WASHINGTON – With the toppling of one Mideast dictator after another and the ensuing “Arab Spring,” horrendous terrorist attacks are increasingly being perpetrated by groups and individuals claiming to act in the name of Islam.
“The bad quasi-secular dictatorships of the Middle East have been replaced,” says G. M. Davis, leaving chaos and anarchy, a “fertile ground for jihadist groups whose violent aspirations are in no way limited to their own societies.” Yet Western political leaders, with the support of the major media, have consistently affirmed their belief that, despite the violence done in its name, Islam is a religion of peace.
The critical question is, who is right? Do Muslims who wage violent jihad against unbelievers fundamentally misunderstand their own religion? Or are the jihadists following their holy book in their willingness to die as martyrs according to the dictates of their god, who promises paradise to those who “fight in his cause and kill and are killed, a promise binding on him in truth” (Koran 9:111)? With the West engaged in military operations in multiple Islamic countries and with a rapidly growing Muslim population at home, the answer is of critical importance to the future of Western Civilization.
To be published by WND Books on July 8, House of War explains how Islam is more than just a religion. It is a system of government, seeking to extend its own peculiar legal code – Sharia law – over the entire world. The “peace” Islam seeks is a world united by the Islamic faith and Sharia law under which all other faiths and political regimes have been either suppressed or eliminated. “Jihad” is the violent struggle against the non-Islamic world to bring it into “submission” to Islamic rule.
If you would like to receive a review copy of House of War, please contact WND marketing email@example.com.
It is surprising that a Tea Party organization has posted a Counterjihad expose. What is not surprising, is that this Tea Party organization has exposed a Radical Muslim in President Barack Hussein Obama’s White House that has links not only to Radical Islam but the Radical Islamic organizations he is linked to are supportive of Islamic terrorists such as the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.
TeaParty.org utilized WND and Walid Shoebat as sources linking special assistant to the Office of the Chief of Staff of the National Security Council Mehdi K. Alhassani directly to the Muslim World League (MWL). The MWL is also linked to Hillary Clinton’s Deputy of Staff Huma Abedin.
White House aide linked to al-Qaida Funder
May 10, 2014 10:07 am
Recipient of Benghazi bombshell email blaming attack on Internet video
(Tea Party) – A troubling thread links Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff to the current special assistant to the National Security Council chief of staff of the military’s Islamic chaplain program—the Muslim World League—reported WND. The Muslim World League is a group that has been accused of financing al-Qaida and is even more radical than the Muslim Brotherhood.
Offshoots of the organization have been declared official terrorist organizations by both the US State Department and the United Nations. Despite all of that, Muslim World League-linked individuals have been placed in key national security positions. Furthermore, those individuals with radical ties are helping to run the military’s chaplain program.
Last week, the case of Mehdi K. Alhassani, special assistant to the Office of the Chief of Staff of the National Security Council, drew attention in the blogosphere world after former a PLO operative named Walid Shoebat reported on Alhassani’s ties to Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups.
It was in an administration email made public last week that was part of the Judicial Watch lawsuit where Alhassani’s name emerged. The email in question was sent to Alhassani and other officials from Ben Rhodes just days after the attack in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012. Rhodes is Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communication
In the email, Rhodes clearly spells out need to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
It has since emerged that Alhassani was president of the Muslim Student Association at George Washington University from 2005 to 2006—a group that was openly founded by Muslim Brotherhood activists.
Although founded by Brotherhood activists, MSA’s roots are far more dangerous and tie into both Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and adviser, Huma Abedin, and Alhassani as well as the military’s chaplain program.
MSA received its start-up funding from the Muslim World League, or MWL.
Jihad is their way
Shoebat reported that Huma Abedin served on the board of the MSA at George Washington University in 1997. It so happens that the MSA’s official anthem is a restatement of the Muslim Brotherhood credo. This is what it states:
Allah is our objective
The Prophet is our leader
The Quran is our law
Jihad is our way
Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope
News media WND previously attended an MSA event and at that event speakers urged violence against the U.S.:
“We are not Americans,” speaker Muhammad Faheed shouted at Queensborough Community College in 2003. He continued: “We are Muslims. [The U.S.] is going to deport and attack us! It is us versus them! Truth against falsehood! The colonizers and masters against the oppressed, and we will burn down the master’s house!”
It was also WND that reported Abedin worked on the editorial board of her father’s Saudi-financed Islamic think tank alongside Abdullah Omar Naseef, secretary-general of the Muslim World League. Naseef’s connections to the Abedin family run deep.
Huma’s father, Professor Syed Abedin, founded the Institute for Minority Affairs. The Institute for Minority Affairs is a Saudi group that reportedly had the active support of Naseef. Her mother, Saleha, is the editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs is the publication of Syed’s institute.
The Institute for Minority Affairs touts itself as being “the only scholarly institution dedicated to the systematic study of Muslim communities in non-Muslim societies around the world.”
Huma Abedin served on the editorial board of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs for six years, from 2002 to 2008. Shoebat previously obtained documents revealing that Naseef served on the board with Huma for at least one year—December 2002 to December 2003.
In an interesting turn, the sudden departure of Naseef from the board in December 2003 happens to coincide with a time that various charities that happen to be led by Naseef’s Muslim World League were declared illegal terrorism fronts worldwide. The U.S. and U.N were among those who made these declarations.
Huma’s mother, Saleha Abedin, has been quoted as representing both the MWL and serving as a delegate for the charity in numerous press accounts.
Founded in Mecca in 1962, the MWL proclaims to be one of the largest Islamic non-governmental organizations. However, U.S. government documents and testimony from officials at t the charity show that the Saudi government heavily finances it.
The MWL and several of its offshoots, including the International Islamic Relief Organization, or IIRO, and Al Haramain, have been accused of having terrorist ties. Al Haramain was declared by the U.S. and U.N. to be a terror-financing front.
In a press release dated September 2004, the Treasury Department alleged direct links between Al Haramain and Osama bin Laden. The group has been banned worldwide by United Nations Security Council Committee 1267.
Long-held accusations have also stated that the IIRO and MWL repeatedly funded al-Qaida.
In fact, bin Laden reportedly told an associate that the MWL was one of his three most important charity fronts.
In a profile of the MWL, the Anti-Defamation League accuses the group of promulgating a “fundamentalist interpretation of Islam around the world through a large network of charities and affiliated organizations.”
“Its ideological backbone is based on an extremist interpretation of Islam,” the profile states, “and several of its affiliated groups and individuals have been linked to terror-related activity.”
U.S. News and World Report documented back in 2003, that with MWL’s donations, invariably come “a blizzard of Wahhabist literature.”
“Critics argue that Wahhabism’s more extreme preachings – mistrust of infidels, branding of rival sects as apostates and emphasis on violent jihad –laid the groundwork for terrorist groups around the world,” said the report.
In 1990 in Florida, an Egyptian-American cab driver, Ihab Mohamed Ali Nawawi, was arrested on accusations he was an al-Qaida sleeper agent and a former personal pilot to bin Laden. At the time of the accusation, he also reportedly worked at MWL in its Pakistani branch.
In 1988, the MWL founded the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation. The group was responsible for developing chapters in approximately 50 countries. Until it was designated as a terrorist organization they had a chapter in Oregon.
Evidence began to grow in the early 1990s that showed the foundation was funding Islamic militants in Somalia and Bosnia. In 1996 a CIA report detailed their Bosnian militant ties.
Al Haramain’s offices in Kenya and Tanzania were designated by the U.S. Treasury as sponsors of terrorism. This designation came about as a result of the group’s role in planning and funding the bombings of two American embassies in East Africa in 1998. The Comoros Islands office was also designated because it “was used as a staging area and exfiltration route for the perpetrators of the 1998 bombings.”
In 2003, The New York Times reported that Al Haramain had provided funds to another terrorist group—the Indonesian group Jemaah Islamiyah. Jemaah Islamiyah was responsible for the bombings in Bali in 2002 that killed 202 people. Later, the Treasury designated the Indonesia office a terrorist entity.
Then the following year in February 2004, the U.S. Treasury Department froze all of Al Haramain’s financial assets pending an investigation. That led the Saudi government to disband the charity, making it part of the Saudi National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad.
Al-Haramain was designated a terrorist organization in September 2004 by the U.S.
Four years later, in June 2008, the Treasury Department applied the terrorist designation to the entire Al-Haramain organization all over the world.
Bin Laden’s brother-in-law linked to terrorist plots
The Philippine and Indonesian branch offices of the MWL-founded IIRO were also designated as terrorist entities in August 2006. According to the Treasury Department they were designated as terrorist organizations “for facilitating fundraising for al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist groups.”
The Treasury Department continued: “Abd Al Hamid Sulaiman Al-Mujil, a high-ranking IIRO official [executive director of its Eastern Province Branch] in Saudi Arabia, has used his position to bankroll the al-Qaida network in Southeast Asia. Al-Mujil has a long record of supporting Islamic militant groups, and he has maintained a cell of regular financial donors in the Middle East who support extremist causes.”
In the 1980s, Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law Mohammed Jamal Khalifa ran the Philippines offices of the IIRO. Khalifa has been linked to plots targeting the pope and U.S. airlines.
In addition, the IIRO has been pointedly accused of funding Hamas, Algerian radicals, Afghanistan militant bases and the Egyptian terror group Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya.
The families of the 9/11 victims filed a lawsuit against IIRO among other Muslim organizations for having “played key roles in laundering of funds to the terrorists in the 1998 African embassy bombings” as well as for having been involved in the “financing and ‘aiding and abetting’ of terrorists in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,” reported the New York Post.
It’s a Saudi government front
In one Canadian court case, the Canadian director of both the IIRO and the MWL, Arafat El-Asahi, admitted the charities are near entities of the Saudi government.
El-Asahi said: “The Muslim World League, which is the mother of IIRO, is a fully government-funded organization. In other words, I work for the government of Saudi Arabia. I am an employee of that government.
“Second, the IIRO is the relief branch of that organization, which means that we are controlled in all our activities and plans by the government of Saudi Arabia. Keep that in mind, please,” said El-Asahi.
Even though its offshoots were implicated in terror financing, the U.S. government never designated the MWL itself as a terror-financing charity. It has been widely speculated that this is because the U.S. does not want to not embarrass the Saudi government.
Muslim chaplain program
Last week in a blog posting Shoebat stated that Alhassani attended the Islamic Center of Boston in Wayland, Massachusetts—that is the sister mosque to the Islamic Society of Boston. The Islamic Society of Boston was founded by Abdurahman Alamoudi—a convicted terrorist.
WND first reported on Alamoudi’s role in founding the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council. The Council was created in 1991 and operates under the umbrella of the American Muslim Foundation.
The American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council was the official endorsing agency of the military’s Muslim chaplain program along with the Muslim Brotherhood-tied Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA.
ISNA, an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme to raise money for Hamas, still happens to be the official endorsing agency for all Muslim chaplains in the U.S. military.
An Islamic cleric, Alamoudi served as an Islamic adviser to President Bill Clinton and it was Alamoudi who guided the establishment of the military’s Muslim chaplain program.
Alamoudi has been said to have handpicked the army’s first Islamic chaplain, Imam Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad. Muhammad is still serving in that Islamic chaplain position. It also happens to be Muhammad who endorsed the most recent Islamic chaplains who just joined the military. He was also a key figure in the selection of several of the military’s other Islamic chaplains.
Where is Alamoudi now? He is serving a 23-year sentence for terrorism-related financial transactions with the Libyan government and for his purported role in the conspiracy to assassinate then-Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.
In one report, Newsweek journalists Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff described Alamoudi as an “expert in the art of deception.” The article in Newsweek noted that Alamoudi espoused moderate, pro-American views while lobbying for Muslim causes in the U.S. But at a rally he expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah.
The American Muslim Council was founded by Alamoudi in 1990. The American Muslim Council is a lobbying group advocating on behalf of Muslims in the United States.
The first Islamic military chaplain, Muhammad, is also tied to the al-Qaida-front Muslim World League.
Alamoudi’s American Islamic Council recommended Muhammad for appointment.
Alamoudi was present at Muhammad’s swearing-in ceremony. He was also at the 1996 swearing-in of the military’s second Muslim chaplain, Lt. (junior grade) Monje Malak Abd al-Muta Ali Noel Jr.
A convert to Islam, Muhammad joined the Lost-Found Nation of Islam, a black Muslim group that espoused racial separatism and black nationalism in 1974. Later he claimed that he did not fully subscribe to the radical group’s philosophy but was attracted by the organization’s emphasis on personal responsibility and self-help.
Muhammad stated, “In the projects where I grew up, the women were exploited. In the Nation of Islam the men were always polite. They were always clean cut. I felt the Nation of Islam had more to offer than the church.”
Muhammad detailed his association with the Muslim World League during a 1993 interview with Muslehuddin Ahmed of Islam4all.com.
According to the website, Muhammad was in discussion with the charity to help establish the army’s Muslim chaplain program.
During the time that Muhammad was associated with the MWL, the group spawned Muslim charities—those charities as it turns out, were alleged fronts for al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.
As Muhammad stated to Islam4all, he was an “honored guest” of the MWL for his pilgrimage to Mecca.
“He was also full of praise for the Muslim World League for its excellent arrangements, which it had made for its guests, and was highly impressed by its dedicated Secretary General Dr. Ahmad Muhammad Ali, who symbolized for him a model Muslim leader,” Islam4all reported.
Furthermore the Islamic website reported that Muhammad said he would work closely with the MWL and he began an “ongoing interaction with the MWL in shaping and developing a vital Islamic presence within the U.S. Armed Forces.”
Muhammad “evinced keen interest in the magazines and other publications of the Muslim World League and other similar organizations for support in his Dawah (outreach) work.” reported the website.
Copyright © 2014 Tea Party, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Editor: Original TeaParty.org post had a fund raising ad link I did not include in the cross post: SPECIAL: Do you want Obama impeached? Then get your name on the IMPEACH OBAMA PETITION! Sign it here
John R. Houk
© April 27, 2014
Last Thursday I was listening to a Kelly Files report on Fox News. Megyn Kelly was talking about a New York Times exposé on Cliven Bundy. The author of the NYT exposé was Adam Nagourney. The essence of what Nagourney wrote is that in an interview with Cliven Bundy is a racist old bigot proven by statements in Bundy’s own words.
Evidently Megyn had not had all the information to form a rebuttal to Nagourney. From memory it seemed Megyn – using an even-handed voice – was regretful that the hero of property rights and the public opinion against Federal government intrusion in appropriating private land or sovereign state land, made racist statements about Black-Americans. I would say public control, but we all know today that Obama and his cadre of Leftists in government does not view “public” as We the People, rather the Obama cadre system considers “public” the bailiwick of top to bottom control of the Federal government’s whim – even ignoring the Constitutional checks and balances of the U.S. Congress.
So at this point I kind of shut down on listening to any other reports on television news knowing that even if Nagourney’s information was refutable I probably would not hear. Even when everyone knows the NYT is an in-the-tank Leftist rag these days, its past reputation as an honest source of the news is rarely contested when a story is presented as fact rather than an editorial opinion.
In my mind I knew Cliven Bundy was an old legitimate western cowboy. I mean literally, he grew up punching cattle on a family ranch. You have to realize these guys have an individuality that brings to mind the old wild west of cowpokes on horseback riding the range. My grandfather passed away in his seventies in the 1990s. That means he would have about 20 years the seniors of Cliven Bundy who I believe is currently in his late 60s. God rest my grandpa’s soul, he was one of these old cowboys that worked both with horses and with sheep. A combination that would have been a bit contradictory professionally in the late 1880s and 1890s. Regardless of the time span I know from experience my gramps was an honest hard working man that worked seasonal jobs in his older age as a ranch hand or a sheep herder in which he worked in what was left of the open spaces. The thing about these old boys, rather they were hard living party cowboys or Church going cowpokes, they had a bit of a rough matter-of-fact demeanor.
Let me share a brief story about my grandpa in his last days when he lived in a Nursing Home. Every Sunday while he could get about we picked him up from the Nursing Home for a day at Church and either a home cooked meal or day of lunch at a restaurant.
One of those days we went to Church as usual. We stood during worship singing good old fashioned combo Charismatic-Pentecostal songs with a few contemporary worship tunes thrown in. We sat down and listened to the sermon. I have to be I do have a memory that the Pastor’s sermon was inspiring but I do not recall at this time what it was about. But this one thing I do remember. After we were dismissed from the Service by the Pastor my grandpa did his half-step walking thing with his cane to grab the Pastor as he was walking by to do the traditional pastoral well-wishing at the door. My grandpa got our Pastor’s attention because he wanted to say a few brief words. And trust me – they were brief. My grandpa had his big whiskered smile on his and reached to shake the Pastor’s hand and said this to him:
“That was the best g*d d**n service I’ve ever heard!”
Check it out! Even today I can’t bring myself to spell out the words.
As the words left my grandpa’s lips to my ears, I was standing directly behind him with my draw dropped and my hands covering my eyes and head while it was shaking. I was incredulous even though I suspected something down to cowboy earth would escape his vocal cords. I dreaded the response of our Pastor.
Pastor raised his eyes with a twinkle in them and looked directly into my grandpa’s and with mirth in his voice replied to my grandpa, “Why thank you” – followed by a heartfelt chuckle and a firm handshake.
My Pastor with much welcome on my part defused a frightful situation for me. But you know, that was the kind of well-meaning sincerity without thought of circumstantial consequences for political correctness that was my old cowboy grandpa.
When old cowboys like Cliven Bundy or my grandfather say something like “negroes” instead of more politically correct Black-Americans or Afro-Americans. My grandpa was not as so-much a Church-going man like Cliven Bundy. If the NYT would have talked to my grandpa they would have heard a term pertaining to Black Americans that is considered heinous hate-speech today, but in the days of my grandpa’s youth would not have been among his peers to be a racist word. Just like I can’t spell out the complimentary profanity my grandpa used toward my Pastor, also I am not going to write the Black American word that is considered – and well should be – hate-speech today. I guarantee my grandpa would not have intended the offensive word to be racist any more than I believe that Cliven Bundy’s expression that perhaps negroes were better off in slavery than the slave-dependence of government welfare today. Indeed, I have heard respected Conservative pundits say the same thing but with much more eloquent terms.
Anyway, I have since learned that the NYT and Adam Nagourney actually edited the Bundy interview to show Bundy in the most racist light possible. I have discovered that Leftists like the NYT purposefully smeared the ineloquent words of Cliven Bundy and his old cowboy thoughts that not up to date to 21st century pc language that is more cognizant of what is hurtful and what is proper in a social setting.
I have three different stories below that expose the NYT and Media Matters exposé as Left Wing propaganda meant to show Cliven Bundy in the worst possible light and disarm sympathetic American voters from expressing derision against Federal government Big Brother overreach.
There are two WND articles below. The first WND article has a Bundy Peter Schiff interview. In the second WND article has two videos of Cliven Bundy making his controversial remarks about Blacks and Mexicans at the end: the first video is an unedited that the NYT and Media Matters did not want you to see and the second is the edited version that is being used to smear Bundy. (The Schiff-Bundy interview and the edited and unedited WND videos are not Youtube videos so I am not posting those.) Then last I have an Infowars.com article that has the Youtube version of the unedited version of the Bundy remarks and then Infowars.com places the edited parts in bold print to see the actual context Cliven Bundy was saying.
BLACK LEADER SAYS BUNDY REMARKS NOT RACIST
Contends rancher talking about harm to African-Americans by ‘leftist socialism’
By BOB UNRUH
April 24, 2014
A prominent black leader is coming to the defense of embattled Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was pilloried on Thursday after the New York Times published a quote by him referencing slavery.
The New York Times, in a report by Adam Nagourney, said Bundy, in a daily meeting Saturday with reporters and photographers covering his case, made the comments that critics are calling racist.
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” Nagourney quoted Bundy saying.
Bundy was recalling public housing projects in North Las Vegas.
“And in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids – and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch – they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do.
They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do,” he said.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
Ammon Bundy, Cliven Bundy’s son, told WND that the quotes were taken out of context and that his father was commiserating over the poor situation in which blacks find themselves because of oppressive government programs, regulations and practices.
Keyes said that was evident.
“I find it appalling that we basically have a history of the leftist liberalism that wants to extinguish black people by abortion [and] destroying the family structure,” Keyes told WND. “All of these things if you just look at the effects, you would say this was planned by some racist madman to destroy the black community.”
Then when somebody comes along to comment on that damage, the leftists all scream “racism,” he said.
“I think it’s time somebody started to recognize the racism that exists in its effects – the hard leftist ideology using the black community for their sacrificial lamb, for their sick ideology. It’s time we called them what they are,” he said.
“Now it’s racist to point it out.”
Ammon Bundy told WND: “They took what they wanted. They knew when they were there his comments were not racist. He wasn’t able to completely articulate. That’s just my dad. He is a very principled person.
He said he was “there standing right beside my father when he made those comments.”
“He was reaching out to the black community,” Ammon Bundy said.
“Growing up around him, and being beside him, I never once heard him say anything negative about any race,” he said. “I wish I could say that about everyone else I’ve been around. The black community, the white community, they joke back and forth. My father’s never lowered himself.”
Ammon Bundy said his father’s message “was taken out of context.”
The point was that the government “has kept them oppressed,” he said. “They’ve never been given a situation to be able to thrive, get themselves out of slavery.”
The Right Scoop blog reported Cliven Bundy confirmed he was wondering about what’s best for blacks.
“That’s exactly what I said. I said I’m wondering if they’re better off under government subsidy, and their young women are having the abortions and their young men are in jail, and their older women and their children are standing, sitting out on the cement porch without nothing to do, you know, I’m wondering: Are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were when they were slaves, and they was able to have their family structure together, and the chickens and garden, and the people had something to do? And so, in my mind I’m wondering, are they better off being slaves, in that sense, or better off being slaves to the United States government, in the sense of the subsidies. I’m wondering. That’s what. And the statement was right. I am wondering.”
Video-Audio: Peter Schiff interviewing Cliven Bundy
Bundy, 67, has been in the headlines over the past few weeks for his defiance of the federal government’s demand that he pay grazing fees. The federal Bureau of Land Management responded with an operation to confiscate and sell off his cattle.
Bundy claims that since his ranch operation, run by his family for more than 100 years, was grazing cattle before the BLM existed, his fees should be paid to the state, not Washington. More than 1,000 supporters, including armed militia members, joined Bundy at his ranch in a standoff with federal agents.
The federal agents backed down April 12, released the cattle and left the area.
On Easter Sunday, he said he respects the federal government, pledging allegiance to the flag.
“But [the government] has its place. It doesn’t have its place in the state of Nevada and … Clark County, and that’s where my ranch is. The federal government has no power and no ownership of this land, and they don’t want to accept that,” he said.
“I don’t stand alone,” he continued, “I have all of the prayers from lots of people around the world, and I feel those prayers. And those prayers take the tremble out of my legs. And I can stand strong and straight. And you know the spirit from our heavenly Father, I seek that every morning on my knees. And he gives me some guidance, and I go forth and I actually feel good. My health is good, my spirit is good and I feel strength. I do, I feel strength, I feel even happiness. And I have no idea where I’m going with this. It’s a day-by-day spiritual thing for me.”
BUNDY-TIMES STING: WORSE THAN I THOUGHT
By JOSEPH FARAH
First of all, let me begin by making an apology to Cliven Bundy.
In a slapdash column yesterday, I gave the New York Times more credit and credibility than it deserved.
I assumed, inappropriately and incorrectly, that the former newspaper of record had actually recounted the words of the Nevada rancher accurately and in context, given that there was an actual recording of the comments.
I was wrong.
After the Times smeared as a rock-ribbed racist through the use of selective quotes the new hero of resistance to tyranny in America, there was a new development: The video recording of the actual remarks emerged.
To say the New York Times bent over backwards to make Bundy look like an unregenerate bigot would be an understatement. I suggest you view the video for yourself at the end of this column. Does he seem like a hater to you? Or does he actually sound like a man with compassion for blacks who have been systematically abused by a new plantation mentality imposed by government dependence?
I did get one thing right, however. I explained it wasn’t really Bundy the New York Times was out to get. It was his supporters – especially elected officials who denounced the heavy-handed and militaristic way the Bureau of Land Management went after Bundy and his family.
It’s called guilt by association – something “progressives” formerly denounced. But, in this case, there was nothing to feel guilty about, because Bundy didn’t say anything racist.
Meanwhile, the guy who I suspect is the mastermind of the efforts by government to make an example of Cliven Bundy yesterday showed his own hand.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called on all of his “progressive” friends to form a “united front” against Bundy.
For those of you untrained in the tactical and strategic arts of the totalitarian left, let me explain that terminology. “United front” has special meaning to only one group – communists. If you doubt what I, a former commie, have to say about it, just Google the term. See for yourself. What Harry Reid’s use of this term suggests is the left considers Cliven Bundy and all those rallying around his cause to be the most important target of the day. The “progressives” are apoplectic about this showdown in the desert. After all, they are supposed to be the champions of hardworking people. The government is supposed to be the friend and savior of working people. Yet, what Cliven Bundy has done, using “progressive” terminology, is to “heighten the contradictions” of socialist reality.
Therefore, as the left often concludes in such cases, he must be destroyed.
That’s why Harry Reid calls him a “domestic terrorist.” That’s why Harry Reid calls for a “united front” against this simple, seemingly powerless rancher. That’s why Harry Reid strangely said after the standoff in the desert was defused, “It’s not over.”
The left has big plans for Cliven Bundy.
The left sees Bundy as a real threat.
And I suspect that’s why the official mouthpiece of the establishment left – the New York Times – jeopardized what’s left of its own reputation by misconstruing and misrepresenting Bundy’s remarks.
He’s that dangerous!
That’s why it was so important to demonize him as a “racist.” They want to use him as a dividing point: Line up behind the “racist” or against him. That’s the strategy – even though race is not even an issue in the controversy Bundy started by merely doing what his family has been doing in the Nevada desert for over 100 years.
Do you get it?
He’s a symbol. For some of us he’s a symbol of a fight against encroaching tyranny. For others he’s a symbol of resistance to achieving their socialist panacea.
It’s the old divide-and-conquer strategy.
They can’t win with the facts, with reality, with truth. So they need to create a fog to obscure what’s really taking place on the ground.
Unedited video of Cliven Bundy:
Edited video of Cliven Bundy:
Unedited Video Shows Bundy Making Pro-Black, Pro-Mexican Comments
By Paul Joseph Watson
April 25, 2014
The controversy over Cliven Bundy’s “racist” remarks has taken a new turn after longer unedited footage emerged showing the Nevada cattle rancher making pro-black and pro-Mexican comments that were excised out of media reports.
[Blog Editor: I included the below information from Youtube that was not a part of the Infowars.com news story.]
Posted by Allen Gwinn
Published: Apr 24, 2014 8:29 am
Several comments here point out earlier remarks made by Bundy and claim these are taken out of context. In the interest of fairness, the above is a followup video of those remarks.
Full version of race remarks made by Bundy that have generated some controversy. If you’re looking for a more hacked-up soundbite version that makes him look more like a racist, you might want to check out what CNN did to him at the link (above)
The full clip illustrates how the original New York Times report edited out statements made by Bundy both before and after his supposedly “racist” remarks, which when taken in their full context actually constitute a pro-minority position. Media Matters also cut out these crucial comments from their YouTube upload of Bundy’s remarks.
Bundy’s full comments are reprinted below, with the parts not printed by the New York Times and other media outlets highlighted in bold.
…” and so what I’ve testified to ya’, I was in the WATTS riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen the last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people is thinking they did not have their freedom; they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.
We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and sure don’t want to go back; we sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point; we sure don’t want the Mexican people to go back to that point; and we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.
Let me tell… talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro.
When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas; and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids…. and there was always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for the kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for the young girls to do.
And because they were basically on government subsidy – so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?
You know they didn’t get more freedom, uh they got less freedom – they got less family life, and their happiness -you could see it in their faces- they were not happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips – so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.
Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know I understand that they come over here against our constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people – and I’ve worked side-by-side a lot of them.
Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structure than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people.
And we need to have those people join us and be with us…. not, not come to our party.
While Bundy’s use of terms such as “negro,” “colored people” and references to picking cotton are undoubtedly politically incorrect (though not unsurprising for a 67-year-old farmer), when taken in its full context, his argument is actually anti-racist in that it laments the plight of black families who have been caught in the trap of dependency on government.
The comments that were also vehemently pro-Mexican were not included in any of the mainstream reports which smeared Bundy as a racist.
“What’s more sad than the refusal to openly discuss the issues – is how quickly the conservative right is willing to throw Bundy to the wolves based solely on the New York Times and Media Matters opinion,” writes the Conservative Treehouse blog, noting that Bundy’s comments are no more controversial than those made by Shirley Sherrod, who was staunchly defended by leftists.
While Bundy’s remarks have been spun as a racist call for a return to slavery, he is clearly using references to slavery only to make a point that blacks are no better off living under the economic slavery of the welfare state.
Furthermore, Bundy’s argument that, “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail,” is clearly directed at the government’s treatment of black people and is therefore a defense of and not an attack on black Americans.
“It is 100% clear that Cliven Bundy is not saying that blacks should be slaves picking cotton, but that the federal government has created conditions for them so terrible, that their current situation may actually be worse,” writes Jack Flash. “And he’s not blaming blacks for the issues of abortions, and crime and broken families, he’s blaming the Feds. This is the exact opposite of a racist, this is an advocate for the welfare and best interests of blacks. Racist? Why is he praising Mexicans as better than whites, if he’s some sort of white supremacist racist?”
Leftist Propaganda Meant to Smear and Disarm Govt. Criticism
John R. Houk
© April 27, 2014
BLACK LEADER SAYS BUNDY REMARKS NOT RACIST
BUNDY-TIMES STING: WORSE THAN I THOUGHT
© Copyright 1997-2014. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.
Unedited Video Shows Bundy Making Pro-Black, Pro-Mexican Comments
© 2013 Infowars.com is a Free Speech Systems, LLC company. All rights reserved
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)