Posts
The little Emirate of Dubai has had colossal financial dreams of building a global financial empire utilizing the Muslim concept of Shariah Compliant Finance (SCF). Dubai has recently proclaimed the ultimatum of implementing a moratorium on its payment schedule for paying on interest debt which is HUGE.
The way I understand it (and financial understanding is not my forte) the Dubai Emirate (UAE) government is not the actual owner of DP World an Islamic financial corporation operating under SCF principles. Rather the Dubai Emirate has guaranteed all the finances of the Dubai conglomerate. With that said it is important to note that DP World was the corporation that the Bush Administration cleared to take over the port management of the major cities on the Eastern Seaboard. Fortunately a rare moment of bipartisan agreement stalled that DP World acquisition.
Gary H. Johnson, Jr. writes about the Dubai debacle to bring people like up to speed.
JRH 11/28/09
Outgoing head of the International Atom Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohammed ElBaradei has proffered news that most intelligent people already knew. The information is that the IAEA cannot verify that Iran nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes. ElBaradei did fail to make the next logical assumption: If Iran is stonewalling the IAEA on the validity of a peaceful nuclear program then Iran is operating a nuclear program for purposes of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
If you agree with the intelligent diagnosis then this statement from Glynn Davies should completely mystify you:
"The United States remains firmly committed to a peaceful resolution to international concerns over Iran's nuclear program," said Davies. "We also remain willing to engage Iran, to work toward a diplomatic solution to the nuclear dilemma it has created for itself, if only Iran would choose such a course, but our patience, and that of the international community, is limited." (VOA – 11/27/09)
This is an indication the Obama Administration is not one of the intelligent people. For one thing I find it doubtful that Russia and China as part of the international community will be on board for crippling U. N. Security Council sanctions that might actually work at this stage to force Iran at least into temporary compliance on a nuclear weapons program. Even if that international miracle would occur with Russia and China, the psycho-Shi’ite Twelver State of Iran may yet resist compliance from dar al-harb kuffar.
In which case that would leave to choices concerning a nuclear armed Iran:
1. Passively allow Iran to acquire nukes hoping the psycho-mullahs will not make good on their threats to remove Israel from the global map. This would mean war that a reluctant Obama appeaser would be forced to join Iran or Israel militarily.
2. Actively support an Israeli military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities as an independent free agent then backing America’s old friend which is the ONLY Western style representative democracy in the Middle East.
Intelligent people would realize the carnage would be lesser under choice two. Leftist appeasers such as are inherent in the Obama Administration probably would choose choice one because the carnage will appear to be lesser for the USA at first. The reality is that the carnage will be heavier under choice one. Choice one is the same path Neville Chamberlain chose in dealing with Adolf Hitler. Look how that turned out as far as carnage goes.
Check out an article originating from the NYT written by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad I found on The Wire blog of St Louis Today.
JRH 11/27/09
To all the Leftists who attempt to revise history and change the true meaning of the First Amendment I give you President George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1889.
(Hat Tip: Don Moore of Blind Conservative E-List)
*********************************
George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.
____________________________
Here is the 1st Amendment to the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Emphasis is mine)
The God of Christianity is not part of any “Established” Church in America for no Christian Church or religion may be designated the State religion. On the other hand Constitutionally the intent was NOT to prevent Christian morality or tenets from being a foundation for the rule of law and State institutions in America.
Another way to put it: No government or State management in the Christian religion, but a whole lot of influence by the Christian religion in government or the State.
JRH 11/27/09
Thanksgiving is tomorrow. Thanksgiving has become a day when friends and family get together for banqueting and (in my case) NFL football. In this day of effective Leftist propaganda and the Secular Humanist Agenda, most people forget why Thanksgiving exists.
I remember in grade school the Thanksgiving period was a time of learning early American history. Foremost in any lesson was why many of the first Europeans came to the North American continent was to escape religious persecution. In those days most European nations had a State religion which was either Roman Catholic or the then very Protestant strains emerging. The Protestants were mostly under the influence of Martin Luther or John Calvin. English Protestantism was a Catholic Church with Papal authority terminated. Hence the name Church of England (aka Anglican and Episcopalian) came into existence.
The thing is in the early 16th and 17th centuries if a Protestant strain did not have a royal protector, then it was often persecuted. Look at the French Huguenots as a prime example. The Huguenots were on their way to becoming the dominant form of Christianity in France; however the French King patronized Roman Catholicism. The Huguenots were ultimately slaughtered in France and reduced to irrelevance.
The Pilgrims of Thanksgiving fame was Englishmen fleeing religious persecution of King James I who considered non-compliance to the Church of England an act of treason. The Pilgrims wanted to dedicate their life to a Biblical view of Christianity. Persecution led the English Pilgrims to Holland. Unfortunately for the stalwart Pilgrims, the Dutch were a bit too lax in the Pilgrim view of Biblical morality. The Pilgrims feared the lax influence on their children with were adapting to the Dutch language and mindset. The concerned Pilgrims then determined to head for America. It was not an easy task. Without patronage they had led capital to finance such a journey. Eventually the capital was discovered through a deal. Hence the Mayflower embarked from Holland then to Plymouth, England then the long voyage to North America.
The Pilgrim journey was arduous. Nonetheless the Pilgrims stuck to the covenant of establishing a Biblical based government which is inherent in the Mayflower Compact.
Here is an agreed upon version of the Mayflower Compact as found in the journals of a couple of Mayflower Pilgrims (Apparently the original has been lost):
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."
Notice the part which says, “Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith”. Yes friends this is an establishing of a Christian heritage in America by those who wished to escape religious persecution.
Many secularists in recent years have downplayed the actuality of a Thanksgiving among the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag Indians of less than a Thanksgiving and more of a harvest festival. The secularists legitimately point out that the Indians of the area and day commonly celebrated harvest festivals. The secularist even point out that there was an English tradition of harvest festivals as well. Due to the nature of the games and feasting involved on the occasion that America has chosen a time of Thanksgiving, I am certain there was an element of festival. However due to the nature of the reason for the Pilgrims fleeing England for religious liberty and departing Holland due to the lesser standards of Biblical morality on the Pilgrim offspring, I would have to say any festival participated by the Pilgrims involved giving thanks to the Almighty Creator. Indeed the Christian religious political structure set up in 1621 by the Mayflower Compact was the rule of law for the Plymouth colony until 1691.
History shows that from the time of President George Washington a national Thanksgiving occasionally occurred. Various States made a Thanksgiving State holiday. In 1863 President Abraham Lincoln instituted Thanksgiving as a national time of Thanks. President Franklin Roosevelt in 1941 established the current fourth Thursday in November as the actual day of Thanks.
Who are Americans giving thanks to? This is what Leftists are so hot to secularize Thanksgiving Day as Turkey Day. The thanks are given to God Almighty for peace and bounty among American citizens.
The inspiration for these thoughts actually is due to a Thanksgiving essay written by Newt Gingrich. The essay is entitled, “To Whom Do We Give Thanks?”
JRH 11/25/09
I received this email from Burr Deming of Fair and Unbalanced (FU to their fans):
At FairAndUnbalanced.com, we devote a day to linking to interesting sites around the web. Yours usually makes the list, although often with a dissenting note.
Tomorrow, Sunday, a more critical than usual piece will appear. I notice that you often offer an analysis of opposing opinions with a direct link to encourage readers to compare for themselves. I hope you will see this as an attempt to follow your own good example.
Best wishes,
Burr
I am actually grateful that I am the subject of someone’s disapproval. It is an indication that fans and foes alike are reading my content.
In either case I will post Deming’s essay followed by my response.
Here is Mr. Deming’s criticism:
_____________________________
Violent Religious Fanatics
By Burr Deming
11/22/09 12:00:56 am
As John Houk at SlantRight explains Islam to Muslims and those who hate them, the message is that Muslims are given instructions to show to all non-Muslims the face of violent intolerance.
Houk's logic is this: there are fanatically fundamentalist Muslims who have turned to violence as an expression of faith. And there are, to be found by diligent search, passages in the Qur’an which can be used to reinforce those actions. Most Muslims are peaceful, according to Houk and those he quotes, but they are merely deluded about the nature of their faith. Radical violent sects know the real faith, as does Houk.
Protests against such conclusions from Christian experts who bring up similar passages from the Christian Bible do not sway him. One example is the 108th Psalm, which offers a prayer for the death of an enemy of the faith and the discarding of his widow and children. That and other such scriptures, to Houk, merely represent occasional anomalies from the main thrust of love and peace. Passages in the Qur’an are to be taken seriously.
So the killing of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion activist is an exception to a peaceful rule, while the killer of military personnel at Fort Hood represents the future of Islam, even if most adherents disagree.
I can dismiss, as a lunatic fringe, death advocates such as Reverend Wiley Drake, who celebrates the killing of Dr. George Tiller. I am a little more concerned about his prayers for the violent death of the President.
Although I do not think they represent most Christians, I am concerned about the growing popularity among conservative radical Christians of Psalms 108, the prayer for violent death of the enemy. Tee-shirts and slogans link the violent passage to the President: "Psalm 109 8 prayer for Obama".
"I would like to be a Christian," a friend once remarked, "but I can't think of anyone I would like assassinated." The spread of violent fantasies directed toward the President and others is not itself shocking. That those violent wishes are accepted, endorsed, and advanced in Fellowship Hall each Sunday is shocking to those seeking to practice a religion of peace.
One concern is the effect of such violent sentiments on a few of the less inhibited among the unhinged. "There is no place for such prayers in any of our faiths," says Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on belief.net "and until we all stand up and say so, at least a little blood will be on all of our hands."
Another friend is sympathetic but remains outside any religious faith. "If there is a God, you have to think she'd support the separation of Church and Hate." As in all things, I'd like to stand with the Lord.
I'm for Separation of Church and Hate. Mr. Houk goes his own way.
- Deming of FU blog
________________________
So once again I have received the accusation of “Hate.”
Thus when Mr. Deming says he is for “Separation of Church and Hate” it is an obvious reference to my Christian and pro-life advocacy. It is also a back-handed (although it be polite) common Leftist accusation of Christian hypocrisy. The typical hypocrisy accusation runs something like this: If Christians are all about peace, love and tolerance why do they ignore violent references in the Bible as well as condemn alternate lifestyles (e.g. homosexuality and transgenderism) and the violence of Islam?
Before I begin a response let me shock (or in the critic’s mind confirm the hypocrisy accusation) the Left and Muslims. I also I am for “Separation of Church and Hate.”
Violence in the Bible when associated with the direction of God is prescribed against unrighteousness, i.e. people full of sin. It is in function with the purpose of securing land for the descendants of the child of promise. The descendants of the child of promise (today known as Jews) were to be an example to teach the world the way of God.
The violence of the Quran by contrast when associated with the direction of Allah is prescribed too violently and humiliatingly to conquer, subjugate, convert or kill all those in the entire world who do not submit to the will of Allah as voiced by Islam’s prophet Mohammed.
The descendants of the child of promise were not exempt from upholding the righteousness of God in the Old Testament version of the Bible. Indeed the non-Jewish/non-Hebrew Assyrians and later the Babylonians were used as an instrument of God to remove the Jews from their land due to forsaking the way of God for the way of the very people the Jews ejected for sin.
Christians have no business rendering evil for evil. If an abortionist murders unborn children, it definitely is NOT a righteous act to murder the abortionist. This is why the New Testament enjoins Christians to pray for those in authority. The implication of praying for those in authority is that punishment in the earthly realm is the province of earthly authorities which exists by the will of God. God judges a human being that will culminate in The Last Judgment when a human spirit’s life is read like a book hopefully through the filter of the Grace and Mercy inherent in the sacrificial Blood of Jesus Christ. Without the Blood of Christ a human is definitely in eternal trouble. Through the filter of Christ a human is under the measure of the Almighty God’s absolute understanding of the actual thoughts behind one’s actions – good or bad. There is no fooling the insight of God with persuasive arguments.
On the other hand it is a Christian’s duty to vocally share the Mind of Christ with others. The Mind of Christ is best discerned in the Word of God. Hence the moniker of Bible believing Christians as opposed to Progressive Christians. Progressive Christians (i.e. Leftist in nature) cherry pick the Scriptures adopting verses that validate humanistic thinking.
Bible believing Christians definitely are not perfect in interpreting Scripture; however there is more agreement than disagreement.
I always find it amazing when a Leftist or Progressive Christian calls one who asserts his Christian Bible faith a hater in criticizing homosexuality or Islam. It is also fascinating that followers of Mohammed’s Islam play the victim and cry hater toward those who know Islam’s history and are aware that Islam’s theo-political dogma has not officially changed since the day of Mohammed. Certainly there are Muslims who have become Westernized to the extent there is an enjoyment of Western Liberty and Freedom. Nonetheless it is doubtful that most of the Muslims who deem themselves moderate would renounce the words that Mohammed expressed as the word of Allah in the Quran or the authoritative traditions of the Hadith or Sira.
In the case of the Leftist and homosexuality: the Leftist uses the term “hater” against the Biblical Christian yet have no problem whatsoever in either maligning Biblical faith as irrelevant. Often times the Left vocally expresses anger against Biblical Christians wishing to express their faith in their community at public functions with the hyperbole of Separation of Church and State. The Separation of Church and State idiocy is merely a Leftist legal maneuver to prevent Christians the free exercise of the religion in public. This makes Christianity the Leftist’s favorite religion to hate. The Leftist propaganda is this: it is ok to promote Progressive (err … Leftist) propaganda in public (e.g. schools, City Councils, et al) but is offensive to Leftists for Christians to do the same. The Leftist cares little if Leftist ideology is offensive to Biblical Christians let alone if it stifles both Christian Free Speech and the free exercise of religion simultaneously. Now that is hypocrisy.
Then there is the odd co-habitation between Leftists and Muslims (also Muslim apologists) who seek the public acceptance of the free practice of Islamic theo-political religion even though the dogma of Islam if it ever becomes the legal standard would require the death of Leftists for insulting Mohammed, Allah and Islam. If you think that is stretch then look at the intolerance that exists in Muslim dominated nations.
In this perspective I am not a hater. Rather I am an advocate of Free Speech and Freedom of Religion. In respect to Islam I am an exposer of a theo-political doctrine (one might even say a cult) that wishes the destruction of American Free Speech and Freedom of Religion.
JRH 11/23/09
_____________________________
Response to Alluded Accusation of ‘Hater’
John R. Houk
© November 23, 2009
____________________________
Violent Religious Fanatics
© 2008 (sic) FairAndUnbalanced.com
Here is an interesting editorial of praise for Sarah Palin which justifies traditional American values and castigates Leftist transformationalism as well as the purist vision (SA Here) of what is termed radical Islam.
JRH 11/21/09
As of 9:00 AM Central Time the parent site (SlantRight.com) to SlantRight2.0 has seemed to disappear! As of this posting I have no idea what happened. I will be posting here to get the blog writing bug fulfilled. I have sent a message to my tech guy (which is actually my son). Hopefully I will get the situation resolved.
JRH 11/21/09
UPATE: SlantRight.com is Back up.
At the High School graduation of 2006 in Nevada the Valedictorian Brittany McComb was prevented from completing her honors speech to her class because she was offering credit for her success to her Lord Jesus Christ. With the backing of the ACLU the High School officials believed a reference to her Christian faith violated the erroneous concept of Separation of Church and State. When it became evident that McComb was going to give the uncensored version of her speech, the School Officials merely pulled the plug on her mike.
When I first heard about this outrage I posted about the hypocrisy of the government (particularly of Leftists) because the so-called Separation of Church and State paradigm did not seem to apply to Islam as far as public funds and public support are concerned.
The young McComb decided to fight for her First Amendment rights to Free Speech. That journey ended when the Supreme Court refused to hear McComb’s case. This refusal neither validates nor invalidates the Nevada High School officials; however the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear McComb’s case effectually keeps the last Court’s ruling in effect. Thus the Supreme Court has afforded Leftists the glee of stomping on the Christian faith in its culture war on Christianity.
JRH 11/20/09
Shariah Compliant Finance (SCF) is an insidious marketing practice which is an arm of Islam in its agenda of bringing Islamic Supremacism to the globe.
Gary H. Johnson, Jr. has written another remarkable essay entitled, “Shariah-Compliant Finance in America.” The essay proclaims that SCF is more than a mere ethical alternative to the Capitalist paradigm of Free Market economics as the aspired model in America. Johnson writes that the Islamic Supremacism inherent in SCF ultimately runs contrary to the Liberty and Rights that are the foundation the American experiment initiated by the Founding Fathers.
There is a bit of criticism to what seems to be the primary arm in America trying to expose the insidiousness of SCF. The organization criticized is ACT! For America. The criticism is not because Johnson disagrees with exposing SCF rather the criticism with ACT! For America’s methodology in exposing SCF.
After reading Johnson’s essay I sense a confirmation that there are elements of the theo-political religion known globally as Islam utilizes a Fifth Column element to undermine Western society and thus the American society of Liberty and Freedom.
JRH 11/19/09
Gary H. Johnson, Jr. has taken a theme of economics in Islam and has spun a remarkably easy to understand history of Islam that has led to what many today would call radical Islam. Johnson roughly begins before the birth of Mohammed and finishes in the present with a brief description of Shariah Compliant Finance.
Johnson brings clarity to the influence of Imam Taqi al Din Ahmad ibn Taymiya. Taymiya is the Muslim scholar most referenced by anti-jihadists who correctly expose the ultimate nature of Islam’s theo-political agenda. That nature is to spread an imperial cultural discipline globally securing compliance with the enforcement of Islam as superior to all ideology or religions that exist. To institute that superiority violence is the primary vehicle hence the aversion to Western civil rights.
Taymiya of the most conservative Islamic school of thought known as Hanbali is the major influence on an 18th century Muslim Arab Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al Wahhab. It is from al Wahhab that the term Wahhabi Islam has come into existence. Wahhabism is the Islam of Osama bin Laden and Saudi Arabia.
Johnson also provides the best explanation of the term Salafist as opposed Wahhabist I have ever read. Johnson’s essay is entitled, “A Brief History of Islamic Economics.” If you wish to understand about why Islam is inimical to the American Way, this essay is a fantastic first step.
JRH 11/18/09
