On March 10, 2014 I cross posted Danny Jeffrey’s Part ONE to “Benghazi Reveal”. At the end of that cross post I included a link to Part TWO on Danny’s Fix Bayonets blog. I later discovered that Danny made Part THREE and Part FOUR to his “Benghazi Reveal”. I highly encourage you to read all four reports to understand the depths of evil the Obama Administration has sunk too to retain power. Retaining power also means getting Hillary elected to the Office of POTUS to use at least four more years to bury the truth that Dem Leftists lie to voters to perpetuate their goal of transforming the USA into a Marxist/Socialist utopia that destroys the U.S. Constitution and the moral fiber of that which has made America good. The Benghazigate Scandal was of paramount concern to President Obama and comrades because its exposé probably would have cost Obama his reelection.
In the spirit of keeping America’s eye on the evil designs of the Obama Administration WND posted an article yesterday that derived information from Richard Miniter about newer evidence that Obama Officials – by extension Obama and Hillary – had a THREE MONTHS WARNING of an al Qaeda attack on Chris Stevens and did nothing to prevent it. Thus knowing of an upcoming attack Obama did nothing while it was happening in Benghazi and nefariously Barack Hussein Obama was not taking any calls while former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty kept fighting another 7 hours after Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith had been killed in the attack.
There is an interview between Greg Corombos and Richard Miniter that is promoting the book “Eyes on Target: Inside Stories from the Brotherhood of the U.S. Navy SEALs”. Of my three blogs only SlantRight 2.0 will allow me to embed the video. Otherwise you will to watch the video at WND. There are two authors of “Eyes on Target” – Scott McEwen and Richard Miniter.
BENGHAZI BOMBSHELL! AL-QAIDA VOWED TO KILL AMBASSADOR
Months before attack, U.S. had photos of 300 armed militants near outpost
March 13, 2014
Months before the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, the U.S. State Department had at least three detailed intelligence reports warning of al-Qaida’s build-up in Benghazi and quoting a militant leader who vowed to kill the U.S. ambassador, according to a new book chronicling the heroism of Navy SEALs.
American diplomats in Benghazi made even more urgent pleas for beefed up security than previously thought, and officials also refused to consider at least five military scenarios that could have saved the lives of two Americans in the terrorist attacks.
In “Eyes on Target: Inside Stories from the Brotherhood of the U.S. Navy SEALs,” authors Richard Miniter and Scott McEwen point to newly discovered government reports showing Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues desperately requesting additional security and better personnel than the suspect Libyans already on the job. Those intelligence reports came in addition to multiple requests for additional security.
“We discovered three intelligence reports that circulated in the months before the attack. Each of those reports show intelligence agencies warning the State Department (and) warning the Defense Department there’s an al-Qaida build-up in Benghazi. One of those reports included photographs of more than 300 al-Qaida operatives in Martyr’s Square. That’s downtown Benghazi. That’s less than a mile from the diplomatic outpost where the ambassador died,” Miniter said.
“In those photographs in the intelligence report, they show them waving guns. There’s a quote mentioned in this intelligence report in which the leader of al-Qaida in Benghazi said if the U.S. doesn’t leave they were going to kill the U.S. ambassador. You can’t get any clearer than that,” he said.
Watch the WND/Radio America interview with Richard Miniter:
[Blog Editor: At this point you may have to go to WND to watch interview]
“Somewhere in the bowels of the State Department there’s a bureaucrat who has got the three intelligence reports, and on the other part of his desk he’s got the three or four security requests from the ambassador begging for more security guards. After reading those intelligence reports and seeing those pictures, he stamped each one of those denied, denied, denied.”
The attack in Benghazi came just weeks before the 2012 presidential election and while President Obama’s campaign portrayed al-Qaida as effectively dismantled and the ouster of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi as a major victory, wouldn’t a quiet increase in security be a less risky decision than leaving a diplomatic post vulnerable to attack?
Miniter said it was a political calculation.
“They were concerned that if somehow the American public were to learn that there was additional security for the ambassador or the diplomatic staff in Benghazi, it would take away the two winning arguments that they thought they had on foreign policy,” Miniter said. “So if they admitted that there was a massive al-Qaida build-up in Libya, that crosses off their two foreign policy successes and undermines the president’s case for re-election. So as crassly political as it was, that appears to be the motivation, according to the Benghazi eyewitnesses. These are participants in the tragedy that we interviewed.”
While Ambassador Stevens and diplomat Sean Smith were killed within the first 40 minutes of the initial attack, Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty fought on for another seven hours. While the Obama administration contends any military response would have taken 20 hours to mobilize and reach the fighting, “Eyes on Target” offers five different response scenarios that Miniter and McEwen say would have ended the fighting much sooner and most likely saved the lives of both Woods and Doherty.
The options ranged from Air Force fighters from Aviano Air Base to Navy fighters in Gaeta, both located in Italy to a drone strike and even a cruise missiles launched from the Mediterranean Sea. Miniter said the mere presence of fighter jets would have ended the crisis.
“The scenario that seems the best is simply dispatching F-16 Fighters from Italy and having them fly over Benghazi. The loud jet roar overhead would be enough to scatter the attackers. They certainly know that when facing the U.S. Air Force or U.S. Navy in the sky, death comes from above. With more than a hundred attackers, mortars, rocket attacks they would know that they were targets. Without firing a shot, they could have been driven off. That’s the kind of thing that President Obama, who doesn’t like combat, would tend to favor,” he said.
Told through the eyes of current and former Navy SEALs, “Eyes on Target” is an inside account of some of the most harrowing missions in American history – including the mission to kill Osama bin Laden and the mission that wasn’t, the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi.
In addition to denying permission for Doherty to go to Benghazi and any other sort of military intervention, “Eyes on Target” details the Obama administration’s paralysis in making any decisions on response to the attack. After an early evening briefing from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Obama was out of contact the rest of the night. So should he bear any blame for failing to launch military action, or does the responsibility lie with Panetta?
“While Americans were fighting and dying in Benghazi, the president was unreachable. According to congressional testimony, Panetta’s last conversation with the president was before 6:30 p.m. Washington time. Remember, Glen Doherty and Ty Woods, the two SEALs who fought to save the Americans, wouldn’t die for almost another seven hours. In that period, the president disappeared. He refused to take calls,” Miniter said.
Eighteen months later, the Benghazi investigation essentially falls along party lines, with Democrats saying there is no scandal and Republicans accusing the administration of leaving Americans on the field of battle and concocting a story around a spontaneous demonstration spurred by an Internet video to deflect from the many security warnings.
Will the final story on Benghazi simply be a matter of political opinion? Miniter doesn’t think so.
“Ultimately, I think this is going to be a turning point in the country’s assessment of the president,” he said. “The media are supposed to be referees, but instead they’re on the field being players. Too many of the media are simply playing to the White House’s agenda. Really, they should be watchdogs, not lapdogs.”
© Copyright 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved. WND.com
John R. Houk
© October 24, 2013
WorldNetDaily (WND) is pushing a documentary by Ken Klein in which it is hinted that the place the world calls the Temple Mount is not the location of where the last two Jewish Temples had existed. I haven’t seen the documentary thus I cannot rightfully concur or disagree with the Klein documentary.
Frankly I am not on board with the supposition that the original location of the Jewish Temples and the place to construct the third Jewish Temple is south of what is called the Western Wall which most scholars believe is a surviving wall of Herod’s Temple (which is a refurbished Zerubbabel’s Temple) left after Roman Emperor (Caesar) Titus destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.
Klein’s documentary is interesting because there are some implications for Jews and the Jewish State if Klein is correct. You have to understand the two heathen Mosques on the Temple Mount is one of many sources for Jewish Israel’s conflict with the rest of the Muslim Middle East. It means the Western Wall is not a wall of the last Temple. This means Christian Zionists and Conservative minded Jewish activists do not have to support the concept of removing the two Mosques built on what is called the Temple Mount. Removing the Mosques would immediately cause a violent outrage among Muslims and Politically Correct Leftist Multiculturalists. AND so it means moving forward with the construction of a Third Jewish Temple can be undertaken without an immediate spark for the Muslim world to be united to destroy Israel.
Of course you have to realize that Jewish/Muslim heritage conflicts surrounding the Temple Mount is only one such cause for Muslim’s to desire the destruction of Israel and the death of Jews in their ancestral homeland. The primary cause is simply Islamic Supremacism and the encoded Jew-hatred of the Quran, Hadith and Sira and the Islamic belief that once a non-Muslim land is conquered it is forever to remain Islamic. This was the problem with Muslims when early Christian Crusaders dislodged Muslim suzerainty of the Holy Land and is the current problem Muslims have with Jews controlling their own land that was conquered by Muslim armies from Christian Byzantines in the early 7th century.
So even if the Klein documentary’s theory on the location on the Jewish Temples is proven correct (which I have doubts still) and a Third Jewish Temple is built, ultimately Jew-hatred will still compel Muslim nations to invade Israel. Below is most of the email sent by WND:
‘THE LAST SIGN’
A Weapon of Mass Destruction
New documentary reveals truth about the “Temple Mount”
By WND Email Alert
Sent: 10/22/2013 5:34 PM
Almost one half the world’s population of 7 billion people is either Muslim, Jewish, or Christian. And each is deeply passionate, and religiously invested in a 35 acre parcel of land in Jerusalem called the “Temple Mount.”
The Muslims fiercely believe their prophet Mohammed left his footprints on the rock sitting underneath the Dome of the Rock shrine; the last remaining evidence of his human existence, before he ascended into heaven. The Jews believe the Temple Mount precinct is the very site of their former two temples and will once again be the site of their predicted third temple. The Christians are deeply invested because their prophets have predicted that Jesus will walk through the sealed “eastern gate” and then sit down beginning His Millennium reign from the Jews rebuilt third temple on the “Temple Mount.”
None of these three monotheistic religions can possibly let go of their deeply seated passions connected to this sacred real estate.
But now there is absolute proof; that this is not the actual site, and the unprecedented film, “Jerusalem and the Lost Temple of the Jews” proves this fact conclusively with 100% accuracy.
Watch the official trailer here:
And while these three religions represent not quite one half of the world’s population, the inhabitants of the whole planet are also deeply affected by this 35 acre controversial piece of land.
One would think either Washington D.C. or London or Rome, the very locations of political, financial and religious power and authority would far outdistance little ole Jerusalem in world importance, influence, and significance; but no, not even close.
Jerusalem was; and still is, the center of the Earth, and that is because God chose Jerusalem to be the site where He would place His Name. He magnified Jerusalem’s importance by placing His very presence (His Shekinah Glory) in the Temple underscoring His sovereign choice for His Name on this planet. But …currently it does not seem to be the case, and the world community is totally unaware, indifferent and could hardly care less.
Nevertheless; …the implications of this new film;
are indeed monumental…for it will not only shake the modern day Christian prophecy teachers to their core, but it could change the history and political outcome of the entire middle east.
The Jews, who were appointed to be custodians of God’s “Shekinah” Presence, temporarily forfeited the honor. Yet, providence has turned, and they are once again back in their land; after 2000 years of banishment, and now preparing for their third temple, and thus the return of the “Shekinah Presence.”
These people; with their unprecedented history, are tenaciously committed to the rebuilding of their third temple. They whole heatedly believe God will once again bring His Glory back into their third Temple, thus bringing peace to the earth.
But… under these current dynamics what can allow for the building of the third temple? The answer is…nothing!
Watch the second trailer for “Jerusalem and the Lost Temple of the Jews” below:
Currently…we are presently witnessing another fanciful round of peace talks which actually began in 1948, but will once again pitifully fail. This time; lead by Secretary of State John Kerry, they will prove to be futile, and insignificant. It reminds one of the ridiculous efforts of the United States to convince the Japanese to surrender at the end of World War 2.
…But it took a weapon of mass destruction to end WW2.
And it will take another type of “weapon of mass destruction” to end the impasse in the middle east…
…and most specifically with regard to the “Temple Mount” in order to bring an end to the untenable and impossible conundrum that has a choke hold and blinded all the peoples of the earth.
It will not be a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon, but a weapon that is mighty in bringing down strongholds in people’s minds; “a spiritual weapon of mass destruction.”
Deeply imbedded traditional religious views based upon fanciful myths, legends, folklore and false histories must be brought down, and it will take a spiritual weapon to bring this to pass.
“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds, casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 2 Cor 10:1-6
This new film “Jerusalem and the Lost Temple of the Jews” is that weapon, and that is why it is more than just another DVD.
It is mighty through God to the pulling down of stubborn and persistent strong holds, and the casting down of vain imaginations and baseless religious traditions. It’s unprecedented claims are built on the solid proofs of archeological evidence, eye witness accounts, and co-oberating biblical texts.
You will visit all the sights and see for yourself along with vivid CG animations, re-enactments and expert commentary the truth that can finally be told.
This film promises to alter your world view, reversing the disturbing political impasse of the middle east, as it conclusively and convincingly proves and demonstrates the actual site for the Jews 3rd temple; the residence of God’s Name and His Physical Presence.
“Jerusalem and the Lost Temple of the Jews” is beyond an historic film, it is a prophecy of what is to come…
“A Spiritual Weapon of Mass Destruction.”
[Blog Editor: The above link takes you to the WND Superstore for the documentary which is where all six trailers are located.]
Annoyingly the WND byline that caught my attention is “A Weapon of Mass Destruction”. That WMD that is implied to destroy Israel’s enemies is the video documentary. Really though the documentary is a controversial theory that definitely is in the minority opinion among Western Christians and Jews.
The Temple Mount and Eretz Israel Faithful Movement – Jerusalem puts forth some theories on the location of the Jewish Temples. Principally the location they push is the majority position of the Temple Mount location:
The Location of the Temple and the Holy of Holies on the Temple Mount:
The Present Dome of the Rock is the Location of the Temple
The Rock Which is Under the Dome of the Rock is the Location of the Holy of Holies
1,932 years after the destruction of the Second Temple, there are various theories as to the location of the Temple and the Holy of Holies. Some believe that the Temple was located north of the Dome of the Rock while others believe that it was south of the Dome of the Rock. Some of these theories are an attempt at compromise because of the actual situation that the rock is today located under the Dome of the Rock and because of a fear that the removal of the Dome of the Rock and the building of the Temple on this place could cause World War III. These theories do not take into account the fact that no compromise can be made with the Word of G�d Who assigned the location of the Temple and showed it in prophecy to King David.
The Third Temple can only be built on the same location which the G�d of Israel indicated to King David in prophecy and where the First and Second Temples were built. The Third Temple and the Holy of Holies cannot be relocated by even one centimeter to the north or south. Only G�d controls war and peace and the destiny of Israel. There is no doubt that G�d is testing Israel today on the Temple Mount, which is the key place in the world. G�d expects Israel to rebuild His house on the correct position on the Temple Mount with no fear of the Moslem enemy which, at the end of the seventh century CE, built the Dome of the Rock on the most holy place of the G�d and people of Israel and desecrated the hill of G�d and revolted against the Word of G�d. G�d promised the people of Israel that in the endtimes He would redeem His holy hill and Jerusalem together with the people and land of Israel and He would protect them and fight for them against the enemies who would try to prevent His prophetic endtime plans for Israel.
The conclusion that I immediately want to place before you and for which I will later bring the evidence is that the location of the Temple is in the same location as that of the present Dome of the Rock and that the rock itself is the rock which was in the Holy of Holies and on which the Ark of the Covenant was situated in the First Temple. I will also show that Rabbi Shlomo Goren, z”l, who was the Chief Rabbi of the Israeli Defence Force during the Six Day War and later became the Chief Rabbi of Israel, brought a unit of military engineers to the Temple Mount immediately after the war. They surveyed all the Temple Mount according to the Torah, the Mishnah and the Talmud and other sources. His conclusion was that the rock was the rock on which was situated the altar. However, he did not doubt that the rock was in the location of the Temple and that the Dome of the Rock is located there.
There are other theories on the location of the Temple. One, that of Dr. Asher Kaufman, locates the Temple north of the Dome of the Rock and states that the Dome of the Spirits is on the rock. Another theory, that of architect Tuvya Sagiv, locates the Temple south of the Dome of the Rock. Neither of these people are archaeologists.
In the following article I will bring evidence that will show that the Dome of the Rock is located on the site of the First and Second Temples and that the rock under the Dome of the Rock was in the Holy of Holies.
The importance of identifying the real rock that was in the Holy of Holies is that the size of the Temple is very well known and it is thus possible to set its lines from the position of the rock. One of the most important modern researchers and experts of the Temple Mount and the Temple is Rabbi Zalman Menachem Koren. We shall do our best to present the evidence from … READ THE REST
Yeah I’m not going to do anything to fix the ‘question mark’ punctuation. So essentially the theory runs for Jewish Temple locations north of Dome of the Rock, South of Dome of the Rock and right smack on the Dome of the Rock.
If my guesser is working well I believe Klein is pointing to the south of the Dome of the Rock Mosque. That theory runs like this:
New Evidence for the Site of the Temple in Jerusalem
(The Complete Abridged Edition of Dr. Martin’s Temple Book Begins After the Two Reviews Presented Below)
Associates for Scriptural Knowledge (A.S.K.)
Temple Update Article
Expanded Internet Edition – December 12, 2000
“Two Academic Reviews of my New Research in the Book “The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot.”
* The first is from: Prof. James D. Tabor, Dept. of Religious Studies, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223. Given in May, 2000.
“When I first read of Ernest L. Martin’s thesis that both the 1st and 2nd Jewish Temples, those of Solomon and Herod, were located south of the presently accepted Dome of the Rock location–down in the area of the ancient City of David over the Ophel spring, my reaction was short and to the point–impossible, preposterous!! Having now read his arguments I am convinced this thesis, however revolutionary and outlandish it first appears, deserves careful, academic and critical consideration and evaluation. I am not yet convinced that Martin has ironed out all the problems or handled all the potential objections, yet he has set forth a case that should be heard. His arguments regarding the size of the Fortress Antonia, based on Josephus and other evidence we have about Roman military encampments, must be addressed. He also makes a most compelling argument based on Luke, writing a decade or so after the 70 C.E. destruction, and obviously wanting to report on the lips of Jesus an accurate prediction of the state of things regarding “not one stone left upon another” in the post-War city of Jerusalem. Historians of the Byzantine, Islamic, and Crusader periods are more qualified to judge his arguments from subsequent epochs, however, my initial reading of Martin’s presentation has left me with the same impression–all of this evidence needs to be reexamined in the light of this radical proposal. Martin’s thesis is so bold, so utterly non-conventional, and so potentially upsetting, radically altering central aspects of the theological, historical, cultural, and political understanding of Jerusalem and its holy places, it should not be ignored. I hope Martin’s book will begin a most interesting debate and critical discussion of all relevant issues.”
* The second is from: Dr. Michael P. Germano, Editor, bibarch.com. Professor Emeritus Ambassador University, a graduate of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and who holds earned doctorates from the University of Southern California and the University of La Verne. He has completed post-graduate study in anthropology, archaeology, and theology at Southern Methodist University and Texas A&M University at College Station in Texas. You can contact him at PO Box 2494 Cullowhee, NC 28723-2494. It is my pleasure to recommend his excellent BibArch Web Site that explores the world of biblical archaeology. It is fully scholarly and is at http://www.bibarch.com%5D. Given in May, 2000.
“This is an unexpected, exceptional analysis of the historical and archaeological data of the Temples of Jerusalem. This new explanation of the venue of the First and Second Temples provides the solution to heretofore incongruous statements in Josephus with the evidence of the biblical and archaeological records. Not only a work of significant scholarly impact it may well serve as the awaited stimulus for the building of Jerusalem’s Third Temple by shifting our collective focus from the Haram esh-Sharif to the area of the Gihon Spring.”
[ASK Editor] Note: This article contains many endnotes. These are noted within the text as superscript numbers 1 . Simply click on the number to read the endnote. Then use the browser BACK button to return to where you were in the article. – webmaster.
A new and accurate evaluation is essential regarding the site of the former Temples in Jerusalem. Neither the Dome of the Rock near the center of the Haram esh-Sharif in Jerusalem, nor the Al Aqsa Mosque occupying the southern side of the Haram (nor ANY area within the four walls of that Haram) was the real spot in Jerusalem where the holy Temples of God were located. Biblical and literary accounts dogmatically place the site of all the Temples over the Gihon Spring just north of the ancient City of David (Zion) and on the southeastern ridge of Jerusalem. All the present antagonists fighting in Jerusalem over the Temple site are warring over (and for) the wrong place. They need to turn their swords and guns into plowshares.
The first source to discover the true site of the Temples in Jerusalem is to read the biblical descriptions about the location of Mount Zion because in the Holy Scriptures the term “Mount Zion” in many contexts is synonymous with the site of the Temples. Any modern map of Jerusalem will correctly indicate the true location of the original Mount Zion (also called the City of David). Zion was situated at the southern end of the southeastern ridge of Jerusalem. This is the section of the city that Josephus (the Jewish historian of the first century) called “the Lower City.” The fact that the original “Zion” was described by Josephus as “the Lower City” became a geographical enigma to early scholars since the Bible itself consistently described “Zion” as a high and eminent place. How could something “high” be legitimately called “low”? 1 This misunderstanding about the former eminence of the southeast ridge was the first confusion that caused even religious authorities to lose the true site of “Mount Zion” and also the location of the Temples. But historical and biblical evidence reviewed and analyzed between the years 1875 and 1885 C.E. 2 finally indicated that the southeast ridge was truly the original Zion.
It was the indefatigable efforts of W. F. Birch in England with his numerous articles in the Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly over that decade (along with the discovery in 1880 C.E. of the Hezekiahan inscription about the construction of the tunnel from the Gihon Spring to the southern end of the southeast ridge) that finally settled the controversy over the true location of “Zion.” It was then determined by the scholarly world that the former designation of the southwest hill in Jerusalem as “Zion” (what was written in Josephus as the “City of David” being located in the “Upper City”) was not the correct evaluation for the original site of “Zion.” So, the world finally learned (correctly so) that the southeast ridge was the actual site of “Mount Zion” (the true City of David) and that Jerusalem was built in ancient times around and over the Gihon Spring in order to have water from the only spring within a radius of five miles of the city. This correction was a major step in the right direction in restoring true geographical parameters to Jerusalem. Unfortunately, when the scholars properly returned “Mount Zion” to the southeast ridge, the Temple location was not considered an issue in the matter. They continued to accept that somewhere within the Haram esh-Sharif was the Temple site. This was in spite of the fact that many texts in the Holy Scriptures identified “Zion” as equivalent to the “Temple.” And, the Bible even indicated that the Temple was abutting to the northern side of the “City of David.” This should have been a significant clue to the nineteenth century scholars that the original Temples had to be positioned very near the “City of David.” on the southeast ridge, but those historians failed to make the needed correction. They retained the site of the Temple as being about 1000 feet to the north of the Gihon Spring and that it was once located within the confines of the Haram esh-Sharif. This region had become the popular Temple site since the period of the Crusades (by Christian, Muslim and Jewish authorities). 3 The actual location of all the Temples, however, was over the Gihon Spring immediately to the north of (and abutting to) the City of David. When the Temples are rightly placed at that site, the biblical and historical accounts about “Mount Zion” being equivalent to the “Temple Mount” consistently make sense.
The Importance of the Gihon Spring
The Gihon Spring is the only spring within the city limits of Jerusalem. We have the eyewitness account of a person from Egypt named Aristeas who viewed the Temple in about 285 B.C.E. He stated quite categorically that the Temple was located over an inexhaustible spring that welled up within the interior part of the Temple. 4 About 400 years later the Roman historian Tacitus gave another reference that the Temple at Jerusalem had within its precincts a natural spring of water that issued from its interior. 5 These two references are describing the Gihon Spring (the sole spring of water in Jerusalem). It was because of the strategic location of this single spring that the original Canaanite cities of “Migdol Edar” and “Jebus” were built over and around that water source before the time of King David. That sole water source was the only reason for the existence of a city being built at that spot.
The Gihon Spring is located even today at the base of what was called the “Ophel” (a swelling of the earth in the form of a small mountain dome) once situated just to the north and abutting to “Mount Zion” (the City of David). The Ophel Mound was close to the City of David. David soon began to fill in the area between the two summits with dirt and stones (calling it the Millo or “fill in”) to make a single high level area on which to build his city and after his death the Temple. 6 David’s son Solomon completed the … READ THE REST
The above essay is from 2000 and is from Dr. Ernest L. Martin’s book “The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot”. You should check out an essay from Dr. Martin entitled “The Temple Mount and Fort Antonia” which posits that the Western Wall considered part of the wall of Herod’s Temple is actually a wall from a Roman fortress called Antonia. Fort Antonia is thought to overlook Herod’s Temple. Martin believes Titus left this structure up as a tribute to Roman architecture after the total destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. As I wrote above I have not seen Klein’s documentary. If Klein was smart he used some of Dr. Martin’s data to prove his point. Dr. Martin is very convincing with his academic logic but I still have a gut feeling the two Jewish Temples were actually located on the Temple Mount.
John R. Houk
© July 23, 2013
WorldNetDaily claims that Arab sources within the Palestinian Authority (PA) has leaked Obama Administration negotiating tools that if adhered to would give absolute control of the Temple Mount to a combined PA-Jordanian sovereign ownership. The Obama negotiations include essentially giving up most of the eastern half of Israel’s Capital City (and national heritage) Jerusalem and to deport approximately 90,000 Jews from another heritage point of Judea-Samaria (named West Bank under Jordanian occupation and usurpation in 1948).
This is disturbing to me because Jordan’s existence was carved out of the original British Mandate for Palestine. At that time that Arab Monarchy was called Transjordan. After the British Officer command structure led Transjordan’s army (then called the Arab Legion) to the multiple Arab invading forces only victory in 1948. Under British command the Arab Legion occupied Judea-Samaria and the Eastern half of Jerusalem. In 1948 the Eastern half of Jerusalem was actually the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. After the British led victory the Arab Legion disgracefully deported Jews from their ancient homes in the Eastern half of Jerusalem and proceeded to desecrate Synagogues in Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria. The Transjordanian government then used Jewish grave stones as instruments of paved roads and latrines for the Arab Legion. The Transjordanian King decided to annex (i.e. usurp) Judea-Samaria and renamed the area the West Bank because the territory was West of the Jordan River. Old Transjordan was east of the Jordan River. With eastern and western banks of the Jordan River united the King renamed Transjordan into Jordan.
A few years of the Arab agenda to destroy Israel passed then came 1967. Egypt kicked U.N. Forces out of the Sinai Peninsula and began massing Egyptian Forces there. Also Egypt blockaded Israel access to the Red Sea. Syria amassed Israel’s northern border and Jordan on Israel’s eastern border.
Tiny Israel expected yet another existence threatening invasion and so decided to be proactive by launching a preemptive strike. The preemptive strike not only saved Israel’s existence but also enlarged Israel’s territory in which the Western Powers (USA, UK & France), Russia and United Nations pressured Israel to give back to the invading armies. Israel refused for military security reasons to return the Golan Heights and Judea-Samaria.
If the Arab source about the Temple Mount is correct, the Obama-PA deal for Israel is ludicrous. Arab Muslims villainously desecrated Jewish Synagogues, cemeteries and Jewish Holy Sites in Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria between 1948 and 1967. What makes anyone in international diplomatic circles believe that a sovereign Palestine under the direction of the PA and Hamas (ALL rooted in Islamic Terrorism) leadership would stop the Arab-Muslim agenda to destroy Israel? Then there is the Shi’ite Muslim Iranian government’s constant saber rattling to destroy Israel influencing a sovereign Palestine. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a specialist political scientist to realize a sovereign Palestine would bring NO PEACE to Israel. Indeed, such a new Arab State would bring a greater security threat to Israel’s existence.
So even if WND source is true, don’t look for any Obama confirmation.
Unbelievably the same IRS that targeted Conservative organizations looking for 501c(3) and 501c(4) tax status has reinstated the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a tax exempt organization. The same CAIR that was stripped of the status for failing to file adequate returns AND still has not done has been reinstated to tax exempt status. Oh yes, the IRS has restored tax exempt status to the same CAIR that still is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial in which convictions were handed out to HLF members for gathering tax exempt donations that were then passed on the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas. AND in case you haven’t heard Hamas is a Jew-hating terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel and often kills Jewish civilians oft times in a horrendous bloody fashion.
DHS, IRS, CAIR, tea parties
Sent by ACT for America
Sent: 6/10/2013 3:19 PM
Today we bring you two different articles that have a common theme.
The first is a WorldNetDaily story that begins this way:
You can thank the Electronic Privacy Information Center for forcing the Department of Homeland Security to release its list of “keywords” that are used by its agents to monitor you on Twitter, Facebook and other social networking sites.
The story then lists the various “key words,” and here’s what’s revealing. You’ll find “militia” but not “jihad.” In fact, you won’t find any “key word” that links specifically to radical Islam.
The second article is also a WorldNetDaily story, which exposes how the IRS restored tax-exempt status to CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations).
In 2011, the IRS stripped CAIR of this non-profit status for failing to file non-profit tax returns for years. Yet the IRS restored CAIR’s status despite the fact that CAIR still has not filed all the information required for previous years!
Meanwhile, of course, we’ve all read about the IRS targeting of tea party, pro-national security and pro-Israel organizations.
Do these two stories suggest a pattern to you?
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
John R. Houk
© October 3, 2012
Recently WorldNetDaily posted a two part audio interview with Nonie Darwish. Darwish is an ex-Muslim turned Counterjihad writer and speaker. It is quite fascinating that Muslim Apologists and Leftist pundit are all about spewing junk about former Muslims that have turned to exposing the darker nature of Islam. These guys twist and/or fabricate facts to give themselves the soapbox to call ex-Muslims liars. Muslims of the purist fashion and Leftists lack credibility. Muslims are instructed in taqiyya and Leftists lie to fool people to believe their utopia ends without notifying the means usually require a total transformation of society by a combination of slow sucker changes and/or deadly violence.
Nonie Darwish is one of those people loathed by Leftists and Muslim Apologists alike. There is never any proof about falsehood about any ex-Muslim Counterjihad writer, rather the accusation of faker or hoax is surmised by people that have a reason to lie or facts are so twisted as to be unrecognized as valid.
LoonWatch.com is no friend of Conservatives or Counterjihad writers. Here is an example of trash talking about Darwish which is obviously a stretch in drawing conclusions of liar:
We are going to have an explosive breakdown of the clownish Nonie Darwish, another charlatan akin to Wafa Sultan [SlantRight Editor: undoubtedly same unsubstantiated drivel that is here about Nonie Darwish] who is milking the Islamophobic cash cow for all it’s worth. Jim Holstun, a professor at SUNY Buffalo wrote this great piece in 2008 that lays bear (sic) Nonie’s excessive Islamophobia, as well as her contradictions and lies.
… Darwish interweaves stories of her Egyptian girlhood with potted accounts of female genital mutilation, arranged marriages, polygamy, veiling, domestic abuse, honor killings, sharia law, jihad, censorship, hate-oriented education, the rejection of modernity, the cult of martyrdom, Islamic imperialism, and the pathological, groundless hatred of Israel. [SlantRight Editor: Holstun is insinuating that the Egypt of the 1950’s did not have the described degenerate thinking. History and current events proves this was the truth then as much as now]
In her interviews and in her book, she insists that she is not anti-Arab or anti-Islamic, and even suggests from time to time that she is still a Muslim. Then she pivots nimbly and attacks “the Arab mind,” “the seething Arab street,” and “the Muslim world,” with its “culture of jihad,” “culture of death,” and “culture of envy.” [SlantRight Editor: Holstun confuses lack of animosity to former fellow Egyptians and criticism of Arab-Islamic culture as one and the same thing. This is pure manipulative propaganda by Holstun because criticism and a lack of grudge can be two separate things] There are “no real distinctions between moderate or radical Muslims,” and no significant differences within or among Arab or Muslim cultures: for Darwish, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s secular Arab nationalism was essentially jihadist. Darwish is allergic to social history: “I realized that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not a crisis over land, but a crisis of hate, lack of compassion, ingratitude, and insecurity.” Instead of history, scholarship, and footnotes, she gives us a watered-down version of Raphael Patai’s The Arab Mind: a dictionary of Islamophobic [SlantRight Editor: Typical of Muslim Apologists and Leftists if one presents facts that are critical of Islam the conclusion that person is ‘Islamophobic’]commonplaces underwritten by the authority of an ex-Muslim native informant: I was there — I know.
Darwish’s portraits of Israel and of the US, to which she emigrated in 1978, are diametrically opposite but equally fatuous: Israeli Jews are tolerant, pragmatic, and peace-loving. From 1967 to 1982, they made the Sinai bloom. Americans are honest, charitable, industrious, self-sufficient, intellectually curious, and benevolent toward the foreign nations to whom they bring liberty. They err only in their excess of credulous goodness: because of “the simplicity of American values such as truthfulness,” they risk falling prey to duplicitous jihadist immigrants and dangerous professors, who “indoctrinate American young people with the radical Muslim agenda.” [SlantRight Editor: I see that sarcasm and raise the truth to Holstun: Compare the lifestyle of an Arab-Muslim living inside Israel or America with the lifestyle of a Jew or Christian living in Egypt. What a putz]
Her outsider’s view of America complements her insider’s view of the Arab and Muslim world, for imperial states want not only other people’s land and labor, but their love. Here, we may compare Now They Call Me Infidel not only to recent anti-Islamic conversion narratives like Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel (her conversion was to neoconservative atheism and the American Enterprise Institute), but to earlier works in the genre. In her 1964 Editions Gallimard autobiography, O mes soeurs musulmanes, pleurez! (O My Muslim Sisters, Weep!), Zoubeida Bittari recounts her escape from Algerian Muslim patriarchy to French Christian bliss as a domestic servant to a Pied-Noir family; Nonie Darwish finds friends, family, and faith in southern California, including a Republican women’s group, an American husband, and Christian fellowship in Pastor Dudley Rutherford’s Shepherd of the Hills Church. As Bittari helped French colons feel better about their ungratefully rebuffed civilizing mission in Algeria, so Darwish helps Americans feel better about the long and bumpy road to global democratization. [SlantRight Editor: She may have become a Neocon – I don’t have a problem with that – it is a pure lie that she became an atheist. Although I longer believe Western representative democratic values will take in a land dominated by Islam, take not that Holstun writes of ‘global democratization’ as if it was a bad thing. When you get to the end of this quote you will understand why.]
There are occasional flashes of something more individual and authentic in Darwish’s book. For instance, her reiterated heartfelt attack on Nasser’s rent control laws (her mother lived partly off of her Cairo rentals) helps us understand why she feels so much more at home in southern California, where she arrived with enough money to buy a house with a swimming pool. But as a whole, the book is tedious, predictable, and badly edited — born to be bought, scanned and displayed, not actually read. But this will not diminish the demand for Darwish as a lecturer, which derives not from her writing but from her parentage: her father was Colonel Mustafa Hafez, head of Egyptian army intelligence in the Gaza Strip in the early ’50s, who was killed by an Israeli letter bomb in July 1956. Every lecture notice, every interview, even the title page of her book announces her as “a Muslim Shahid’s Daughter.” [SlantRight Editor: Note Holstun’s cynicism toward the gains of Capitalism. Also note the hubris of I’m better than Darwish because of I have a Left Wing college education – Leftist elitism.]
Throughout her book, Darwish struggles to maintain love and loyalty both to the father she lost at age eight and to the Israeli state that killed him. In a parting flourish, she says that “My father — and potentially my whole family — was sent to his death in Gaza by Nasser, who was consumed by his desire to destroy Israel,” and she fondly imagines him surviving and flying with assassinated Egyptian president Anwar Sadat to Israel. But this argument sometimes requires a torturous chronology: “When, on January 16, 1956, Nasser vowed a renewed offensive to destroy Israel, the pressure on my father to step up operations increased. More fedayeen groups were organized, and their training expanded to other areas of the Gaza Strip. Often my father was gone for days at a time. In an attempt to end the terror, Israel sent its commandos one night to our heavily guarded home.”
The problem here is that this early, failed assassination attempt occurred in 1953, when Hafez was struggling to prevent destabilizing Palestinian infiltration from Gaza into Israel. Things changed dramatically in February 1955, when then military commander Ariel Sharon’s Gaza raid killed 37 Egyptian soldiers and wounded 31. This raid brought shocked international condemnation, the end of Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett’s ongoing negotiations with Nasser, mass demonstrations of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip, and Nasser’s decision to have Hafez organize and arm Palestinian fedayeen for cross-border forays. Israeli historians Avi Shlaim and Benny Morris see the raid as a turning point in Israeli-Arab relations. Darwish never mentions it. [SlantRight Editor: Holstun would have you believe Sharon’s commando raid was an unprovoked slaughter of Arab-Muslim men, women and children:
The year 1955 heralded a significant increase in border tension and bloodshed. On February 28 1955, in an operation named Black Arrow, the IDF killed thirty-six Egyptian troops (plus two civilians) and wounded thirty others during a raid on an Egyptian military barracks in Gaza in direct response to the murder of an Israeli cyclist, not far from Rehovot. Identity papers accidentally dropped by the Arab intruders indicated that they were in the service of Egyptian intelligence.
Regardless of the criticism to which Israel was subject, there is no gainsaying the fact that it was the murder of a Jewish cyclist near Rehovot, by Egyptian intelligence agents illicitly reconnoitring in Israeli territory, that finally sparked the Gaza confrontation. As the historian David Tal remarked, “it is probably safe to say that without the murderous attack that preceded it, the Gaza raid would not have eventuated.” The killing of the cyclist was not an isolated occurrence. Since May 1954, the Egyptian army had been sending its men into Israel with malicious intent. Just over a month before the Gaza raid, that is on January 21, an IDF soldier was killed by a twelve-man Egyptian army unit and a few days later two Israeli tractor drivers were fired upon, leading to the death of one of them and the wounding of the other. Benny Morris, a scholar well known for exposing negative aspects of the IDF, viewed the Egyptian raids as demonstrating “a growing belligerency and adventurousness among Egyptian officials.” Morris’ version is in keeping with Glubb’s summation that from 1954 onwards, “incidents in the Gaza strip became far more numerous than those on the Jordan front.” This was because “the Egyptian revolutionary government were desirous of incidents, for they were posing as the great military power which was about to defeat Israel.”
Kennet Love, a confidant of Nasser insisted that the Gaza raid “transformed a stable level of minor incidents between the two countries (Israel and Egypt) into a dialogue of mounting fear and violence.” What he did not explain was why Israel ought to have tolerated the continuation of “a stable level of minor incidents,” when the Egyptian-Israeli Armistice Agreement committed both sides to a total cessation of hostilities. In any case, it would seem that the Egyptians had every intention of ultimately escalating the border conflict into a full-scale war. Confirmation for this was forthcoming from Major Saleah Saleh a member of the Egyptian Government. On January 9, 1955, nearly two months before the Gaza raid, he declared that “Egypt will strive to erase the shame of the Palestine War even if Israel should fulfil all UN resolutions. It will not sign a peace with her. Even if Israel should consist only of Tel Aviv, we should never put up with that.” (The Source of Arab Infiltration; by Leslie A. Stein; Think Israel, 2009)]
Continuing with her discussion of the earlier undated raid on her family’s home (it actually occurred on 28-29 August 1953), she says, “My father was not at home that night, and the Israelis found only women and children — my mother, two maids, and five small children. The commandos left us unharmed. I personally did not even wake up or know of the incident until later in life, when I read a book written about my father. After I read it, I called my mother immediately, and she confirmed the story. The Israelis chose not [to] kill us even though the Egyptian-organized fedayeen did kill Israeli civilians, women and children.”
Young Nonie must have been a very sound sleeper, since one squad blew the gate off her house, injuring several civilians, and, by one account, proceeded to demolish the house. Grown-up Nonie seems not to know that the Israeli commandos were part of Ariel Sharon’s newly-organized Unit 101. While the one squad attacked her house, Sharon’s was cornered nearby in al-Bureij refugee camp. He decided they would bomb and shoot their way through the camp rather than retreat from it. General Vagn Bennike, the Danish UN Truce Chief, reported to the Security Council on the ensuing massacre: “Bombs were thrown through the windows of huts in which the refugees were sleeping and, as they fled, they were attacked by small arms and automatic weapons. The casualties were 20 killed, 27 seriously wounded, and 35 less seriously wounded.” Other sources estimate from 15 to 50 fatalities.
The Israeli army blamed the raid on rogue kibbutzniks, and Ariel Sharon tried to reassure his men, telling them that all the dead women were camp whores or murderous Palestinian infiltrators. But some of them remained shocked at what they had done. Participant Meir Barbut said they felt as if they were slaughtering the pathetic inhabitants of a Jewish transit camp: “The boys threw Molotov cocktails at [innocent] people, not at the saboteurs we had come to punish. It was shameful for the 101 and the IDF [Israel army].” Another asked, “Is this screaming, whimpering multitude … the enemy? … How did these fellahin sin against us?” In 2006, Palestinian journalist Laila El-Haddad interviewed a survivor for Al Jazeera English:
“Mohammad Nabahini, 55, was two at the time and lived in the camp. He survived the attack in the arms of his slain mother. ‘My father decided to stay behind when they attacked. He hid in a pile of firewood and pleaded with my mother to stay with him. She was too afraid, and fled with hundreds of others, only to return to take me and a few of her belongings with her,’ he said. ‘As she was escaping, her dress got caught in a fence around the camp, just over there,’ he gestured, near a field now covered with olive trees. ‘And then they threw a bomb at her, Sharon and his men. She tossed me on the ground behind her before she died.’”
Though Darwish never mentions it, the al-Bureij Massacre hasn’t exactly been a secret — both Zionist and anti-Zionist historians have described it clearly, with little disagreement save the number of fatalities, with the high-end estimate coming from an Israeli history. If it tends not to loom large in Palestinian historical memory, that’s because it was overshadowed just two months later by the Qibya Massacre, during which Sharon’s Unit 101 killed 67, women and children, demolishing buildings over their heads and shooting them down when they tried to flee — the tactic pioneered at al-Bureij. Given its propensity for civilian soft targets, this daredevil elite unit might be better described as a death squad. [SlantRight Editor: Holstun demonstrate just how ignorant on how the Middle East uses deterrents to influence families, tribal affiliations and governments. If harm is perpetrated vengeance is required on a scale to influence the perpetrators to refrain from harm because of the consequences.
Honour in feuding societies, thus, became a kind of heritage that passes from generation to generation and if any damage is caused, it may authorize family or community members to retaliate against an offender pending the restoration of the initial ‘balance of honour’ that preceded the perceived injury. This cycle of honor traverses its margins and brings at first family members and then the entire community into the brand-new cycle of revenge that may pervade generations.
Unlike Western countries, the Middle East ‘cultivates a collective existence,’ 34 and thus any affront leads to a collective responsibility that is shared by all the members of the community. Collective revenge may be implemented against nations or groups, blaming them for the perceived damage and ignoring the personal responsibility of each member individually. Revenge of this type can be an instrument in leaders’ hands that may use it as an excuse to act in accordance with their own interests. (Revenge-the Volcano of Despair: The Story of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict; by Helena Yakovlev Golani; Excerpts; Academia © 2012)
We contend that three main factors may induce a dynamic link between violent incidents on the two sides of the con!ict (sic). First, violence by one side can have an incapacitation effect, if it limits the other side’s capability to react. For example, Israeli targeted killings of key Palestinian leaders might reduce Palestinians’ ability to carry out further attacks against Israel; this is the stated Israeli rationale for such actions. Second, violence can have a deterrent effect, when one side refrains from using violence in fear of the other side’s reaction. Finally, violence by one side can lead to a reaction by the other side through a vengeance effect, to the extent that one side wishes to dispense retribution in response to the fatal casualties it suffers. (The Cycle of Violence? An Empirical Analysis of Fatalities in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict; II. Theoretical and Empirical Framework; By David A. Jaeger & M. Daniele Paserman; American Economic Review 2008, 98:4, 1591–1604)]
We probably shouldn’t expect Nonie Darwish to alter her campus presentations anytime soon. The bookings by StandWithUs might dry up if she were to start supplementing her cautionary tales about sharia law, jihadi immigrants, and female genital mutilation with a serious discussion of Israeli massacres at Deir Yassin, Tantura, al-Bureij, Qibya, Kfar Qasim, Sabra and Shatila, and Beit Hanoun. [SlantRight Editor: As I said before Israeli attacks are responses to Islamic Terrorism with the intention to show that Israel has the ability to smack Jew-haters with extreme prejudice if Jew-haters continue in acts of terrorism. This sounds harsh by Western standards but it is the way of life in the Middle East especially by a society constructed by Islamic Supremacism over the old Christian Culture replaced by conquest.] In any case, Darwish prefers simple cultural generalities and intimate personal reflection to historical analysis. But since that’s the case, someone at her next lecture might ask if she remembers playing with any of the refugee children murdered at al-Bureij, and why the kindly Israeli commandos who spared her family decided to blow up Mohammad Nabahini’s mother.
Jim Holstun teaches world literature and Marxism at SUNY Buffalo and can be reached at jamesholstun A T hotmail D O T com. [SlantRight Editor: Take note that Jim Holstun teaches Marxism and I suspect Holstun’s teaching of world literature is through the eyes of Marxism as well.]
LoonWatch.com is just one example of how Leftist and Islamic Apologists warp the truth about Conservative and Counterjihad writers and speakers.
Here is a Nonie Darwish bio found on the Directors’ page of Former Muslims United (Just scroll down a bit and Darwish is the first bio).
I had to go through all this justification to get to the WorldNetDaily article that has two audios of an interview with Nonie Darwish. Here at SlantRight 2.0 I am posting the WND text followed by two audio links. WND has one audio at the top and part two on the bottom.
John R. Houk
© July 21, 2012
WND has undoubtedly paid attention to a little known Radical Islamic group known as United Muslim Nations International since the group threatened WND with an or else if the Internet magazine did not cease from criticizing Islam.
On July 7, 2012 WND released an article entitled, “Muslims: Wipe Christianity from Face of Earth.” The article caused quite a stir among expose Islam bloggers big dog and little dog. The thing is WND did not post the link to the UMN Intl. 23 page document. In fact Pamela Geller’s post on the WND article linked to Michael Rubin and Robert Spencer saying to the effect the 23 page document was typical Radical Islamic material; however the links at Atlas Shrugs pointing Rubin and Spencer are now dead links. Now I don’t know if the links were posted incorrectly or if the Rubin and Spencer sources links were removed or changed. I would not have thought anything about it except a Google+ friend found the PDF 23 page document she believes that WND is referring to. She did not find a specific reference of any outright call to wipe Christianity off the face of the Earth. She asked for my thoughts and sent me a link she had found.
I went to the PDF document and downloaded it in case it disappeared from the Internet. I have now just finished reading it fairly close manner.
I have to concur with Linda that the PDF document does not specify the genocide of Christians from planet Earth.
However, the PDF document is clearly written in the purist style of Radical Islam and once you get past the flowery theology of what a good Muslim is, the document indeed push Muslim readers to follow the example of Mohammed and the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs in its brutal conquest and conversion of NON-Muslims to Islam. Of the author does not write of the brutality of conquest but of the glory of Islam and how good old Allah was their protector and guide for the Islamic Golden Age.
There are definite references to NON-Muslims and Muslims described as hypocrites (i.e. Moderate Muslims) are kafir (unbelievers). The kafir are not to be trusted or treated nicely, indeed they must be punished and killed if they withstand the author’s perceived New World Order of a new Islamic Caliphate.
So there is an insinuation to wipe Christians off the face of the Earth but in all honesty not just Christians. Any kafir is worthy of death in resisting Islam and Islamic Sharia Law.
There are a lot of references that Muslims must treat Mohammed as the perfect example of how a Muslim should live and how a Muslim should treat NON-Muslims. Let’s look at this perfect man.
Muhammad was born around 570 AD to a widowed mother who died just six years later. He grew up poor and orphaned on the margins of society, which was controlled by tribal chiefs and trading merchants. He worked for his uncle, Abu Talib, as a camel herder. Although his uncle had some standing in the community, Muhammad himself did not rise above his lowly station until he was 25, when he met and married a wealthy widow, Khadija, who was 15 years older.
His wife’s trading business not only nurtured Muhammad’s natural talents of persuasion, but it also gave the successful salesman an opportunity to travel and acquire knowledge that was not as accessible to the local population. He would later use this to his advantage by incorporating the stories that he had come across into his “revelations” from Allah, particularly the tales from the earlier religions, Judaism and Christianity.
Having attained a comfortable lifestyle and the idle time that wealth affords, Muhammad would wander off occasionally for periods of meditation and contemplation. It is quite likely that he was experiencing the symptoms of a midlife crisis, including a desire for personal accomplishment and meaning.
One day, at the age of 40, he told his wife that he had been visited by the angel Gabriel in a dream. Thus began a series of “revelations” which lasted almost until his death 23 years later. The Qur’an is a collection of words that Muhammad attributed to Allah. The Hadith is a collection of narrations of the life and deeds of Muhammad. The Sira is his recorded biography. The Sunnah is said to be Muhammad’s way of life, on which Islamic law (Sharia) is based.
With his wife’s influence and support, Muhammad proclaimed himself a prophet in same “lineage” as that of Abraham and Jesus, and began trying to convert those around him to his new religion. He narrated the Quran to those who believed him, telling them that it was the word of Allah (heard only by himself, of course).
Relations with the Meccans turned particularly sour after an episode known as “the Satanic Verses” in which Muhammad agreed to recognize the local gods in addition to Allah. This delighted the Meccans, who generously extended their welcome. But Muhammad soon changed his mind after his own people began to lose faith in him. He claimed that Satan had spoken through him, and he rescinded recognition of the Meccan gods (Tabari 1192, Quran 22:52 & 53:19-26).
To deal with this unpleasant truth, sympathetic narratives of the early Meccan years usually exaggerate the struggle of the Muslims with claims that they were “under constant torture.” They may also include apocryphal accounts that are unsupported by earliest and most reliable historians (see MYTH: Persecution of Muslims at Mecca – Many Deaths).
Modern storytellers and filmmakers (such as those behind 1976′s The Message) have even been known to invent fictional victims of Meccan murder, either to dramatize their own tale or to provide justification for the “revenge killings” that followed. But, in fact, the only Muslim whose life was truly in danger was that of Muhammad – after 13 years of being allowed to mock the local religion. (See also MYTH: Muhammad was Tortured at Mecca).
It was at Medina that Islam evolved from a relatively peaceful religion borrowed from others and into a military force that was intended to govern all aspects of society. During these last ten years of Muhammad’s life, infidels were evicted or enslaved, converted upon point of death and even rounded up and slaughtered depending on expediency.
To fund his quest for control, Muhammad first directed his followers to raid Meccan caravans in the holy months, when the victims would least expect it. This was despite the fact that the Meccans were not bothering him in Medina (see MYTH: Muhammad and his Muslims were Persecuted by the Meccans at Medina).
Muhammad provided his people with convenient revelations “from Allah” which allowed them to murder innocent drivers and steal their property (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426). The people around him gradually developed a lust for things that could be taken in battle, including material comforts and captured women and children. (See also MYTH: Muhammad Raided Caravans to Retrieve Stolen Property).
Often the people captured in battle would be brought before the self-proclaimed prophet, where they would plead for their lives, arguing, for example, that they would never have treated the Muslims that way. The traditions are quite clear in portraying Muhammad as largely unmoved by their pleas, and ordering their deaths anyway, often by horrible means. In one case, he orders a man slain, telling him that “Hell” will take care of the poor fellow’s orphaned daughter (Ishaq 459). (See also MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed Captives)
The raids on caravans preceded the first major battle involving a Muslim army, the Battle of Badr. This was the spot where the Meccans had sent their own army to protect their caravans from Muslim raiders. Although, Muslims today like to claim that they only attack others in self-defense, this was clearly not the case in Muhammad’s time. In fact, he had to compel his reluctant warriors with promises of paradise and assurances that their religion was more important than the lives of others. (See also MYTH: The Battle of Badr was Defensive).
First, to try and gain their favor, Muhammad briefly preached that Christians and Jews could attain salvation through their own faith. In fact, he changed his followers’ direction for prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem, which prompted the Jews’ tolerance of him while he worked surreptitiously for the power to evict them. These earlier concessions and teachings were later revoked by Muhammad, since the Jews ultimately refused his religion. The rare early verses of tolerance in the Quran are abrogated by later verses such as 9:29.
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.” Bukhari 53:392
The Jews of Mecca were the first in a very long line of unfortunate people to be offered the opportunity to convert to Islam under obvious duress. Forcible conversion is very much a Muslim tradition started by Muhammad (see MYTH: Muhammad Rejected Conversions to Islam made under Duress)
Since they chose to hold on to their religion (and their property) Muhammad looked for reasons to go to war against the Jews at Medina. According to some Muslims, the first tribe, the Qaynuqa, were driven from their homes and land on the pretext that one of their own had harassed a Muslim woman. Although the offender was killed prior to this by a Muslim, the Muslim was also killed by Jews in retaliation for the first murder.
After laying siege to the entire community and defeating the tribe, Muhammad wanted to put every male member to death, but was talked out of it by an associate – something that Allah later “rebuked” him for. The Qaynuqa were forced into exile and the Muslims took their possessions and property, making it their own. Muhammad personally reserved a fifth of the ill-gotten gain for himself (a rule that he was sure to include in the Quran).
The Jews of the Banu Qurayza tasted Muhammad’s wrath after their leader half-heartedly sided with the Meccan army during a siege of Medina (the Battle of the Trench). By then, Muhammad had evicted the other Jews and declared that all land at Medina belonged to him, so the original constitution of the town was no longer in effect. It is important to note that the Qurayza did not attack the Muslims, even after switching loyalties (contrary to another popular myth).
Although the Qurayza surrendered peacefully to the Muslims, Muhammad determined to have every man of the tribe executed, along with every boy that had reached the initial stages of puberty (between the ages of 12 and 14). He ordered a ditch dug outside of the town and had the victims brought to him in several groups. Each person would be forced to kneel, and their head would be cut off and then dumped along with the body into the trench.
Between 700 and 900 men and boys were slaughtered by the Muslims after their surrender. (Bold Emphasis Mine)
The surviving children of the men became slaves of the Muslims, and their widows became sex slaves. This included the Jewish girl, Rayhana, who became one of Muhammad’s personal concubines the very night that her husband was killed. The prophet of Islam apparently “enjoyed her pleasures” (ie. raped her) even as the very execution of her people was taking place.
At one point following a battle, Muhammad provided instructions on how women should be raped after capture, telling his men not to worry about coitus interruptus, since “Allah has written whom he is going to create.” (See also MYTH: Muhammad Never Approved of Rape)
Following the battle against the Hunain, late in his life, Muhammad’s men were reluctant to rape the captured women in front of their husbands (who were apparently still alive to witness the abomination), but Allah came to the rescue with a handy “revelation” that allowed the debauchery. (This is the origin of Sura 4:24 according to Abu Dawud 2150).
Not content with waiting for Allah to act on his behalf, Muhammad had personal critics executed, including poets. One of these was a mother of five children, who was stabbed to death by Muhammad’s envoy after a suckling infant was removed from her breast (see MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed Women). Other innocent people were killed merely because they were of a different religion, sometimes including children (see MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed Children).
An elderly woman named Umm Qirfa once ran afoul of Muhammad merely by fighting back when her tribe was targeted by Muslim raiders. Muhammad’s adopted son tied the woman’s legs separately to two camels, then set the camels off in opposite directions, tearing the woman’s body in two. He also killed her two sons – presumably in gruesome fashion – and made her daughter into a sex slave. (See also MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed the Elderly).
… (The Life of Muhammad: An Inconvenient Truth; TheReligionofPeace.com; Read Entirety)
I apologize for the time spent on Mohammed’s real biography. In some fair play for Muslims that have been indoctrinated on the goodness of Mohammed, there are plenty of Quran, Hadith and Sira that do indeed show a good Mohammed. The good Mohammed is what is preached to Muslims at their Mosques. Just as there is plenty of bad news in the Bible of people considered good men in the Old and New Testament it exists for humanity to know that as people we are not perfect. The Christian Bible points to Jesus the Christ as both fully man and fully God. Christ’s humanity was needful for humanity to be Redeemed from Satan’s grasp. Thus Christ in the New Testament is often referred as the Last Adam because as a man he born perfect because His Father is God. Mohammed on the other hand example of a typical man that may have indeed started out with a good agenda; however as Mohammed increased in power, power definitely corrupted.
This is the document [That can be read below this point at SlantRight 2.0] that WND claims a Muslim Cleric is to have said all Christian must be killed. Portions I placed in Bold Italics followed by “Mine” are sections to take notice as misleading, deceptive or downright violent.
JRH 7/21/12 (Hat Tip: Linda Strawn)
John R. Houk
© May 21, 2012
I am on the WND email list. And really, I enjoy being on the WND mailing list. One of the draw backs though are I am bombarded with ads from the WND store. I actually read those ads with interest because I am tempted to buy stuff. Fear of the budget minded wife keeps me inline and away from buying on a weekly basis.
In saying all that WND sent an interesting ad with a theme I am very interested in. The theme is the effect of Secular Humanist/Marxist thinking invading America’s Public School system to mold young minds away from traditional Christian Moral thought.
The email ad is informative even if you don’t buy anything and because of this I am posting the email almost in its entirety. Here is quick summary list of the sale offer and the topics inherent in the title:
§ ‘Marxism led Madalyn Murray O’Hair to atheism’
§ INDOCTRINATION: PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THE DECLINE OF CHRISTIANITY IN AMERICA
§ My War: The Testimony of Bradlee Dean (DVD)
§ Fish Out of Water (Paperback)
It is hardly surprising that many young Christians find their faith tested upon entering a university. Secular institutions today are rife with professors who are not only unbelievers, but who actively mock religion, all under the guise of “academic freedom.”
§ INDOCTRINATE U: OUR EDUCATION, THEIR POLITICS
Below is the email promo (Read at SlantRight 2.0) with the theme of assault on Christian Values in the American Public School System.
John R. Houk
© May 20, 2012
Here is a dose of Birtherism. The theme is based on a brochure that has a biography of Barack Obama prior to him running for President. The brochure was made to promote “the never-produced ‘Journeys in Black and White’”. The brochure was made in 1991. As you will read in the WND article the brochure would be of huge significance except for one thing: The makers of the brochure claim it was a fact check error in saying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya then raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.
WND then questions why this is not bigger news in the Mainstream Media alluding to blind support by the left leaning MSM. And yet the brochure news story is appearing in the Mainstream Media of the United Kingdom.
I can see the reason for the brochure issue being a non-started in the American MSM. The publishing company of the brochure – Acton & Dystel (or Dystel & Goderich – I am not checking on the reason for the name discrepancy) – maintains it was mere laziness in fact checking. In an election year when the creators of the brochure upfront say it was a fact check error, there is no MSM outlet that will touch on the Birther argument reflected in the brochure.
In my opinion though the question that the MSM is refusing to follow-up is this: Where did the Acton & Dystel staff find the bio info in the first place? The answer to that question could cause a dispelling of the Birther argument or the highlighting of the Birther argument. (Of Note: in 2007 Acton & Dystel still had BHO born in Kenya!)
Media chuckle at bio on Obama’s Kenya birth
Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, N.Y. Times missing in action
May 18, 2012
When Breitbart News published a story yesterday on the discovery of a 1991 publishers’ brochure that stated Barack Obama was born in Kenya, reporters scrambled to write their own stories.
Well, some reporters. Others just chuckled.
A Google search today of reports on the story found Fox News conspicuous in its absence. Also missing in action were CNN, NBC, CBS, the New York Times and others.
ABC News posted a story quoting the woman who edited the brochure, Miriam Goderich, saying,”This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me – an agency assistant at the time.”
But the document could have a significant impact, according to authorities who have been investigating the veracity of Obama’s documentation, including his birth certificate and Selective Service registration form.
The preliminary finding of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s special investigative unit is that there is probable cause that Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery.
Arpaio told WND after word of the claim of a Kenyan birth was released that the development “puts more smoke out there.”
And the old saying is? “Where there’s smoke there’s fire.”
The brochure was created by Acton & Dystel when it was promoting Obama as the author of the never-produced “Journeys in Black and White.”
That biography states:
“Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation. He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.”
What’s wrong with just reporting the facts? Joseph Farah blasts the “anti-birther” narrative that infects most of the media – Bretibart.com included. Read Farah’s latest column, “Breakthrough on eligibility story,” now.
Mike Zullo, the lead investigator for Arpaio’s special unit, told WND it is a “very interesting development.”
“This does coincide with information we have been pursuing, in light of the recent disclosures about discrepancies in his book ‘Dreams from My Father,’” he said. “It does bolster the significance of Sheriff Arpaio’s investigation, and it brings into the light the fundamental question of where actually was Mr. Obama born.”
Establishment media abroad seemed far more interested in the background of Obama than American reporters. The Herald Sun wrote of the brochure: “The presidential campaign is already dominated by a divisive issue – gay marriage – but birther claims humming in the background will prove hard for Mr. Obama to avoid.”
The London Daily Mail said, “The simmering political row over President Obama’s heritage was dramatically reignited today as a 1991 booklet boldly announced that the Democrat was ‘born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.’”
At the London Telegraph, Tim Stanley wrote, “It’s incredibly strange that the literary agent approached by Breitbart.com does not remember Obama calling the agency to register a complaint and make a correction.”
Stanley said the bigger story would be why the “nugget” wasn’t part of the “wider discussion” about Obama during his first election campaign.
Back in the U.S., the Examiner’s Joe Newby pointed out that while the booklet was not proof of a Kenyan birth, observers said it fits a pattern of manipulation.
Erik Wemple blogged at the Washington Post, using one paragraph to mention the issue.
The story was mentioned on CNN’s website but only through a reader’s comment on a blog.
The Daily Oklahoman jumped into the fray with the report that Goderich was claiming the brochure was “a simple mistake and nothing more.”
The Daily Caller simply reported on the claim made in the brochure and Goderich’s insistence it was an error.
“Since 2008, Obama himself has kept alive the question of where he was born, partly by making jokes about it in speeches and fundraisers. His campaign has also sold Obama-themed products show his birth certificate,” the report said.
At the left-leaning Media Matters for America, Simon Maloy took note of the controversy, writing, “The Breitbartlings claim they’re not publishing this as bait for the unkillable birther conspiracy, but rather because … well, even they don’t seem too sure.”
§ A Powerline blogger wrote: “We know for sure that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, because it was announced in a local newspaper. But we also now know that for sixteen years, his literary agent circulated a bio that said he was born in Kenya.”
§ At the Atlantic Wire was the headline: “Breitbart’s Editors: Hey, We’re Not Birthers, But Maybe You Should Be.”
§ At International Business Times was: “His birthplace has been something of a sticking point since he received the Democratic nod for the presidency in 2008. Since then, a group of latent nonbelievers, termed ‘Birthers,’ have doubted the president’s citizenship and challenged his assertion that he was born in Hawaii.”
Breitbart News published a disclaimer at the beginning of its article stating its late founder, Andrew Breitbart, was never a “Birther” and Breitbart News “has never advocated the narrative of ‘Birtherism.’” Breitbart himself once characterized it as “not a winning issue.”
Nevertheless, the biography is one of numerous published reports as well as personal claims that Obama was born abroad, including the recent testimony of a Chicago-area postal worker who reported he was told by the parents of Bill Ayers that Obama was a foreigner.
Allen Hulton, a retired Chicago-area mailman, has come forward with his first-person recollection of a clean-cut young man he identified as Obama who approached him and told him he was going to be president.
Hulton delivered mail to Tom and Mary Ayers in a Chicago suburb in the late 1980s and early 1990s and claims to have met Obama in front of the Ayers home.
He has given a sworn affidavit to investigators commissioned by Arpaio to determine whether Obama is eligible for Arizona’s 2012 election ballot. Hulton has recorded about three hours of video interviews with WND.
Hulton said that in conversations with Mary Ayers while on his route he learned of the couple’s enthusiasm and support for a black foreign student. One bright, warm Chicago land day, he recounted, he met the student who fit Mary Ayers’ description in front of the Ayers home in Glen Ellyn, Ill. That young man, Hulton is convinced, was Barack Obama.
Hulton delivered mail to the Ayers, who are both deceased, when he was stationed at the post office in Glen Ellyn, an upper-middle class suburb 25 miles west of downtown Chicago, from late 1986 to 1997. He was a Postal Service employee from March 28, 1962, through March 30, 2001.
As WND reported, Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers – whom he dismissed in a 2008 debate as “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood” – plagued him in the 2008 presidential campaign and could resurface in this year’s election, as many questions remain.
Over a period of years in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Hulton estimates he spoke with Mary Ayers about 18 to 20 times and once to Tom Ayers, who died in 2007. Mary Ayers died in 2000.
“Sometimes Mary would be out when I delivered the mail, and we would exchange a few words on occasion,” he said, recalling that she liked to talk about her family.
“One day, Mary came to the door when I came up to the house with the mail,” he remembered. “After a greeting, she started enthusiastically talking to me about this young black student they were helping out, and she referred to him as a foreign student.”
Hulton assumed that by “helping” the student, Mary Ayers meant she and her husband were financially supporting the black foreign-exchange student with his education.
See excerpts of Jerome Corsi’s interviews with Allen Hulton:
VIDEO: WND Corsi-Hulton Interview
He said that Mary Ayers told him the student’s name, but that it was a “strange name” that he could not remember, even though at the time it sounded African to him.
“I was taken aback by how enthusiastic she was about him,” Hulton said. “And I believe she said he was from either Kenya or Indonesia, and I favor Indonesia in my recollection.”
WND has reported that when Obama was in Indonesia with his Indonesian stepfather and his mother from ages 6 to 10, he was registered in school as an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim. He went by the name Barry Soetoro, adopting the surname of his Indonesian stepfather. His mother’s passport listed him with the surname Soebarkah.
About a year after discussing with Mary Ayers the foreign student she and her husband were supporting, Hulton recalled meeting a young black male on the sidewalk in front of the Ayers home.
Hulton described the man as being in his early 20s, noting that he was tall, thin, had a light complexion and that his ears stuck out.
“He greeted me,” Hulton said. “He was very polite, dressed nicely, but informally – slacks and a dress shirt – and he spoke with no accent. Immediately this young black man entered into conversation with me. He told me he had taken the train out from Chicago and had come to thank the Ayers family personally for having helped him with his education.”
Hulton remembered asking the young man what his plans were for the future.
“He looked right at me and told me he was going to be president of the United States,” Hulton said.
Found: 1991 Brochure Placing BHO’s Birth in Kenya
John R. Houk
© May 20, 2012
Media chuckle at bio on Obama’s Kenya birth
© Copyright 1997-2012 All Rights Reserved. WND.com Inc.
Yes I am on the WND email list that notifies of articles and opinions. I was hooked by a WND email that point to an article that was supposed to talk about six Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers that are member of the Obama Administration and operate as infiltrating members of government promoting Sharia Law in America. The article is awesome because it is basically an advertisement for a Muslim Brotherhood exposé from the Center for Security Policy headed by Frank Gaffney, Jr.; however the article fails to actually name the six infiltrators that hooked me to read the article.
That was a bit disappointing so I Googled something similar to the WND hook. I found an article that names MB infiltrators in the U.S. government especially in the case of the Obama Administration. I don’t know if any of the listed in the article I found is the same as the six infiltrators intended in the WND hook. I am going to cross post that article but if you can’t wait you can read it HERE. (Actually as I was researching I realized WND has been exposing a Fifth Column in the USA for some time. God bless WND. Here is an article from the SlantRight.com Archive.) In the mean time below is the WND article about viewing for FREE a ten part course on the Muslim Brotherhood in America.