blood libel retribution that is typical between Muslim clans and organizations.

One such case is the assassination of Hamas terrorist Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai and Hezbollah terrorist Imad Moughniyeh in Damascus, Syria.

In the West, should assassination become an accepted path to dispense justice to elusive Islamic terrorists or political big dogs protected by the official sovereignty of a nation? Twenty or less years ago the American government would officially deplore assassinated executions as acts morally above the rule of law. The reality is America assassinates the elusive just like Israel. America might limit publicly acknowledged assassinations of Islamic terrorists to taking a wide swath shot of a protected Islamic terrorist under a situation of war which may have collateral damage. An example of this are the unmanned drones used to take out a dwelling or village to get the enemy. I suspect the CIA or similar American Covert organization unofficially also exacts specific targeted assassinations just as Israel does.

If you ignore the filter of ethics geopolitically, why would America assassinate an elusive terrorist? The obvious answer the individual terrorist is proven to have committed acts of terrorism or murder in America or to Americans abroad. The hypocrisy of the lack of adherence to international legal protocols might inspire a covert action toward justice in which the physical evidence would never see the light of day in a court or a military tribunal. In other words America would be defending itself via means possible.

The American Leftist would whine that Machiavellian means do not justify the ends. In a black and white utopia a Leftist would be absolutely correct. Today’s 21^st century politics does not match Leftist idealism. This is particularly the case that regimes associated as Leftist would not hesitate to utilize Machiavellian means to achieve a planned end. Islamic terrorism has molded the use of Machiavellian means of the geopolitical reality submerging the utopian idealism of human protocols of the rule of law. When it comes to humanity the only thing that is absolute is the Will of God and the divine law of sowing and reaping.

If America does not limit its means of self-defense, then why should America or the West impose geopolitical solutions on Israel that limit its means at self-defense?

 JRH 2/25/10

If you have ever visited my blogs in the past you would be aware that I believe the practice of homosexuality to be one of the most heinous stains on Western and America society. Homosexuality is ungodly and unnatural. It is mere propaganda when you hear or read a homosexual apologist adhere to the stand that homosexuality is both Biblically godly and natural. That is pure propaganda that has been used by the homosexual agenda for years with unfortunate success.

Having used these strong words, I need to assert no man or woman should utilize violence to attack the vile alternate lifestyles. This is a moral issue in which humanity is accountable to God Almighty. Humanity’s portion is to match the rule of law to match God’s morality. This means NOT to provide privileges that do not morally exist. Violence against individuals is already codified into the law with assault, battery and murder laws. The laws should be enforced equally.

Codifying privileges to homosexuals validates their lifestyle which is already is already a stain. Ramming homosexual propaganda into our children in school in the name of multicultural diversity is wrong. Even the Deist members of the Founding Fathers asserted Christian principles should be the mainstay of education. Which was the case in most of the nation until someone talked an activist slanted left SCOTUS to codify anything to do with Christian prayer to be left out of the Public Schools, even on a voluntary basis.

Now there is a Leftist push to expand the homosexual agenda into the American military. President Clinton tried to push the agenda during his Presidential Administration. The majority of the military brass was against and a strong Republican Congress would not allow it. The only caveat was to withdraw the question, “Are you a homosexual?” from the paperwork. Hence the military term “Don’t ask, Don’t tell.” If a homosexual is discovered in the military, they are discharged.

Now we have Über-Leftist President Barack Hussein Obama taking up the cause of the homosexual agenda for the military. BHO has a two-House majority in Congress. There is the real danger that Congress will codify homosexuality in the military. Do you think any Federal Judge at any level will rule such a law unconstitutional? NO! Do you think once the Left codifies homosexuality in the military, that any Federal Judge will allow a future Republican Congress to de-codify a homosexual military? NO!

Thank God there are organizations like the Liberty Counsel (LC) that are willing to take a stand against the homosexual agenda. I receive and e-news alert from LC addressing this issue about a homosexual military. It includes links to a petition to sign. I encourage all my fellow Slanted Right and Christian friends to sign it and pass it around. If you find another organization taking a stand against a homosexual military, support them as well.  

JRH 2/21/10

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

Homosexual agenda threatens national security

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman

Sent: February 18, 2010 7:56:54 PM

Liberty Counsel

I have been deeply shocked by hearing the unvarnished truth
about the radical push to allow openly active homosexuals
to serve in our military. This proposed change will severely
impact every one us! Please read my message below - Mat.

This past weekend, Liberty University School of Law hosted a conference addressing how the homosexual agenda threatens our freedom.  Even though I convened the symposium as Dean of the law school, I was shaken to the core by what I heard.

Most shocking was the presentation by Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, regarding the impact on our military if legislation is passed to repeal what is commonly called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).

John, President Obama’s proposed new policy (which he dramatically forced down our throats in the recent State of the Union address), would forbid any discrimination based on “homosexuality or bisexuality whether the orientation is real or perceived.”

I can’t emphasize this strongly enough: This is a potentially disastrous policy change that simply must not be allowed!

Today, as a part of this year’s CPAC convention in Washington, DC, I joined many conservative leaders in strongly rejecting the President’s plans for a new “LGBT law” (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transsexual) for our armed forces. I just recorded a special audio message about the crucial news release from this very important meeting I want you to hear…

Click here to listen to this urgent audio message:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=25242&RID=22306845

++”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is totally mislabeled.

This may surprise you, but the DADT policy is in reality a misleading “catch phrase.” Contrary to what many currently believe, in 1993 Congress overwhelmingly REJECTED President Clinton’s proposal and passed a law clearly stating that practicing homosexuals ARE NOT ELIGIBLE for military service.

The only compromise made in the bill was to drop the question about homosexuality that appeared in military induction forms. Thus, the phrase “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” remained as a popular moniker.

That 1993 law codified a long-standing DOD policy recognizing the military as a “specialized society” that is “characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.” The law was designed to PROTECT “high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

++In time of war, military readiness is paramount

The discussion of this uniquely military issue must NOT begin with questions of individual civil rights or “equality” for practicing homosexuals.  And it most certainly CANNOT include political considerations or begin with an intent to appease the homosexual community and its hideous agenda!

The dialogue should begin with, “What is in the best interest of our military community, which is now engaged in two wars?”  We MUST begin with their readiness, their morale, their discipline and their effectiveness as a “specialized society.”

We are at a crossroads regarding our U.S. military’s effectiveness in this time of war. To disrupt their mission with a major policy change on such a sensitive issue for political purposes would be absolutely wrong on many levels.

That’s why I want you to sign our petition calling for Congress to reject ANY legislation enacting a pro-homosexual policy change at this critical time for our nation’s military.

Click here to sign:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=25242&RID=22306845

++The “slant” the liberal media wants you to believe

Chances are you’ve heard that a key Navy Admiral has very publically endorsed the repeal of the law prohibiting homosexuals from serving in the military.

But you may not have heard that over 1,164 high-ranking retired Flag and General Officers personally signed a statement expressing great concern that repeal of the law would undermine unit cohesion, discipline and combat effectiveness!

Further, the main stream media is not reporting that a Military Times poll showed that 58 percent of military respondents oppose repeal of the law. They also conveniently overlook the fact that military associations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars strongly oppose any such change of policy.

++The devastating impact on retention rates

The Obama Administration and pro-homosexual lobbyists like to cite specific, isolated cases to tug at your heartstrings. The President’s language in his State of the Union message was that we ought to allow homosexuals who love their country to serve.

But the Military Times poll says that a full ten percent of respondents would not reenlist if the DADT law is repealed!

That equates to over 228 thousand of our trained military personnel leaving their units in a time of war - which is greater than the size of our current U.S. Marine Corps manning level.

Perhaps even worse, another 14 percent of the poll respondents said they would consider ending their careers through retirement if DADT is repealed!

Imagine the impact on national security and our battlegrounds if that many of our dedicated soldiers, marines, seamen, and airmen decided to leave.

But there is SO MUCH MORE to this issue to be considered…

* Housing & living quarters

* Same sex “partner” benefits

* Civil unions

* Child custody disputes

* Sexual misconduct allegations

* Diversity training

* Military social events

* Transsexual “special needs” to use the restroom of their choice

* Many, many more social and physical concerns.

Please consider this joint statement by the 1,164 high-ranking officers I mentioned earlier:

“We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting, retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse affects on the willingness of parents who loan their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Voluntary force.”

I can’t say it any better than that.

++Support our Troops!

This is what I’m asking you to do:  Sign our petition opposing Rep. Patrick Murphy’s (D-PA) proposed legislation (H.R. 1283) - or any other legislation by the 111^th Congress - that would lift the ban on openly active homosexuals serving in our military.

Click here to sign…

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=25242&RID=22306845

++President Obama has totally politicized this crucial issue

Right now, legislators and military leaders are conducting meetings to further study the effects of repealing DADT. But even before the study is complete, dozens of legislators have rallied to the President’s call for new legislation to change the policy.

Of course, there is tremendous pressure from radical homosexual groups and lobbyists to repeal the law. And, as usual, the liberal media is slavishly catering to the homosexual agenda, so all you’ll likely hear are the opinions and voices of those who support this misguided new policy.

For our part, Liberty Counsel will continue to confront these groups and has renewed our deep commitment to support our military men and women on this crucial issue. I’m asking you to stand with us.

Click below to sign the petition. And please don’t forget to listen to my special audio message.  I assure you, we have learned how to amplify your views with the media and strategically impact our elected officials with special petitions like this one:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=25242&RID=22306845

We must stand as a voice of reason on this vital issue!  Our men and women in uniform are counting on us to take the time to support them - as they do every
day for us. Please sign this petition and join Liberty Counsel in reassuring them that you and I are looking out for their best interests.

Thank you in advance for your support!

God bless you,

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

P.S. Remember, this vital petition campaign is not about opposing any individual’s civil liberties or condoning “hatred” against any group of people. This is solely about national security, military readiness and morale in a time of war. Please sign our petition and listen to my special audio message:

http://www.libertyaction.org/r.asp?u=25242&RID=22306845

Again, thank you, and God bless the United States of America!

____________________________

America Does NOT have to Accept Homosexuality

John R. Houk

© February 20, 2010

_______________________________

Homosexual agenda threatens national security

Liberty Counsel, with offices in Florida, Virginia and Washington, D.C.,
is a nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to
advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the
traditional family. 

Liberty Counsel. PO Box 540774. Orlando, FL 32854.
800-671-1776

Inspired by Ari Bussel

John R. Houk

© February 16, 2010

Ari Bussel writes an appropriately scathing essay of anti-Semitism – nay outright hatred of Jews – that has occurred at University settings in the United Kingdom and the United States.

In both incidents an organized illustration of Islamic hatred toward Jews is focused on speakers representing the Israeli government.

At the Oxford Union in the United Kingdom (UK) Noor Rashid shouted in Arabic in which the English translation was taken to mean “slaughter the Jews”. Rashid and Muslim apologists have since claimed the Arabic was misunderstood no doubt to avoid hate-speech prosecution (as if the Brits would prosecute a Muslim for hate-speech).

Rashid’s story is he spoke in the ancient Arabic of the Quran with the English meaning, “Khaybar, O Jews, we will win”. The reference is to an Arab/Jewish battle in which the Arabic yet Jewish tribe of Khaybar was defeated by Mohammed in 629 AD. Rashid and British apologist for Islam George Galloway claim the epithet merely was referencing a historical battle in which Mohammed had won. The claim is classic Islamic taqiyya (deception). Let us look more closely at the result of the battle of Khaybar.

Mo came upon the Khaybar Jews of Medina in an unprovoked attack for no other reason than to expropriate Jewish wealth and treasure. Mo’s alleged lesser army went on to defeat the Khaybar Jews in a so-called retaliation. So what is a Muslim retaliation orchestrated by Mohammed? The Jews of Khaybar were slaughtered and their women enslaved.

You have to agree that excuse given by Rashid and Galloway was a bold faced lie to mislead the readers of the British (and international) media!

Incredibly American Universities are becoming hotbeds of Islamic influenced hatred of Jews. Ari Bussel attended the speaking engagement of Ambassador Michael Oren from Israel. Apparently most of the audience was Jews outside of the academic realm of the University of California Irvine (UCI). Then there were a significant number of non-Muslim students and significant amount of Jew-hating Muslims doing all they could to disrupt the speech with epithets against Jews and Israel. After the speech eleven Muslims found themselves arrested on minor charges. At the very least every Muslim involved with the obvious hate-speech should be expelled from UCI. I am fairly certain nothing of the sort will happen. I have only read the Muslim students were going to be disciplined. What does “disciplined” mean? From my experience in college days long ago “disciplined” means a warning citation and a miniscule fine ($5 for underage drinking in my day).

If the discipline is actually made public I am betting no major Mainstream Media outlets will report it. That is of course unless UCI man’s up and actually expels the haters. Then the MSM coverage will be significant deploring that Muslims in America are their First Amendment rights of free speech infringed upon. After all the First Amendment does protect independent thought and speech, right?

Of course the First Amendment protects and mandates as the rule of law freedom of speech. However the venue where free speech occurs also must keep in mind property rights. If the Muslims were American citizens it does not mean they or any American owns UCI and thus can do as they please. Actual ownership is the taxpayers who invest management authority in Federal and State government. To believe the government on any level would approve of disruption of meetings on University property of invented or approved guests is ludicrous.

Is the Leftist agenda to diversify America multiculturally so invested that we Americans must look the other way when such hatred is spewed? What if it was the KKK interrupting a Jewish or African-American speech? I have seen the ACLU protect the rights of American Nazis to march in Jewish neighborhoods (May need to register to view citation – its free) around Chicago years ago. I saw the news images of Jews rightfully demonstrating their dislike for such event. Is this the same as disrupting a speaker in a University building?

I think not. The Nazis were in the open outdoors and the protesting Jews would have been either on their own property or public sidewalks as the Nazis performed their superior race march. And still the Mainstream Media reported the free speech rights of the Nazis as a huge slap in the face of the American way of Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

America please speak to me that you are not becoming anti-Semitic by believing the effective propaganda of Islamic terrorists, particularly the Islamic terrorists who have falsely adopted the name Palestinian?

JRH 2/16/10

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

Coming Soon to a University Near You

By Ari Bussel

Sent: February 16, 2010 8:49 AM

GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS - PRESS RELEASE On Monday night, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon was invited by the Oxford Union to speak at an event at the university. During the speech one student shouted extreme abuse at the Deputy Foreign Minister including Itbach Al-Yahud (Slaughter the Jews). The event was caught on camera and subsequently shown on Israeli television Channel Ten. The Deputy Foreign Minister is looking into the possibility of pressing charges against the student for what is tantamount to a call for genocide.

Two separate events occurred at the same time on two continents.  Both followed the same exact script:  An Israeli figure came to a hostile campus to talk about the prospects of a better future in the region and to answer questions, including those of the most vigorous opponents.  As each started to speak, he was interrupted by shouts “murderer,” “Israel is guilty of …,” “Zionism is the …” etc.  A young Muslim man stood and shouted, reading from a note, was escorted out, followed a minute later by another young Muslim man who stood and shouted and the cycle repeated.  At one point, the remaining members of the Muslim contingency stood in unison, walked out and continued their noisy interruptions outside, attempting to further disrupt the proceedings.

In previous events they had used loudspeakers and drums.  For some reason, these were missing.

Had the opposite been the case, a virulent anti-Israeli speaker speaking, calling Israelis the new Nazis, claiming the Holocaust was an excuse to steal land from the Arabs or even calling for the annihilation of the Jewish State, a feeling of military control would have pervaded.  Instead of the local police protecting, there would be private security brutalizing anyone who even seemed to think differently.  A chilly fear would have descended, immobilizing and preventing anyone from expressing an opinion, asking a question or veering out of line.  It is a most frightening scene, an even worse feeling that stays with a person for a very long time.

But in both cases, the speakers came to speak about Israel’s policies.  In the UK it was Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon, previously the Israeli Ambassador to the United States.  In California it was the current Israeli Ambassador, Dr. Oren, himself an academic.  Dr. Oren implored at one point:  “We have an opportunity here to exchange ideas.  We have an opportunity to hear a different perspective.

This is why you have come to this campus as students.  You have not come to this campus to hear one idea, you have come to hear a multiplicity of ideas.  It is a humble suggestion.  It is one of the inestimable values of education in this country.  You have this opportunity.  Don’t squander the opportunity.”

Only members of the University holding an Oxford Union membership were allowed to attend the UK event. In California the vast majority of attendees were members of the local Jewish and Israeli community rather than students and faculty. The constant interruptions by the Muslims were called “uncivilized,” “exceeding the principles of free speech” and the like.  Each university has released an announcement denouncing the conduct in these events.

For those participating in such a gathering for the first time, the opportunity was eye opening, traumatic.  One lady remained seated well after everyone dispersed.  She continued shaking, in shock.  Realization dawned for the first time:  The very foundations of our society are not as solid and impenetrable as we thought but are crumbling before our very eyes just as we stand by and watch.

Let us look at the California event I attended.  By now, many have seen it on YouTube or the news.  It is worthwhile watching.  The speech itself was not as captivating as the one given by the Ambassador earlier in the day at a Church across the way.  Ambassador Oren was visibly nerved and reminded the Muslim objectors of Middle Eastern hospitality.

When a person is invited as a guest to one’s home in the Middle East, said Ambassador Oren, no harm should befall him. Muslims here are either too young to follow the traditions of their own people or have grown up in the United States under the illusion of a false reality and are thus unfamiliar with the very foundations of the culture they strive to spread (brutality, silencing, beheadings, fear and corruption, female slavery and subjugation and ethnic cleansing, essences of Sixth Century existence, alongside some of the tenants of survival in a barbaric society).

Allow me to describe the setting:  I arrived late from that earlier event with Ambassador Oren.  There was a very long line of people waiting inside the Student Center.  Almost two hundred people were being told the hall was full and they must enter an overflow room or leave.  As a member of the press I was invited in, bypassing what looked like a long line at a busy airport.

The airport setting analogy was most befitting.  Muslims are up in arms against “Profiling,” yet it is no coincidence that Muslims are perpetrating terrorist attacks. If they have nothing to fear, why not embrace profiling as a means to keep everyone safer?  They should vomit from within their midst Islamists who want to destroy the 21st Century Western way of life, if indeed they oppose terrorism and Islam is truly a peaceful religion.  But they do not.  They fight back, insisting they suffer as a result.  All too soon they – the perpetrators and their supports – will be protesting against airport checkpoints. 

We all suffer as a result.  I cannot enter a gate without having my bottle of water confiscated, my computer turned on and half of my wardrobe removed because of what fellow Muslims do “for the sake of Allah, the All Merciful.”  They slash the throats of innocent flight attendants, fly into high-rise buildings or simply explode themselves among hundreds of others.

Likewise at my own alma mater, the University of California, I cannot attend a lecture without having to go through multiple checkpoints and screening surrounded by police officers.  Under the heading of “free speech” Muslims take away our basic rights, depriving us of legitimate discourse, civil gatherings, normalcy and sanity.  Fear prevails. 

Jewish students are afraid to stand up.  Secular Americans watch, absorb and internalize.  Fear is so contagious, it can be felt.  It is chilling and cannot be ignored.  This new feeling is embedded in the individual and our collective memories and never leaves. Like a nightmare from which we cannot awake, it remains.

I passed security and was now inside.  The place was familiar:  I was inside this hall before to hear another speaker a couple of years ago.  The police were present then too and about a hundred members of the Muslim Student Union.  Most were not students at UCI.  When the audience was asked to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, they remained seated as a block. 

An attending Congressman wrote the next day that as guests in this country (many are here on Student or other Visas), they should have shown some basic respect to their host country, a feeling shared by many. A foreigner is not expected to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but we expect one to at least stand up. 

Later they started interrupting the speaker, until the police were forced to remove a few.  Then, they stood in unison, left the hallway and continued the demonstration outside, shouting, trying to create as much an interruption as possible. 

This is truly the modus operandi of Muslims:  Silence everyone who does not think as they do.  Prevent one from speaking and do not engage in discussion.  Shout and pervert free speech like a lunatic.  Attack (first verbally) those in front of you – not the substance of the argument but their features, heritage, traditions.  If possible, threaten and  do not hesitate to act.  There are no consequences for this behavior.  The next step – physical harm – is very easy to reach. All this will be protected under the guise of political correctness, the greatest gift ever bestowed on the Muslim world.

UCI is a hotbed of anti-West activity, a hornet nest.  The script is not new, although each time brings an interesting twist. Anyone standing in their way, any reasonable person with clarity of thought and knowledge of history and current events is deemed a threat and must be silenced.  An effective way to do so is by utilizing the victim’s mentality:  “He is an Islamophob.  He hates us.  We are poor and weak. We want peace.  We just want that to which we are entitled – free speech”— but only for us! What a twisted world.

One would surely ask:

1)   Why does the campus allow such inflammatory events?  Speakers should be welcome, but events should only be open to students and faculty with valid IDs.  Realize, outside agitators are there to exploit.  As one enters, one should present his / her ID.  If one is removed for unruly behavior, there should be immediate, severe consequences.  Outside organizations should not be allowed to rent university facilities for such events (someone needs to cover the costs associated with increased police presence, the bad reputation to the university as an academic institution, etc.).

2)   Why was nothing done thus far to better educate and enforce existing rules and regulations (such as the code of student conduct)?  If a student knew that she might be expelled form the University, that her loans or grants would be rescinded or her visa to the U.S. would be revoked, perhaps she would think twice before orchestrating or participating in disruptive behavior?

Author and speaker Susanne Reyto observed on another occurrence how University Police “seem to protect protestors more than the audience.”  But it is not only the police.  It is the faculty and administration, all the way up to the Regents of the UC system.  There is a current of dismissal, closing one eye (and often both), acquiescence and silent agreement to look the other way. A dangerous inability to reconcile the idea such behavior can exist in a top academic institution and pose any threat to the very fabric of that institution and society at large.

Excuses abound justifying the Muslim actions against Israel and the Zionists.  This reflects a complete lack of understanding of the true nature of the enemy.  The Muslims are not only after Israel, they are against the American way of life, the very freedoms our Constitution affords and everything the United States of America stands for and symbolizes.

The Regents reflect in part the approach of the current Administration that talks and reconciliation, consensus building and appeasement can prevail.  Try to negotiate with hijackers and history will bear out such folly. Negotiating through strength is the only successful method, not high hopes and dreams. The Administration has taken denial to its highest level, one that translated into movement-constricting action:  The true nature of the threat cannot be discussed, ergo it does not exist. 

The new language of President Hussein Obama’s Administration includes: These are deranged individuals, not terrorists.  These are isolated incidents rather than a well-thought, very carefully planned and superbly executed campaign of war against us.  Islam is a peaceful religion, and we are one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.  The Islamic roots are deeply connected to those of the Pilgrims who fled to this country and created the best example of a free country on earth. Had it not been the current President of the United States of America who uttered these pronunciations during the last year, one would be justified in asking under what influence is the writer or what substances might he be consuming?

Back at the UCI, the vast majority of those in the hall were non-Muslim.  Their student years have long passed.  There were two groups of MSU, one on either side.  Each block was immediately recognizable by the head coverings of the young women and the unshaven, dark skinned Middle Eastern young men. 

The men had notes in their hands, inscribed with phrases they were soon to shout.  The women were sitting and laughing, one orchestrating the order in which the men rose from either side of the hall.  Hands were raised recording every movement, watching the audience, waiting for the cue, getting ready for the right moment.  All were ready, calm, calculated, their passion controlled.  They came to perform and inflict harm, and they succeeded as they did numerous times before and as they will undoubtedly do at future events.

One must keep in mind the calculated, cold manner of execution and the role women play, a true testament to equality of the sexes that will never be found in Muslim countries or under Sharia Law.

This was no dress rehearsal, but a very well executed performance in its mth (sic) appearance.  The University has done nothing of substance to counteract this increasing tide, thus reinforcing and permitting it to gather strength.  Outsiders remain in denial, thus the appearance of the Ambassador in California and his boss in the UK were merely tokens too little, too late.  Other than news coverage, they achieved little at the campuses themselves.  The university played into the hands of the Muslims, and if anyone won this round, it is the Muslims.

The Muslim anarchists must be uprooted, extracted from the once fertile ground into which they invaded, cut into pieces, crushed and destroyed. If permitted to rise again, they will continue to defile the essence of freedom, attempt to destroy the system from within.  We must protect our way of life.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs must act.  Preventing free speech in universities is just a small warning sign.  Israeli officials already know better than to travel freely anymore as many face the inconvenience of public arrests and trials for crimes committed against humanity if they set foot in places like – unbelievably yes, Great Britain.

We as Americans, must express our disgust and act to protect our own system and ideals.  This successful approach against Israeli officials can also be used not less successfully against others – perhaps a US Senator, a local businessman or a labor representative.

Our very system is being undermined and Israel is just a temporary decoration.  The scenery may change as quickly as from one play to the next and the victim will change while the perpetrators continue their very effective action.

Wake up oh great nation.  Our values and foundations are at stake, as our enemies use them to topple our system.  The University of California at Irvine was just a preview of what is coming soon to a University near you.

_____________________________________

Anti-Semitism in UK and America

Inspired by Ari Bussel

John R. Houk

© February 16, 2010

______________________________________

Coming Soon to a University Near You

In the series “Postcards from Israel,” Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers throughout the world to join them as they present reports from Israel as seen by two sets of eyes: Bussel’s on the ground, Zager’s counter-point from home.  Israel and the United States are inter-related - the two countries we hold dearest to our hearts - and so is this “point - counter-point” presentation that has, since 2008, become part of our lives.

© Postcards from Home, February, 2010

Contact:  aribussel@gmail.com

Edited Chain E-Mail

Edited: 2/10/10

As many of my email friends and family know I am not a big fan of chain e-mail. However this one has no curses or “show how much you appreciate your friends” and so on. This chain email is simply a thought provoking story.

A father wanted to read a magazine but was being bothered by his little girl, Shelby.. She wanted to know what the United States looked like. Finally, he tore a sheet out of his new magazine on which was printed the map of the country.

Tearing it into small pieces, he gave it to Shelby and said, ‘Go into the other room and see if you can put this together. This will show you our whole country today..’

After a few minutes, Shelby returned and handed him the map, correctly fitted and taped together.. The father was surprised and asked how she had finished so quickly.

‘Oh,’ she said, ‘on the other side of the paper is a picture of Jesus. When I got Jesus back where He belonged, then our country just came together..’

This one is worthy of forwarding.

OVER AND OVER… AMEN!!!!

John R. Houk

© February 7, 2010

The relatively novice German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle has some interesting thoughts of the direction the European Union should be taking. Westerwelle believes the EU should develop a military under the command of the EU Parliament with the ability to mobilize for military crises that might affect the (inter)national interests of the EU members.

I have some thoughts on an EU military but first allow me to discuss Westerwelle from the brief gleanings I found doing a Google search.

From an American perspective he seems to be quite the enigmatic politician with some political and social leanings that an American might have a brain malfunction in grasping.

Westerwelle appears to be a Conservative Market man after the tradition of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. He is pro-get the terrorists in the GWOT action. Westerwelle seems to be a pro-Israel politician in a continent experiencing a resurgence of anti-Semitism. Westerwelle’s political Party is the Free Democratic Party (FDP). The FDP is considered a Liberal Party. In America that would imply a Leftist agenda. As already noted Westerwelle has led the FDP into pro-business (anti-privatization) and a military solution toward the GWOT in Afghanistan. The political mix even becomes more enigmatic. Westerwelle is Germany’s first High Office holder that is openly homosexual. Evidently the FDP must be akin somewhat to American Libertarianism in this respect: Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative. Other Libertarian similarities end there since Westerwelle believes in a strong military to address foreign security; however Westerwelle’s vision stretches beyond Germany. Westerwelle is promoting a military for the EU.

The FDP has a Party Election Platform which could read like a Libertarian Centrist Platform in America. It is called the FDP Election Manifesto.

Lower Taxes

Financial Supervision: Really this is financial reform on how big business has been able to cook the books

Economic Policy: Less pressure on small business in the realm of hiring and firing and a reform of business taxes.

Foreign Policy:

-Nuclear disarmament

-Removal of American Nukes from German soil

-Strengthen ally ties to America

-Move away from “cosy” ties to Russia

-Support military deployment to Afghanistan

-NO Turkey allowed in the EU

Civil Liberties: Strengthen citizen rights from government intrusion. This would be the effect of repealing the Patriot Act in America.

Now here is some musing on the EU developing an integrated military that would transcend traditional European nations who have sovereignty.

How would an EU military under an inter-continent command affect American National and Security Interests? Certainly an issue between the U.S. and the EU would arise as to the nature of the existence of NATO. Would an EU military exist to bolster EU economic interests? An example might look something like when British and French forces would go to places affecting national interests in historical imperial days. What would the EU do to protect EU economic interests?

Would the institution of an EU military be the initiation of a confederated national government under EU auspices? If you are a Biblical Prophetic scholar (or armchair scholar), what would an integrated one national European Union mean? It would mean the reemergence of the ancient Roman Empire. If you are an eschatological Christian you might think the return of Christ would be imminent.

Before Christ returns traditional Protestant Pentecostal Prophetic teaching relates that Satan’s anti-Christ would come to persecute the Believers in the Risen Savior Jesus Christ the Son of God the Father.

Has anyone noticed that the rumors of wars and natural disasters seem to have multiplied to the potential of something catastrophic?

I am somewhat confident that others in the EU share Guido Westerwelle’s vision of a militarized EU. I am not going to search them out right now; however could it be that Westerwelle or someone of the same vision may wittingly or unwittingly be ushering in the anti-Christ or the embodiment of evil himself. Yeah I know it is gloom and doom dark musings.

Anyway, the studious geopolitician (or armchair) should be fascinated if the militarizing of the EU occurs. The very paths of how a militarized EU would evolve are plenteous.

JRH 2/7/10 (Hat Tip: Above Top Secret)

Dr. Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) as reported at Christian Newswire wonders a valid point. If homosexuals, feminists and Muslims are murdered in a public venue; there would be some highly publicized media attention crying prejudice and intolerance is alive and well in America. I would further state if it was a Christian (lunatic or not) murdering the above types of lifestyles and religionists, the media clamor would even be exponentially higher.

The question implied by Dr. Cass: Why is there so much media significance attached to enemies of morality and to a religion that violently believes it is superior to all other religions?

The basis of Dr. Cass’ wondering is that two Christians witnessing at Boynton Beach in California were mercilessly shot death after witnessing to an 18 year old. The kid even finished his murder spree with an execution style coup de grace in the head of one victim.

JRH 2/6/10

John R. Houk

© January 30, 2010

The practice of homosexuality is a vile affront to the will of God.

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”[b]

 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

 
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

 
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1: 16-32 NKJV)

Now I realize this passage of Scripture is not focusing on homosexuality, BUT it certainly includes homosexuality as the practice of a reprobate mind rebelling against the will of God.

No matter how much a homosexual tries to spin the Bible does not reference homosexuality as wrong, one has to be at a moron level of intelligence to believe a homosexual apologist on this issue. Look at an example of a Christian Apologist writing for Newsweek attempting to spin Scripture in a homosexual slant. The person denies the Bible ever references a negative connotation toward the practice of homosexuality, that the Bible does not emphasize a marriage is between a male and female and that Jesus and Paul the Apostle never condemned homosexuality.

The Newsweek writer’s article is totally bogus! The Word of God does condemn homosexuality in the Old and New Testament. Even though many Old Testament Patriarchs practiced polygamy and polygamy was not denounced in the New Testament (except for Ministerial Offices), marriage was still between male and female. I challenge any homosexual apologist to find where polygamy is between one male and multiple males or between one female and multiple females. If any place close to homosexual matrimony it is in cases which God’s wrath destroyed areas or peoples who practiced homosexuality – Sodom and Gomorrah for example.

Although Jesus never publicly condemned homosexuality, neither did he really publicly condemn other sins. Rather the mission of Jesus born of the flesh was to bring humanity to a place of deliverance from the bondage of sin that separates humanity from God Almighty. HELLO! Homosexuality is one of those sin bondages that separate a human from God. Lambert Dolphin in a huge essay demonstrates that Jesus indeed was NOT a supporter of homosexuality.

As for the insinuation that Paul never condemned homosexuality, the Scripture quoted above (Romans 1: 16-32) was written by Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Hence Paul indeed includes homosexual as a vile sin.

Our own President uses the political correct concept of multiculturalism and diversity to place the homosexual agenda on his agenda. The President has taken the anti-Christian and Anti-Biblical stand that speaking out against homosexuality is hate speech. Leftists in general are under the delusion that speaking out against homosexuality is similar to the racism that is expressed toward minorities. The voting bloc of note is equating African-American bigotry with anti-homosexual writings and speech. The Movie Media and Network TV have done their utmost to propagandize Americans that homosexuality is normal contrary to Biblical Scripture. The pounding of Mainstream Media (MSM) for Americans to accept homosexual normalcy is the biggest reason national acceptance has increased. It is significant that a majority of States in the Union have passed laws (mostly initiated by citizens) to declare Marriage is between a male and female. This is a rebuff to the practice of homosexuality. An Activist Judiciary has done its best to over turn any law (mostly citizen Initiatives) concerning anti-homosexual marriage. Some State Judiciaries have enacted laws legalizing homosexual marriage which is beyond the scope of the Judiciary. Making laws on a State level is the purview of Legislators and Citizen Initiatives. The Judiciary role is to interpret law rather than create law.

It is apparent that President Obama’s Leftist czar system of extra-legal government is dominated by a Left agenda to transform America. The radical czar in relation to this post is Obama’s Safe School Czar Kevin Jennings. Jennings is a homosexual activist which Leftists and homosexual activists claim is being smeared by America’s Slanted Right. If one Googles “Kevin Jennings” and associate the search with Gay, homosexual or homosexual agenda; one will find a huge amount of support from Left and homosexual websites and blogs. You see Jennings is a homosexual activist himself. All the Leftist and homosexual praise stems from education awards, denials of association with NAMBLA and a denial of Jennings’ hate of all things Christian. The apologist praise for Jennings is just as slippery as the Leftist and homosexual activist twisting of Biblical Scripture.

The MSM, homosexual activists, Secular Humanists and Obama’s Administration all have an agenda to validate homosexuality as normal. It is time for the majority of Americans that have not been affected by pro-homosexual propaganda to shed off political correct fears and confront the homosexual agenda straight-on. One way to do this is to support former Navy Chaplin James Klingenschmitt’s Pray in Jesus Name Project. The Pray in Jesus Name Project is usually more concerned with religious freedom (Klingenschmitt received the Navy boot for praying “in Jesus’ Name”); however Klingenschmitt has a petition out pertaining to homosexuality because of President Obama’s agenda to make homosexuality normal and protected within the Military. Hence the Clinton compromise of the ‘90’s of “Don’t ask don’t tell” will be jettisoned by the Obama Administration. Klingenschmitt is taking a stand by circulating and Internet petition. You can read and respond to the petition HERE.

JRH 1/30/10 (Hat Tip: Human Events paid advertisement)

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

Obama: State of the Homosexual Union

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt

Sent: Jan 29, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Website: Pray in Jesus Name Project

URGENT NEW PETITION: SELECT HERE TO SIGN AND DEFEND OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, and we will fax your personalized petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen, (saving you hours of labor!)

OBAMA ENDANGERS TROOPS LIVES by REPEALING “DON’T ASK-DON’T TELL”

President Obama pledged in his State of the Union Address to promote open homosexual aggression within the ranks of the military, by directly recruiting Congressmen and Senators in 2010 to overturn the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law that saves troops lives and already guarantees equality.  Ignoring a letter signed by over 1,150 retired military flag and general officers, who asked Obama to enforce the 1993 Clinton-era law that currently prohibits open homosexual aggression in the military, Obama instead sacrificed military readiness, unit cohesion, and safety of all American troops, to prioritize his special relationship with less than 1% of the American population who claimed to be homosexual in the last census.

“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay men and women the right to serve the country they love,” Obama boldly misled, repeating the vow he made during a speech Oct. 10th before a gay rights group.  (The truth is homosexuals already now have the right to serve, so long as they keep their sexual aggression to themselves.)  “If you adhere to our common values, you should be treated no different than anyone else,” Obama said oxymoronically, defining “equality” and “values” as a sudden endorsement of illegal acts of sodomy long banned by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  The Joint Chiefs sat stone-faced silent, aghast at Obama’s plan, but powerless to publicly oppose their own Commander-In-Chief.  We must be their voice…

SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.

As a former Navy Chaplain and Air Force Academy graduate, having served during wartime combat operations, in close quarters with Sailors onboard a combat cruiser, and having personally counseled both straight and homosexual service members, I can personally attest the last thing our Sailors need is a lack of trust or suspicion toward their fellow shipmates.  Our uniformed service members’ very lives depend daily on their ability to trust each other, without worry about being ogled, made advances upon, or violated by those with whom they share common sleeping quarters and showering facilities, 24/7 both on and off duty.  Friends, do you care about protecting our military’s trust, unit cohesion, and saving our troops lives?  Take action today…

Kevin Nix, spokesman for the pro-homosexual Service members Legal Defense Network, which is spearheading the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal effort, told the Washington Times the House bill now has 182 co-sponsors, just short of a majority.  “We’re just trying to get to 218 to show that the bill is ready,” said Mr. Nix, who added that senators plan to introduce a bill shortly.

“We expect a bill introduction for the first time in 16 years,” he said. “We definitely expect a hearing this year. There are still things that need to happen, but we are definitely on the brink of a bill in the Senate.  We want repeal done in 2010.  Done, to the president’s desk for a signature.”  A spokesman for pro-homosexual Congressman Patrick J. Murphy (D-PA), who is leading the repeal campaign in the House, said he has commitments from 16 members in addition to the 182 co-sponsors, totaling 198 votes, just short of a majority.

In the Pentagon however, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway has emerged in internal deliberations as the most outspoken opponent of permitting gay men and women to serve openly in the U.S. military, according to the Washington Times.

“Most of the senior brass holds deep reservations about President Obama’s pledge to end the ban on gays in the military, especially in the middle of two wars that have put extra stress on the military, down to the platoon level, where soldiers and Marines would be expected to bond with openly gay colleagues,” the Times reported.

WHY KEEP OPEN HOMOSEXUALITY OUT OF THE MILITARY?

Four reasons:  1) Allowing open homosexuality especially hurts unit cohesion and would cost American lives in war, damaging the trust shared in close proximity, common sleeping quarters and showering facilities that are unavoidable in close combat.  2) Men and women do not share the same showers for obvious reasons, so why force men to share showers with openly homosexual men?  This fact alone would hurt recruiting.  3) The rampant spread of the HIV-AIDS virus contaminates the blood often shared by necessity on the battlefield.  Soldiers requiring blood-transfusions and medics would be immediately endangered.  4) “Gay promotion quotas” would soon be forced upon presently impartial promotion boards, causing a burdensome rise in sexually-charged “equal opportunity” complaints against commanders, especially those who offend gays by inadvertently speaking of their traditional Judeo-Christian faith.

But Marine Commandant General Conway has gone further than others in stating his opposition to a change in policy, according to a former official who was privy to private conversations on the matter. “He feels very strongly that [removing the ban] would be disruptive, and he opposes it,” he said.  But if Congress changes the law, the General must implement the law.

Obama campaigned during his election to end “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the policy signed into law by President Clinton. The policy ended the practice of asking prospective recruits about their sexuality, allowing homosexuals to freely serve, but prohibited openly gay men and women from talking about their sexual urges while serving.  Repeal would allow them to share their sexual urges with their fellow soldiers, creating needless and divisive tension in the ranks.

The House Armed Services Committee will likely hold a hearing on a repeal bill in the spring, meaning the earliest floor vote could come before the middle of 2010, as part of the 2011 Defense Armed Services Authorization or Appropriations spending bill. Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee had planned a hearing in 2009, but none was scheduled. The White House will likely soon submit a repeal bill to the Hill.

The four-star chiefs of the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Army have said little on the topic in public and have not been pressed by Congress to provide their professional opinions. All four declined to answer when asked for their personal opinions on the ban by The Washington Times, except to say they will abide by the law.  They’ve been silenced for fear of upsetting Obama, who would likely force their immediate retirement.

“They are not going to talk until it’s time to talk,” said a senior officer inside the Pentagon, who added the chiefs will discuss any specific legislative proposal in private with the chain of command - meaning Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the president.

Adm. Mullen, who as Joint Chiefs chairman is the president’s top military adviser, has expressed concern about carrying out the president’s wish.  “I think it’s important, as we look to this change, that it be done in a way that doesn’t disrupt the force at a time where it’s under a lot of stress,” Adm. Mullen told the Military Times in May. “And that, to me, means in a measured, deliberate way, over some time — to be determined. And I don’t know what that would be.”  (I know how and when….never risk our troops lives.)

The Times reports Gay rights groups cite recent polls that show the public now supports repealing the ban, unlike in 1993, when polls showed the opposite. That year, Congress stopped Mr. Clinton’s bid to change what was then only a regulation. He ended up signing the ban into law.  The Pentagon discharged 633 men and women under the ban in fiscal year 2008. 

Gallup reported to the Washington Times in June that 58 percent of the conservatives it polled favored allowing openly gay men and women to serve. Overall, 69 percent of adults support ending the ban, Gallup said.  (That’s a good reason to forward this email widely, to begin educating our friends on why the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law must remain.) 

Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness and argues in favor of the ban, pointed a reporter toward a recent article she wrote for the American Thinker.

“Consistently small numbers and percentages of people discharged due to homosexuality contradict any claim that a national security emergency justifies repeal of the law,” she wrote.  “And it is not convincing to hold up the small, dissimilar militaries of foreign nations, none of which have adopted the extreme agenda being proposed for our military, as role models for America’s forces. Nor does it help to ignore the stated opinions of more than 1,150 retired flag and general officers and current military personnel.”  Our military is not a ground for new and radical social experimentation, especially ones that endanger lives.

SELECT HERE TO SIGN NEW PETITION DEFENDING OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, AND WE WILL FAX TO ALL 535 CONGRESSMEN.

God Bless you, in Jesus’ name,

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt

_______________________________

Confront the Homosexual Apologist with Truth

John R. Houk

© January 30, 2010

_____________________________

Obama: State of the Homosexual Union

P.S. Prefer to sponsor us by direct mail?  Please mail postal donations to:  The Pray In Jesus Name Project, PO Box 77077, Colorado Springs, CO 80970.  Please don’t wait.   Our troops lives, trust, and cohesion depend on our voice.  Please take action, sign our petition today, and we’ll automatically deliver your message!

Disclaimer: The views of Chaplain Klingenschmitt, who was honorably but involuntarily discharged from the Navy in 2007 after facing court-martial for praying “in Jesus name” in uniform, (but was later vindicated by Congress), are his own personal views, not the views of any political party, government, or organization.