Islam: Not a Religion of Peace, but a ‘House of War’


I am going to proffer a guess that someone at WND read the May 13 post “The Muslim Solution”. That post offered two concepts to solving the perpetual Quranic edict against non-Muslims.
 
WND sent out a book review of a book they are releasing on July 8, 2015 – “House of War: Islam’s Jihad Against the World”. This book exposes the real nature of Islam according to its own considered holy writings. So if any generous soul decides to pre-order the book, perhaps contact me to let me know about your generosity. The need for contact is I’d hate to receive 100 copies of what promises to be an awesome read. J
 
House of War bk jkt 
JRH 5/15/15

Please Support NCCR

***************************
Islam: Not a Religion of Peace, but a ‘House of War’
 
Review sent by and by WND.com
Sent: 5/14/2015 12:22 PM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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.

 
Relying primarily on Islam’s own sources, House of War: Islam’s Jihad Against the World (formerly Religion of Peace? Islam’s War Against the World and now available in paperback), compellingly documents that Islam is indeed a violent, expansionist ideology that seeks the subjugation and destruction of other faiths, cultures, and systems of government.

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.


“The idea that Islam is a religion of peace,” says Davis, “is fundamentally, totally, and disastrously wrong.” Westerners have been indoctrinated to believe that the jihadists they see on television are extremists who have twisted their religion to serve a violent purpose, when in fact, “Islam is intrinsically violent. It is the impetus for modern terrorism, and its doctrines necessitate that the only possible relationship between Islamic civilization and non-Islamic civilization is war or subjugation,” says Davis. By delving into key Islamic writings, Davis reveals the fastest-growing religion in the world for what it is – an existential threat to Western Civilization, a reality to which Western leaders remain determinedly blind.
 
G.M. Davis (author)
 
G. M. Davis is a Mideast scholar, author, and filmmaker. He graduated from the University of Rochester in 1997 with a BA in political science, and from Stanford in 2003 with a PhD in the same area of study. In 2005, he produced and directed the feature documentary, Islam: What the West Needs to Know.
House of War will be available on July 8, 2015.

If you would like to receive a review copy of House of War, please contact WND marketing at marketing@wnd.com.

 
________________________________
WND | 2020 Pennsylvania Ave NW, #351 | Washington, DC 20006
Copyright 1997-2015 WND.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.

White House aide linked to al-Qaida Funder


Mehdi K. Alhassani - Radical Muslim BHO WH

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.

 

JRH 5/11/14

Please Support NCCR

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

White House aide linked to al-Qaida Funder

 

By TeaParty.org Exclusive

May 10, 2014 10:07 am

TeaParty.org

 

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

Leftist Propaganda Meant to Smear and Disarm Govt. Criticism


Cliven Bundy 2

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.

 

JRH 4/27/14

Please Support NCCR

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

BLACK LEADER SAYS BUNDY REMARKS NOT RACIST

Contends rancher talking about harm to African-Americans by ‘leftist socialism’

By BOB UNRUH

April 24, 2014

WorldNetDaily

 

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.

“He wasn’t talking so much about black folks, but about the harm and damage that the leftist socialism has done to blacks,” said former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes, who also is a columnist for WND.

 

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.”

 

Discover America’s real black-white history, in “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White.”

 

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.

 

WND reported just days ago Cliven Bundy’s interview with radio talk show host Dianne Linderman on the nationally syndicated “Everything That Matters” show.

 

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

4/25/14

WorldNetDaily

 

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.

 

Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

 

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
Infowars.com
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.

 

VIDEO: Cliven Bundy (Full) Controversial Remarks April 19, 2014

 

[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

**** UPDATED “PRE” REMARKS: http://youtu.be/v6xjGPmAckg
**** CNN soundbite version: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/…

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

 

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

 

© 2013 Infowars.com is a Free Speech Systems, LLC company. All rights reserved

BENGHAZI BOMBSHELL! AL-QAIDA VOWED TO KILL AMBASSADOR


Eyes on Target bk jk

 

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.

 

JRH 3/14/14

Please Support NCCR

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

BENGHAZI BOMBSHELL! AL-QAIDA VOWED TO KILL AMBASSADOR

Months before attack, U.S. had photos of 300 armed militants near outpost

By Greg Corombos

March 13, 2014

WND

 

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

WND Story: ‘Woman Dragged to Jail for Recording Cop’


Brandy Berning 2

Brandy Berning spent a night in jail after recording her traffic stop.
 
John R. Houk
© February 20, 2014
 
After being pulled over for a traffic infraction in Florida Brandy Berning is attacked by the police Officer when she notified him that the traffic stop was being recording on her phone.
 

The WND link above has the actual audio of Lt. William O’Brien breaking Brandy Berning’s Civil Rights. The WND story also has an excerpt from local news network WPLG-TV’s coverage of the incident. (The audio of the WPLG-TV on my browser dragged a bit on my browser, maybe it won’t on yours.)
 
 
JRH 2/20/14

Please Support NCCR

Jewish Temples Location can be a Game Changer?


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:

 

http://superstore.wnd.com/video/Ken-Klein_2/Jerusalem-and-the-lost-temple-of-the-Jews-DVD#temple1

 

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;

“Jerusalem and the Lost Temple of the Jews”

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:

 

http://superstore.wnd.com/video/Ken-Klein_2/Jerusalem-and-the-lost-temple-of-the-Jews-DVD#temple2

 

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.”

Watch all six of the trailers here:

[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

 

TempleMountFaithful.org

 

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 Gd 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 Gd 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 Gd controls war and peace and the destiny of Israel. There is no doubt that Gd is testing Israel today on the Temple Mount, which is the key place in the world. Gd 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 Gd and people of Israel and desecrated the hill of Gd and revolted against the Word of Gd. Gd 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.

 

JRH 10/24/13

Please Support NCCR

It Looks like Obama Selling Temple Mount for Peace Negotiations


Obamanation banner

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.

 

VIDEO: What Really Happened In The Middle East

 

JRH 7/23/13

Please Support NCCR