Thursday, June 30, 2016

VIDEO -- Geert Wilders: Stand for Freedom!

Geert Wilders is one of my Counterjihad heroes in exposing the dark side of Islam’s theopolitical ideology. He leads the Dutch Party for Freedom (Dutch acronym: PVV), a political party in the Netherlands which their Left Wing and Multiculturist politicians fear, hate and loathe. Why? Wilders represents the political stand in Europe that understands that Islam is a religion that will destroy Western Civilization if allowed to enter unrestrained via immigration. Adherents to Islam demand that the host nation they conform and acquiesce to the tenets of Islam which demands a life led under Sharia Law not only for adherents but also that non-Muslim Westerners conform.

Wilders understands that the Sharia minded Muslim enclaves that have risen in the Netherlands is a threat to all things Dutch in that society. Unfortunately for Wilders and Dutch nationalists, such thinking spoken out loud have been criminalized not only in the Netherlands but the entire European Union (EU) of nations – incidentally the recent Brexit vote in the United Kingdom (UK).

With that intro of Geert Wilders I stumbled upon a Wilders video (about four minutes) courtesy of the Gatestone Institute email alert.

JRH 6/30/16
VIDEO -- Geert Wilders: Stand for Freedom!

June 30, 2016 at 12:30 am

Dutch opposition leader Geert Wilders discusses the dangers of the Islamization of the West and the growing influence of Sharia law. He outlines his plans to defend the identity and civilization of the West from indoctrination.

Published on Jun 29, 2016

Dutch opposition leader Geert Wilders discusses the dangers of the Islamization of the West and the growing influence of Sharia law. He outlines his plans to defend the identity and civilization of the West from indoctrination.

© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

About Gatestone Institute

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write." — John Adams

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

o   Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

o   Human Rights

o   A free and strong economy

o   A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

o   Energy independence

o   Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts -- analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.

Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and READ THE REST

Blog Editor: I’m afraid I went a bit rogue. I did not ask or receive permission to use the Gatestone content. If told to remove, I will comply.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Lying, Deceiving and Crooked Hillary

John R. Houk
© June 29, 2016

By now you have read that the Dem members of House Benghazi Committee has said to the effect: Nothing to see here. Move along. Obama and Hillary did a fantastic job with being upfront about the September 11, 2012 Islamic terrorist attack in which four Americans lost their lives – one of which was U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. And do vote for Hillary since she always truthful and full of integrity.

Of course Dem voters will either believe the whole bag of horse-pucky or will not care because they are all in for the Leftist transformation of America. Why else would they vote a crook?

Here is lying through her teeth:

Posted by MSNBC
Published on Jun 28, 2016

Hillary Clinton makes an official comment about the Benghazi report that was released by the House Republicans and the other investigations that have been conducted.

» Subscribe to MSNBC:

About: MSNBC is the a Marxist propaganda machine for Obama, Hillary and Dems in general err I mean READ THE REST

If you Google the media outlets on the Benghazi Committee Reports, you will note all the Left Wing ones and the pretend Mainstream Media claim that Hillary is exonerated with NO NEW INFO. I tell you what – The GOP members paint an entirely different story than Hillary and her Dem acolytes.

Did the GOP find a smoking gun? No, because the Obama Administration and the Obama regime State Department have done all they can to stall, withhold, and not cooperate with GOP investigators.

The GOP Benghazi Committee Members’ News Conference on June 28 makes it quite clear that Obama and Hillary screwed up for the PR purpose of ensuring Obama’s 2912 election victory and deceive voters that Hillary is an outstanding and experienced individual to run for POTUS in 2016.

Posted by LesGrossman2015
Published on Jun 28, 2016

Trey Gowdy holds press conference on new benghazi report june 28 2016. House Select Committee on Benghazi Report Members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi held a news conference to release their report on the September 2012 on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans died including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) refused on Tuesday to accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of lying about the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in. After spending a reported $7 million dollars investigating the Benghazi attacks, House Republicans released their report this week, but it found no new evidence of wrongdoing by the former secretary of state.

At a press conference on Tuesday, reporters pointed out that Gowdy’s committee had fueled attacks on Clinton for months. “There are bumper stickers and T-shirts all over this country that say, ‘Hillary Clinton lied, people died,'” one reporter noted during Gowdy’s press conference. “Is that true?” “You don’t see that T-shirt on me and you’ve never seen that bumper sticker on any of my vehicles and you’ve never heard me comment on that,” Gowdy insisted. “I’m asking you to read [the report]. I’m not going to tell you what to be on the lookout for. I’m going to tell you there’s new information.” “And it fundamentally changes the way that I view what happened before, during and after,” he added. “I actually trust you to read the report for yourself and draw your own conclusions.” “But you are the expert,” another reporter interrupted. “What do you think? Do you think she lied?” “I’m not going to assign — that, that’s a word you couldn’t use in a courtroom,” Gowdy stuttered in response. “It’s just in [Clinton’s] public statements to us, there was less definitiveness. So, you’re going to have to decide for yourself.”

Trey Gowdy (R.- SC) and his committee members addressed the media about the 800-page findings. Although Chairman Gowdy and his fellow GOP members have repeatedly noted that this purpose of their investigation was not about the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Gowdy told MSNBC this morning, “We mention Clinton’s name less times than the Democrats do” in their report), a reporter pressed the Chairman about a popular takeaway from the Benghazi events. “There are bumper stickers and tee-shirts all over this country that say ‘Hillary Clinton lied, people died’ is this true?” asked the reporter. “You don’t see that tee-shirt on me, and you don’t see that bumper sticker on any of my vehicles,” responded Gowdy succinctly. “And you’ve never heard me comment on that.”

As he had done throughout the press conference, Gowdy repeatedly urged not only the gathered members of the press but also the American public to read the 800-page report for themselves. “I’m not gonna tell you what to be on the lookout for. I’m gonna tell you there’s new information.” The panel found no new wrongdoing on the part of the former Secretary of State, who is the presumed nominee for the Democratic party in the 2016 Presidential race, though it slams the inadequate resources leading up to the 2012 attacks that left four Americans dead in Libya.

This morning on CNN’s New Day, committee member Jim Jordan (R. – Ohio) said, “The overall report, it’s about the facts, what happened [but we] thought it was important to ask the questions. Why were we still in Benghazi when almost every other country had left? Why did we stay in Benghazi when the security situation was so terrible, so dangerous? And why did the administration mislead us?” [Blog Editor: I divided the description into arbitrary paragraphs.]

Wherever LesGrossman2015 got his description, there is the appearance of trying to be balanced; however, it still smacks of giving Hillary a pass.

The Republicans post with pdf links for the public to read their 800-page report. It is entitled “Select Committee on Benghazi Releases Proposed Report”.

Fox News has a very good analysis of news conference and the report: “House Benghazi report slams administration response to attacks”.

JRH 6/29/16

Monday, June 27, 2016

What Me Worry?

Do you hate Jews? If you are studious Muslim you might answer of course – it is encoded in the Quran, Hadith and Sira. If you are a Nazi or Neo-Nazi you would probably answer yes, your delusional hero uncle Adolf taught you to hate Jews in his writings.

Are you an American, a Westerner and/or a Christian? Do you hate Jews (Profanity Warning – Pat Condell condemns Jew-hatred)? SHAME ON Y0U if you answer yes.

Are you a Progressive and hate Jews (FrontPageMag & DTN) because Israel exists and those poor non-entity Palestinians have told you they are victims? Then you are a deluded idiot.

Any hatred of a people or religious faith is an evil. From a Christian perspective, hating Jews is just plain ungodly. If you think the Jews are collectively responsible for the Crucifixion of Christ, you should their hand. Without Christ’s death and Resurrection, you to realize we would still be lost to the Fallen nature of Adam that the Resurrected Jesus redeemed us from.

It is wrong to blame Jews for the Crucifixion, that was actually a collaboration Roman leadership (Gentiles) and the Jewish Sanhedrin leadership. Does anyone persecute Italians for being Christ-killers?

Norma Zager wonders out loud if there is an inoculation for hate. Why? Antisemitism is again raising its ugly head among those that should be enlightened to see the idiocy of Jew-hatred in this day and age of the 21st century.

What Me Worry?

By Norma Zager
Sent: 6/26/2016 7:59 PM

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” John F. Kennedy

So many years ago, and I purposely choose not to remember, Alfred E. Newman graced the cover of Mad Magazine begging the question, “What Me Worry?”

An icon of sorts, Alfred’s question became a watchword or guide for my generation.  Peace love and rock n’ roll seemed to fit perfectly into the parameters of “What Me Worry?”  And we didn’t, at least not much until we entered adulthood and found ourselves face to face with actual life.

Now it seems to me I feel compelled to raise the question once again, but the worry somehow seems implicit in the question itself, “what me hate?” There is so much hate around us these days; it is almost impossible to escape its ravages or virus-like movement through our lives.

Would one invent a vaccine to eradicate hatred? I actually wonder how many earthlings would choose to sign up for a dose.

And that is my conundrum.

For as I have come face to face with the ugliness of hatred, I now must admit to myself it is a conscious choice and one that is dictated by a willingness to believe lies about those very people we seek to dislike and blame.

As a Jewish person I have faced anti-Semitism numerous times. Whether from gentiles or self-hating Jews, the effects are always nauseating and unsettling, and after a bout with a hater I am left spent and weary as a sickly feeling courses through my veins until I can finally dispel its effects.

The most difficult task coming face to face with anti-Semitism is what to do. Shall I speak up? Shall I defend Israel? Shall I remain mute, retain relationships and betray my true self? What is my responsibility and how far shall I go? Perhaps to even refuse a job as I once did.

Is there a way to make a hater stop hating or a denier accept truth? What is gained by my leaping into the fray and becoming emotionally involved? These are questions only one can answer for oneself.

Do I wish I could remain mute, slough it off and change the subject? Yes, I do. Am I able to do so and not hate myself? No, unfortunately not. So either way I wind up feeling like a ton of ugliness was dumped on my head. I suppose that is a problem that has no answer. Hate does not possess a path for winning on any level.

Yesterday I came face to face with a hater. Oh of course hatred robes itself in intelligence. Academia prides itself on being above the fray. By their sheer acumen they can better discern fact from fiction, the cause from effect and of course who is to blame for the ills of the world. They believe they are right, defenders of the truth, and feel no remorse when pulling out the trite and careworn blame-the-Jews theories from their intellectual toolbox.

And yet laughingly for them it all still comes back to one answer: The Jews are to blame of course.

I should not have been shocked when speaking yesterday with an educator who firmly believes Israel is an occupier and killer of innocent Palestinians and that the problems of the Jewish people could be blamed directly on Israel’s behavior in the Middle East.

And yet I still find it hard to believe that in the wake of all the information available about Israel’s desire to live in peace with her neighbors and terrorist groups like Hamas that attack innocent Israelis on a daily basis, one would have accumulated the necessary knowledge to make an informed decision.

But no, it is still the Jews that are at fault. Or as the anti-Semite asked me yesterday, “Don’t Palestinians have rights? It was their land,” and on and on and on with all the crazy rhetoric that fuels the fires of hatred. Sadly, she believes her assumptions are truth, and being so accomplished intellectually she thus has the right to make this choice.

What I find so amusing is that even after the world has seen what the Arab world is capable of – stonings, killings, murdering homosexuals, cutting off heads, burning people alive and barbaric behavior in the most primitive forms – it still chooses to side with them against the Jewish people.

It is not information haters seek, it is merely a reason to hate, to fuel the fires of their racist rants.

I cannot speak for Muslims, although I know only too well they are suffering terribly for those among them who pay homage to a culture of hatred and evil.  My heart goes out to them, and I hope they as a religion find a way to escape from this dark cloud that has risen above them.

I can however speak as a Jew.  I have seen that in a world filled with evil, a Jewish life brings far less on the open market. Although it seems our Christian brethren have now succumbed to the ravages of evil as well, with few to cry out against their tormentors.

There is no excuse for hatred and racism if one can forego one’s prejudices and accept the facts. I am not saying Israel or the Jewish people are perfect and without flaws; perfection does not exist on this earth and never will, and we are all a little right and a little wrong at times. I am only saying that when faced with a scenario that includes hating evildoers or a Jew, haters, sadly, opt to blame the Jew.

It does not matter how many missiles rain down on Israeli children before they are forced to fight back; it does not matter how many leaflets are dropped by the IDF warning Palestinians to leave their homes and find safety because Israeli jets are coming; it does not matter how many Palestinian leaders hide their weapons in kindergartens or hospitals to rack up scores of victims to serve their PR purposes; it will always be the fault of the Jews.  Because that is the choice the haters make and they will never change.

Winston Churchill said, “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”

Perhaps it is only in the end the world will finally acknowledge the truth, but I highly doubt the haters will choose to see it even then.

It is clear to me that Friedrich Nietzsche was correct when he wrote, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” I suppose as long as this is the case the haters will hate, the idealistic will defend and the pragmatists will stand aside and let them fight it out.

I often wonder who will win, and that is what truly gives me pause. For it seems more and more each day it is haters 6,000,000+ and defenders of the truth 0.

So I must ask myself once again as I have so many times before, “What Me Worry?”

You bet I do.
This is the latest in the series “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel,” a collaboration between Zager and Bussel, a foreign correspondent reporting from Israel.

Ari Bussel and Norma Zager collaborate both in writing and on the air in a point-counter-point discussion of all things Israel-related.  Together, they have dedicated the past decade to promoting Israel.

© Israel Monitor, June, 2016

First Published June 25, 2016

3 Comments Against Suissa ‘dump Trump’ Article

Ari Bussel is a frequent contributor on my blog. This submission is about three comments to an anti-Trump post in the Jewish Journal by David Suissa. The three comments are pro-Trump. The third comment is penned by Ari Bussel. If you read this blog you are probably aware that I have been in Trump’s corner since Senator Ted Cruz looked at the math, realized he could not secure the GOP nomination and so dropped (or suspended) out of the nomination race. I am a Trumper primarily because the alternative is crooked Hillary, one of the most corrupt American politicians next President Barack Obama and former President Slick-Willie Clinton.

Ari’s submission includes the anti-Trump post entitled “Republicans must dump Trump”. Ari placed the article at the end of the comments, but if you want to know what the three comments are defending against you may wish to scroll down and read the Suissa article first.

JRH 6/27/16
3 Comments Against Suissa ‘dump Trump’ Article
Republicans must dump Trump

Article By David Suissa
Comments Submitted by Ari Bussel
Originally: Jewish Journal
Sent: 6/26/2016 2:26 PM
Focus: Three Comments to Suissa Article

[COMMENTS] In the order they were written:

1) Lily Steiner (

David SHAME ON YOU! Do you not understand who 'We the people' are? Do you have so much disdain for people that do not agree with you? Do you have to be right to the exclusion of the Democratic process? Is your ego so huge that just because you have taken a vendetta to Trump anyone that does not also see it is wrong? Has it ever occurred to you that you may be, perhaps, just a little wrong yourself? Do you care nothing about a free and democratic election? Can you not even entertain that you are one of the elitists causing the problems. Do you not understand that the SILENT MAJORITY, who do not usually even vote, have taken the time and trouble to leave their chairs and couches and go out and show their support for a candidate they can finally support?

I don't know how we have survived almost 8 years of the current leadership, and in fact we have not yet, as he has deeply and widely embedded Islamists into every department and level of government in a way, only someone like Trump can weed out.

But you of all people David, the wonderful father that you are, MUST understand that to raise a family as good and supportive and respectful and dedicated to a father like Trump, especially after 2 failed marriages, that type of father, that type of man cannot even come close to your close minded description of his character. The Trump kids, who grew up in wealth and privilege and the pain of 2 divorces, are exemplary citizens, ALL OF THEM, and totally support and respect their father. Do you in any way question that as their foundation and nurturer he could be anything but a man of solid values and integrity? You've raised many kids, you know the challenges, and how they turned out could only be a testament to his moral fiber.

All men have egos, and Trumps main challenge is that he is not a smooth charismatic speaker. So yes, you elitists will jump on media extracted sound bites that paint him so negatively, but take the time to see the substance of his 'straight from the hip, unfiltered' comments and you will not see lines of insulted workers of all backgrounds waiting to add their stories of the despicable boss they had, you will find stories and comments of a man that treated everyone fairly and equally.

When the media tried to show how awful he was to women, you had those same women come out and support him, showing the media, the folks you are supporting, to be totally biased with a lack of integrity to the truth. Now you, David, join them too! 

You have created the most shameful column you have ever written. You besmirched the good character of a man who doesn't need the power or aggravation or home or airplane that come with this office. Trump is running because he really does want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT again. With all the votes on the ground and support of all the We The People, not acknowledging him as the Republican Candidate shows you to have a TOTAL DISREGARD for the democracy we enjoy. I respect your disapproval of Trump, even though it does diminish you in my eyes, but I respect your right to your opinion. Your suggestion that we overthrow the democratic process because you feel you are smarter than the rest of us, is just plain ego on your part, far more vulgar than anything you describe in Trump.

2) Paul Schnee (

During the last 12 months nobody has won any money betting against Donald Trump. As I understand it the gravamen of Mr. Suissa's argument is that some method should be found to deny the will of the primary voters either before or at the Republican convention in July. This suggestion would have been more beneficially applied to Obama's candidacy in 2008. Had it been successful the likelihood of a populist Trump candidacy, which seems to horrify Mr. Suissa even more than the 8 mirthless, poisonous and treacherous years of Obama's presidency, would have been remote. Denying the will of the people is a conceit of the political elite as Prime Minister Cameron just discovered on Thursday.

Those conservatives and Republicans who will not support Donald Trump because they imagine themselves to be too politically pure, too morally superior, too well educated and too sophisticated because they consider Trump to be an unprincipled quasi-liberal vulgarian are committing a costly form of sanctimony which will hand over America and the Supreme Court to a political party which has abandoned Israel, supports the hate-group, Black Lives Matter, and whose members have moved so far to the left they would be unable to see the center if they were standing on top of a ladder looking through a pair of binoculars.

3) Ari Bussel (

Dear David,

Good writing evokes emotions and transfers the piece from the writer to the reader.

I am not going to say you are misguided, wrong or otherwise delusional.  I have read at least two lengthy comments to that effect.  Quite on the contrary, I immensely enjoyed, as always, reading your column.  The comments show that people read your column and that what you write affects them, sufficiently to drive them to engage in a discussion with you and/or with the piece.

I wonder, and you might too, of all the very many columns you have written this year, is that the single most “profound” or “comment-enticing” one.  Time will tell.  And your readers may think differently than you (each holds a different column of a writer as “most memorable”).

I would say, though, that had your “Dump Trump" been published a few weeks ago, it would have been timely, suggestive and thought-provoking.  As it is now, it is stale, outdated and plain sour.

The current timing is similar to all those Britons who, moments after the final Brexit results were announced, started calling for another vote, and will likely demand another and another … until their vote is the one that prevails!  Two million, three million and the count is rising.  But how many of them voted to separate in the first place?

You admit that “Love him or hate him, the man has earned his delegates.”  You do not question the process; you simply do not like the results. Thus, you call to tailor new regulations, just so that we can change what is truly rightfully earned and fait accompli.

You care not that you undermine the integrity of the process, and that is exactly how Democrats today behave; as if they are the owners of the process, and the process must therefore fit itself to them.

You advocate somewhat similar to Ehud Barak’s call, at present time in Israel, for a “rebellion” or an “uprising” or anything of the sort, simply because he does not like the current government and/or because he is desperate seeing the “Left,” of which he is a part, evaporating to non-existence.  [I wonder what would happen if I were to use the same about the sitting President of the United States.  “Ousting” or “Rising Against” or anything similar, and I might find myself - in a best case scenario - in a jail cell, keys thrown to oblivion.]

You further suggest to Republican leaders to take the long view, the high road and to set an example.  You say, inter alia:

Republican leaders must say to America, "We have decided that Donald Trump is so far out of line that we can't in good conscience support him. Even if we have to bear the wrath of his supporters, divide our party and forfeit the election, we will encourage delegates to go in another direction." 

Since when did party leaders - Democrats or Republicans - do the right thing?  They care about one thing, and one thing only - perpetuating the status quo:  immense power and wealth, corruption and politics all concentrated in their hands.

Out of necessity - like the Israelites at the Red Sea, with the Egyptians fast approaching - Republican leaders finally understood the demand of (everyday) Republicans - we, the (simple) people, those who have a single, legitimate vote - and internalized the call to stop “Washington Politics.”  Further they understood (not so much by choice, but by sheer and overwhelming reality) that if the party is to survive, they must unite and reflect the people; not the comforts of the status quo where they rule and “let the people be damned!”  Thus you call for them to do the right thing; they have already done so.

In Biblical times, Nachshon jumped into the raging waters.  In current day Washingtonian politics, it was the Speaker of the House who was last remaining at the edge of the cliff, refusing to jump to save the institution, the party and himself.  He had no choice but to finally relent as well.

Once Paul Ryan announced he will vote together the entire party behind its presumptive nominee, the last fort of opposition to the New Reality has fallen.  Had your column appeared until that moment, it would be a wonderful, thought-provoking, reality-questioning piece.  

But as it was published after that tipping point, it is nothing but a lamentation of a sore loser; and I know you are not.

Imagine a similar column published moments after the Berlin Wall was toppled on 11/9/1989 or at the time President Reagan said, on 6/12/1987, “Tear Down This Wall!”  Timing - all the difference in the world.

DJT might be a narcissist, but what is new under the sun?  Are we not completing eight years under another similar narcissist (“it is my way, and only my way!”), simply from the other side of the aisle?  The difference is that with one we had to undergo eight long years of subjugating everything we hold dear (from the Constitution, tumbled under his feet, to the medical care we used to get to anything else that was “life in America” before BHO) to him, and you seem to be afraid of the next four years of “narcissism break[ing] loose.”

Anything - either Clinton or Trump - will be better than what we have endured thus far.  As a Republican all my life, and for the sake of America, I hope it will be DJT.  My vote will be for him.


Ari Bussel

From the Jewish Journal

Republicans must dump Trump
By David Suissa

It's bad enough when a narcissist is so full of himself that even a defeat can't humble him. Win or lose, he's always right. Imagine, then, what happens when an extreme narcissist starts to win, and wins big. All narcissism breaks loose. He goes from being drunk on his greatness to being totally plastered.

This is what is happening to Donald Trump.

He has passed the drunken phase. His stunning victories in the Republican primaries, his endless media exposure and his raucous rallies have become like cocaine-heroin speedballs to the part of his brain that triggers his ego. Blinded by self-love, he has doubled down on his offensiveness and recklessness. 

His critics inside the Republican party say, "What did you expect? This is who Trump is." But I think it's worse than that.

What we're seeing now is Trump becoming more and more Trumpish, a man so hypnotized by his own success that he can't see himself unraveling (with a 70 percent disapproval rating). He can hire and fire advisers, but it won't help, because he can't help himself.

If Trump pulls off a miracle and wins the White House, we will have an unhinged leader of the free world, intoxicated by his greatness, prone to even more recklessness. 

But even if he loses, which is more likely, we will still have to brave another few months of Trumpian bile. Come November, there won't be anyone left to offend. We will all need a National Detox Day.

Among the many fallouts of this cringe-inducing year is how Trump's crassness has overshadowed some genuine grievances among his working-class voters. Many of them feel, rightfully, that the economic recovery has left them behind and the Washington establishment has ignored them.

Some Trump voters also are tired of seeing their country getting ripped off, whether by a badly run war in Iraq that squandered $3 trillion, a badly negotiated nuclear deal that empowered a terror-sponsoring Iran, or unfair trade agreements that have cost American jobs.

The great GOP tragedy of 2016 is that it was a vulgar and divisive circus clown who figured out how to tap into many of those grievances.

In the beginning, many of us saw the Trump phenomenon as a harmless and amusing sideshow. Now, we see it is contaminating a party -- and a nation.

That's why Republicans must do everything they can to dump the Trumpster.

This is no longer about partisan politics; it's about defending the honor of our country. As Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said recently, "There'll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary."

With their convention only a month away, for Republicans that time is now. Trump's beyond-the-pale behavior justifies looking for every possible angle in the playbook to allow delegates to nominate another candidate.

Yes, it'll be messy, but as John Fund writes in National Review Online, there are expert opinions in support of freeing up the delegates:

"Curly Haugland, a member of both the Republican National Committee and the convention's Rules Committee, has co-authored with Sean Parnell a persuasive mini-book, 'Unbound: The Conscience of a Republican Delegate,' to make the case that delegates to the GOP convention are free to vote their conscience."

Denying Trump the nomination is a long shot, to be sure. Love him or hate him, the man has earned his delegates. Still, this is one of those torturous moments when one imperative overrides another. If there is a legitimate way to replace Trump with another candidate, it must be tried. 

Republican leaders must say to America, "We have decided that Donald Trump is so far out of line that we can't in good conscience support him. Even if we have to bear the wrath of his supporters, divide our party and forfeit the election, we will encourage delegates to go in another direction." 

Politicians and operatives inside the GOP who have mocked and criticized Trump but are nevertheless supporting him are simply proving his point about the cronyism of the political class. The only way they can salvage their integrity is to throw themselves at the mercy of principle and work to replace him.

This would be good not only for America -- in the long run, it also would be good for the Republican Party.

"There will always be other Trumps until Republicans decide to make defeating Trumpism a cause, even if that means short-term losses," former Democratic speechwriter Jon Favreau writes on The Ringer website. "If the party does not become more welcoming and inclusive, young people and other voters will tune it out."

Donald Trump is too narcissistic to learn from his experience, either in victory or in failure. The Republican Party cannot afford to become like him.

To read this article online, visit
Edited by John R. Houk
As you might relate, there were some typos in the comments – something we all do when placing comments ourselves. I used spellcheck to edit.

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Prophecy Update End Time Signs 6/26/16

I’m a Christian Right kind-of-guy that believes current events are a part of the signs of the times. Prophecy Update has put out a roughly eleven-minute video showing current events around the world in just last few days. Come soon Lord Jesus!


Published on Jun 26, 2016

A fast paced highlight and review of the major news stories and headlines that relate to Bible Prophecy and the End Times.

History shows Trump is right to build a border wall, says historian Tim Newark

Did you know that history shows that walls ultimately are ineffective in keeping armed invaders out of nations? HOWEVER, history also shows that walls are very EFFECTIVE in keeping unwanted – as in alien – migrants out of nations. Historian Tim Newark (at time of post website down used cache link) lays out the details.

History shows Trump is right to build a border wall, says historian Tim Newark

OF ALL presidential candidate Donald Trump’s plans for reviving the fortunes of the USA, the one that has attracted the most scorn and criticism is building a wall between the US and Mexico.

PUBLISHED: 08:29, Fri, May 27, 2016 | UPDATED: 09:09, Fri, May 27, 2016

But is he crazy or do walls serve a useful purpose in an age of failing states and mass migration? And if walls work then shouldn’t we have some in Europe? As we hear that net migration into the UK is back to record figures maybe it’s time to start getting those brickies busy.

I’ve just come back from China and walked a section of its famous Great Wall.
Snaking over mountains for hundreds of miles, it is an impressive building achievement as everyone knows but what is a little surprising is that sections of it are short, sometimes just 15ft tall.

An angry warrior with a ladder could easily climb over it. The same is true if you visit sections of Hadrian’s Wall in Northumberland. But that’s not the point.

These ancient walls weren’t built to stop a few fearless tribesmen but to halt a problem all too familiar to us today: mass migration.

Chinese and Roman emperors invested vast fortunes in creating an obstacle to halt huge crowds of economic migrants travelling in wagons and on horseback and funnel them through fortified checkpoints.

You definitely can’t heave a wagon over the Great Wall of China. But is there a place for old-fashioned walls in a high-tech age? The Israelis certainly think so. Their Green Line Wall runs for 430 miles in the West Bank and has dramatically cut the number of suicide bombings and assaults by Palestinian terrorists.

In Northern Ireland Peace Walls have successfully countered inter-communal violence between Protestants and Catholics.

In Europe it is true that since the collapse of the Berlin Wall Europeans have been busy dismantling barriers and until recently you could travel for hundreds of miles across eastern and central Europe without encountering any barbed wire or checkpoints. Such were the joys of the passport-free Schengen Area, claimed the EU, but that has all changed with the eruption of mass migration from the Middle East and North Africa.

When German Chancellor Angela Merkel invited hundreds of thousands of migrants to her country she forgot to ask the permission of the smaller countries they had to march through to reach Germany. She assumed they could be forced to agree after the fact.

But the Austrians said “No!” They ignored the diktats of the EU and erected their own secure fences to stop the flow of immigrants as did other neighbouring countries, including Hungary, Serbia and most importantly Macedonia.

These physical obstacles backed up by security forces stopped the flow dead – so much so that Greece complained of having to host thousands of migrants stuck on their territory.

Such has been the destabilising effect of hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants entering strongly Christian countries that Austria this week just narrowly avoided voting in the first far-Right head of state in Europe since 1945.

Unless the EU gets a grip of the situation and starts erecting more effective barriers along the southern borders of Europe then European populations will start voting for ever more extreme leaders. That firm barrier should also mean naval vessels in the Mediterranean that return migrants to their points of departure, not just rescue and help them claim asylum in Europe.

Spain already has an autonomous enclave in Morocco at Ceuta and the EU could fund more such walled secure areas along the North African coast where intercepted migrants could be housed and ultimately returned to their own countries or safer neighbouring states.

The flow needs to be reversed for the good of their own countries otherwise the drain of minds and talents will leave homelands the poorer for it.

Anyone who has recently travelled to France by ferry or train will have noticed the increasingly fortified character of Calais where fences have helped reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into Britain. This is our Great Wall and – with or without Brexit – we need it to remain tall and strong and if necessary extend it.

Immigration has made Britain, the USA and Europe rich and dynamic but it needs to be managed and controlled. Americans know that and many Latinos, who have lived and worked legally for years in the US, agree with Mr Trump and his determination to build a wall along its Mexican border.

There already are short sections of fences and walls along the border and Trump simply proposes to link them all up. He says he will get Mexicans to pay for it by increasing fees on visas and border crossing cards. A tax on wire money transfers by Mexican immigrant workers via companies such as Western Union might also raise funds.

Trump is hitching his political future to this grand project because walls send out a powerful international message.

They say we value the peace and security of our citizens and, though guests are welcome, they must enter legally and abide by our rules.

That’s why the Chinese and Roman emperors built theirs and Trump wants to build his.

Europe needs to learn the lessons of history and start constructing our own Great Wall.

Copyright ©2016 Express Newspapers. "Daily Express" is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.

Friday, June 24, 2016

The Ideology of ISIS

Intro Michel Wyss’ ‘The Ideology of ISIS
Edited by John R. Houk
Intro date: 6/24/16

I found a very interesting PDF written by Michel Wyss circa 2015 while he was attending the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy located in Israel. I took it upon myself to convert the PDF into a Word document in order to cross post Mr. Wyss’ analysis of ISIS.

Michel Wyss Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy photo

There is not much accessible info on Michel Wyss but what I did find shows him to be a very interesting young man. Apparently his native language is German yet proficiently speaks English and French. He claims to have a lesser knowledge of Hebrew and Arabic but still uses the descriptive word “proficiency” when adding them to his language skills. He has gone to school in Europe, Israel and the USA to develop his expertise. Wyss’ last entry at LinkedIn (2015-16) shows has moved beyond student to an expert researcher:

Ragonis Scholarship for 2015/2016

Ragonis Foundation, International Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), and the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC)

July 2015

Recipient of an initial grant for a research proposal on Iranian Proxy Warfare in the Middle East (research to be conducted within a year).

"Promoting Research in Counter-Terrorism and Homeland Security

The International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) and the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (IDC), are pleased to announce an annual scholarships awarding to promote research in counter-terrorism and homeland security.

The scholarships will be given in memory of Architect, Major Eyal Ragonis z"l, for his military and civilian accomplishments. The scholarships'​ aim is to promote research in counter-terrorism and homeland security by IDC Herzliya students as well as IDF soldiers and officers."

Michel Wyss LinkedIn photo

Now I share this to demonstrate that Michel Wyss is well qualified to make the insightful analysis he has made about ISIS.

I don’t know if this was Michel Wyss’ intention, but his essay brings a bit of understanding how Multicultural Leftists seem to be way more supportive of Islamic ideology than they should be.

Enjoy the read.

JRH 6/24/16
The Ideology of ISIS

By Michel Wyss
January 1, 2015
PDF version located:


This research paper examines the ideology of the Salafi-Jihadist organization ISIS (also known as Islamic State, ISIL, Daesh). It offers a brief description of the Salafi-Jihad doctrine and discusses the four core functions of ideology and how they apply in the case of ISIS. It further describes how the ideology of ISIS shares many similarities with modern ideologies, in particular Marxism-Leninism, and examines what distinguishes it from other ideologies, mainly its incorporation of religious motifs. Finally, the paper concludes by arguing that the Salafi-jihad ideology of ISIS is a synthesis of the characteristics of modern ideologies and a very particular interpretation of Islam and discussing some of the ensuing counter-terror policy implications.

Defining Salafi-jihad ideology

According to Drake, ideologies are “the beliefs, values, principles, and objectives - however ill-defined or tenuous - by which a group defines its distinctive political identity and aims” (Drake 1998, pp. 54-55). More to the point, ideologies are “links between thoughts, beliefs and myths on the one hand, and action on the other hand” (Moghadam, 2008, p. 14).

The ideology of ISIS can be described as “Salafi-Jihad” (cf. Moghadam, 2008) or “jihadist-

Salafism”, the combination of “respect for the sacred texts in their most literal form [with] an absolute commitment to jihad” (Kepel, 2002, p. 220). In its essence, Salafi-Jihad contends that the Muslim world is suffering from a conspiracy by the West and as a response, it advocates the return to the practices and beliefs of the first three generation of Muslims, the salaf al-salih (pious ancestors), by means of violent jihad; the latter characteristic distinguishing jihadists from non-violent Salafists engaging in dawa (the call to Islam) which are essentially non-violent proselytizing activities (cf. Moghadam, 2008/2009).

The core functions of ideology

Modern ideologies fulfill four core functions: They raise awareness, diagnose the situation, form identity, and formulate a remedy (Moghadam, 2008). All of them can be applied to the ideology of ISIS: True to its Salafi-Jihadi creed, the organization alleges that the Muslim world is in a sorry state. ISIS statements cite Quranic verses that describe the pre-Islamic Arabs as the "[most] miserable nation, [fewest] in numbers and [the most] divided" (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014) and their propaganda videos refer to the purported humiliation and suffering Muslims have to endure in the lands of the “infidels” (kuffar) (cf. Eye of IS, 2014). According to the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the reason for this predicament lies in a conspiracy by the “Jews”, “Crusaders” and their Arab “apostate” allies (Van Ostayen, 2014). Al-Baghdadi also praises its soldiers as “heroes of Jihad […] who defy humiliation and injustice […] and will never abandon fighting”, even if “only one soldier of them remained” (ibid.). Hence, ISIS attempts to instill in its adherents a new identity that offers belonging to a supranational entity, which can offer comfort and security, for recent converts who feel experience an identity crisis, but also to those who feel disoriented by modernity (Moghadam, 2008). Indeed, many Western foreign fighters of ISIS are often recent converts (cf. Kohlmann/Alkhouri, 2014). Finally, Al-Baghdadi, the self-declared caliph and “leader of the believers” (amir al-mu’minin), rules that every Muslim has the obligation to wage violent jihad in order to defeat the infidels (Van Ostayen, 2014). This obligation is known in the Salafi-Jihad doctrine as fard ayn (individual duty) (Moghadam, 2008/09).

The modern roots of the ISIS doctrine

Even though ISIS advocates establishing a society mimicking the times of Prophet Muhammad and that is based on a strictly literal interpretation of Quran and Sunna purified from any religious innovation such as the incorporation of rationality (Haykel, 2007), its Salafi-Jihad doctrine is very much a product of modernity and shares many traits with other modern ideologies, especially revolutionary socialist ones such as Marxism-Leninism (Rabasa et al., 2006). Like Marxism-Leninism, Salafi-Jihad exhibits an internationalist outlook with a complete disregard for the borders of countries that are envisioned as part of the Islamic caliphate. ISIS’s breaching of the border between Iraq and Syria, which was lauded by its propagandists as “the end of Sykes-Picot”, exemplifies this (Black, 2014). Both Marxism-Leninism and the Salafi-Jihad are essentially universal, with the establishment of the caliphate, a goal shared by all Salafi-Jihad organizations (Byman, 2013), being “the religious equivalent of Marx’s Communist utopia” as Steven Holmes puts it (from Moghadam, 2008, p.

15). Both Marxism-Leninism and ISIS claim to be inspired by a quest for “justice”, a theme that is regularly mentioned in ISIS statements, for example calling its adherents as “fighting against injustice” (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014; Van Ostayen, 2014).

More to the point, both ideologies divide the world into two irreconcilable camps; capitalists and the proletariat in the case of Marxism-Leninism, whereas Salafi-jihad insists on the dichotomy of Muslim believers on one hand and infidels and Muslim apostates (which are not considered “real” Muslims) on the other. Insisting on the unbridgeable difference between the in- and the out-group is an important feature of ideologies; the latter is perceived not only as different but also as opposed and even hostile to the former and hence becomes a legitimate target (Drake, 1998; Moghadam, 2008). Baghdadi’s audio message from November 2014 serves as a case in point. In it he sets forth a priority list of ISIS’s targets, beginning with rafidah (a derogatory term for Shiites), followed by the tawagith (the Arab “apostate” regimes) and finally the West (Van Ostayen, 2014). He justifies violence against these enemies with their alleged enmity against Islam, or rather what ISIS perceives to be Islamic (ibid.).

Ideological groups demand from their adherents a great amount of commitment and loyalty (Moghadam, 2008). Individual members have to submit completely to their doctrines. ISIS is no exception in this regard. The group is said to have killed in less than two months at least 120 foreign fighters who wanted leave to Syria/Iraq and return home (Tufft, 2014).

The role of religion

While ISIS and the Salafi-Jihad doctrine in general share many similarities with modern secular ideologies, they also exhibit certain features that distinguish them from them, mainly through their incorporation of religion. Salafi-Jihad refer to themselves and their enemies in religious terms, they frame their strategies and goals as being religious in nature, and they use their very particular interpretation of religious sources such as the Quran and Sunna as a justification for acts of violence (Moghadam, 2008). Baghdadi’s audio message may again serve as an example. He refers to ISIS fighters repeatedly in religious terms, calling them

“heroes of Jihad”, “lions of tawhid” (the oneness of god) or “people of wala w’al barah”

(allegiance and disavowal, the exemplification of Salafi-Jihad’s “with us or against us”-mentality). Similarly, he labels ISIS’s enemies as “Jews”, “Crusaders”, “infidels”, and “apostates” (Van Osstayen, 2014).

As mentioned above, the Salafi-Jihad doctrine frames waging violent Jihad as fard ayn, and Baghdadi claims this to be the individual duty of each and every Muslim (ibid.). According to him, this is the only way to defy humiliation and suffering and to restore the glory of Islam. In particular, and the Quranic ban on self-murder notwithstanding, Salafi-jihadists promote suicide attacks as “martyrdom operations” (cf. Moghadam, 2008/09), reframing them as permissible sacrifices for the sake of Allah (fisabillah), and they believe that for this very reason, their eventual victory is inevitable (Hafez, 2007). ISIS makes sure to praise its suicide bombers and urges others to follow in their footsteps (Bell, 2014). Some of its propaganda videos depict suicide attacks from multiple angles while anasheeds (religious vocal chants) praise the attackers sacrifice for Allah (ertyanna, 2014).

Finally, ISIS, like other Salafi-Jihadi groups, selectively cites religious sources to justify their violence (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014; Van Ostayen, 2014). This justification is especially important when it comes to violence against other Muslims. Salafi-Jihadists vindicate their violence by declaring the targeted Muslims to be apostates, a process that is known as takfir.

Whereas Al Qaeda has used takfir to justify its fight against the moderate Arab regimes but has refrained from the “most extreme takfiri approach” (Byman, 2014, p. 458), ISIS has embraced it in a way that is reminiscent of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria (Zelin, 2014) and was accused by a high-ranking Al Qaeda official – who was later assassinated, allegedly by ISIS – of “too much takfir” (SITE Intelligence Group, 2014a).

Conclusion: The ISIS doctrine as a synthesis of modern ideology and a particular

interpretation of Islam

As was shown above, the Salafi-Jihad doctrine of ISIS exhibits the traits of any modern ideologies such as drawing a sharp distinction between its adherents and those who oppose it (essentially everyone who does not completely agree with it), but additionally incorporates a set of religious themes based upon its distinct interpretation of Islam emphasizing violent struggle against the “infidels”. Hence, it needs to be understood as a religious ideology (Moghadam, 2008).

This entails certain counter-terror policy implications: On one hand, combating ISIS and Salafi-Jihad in general has to be understood as fighting against an ideology, and not a whole religion (ibid.). On the other hand, taking into account the religious themes of this particular ideology demands that security agencies not only have to deal with ISIS itself and its members but also with organizations, in particular in the West, which disseminate the same ideology without being violent themselves or breaking the law. Finally, the fact that ISIS, like any other group adhering to ideologies, chooses to ignore any information that contradicts its doctrine, should be used against the organization. As Moghadam rightly argues, it needs to be pointed out that groups like ISIS and other Salafi-Jihad adherents, who claim to defend

Muslims, first and foremost engage in killing Muslims themselves (Moghadam, 2008).


Bell, S. (2014, June 16). Canadian ISIS member’s online ‘wake up call’ urges muslims to follow example of calgary suicide bomber. National Post, Retrieved from

Byman, D. (2013). Fighting Salafi-jihadist Insurgencies: How much does religion really matter? Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36(5), 353-371.

Byman, D. (2014). Buddies or burdens? Understanding the Al Qaeda relationship with its affiliate organizations. Security Studies, 23(3), 431-470.

Drake, C. J. M. (1998). The role of ideology in terrorists’ target selection. Terrorism and Political Violence, 10(2), 53-85.

ertyanna. (2014). Isis filmed two suicide attacks by car. Retrieved December 31, 2014, from

Eye of IS. (2014). Islamic state caliphate eid greetings from the land of khilafah 720p.

Retrieved December 30, 2014, from

Hafez, M. M. (2007). Martyrdom mythology in Iraq: How jihadists frame suicide terrorism in videos and biographies. Terrorism and Political Violence, 19(1), 95-115.

Haykel, B. (2009). On the nature of Salafi thought and action. In R. Meijer (Ed.), Global Salafism: Islam's new religious movement (pp. 33-57). Columbia: Columbia University Press.

Kepel, G. (2002). Jihad: The trail of political Islam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kohlmann, E. & Alkouri, L. (2014). Profiles of foreign fighters in Syria & Iraq. CTC Sentinel, 7(9), 1-5.

Moghadam, A. (2008). The salafi-jihad as a religious ideology. CTC Sentinel, 1(3), 14-16.

Moghadam, A. (2008/09). Motives for martyrdom: Al qaeda, salafi jihad, and the spread of suicide attacks. International Security, 33(3), 46-78.

Rabasa, A.; Chalk, P.; Cragin, K.; Daly, S. A.; Gregg, H. S.; Karasik, T. W.; et al. (2006).

Beyond Al-Waeda. Part 1. The Global Jihadist movement (No. MG-429). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

SITE Intelligence Group. (2014).  ISIS spokesman declares caliphate, rebrands group as

“Islamic state”. Retrieved December 30, 2014, from

SITE Intelligence Group. (2014a). Message attributed to zawahiri's arbiter in syria gives advice to ISIL. Retrieved December 20, 2014, from

Tufft, B. (2014, December 29, 2014). Isis 'executes up to 200 fighters' for trying to flee jihad and return home. The Independent, Retrieved from

Van Ostayen, P. (2014, November 14, 2014). Audio message by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - even if the disbelievers despise such. Message posted to

Zelin, A. Y. (2014). Al-Qaeda disaffiliates with the Islamic state of Iraq and Al-Sham (Policy Alert. Washington: Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Retrieved from

Wikipedia has a bit more detail about IDC Herzliya located in Israel:

The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (Hebrewהמרכז הבינתחומי הרצליה‎‎Ha-Merkaz ha-Bentehumi Hertseliyya; abbreviated IDC Herzliya) is a private, not-for-profit, and nonsectarian, research university in Israel founded in 1994 by Uriel Reichman.[1] It is located at Herzliya, in the Tel Aviv District, and is classified as an independent non-budgeted academic institution.[2]

IDC Herzliya has 8,000 students currently enrolled for undergraduate and graduate degrees, including 2,000 international students from 86 countries around the world.

In 2014 the IDC Herzliya was ranked the most successful academic start-up institution in Israel and outside of the United States, ranking first in Israel and twenty one in the world.[3] In the same year IDC law graduates achieved the highest passing rate at the national bar examination of all Israeli academic institutions.[4] Moreover, the IDC Herzliya has been ranked first of 66 Israeli academic institutions in terms of student satisfaction for four consecutive years.[5] In addition, the IDC Herzliya has been the only academic institution in the world who has won the international Jean Pictet International Humanitarian Law competition, organized by the International Committee of the Red Cross, in consecutive years, winning it twice in 2010 and 2011.[6]

READ THE REST (Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 8 June 2016, at 13:45.)