A Tribute to Dr. Dana Cloud of the University of Texas

My dear Dana, you have truly made not only my day and week but quite possibly my month. What boon have you done me you ask? Well I am not quite sure how to put this Doctor Cloud but your over educated and DETERMINEDLY ignorant stance in defense of the indefensible overloads my humour hopper with raw materials for commentary about the silliness of you and all whom you call ally. I know this is rude but you measured the rope and put it around your neck and jumped. I just came along afterward to use your folly to create cautionary tales for those who still can be saved.

Truly, after the easy fun shredding your “rebuke” of David Horowitz, how wondrerful to find a whole blogrole of Radical, Progressive Thought to play in like a sandbox of the illogical.

On to the first victim: one Billie Murray, snickeringly enough considering today’s posts a Doc candidate in Communications Studies, will give us her devastatingly poignant tale of hate speech, violence and censorship….by the Left.

Account of UNC protester on Tancredo visit 4/14April 21, 2009
The letter was written by Billie Murray, Ph.D. Candidate at UNC Chapel Hill. H

April 16, 2009

Dear Chancellor Thorp:

I want to express my concerns over the events of April 14, 2009. Currently, I am a Doctoral Candidate and Teaching Fellow in the Department of Communication Studies specializing in the rhetoric of social protest.

Specializing in what again? A specialist in the rhetoric of protest? Is that the same as Guru of Spin? Yes? O.K. lets move on then.

I have been a part of the UNC system for 6 years and a student and member of the UNC-Chapel Hill community for over 4 years. During that time I have witnessed some of UNC’s proudest, shining moments and consider those less shining to be opportunities for growth and progress. As a member of this community, a first-hand witness to the protest events on April 14th, and as a scholar of free speech issues, (GDeW) A scholar of Free Speech that does not appear to know free speech LAW) I believe it is my responsibility to address what I see as precisely one of those opportunities.

Billie knows what is good, and what is bad, and will now lay down the law as to what the chancellor SHOULD be thinking. Billie must have a thought police badge, that or delusions of relevance.

In the days leading up to April 14th, I reviewed a number of emails, websites and other literature about the Youth for Western Civilization, Tom Tancredo, and proposed responses to his presence and the presence of the YWC chapter on campus. I attended the event on the 14th as a researcher of social protest and free speech and to stand in solidarity with those students who felt threatened by the presence of the YWC and Mr. Tancredo in our community.

As far as I can tell this means Billie went there mainly to study the effectiveness of the protest tactics while taking part in said protest.

During the protest, I watched as some of my students were roughly pushed to the ground by police officers, sprayed withpepper spray, and threatened with a taser.

Billie doesn’t mention until later that these students were loudly doing their best to disrupt the speech when the police did these things in an attempt to get the overgrown children to obey the law and the customs of all decent adults on the Right as well as the those on the Left.

I helped some students to the bathroom on the second floor of Bingham Hall to rinse the spray from their noses, mouths, and eyes. Needless to say I was afraid for their safety and my own.

Well when you break the law, violently disrespect your university and the guest speaking, and won’t back down until the police threaten to taser you, then YES Virginia, you SHOULD feel you have led them into an unsafe venture. That twinge you felt was maturity trying to be born.

The Students for a Democratic Society released a statement today detailing a side of this story that has been absent from police accounts, the Daily Tar Heel, and other mainstream media sources. In the interests of free speech, that side of the story deserves to be heard, and I encourage you to hear their voices.

That side has been missing to this point because it is so self serving and inane that no one with sense has brought it up til now. Thank you for correcting our oversight Billie!

I can’t say I wasn’t warned that something violent might occur at this event. A faculty member in my department who researches hate speech sent out an email requesting that anyone deciding to take part in the protest use caution because demonstrations against hate groups can increase the likelihood of violence. I suppose I should have known from my own extensive experience and research that this violence most often comes not from protestors(sic), but from the “protectors” of free speech. It seems only Mr. Tancredo’s free speech rights and safety were of concern on Tuesday, not the free speech rights and safety of your own students. The apology issued to Mr. Tancredo on the grounds that he felt threatened and was unable to be heard was out of place. An apology should be issued to those students who feel threatened by the presence of the YWC and Mr. Tancredo and the violent silencing of their own voices at the hands of police officers.

Let me be short and sweet Billie, free speech is what you disrupted, you never had YOUR turn at the podium, and you prevented the dissenters with real questions from being heard.

Go reserve your own space and say what you will. That is free speech. Making sure an opinion you don’t agree with is not heard at all is simple censorship no matter who does it.

I am afraid you suffer from the arrogance of self assurance, You feel that you are so “right” that you can do no wrong in defense of it. If I were your chancellor I would assign you several semesters of remedial history to learn the many examples of why that is a bad idea.

Other arguments have surfaced since the events that a cursory review of the history of protest would reveal as commonplace. For example, protests just give those protested against the publicity they crave, and there are better ways to deal with these groups. But I ask you, what are these better ways? In your notice to students you suggest that: “There’s a way to protest that respects free speech and allows people with opposing views to be heard. Here that’s often meant that groups protesting a speaker have displayed signs or banners, silently expressing their opinions while the speaker had his or her say.”

And this is bad to you? You get the hives if someone you don’t like actually gets to have their say? How fascist is that?

While I might agree that sometimes silence can be golden, Alice Walker reminds us that “no person is your friend who demands your silence, or denies your right to grow.”

This demand for silence also reveals a misunderstanding about one of the main goals of protest, both historically and in the current moment, to disrupt. Protestors(sic) often seek to disrupt our comfort zones in order to bring light to injustices. Silence is not disruptive. Disruption requires volume, and they were loud. Yes, a window was broken. But there seems to be more concern over this small piece of damaged property than over the overreaction of police in spraying and threatening bodily harm to the students.

Silly Me! Here I thought legitimate protest was about communicating to the public urgent information. But all along it was supposed to be about disrupting legitimate speech in order to obtain political hegemony by intimidation and provocation. I feel SO STUPID. Or maybe it is Billie who is misunderstanding things?

Threats of criminal and Honor Court charges against the students who exercised their free speech rights is indicative of how effectively they embodied their power to express themselves and protect their community from the silencing effect of hate speech.

You mean the scheduled speech of a peaceful group was violently disrupted by illegal protest designed to stifle free expression, and the perpetrators then turned around and claimed victim status for not being held up as heroes for violating the civil rights of people with opinions of which they disapprove? That IS what you are saying, isn’t it Billie?

We often lament the lack of involvement of young people in politics and issues of importance. But how quick we have been to encourage their silence, demonize their expressions, chill their participation, and discipline and punish them when they have any real effect.

I would have hoped you would have noticed, at your advanced age, but adults tend to get down on children whenever they try to ape adult activities but do not understand reality and break laws and ,and begin to hurt people and property. They especially do not like children causing such chaos and then blaming the adults. In a nutshell – if you and your friends would stop behaving like asses and you would find that your opportunities for effective public discourse will expand exponentially.

Some have argued that it is not entirely clear that YWC or Mr. Tancredo are/were engaging in hate speech. Your own comments refer to his talk as being about “immigration.” However, a review of Mr. Tancredo’s past speeches and YWC literature makes it quite clear that a rhetoric of “anti-immigration” is being used to thinly disguise intolerance, racism, fear, and attacks on the cultural identities of people of color who should “assimilate” into Western Culture.

Why should any culture allow people who CHOOSE to come to their land, but refuse to follow the laws of the new culture, to demand a rightto create an indigestible foreign body in that culture? Do you similarly defend the rights of Americans to move to Saudi Arabia and vent their spleens all over the law because the law is misogynistic and homophobic? No? WHY THE HELL NOT?

It is quite clear that whatever hidden agendas might, or might not, be held by YWC, our dear Billie has no more to go on than her own desire to believe that their message is invalid and void of meaningful content. And “Our Local Radical” feels this is sufficient to raise dramatically the bar on banning disruptive protests.

As purveyors of higher education, we have a responsibility to our students to be more critical and discerning and to teach them to be more critical and discerning about the rhetoric to which they are exposed.

Shocking isn’t it? But I guess you have to be allowed to have your say in an open forum too, despite your self-serving lunacy. That is called free speech. If your view was valid, anyone who honestly FELT that YOUR message was hateful, not a hard argument to make, could rightly disrupt YOUR efforts to make yourself heard in an open forum. Can you spell hypocrisy? Knew you could.

You don’t need to be a rhetorical scholar to see the insidiousness of this rhetoric. Hate speech (or if you prefer to err on the side of simple racist rhetoric) does not promote social justice or any other democratic values. Hate speech silences free speech by humiliating, denigrating, instilling fear, and inciting violence.

We still have to establish that the goal of the group and speaker were to make hateful speeches with no practical content. All we have is YOUR feelings that their message is somehow so evil that to even hear it would taint the tender minds of “your” students and so constitute “hate speech“.

It has been argued in the past couple of days that supporters of free speech should be tolerant of all speech.

Yes, it has, by the bloody U.S. Supreme court, in accordance with decades and decades of concurring opinions.

While I am of the view that as a democratic society we must be tolerant of dissenting views, in no way does this mean that all speech promotes democratic ends or should be tolerated. Put simply, some stories are better than others.

Why not just come right out and say “Free speech is for Me, not for Thee”, sign your PC-Nazi, Party card and be done with it. Do you really think your chancellor will be impressed by your stunning “logic” and arrogantly ignorant attitude of moral superiority?

The litmus test for these “better stories” include those that promote tolerance, acceptance, social justice, equality, and yes, free speech. The rhetoric espoused by YWC and Mr. Tancredo does not promote tolerance of difference and silences those who are “different.”

We only can allow “free speech” that promotes tolerance? What about speech about intolerant people like racists and thugs and dictators? What about speech that condemns hateful speech? My dear Billie YOU are guilty of promoting an intolerant attitude toward this group and this speaker! Should YOU be suppressed in your ideal world? You created the incident, you created the only hate speech to be heard that day, and you now want to be lionized for all your efforts to “enlighten” the poor ignorant administration and petted over as a victim in a crises that you yourself precipitated in all its glorious fascist glamour.

Why then should we be tolerant of a rhetoric that in no way promotes the goals of a democracy and that creates a culture of fear and hate? Hate speech silences free speech.

1) Who told YOU what these mysterious new goals of “a democracy” were, and assigned you as the gatekeeper against the expression of any ideas contrary to those goals? I thought that was for the democracy to decide on its own.

2) You are the one who seems to hate and fear the message they bring. Could it be that YOU are the one that needs to open your mind?

3) Your hate speech did indeed silence free speech, including that of DECENT members of your own general ideology. Aren’t you PROUD of yourself? Someone noticed you.

Mr. Tancredois a former Congressperson and Presidential candidate. Therefore, he is someone with a great deal of political power, who has had many and will continue to have many opportunities to have his voice heard. I do not lament his speech being disrupted in this particular instance.

Well, it seems Billie feels that Mr. Tancredo has had more of a platform than Billie feels he should be allowed. According to her inbred sense of “truth” it is evident that God Almighty wants Billie to rein in Mr. Tancredo’s arrogant and hateful activities until such time as the LEFT has had an opportunity to counter program any potential audiences.

What I do lament is that the students who attended Mr. Tancredo’s speech with the goal of engaging in dialogue or debate with him, did not get the opportunity to have their voices heard. Their voices are too often silenced it seems.

Yes Billie, your group’s protest silenced the voices of citizens, not The School or the student group or the speaker or the police; you.

However, it is my understanding that the groups who organized the protest have since been in conversation with these students to apologize and find productive ways to work in solidarity so as to avoid a similar clash of communication strategies in the future.

You call tactics to disallow a group’s ability to communicate at all a “communication strategy”? Do you consider the death penalty to be a rehabilitative measure?

But as a teacher of communication, (Sniggering laugh, Dr. Pepper in nose, wet keyboard; sorry, could NOT help it) I would say to those students desiring dialogue, I admire your resolve.

However Billie plans to thwart it if possible so nya nya nya!

However, to have a truly productive dialogue with someone holding contrary views, all must come to the table willing to respect the diversity of others, trust in their goodwill, and prepared to be honest and open-minded. I do not believe that given the opportunity to dialogue with Mr. Tancredo or members of the YWC, you would have found these conditions to be present.

Well that is for sure; you have demonstrated that you have no respect for this group, you have no trust for their stated, declare yourself to be untrustworthy (for righteous you claim) yourself, AND you have a closed mind & are proud of it.  As to your honesty, well anyone who commits a crime both legal, and then claims that it was a moral necessity forced on them by the opposition has a bit to learn about the subject.

In closing, I would like to ask you, Chancellor Thorp, to use this moment as an opportunity to truly hear your students’ diverse voices when they say to you that they will not be silent when racism threatens their community. Use this opportunity to forge a dialogue among students, faculty, staff, and university police so as to have more productive, peaceful interactions in the future that protect our students and their rights.

Yes chancellor Thorp, let your students know that unless they respect the universal rules of civil discourse they will be censured, and then if they persist in their brown shirt tactics, expelled as incorrigible troublemakers unable to “play nice with others”.

Respectfully,
Billie Murray

Dear little Billie,  just what was respectful about that diatribe?

Dana Cloud “rebuts” David Horowitz: Her Plea? “Guilty but Protected”

guy dewhitney on dana cloud david horowitz and academic freedom in a Marxist classroom

As any would know from my post “David Come Home” I am not an uncritical fan of David Horowitz. However, my quibbles are more in the form of criticism for occasional partisanship than criticism for his main ideas.

This is especially true when talking about the campaign against indoctrination on campus. I have been and will remain dedicated to free speech in its diverse forms but I will not go on record supporting any one’s political opinion being fostered on students as “course content“. A paid professor is not getting their check to stand before a captive audience and dangle grades as incentive for political conversion to the cause of the professor’s choice. Is it not obvious that a GOOD class on feminism would be about the history of the movement, its triumphs its mistakes and its possible futures? Instead we get classes that essentially teach the scientifically unsupportable political fantasy of “gender theory” as fact; something the departments of psychology and neurobiology would be stunned to hear.

But I digress, my purpose today is to dissect a rabid attack on Mr. Horowitz’s campaign by one of the very rabid radicals he is worried about. Let us extend a warm Heretical Welcome to Dana Cloud.

Dana holds a PhD. in rhetorical studies. That is about what it sounds like, She is trained to persuade and teach others to persuade by words. Or is it? when we look beyond Ms. Clouds department profile to the faculty bio we find her masters and PhD. are in communication studies. I have to say she sure learned her lessons well. “Rhetorical Studies” sounds SO much more authoritative and “persuasive” than plain old Communication Studies doesn’t it?

Since then she has been at U of Texas teaching such diverse subjects as social movements, gender and communication, rhetorical criticism, public sphere theory, Marxist theory, and feminist theory. I think we can already see why she is in Mr. Horowitz’s sites, but wait, there is much, much, more!

From her department blurb: “Professor Cloud’s research interests lie in the areas of rhetoric and social movements, critique of representations of race and gender in the mass media, and the defense of historical materialist theory and method in communication studies.” To translate her rather obviously intentional opacity – She teaches the DEFENSE of Marxism, as well as Marxism and various Marxist based “feminist” and race based classes. I think it is now totally obvious both why Mr. Horowitz has her on his lists and why she feels it her native right to assault him “by any means necessary” with her words.

I do believe it would have done Ms. cloud good to have taken a few courses in logic and history however. As we are about to see her sense of reality seems a bit strained to even the generous minded.)

Dangerous and Loud
Getting Radical With Dana Cloud

Right off the top Ms. Clouds stands up and declares herself in no uncertain terms for her, assumed to be, sympathetic audience. She says she is dangerous and loud. Since this is a written piece and we will assume Ms. Cloud is not psychotic I guess this means she feels her words will strike hard on our inner ears and minds. Well we all have our hopes.

But what about the rest? Just what IS a “radical“? According to Merriam-Webster the definition that matches her is

“3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : EXTREME

b : tending or disposed to make EXTREME changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions

c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of EXTREME change

d : advocating EXTREME MEASURES to retain or restore a political state of affairs “

OKAAAAY, I think we get where she is coming from. And this woman TEACHES her radical Marxist based “classes” under the guise of….Communication Studies???? Radical Marxism and radical feminism are subjects for communication studies? Mind you, these are not even courses analysing those ideologies; these classes TEACH them!
And, we haven’t even gotten to the meat of her “argument” yet. Take a deep breath, this may hurt a bit. Take it away Doctor Cloud!)

Coming to a Campus Near You: David Horowitz, Attack Dog for the Right March 6, 2007
DAVID HOROWITZ is a self-appointed general of the right-wing thought police.

Okay, at the bell she comes out with an immediate flurry of roundhouse punches designed to make Mr. Horowitz scurry for cover. First, the warning about the threat to YOU; then the smooth series of demonizing labels.

In reference to my above comment about Logic 101 and it’s absence in Doctor Clouds background we should wonder just how Mr. Horowitz not only appointed himself a “Right Wing” general but convinced his unwilling new sponsors to pay him 300,000 bucks a year!  The “thought police” bit we will get to later.)

In 2006, he published The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. In it, he named me and 100 other professors as threats to national security akin to terrorists.

Only if you consider the ability of our students to get through college without having to pass a political indoctrination by people who’s ideology has totally failed in the crucible of the REAL world as applying to our society’s future security; in that case, YEAH LADY, you are an enemy of the state.

Continue reading

Remembering the Hebron Massacre

Heretics crusade celebrates May 14 Israeli Independence Day

Heretics crusade celebrates May 14 Israeli Independence Day

Here is a tribute to the Hebron Massacre in Israel.


Yet another wrenching exile and return, now rarely remembered, occurred 80 years ago this week. On Aug. 23-24, 1929, the Jewish community of Hebron was exiled following a horrific pogrom. The tragedy is known as Tarpat, an acronym for its date in the Hebrew calendar.

Until 1929, Jews had lived in Hebron for three millennia. There, according to Jewish tradition, Abraham purchased the cave of Machpelah to bury Sarah. It was the first parcel of land owned by the Jewish people in their promised land. Ever since, religious Jews revered Hebron as the burial site of their matriarchs and patriarchs. Conquered, massacred and expelled over the centuries, Jews always returned to this sacred place.

In August 1929, that community was suddenly and brutally attacked. Incited by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem—who claimed that Jews were endangering Muslim holy sites on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem—Arab rioters swept through Palestine. In Hebron, the carnage was horrendous.

It began on Friday afternoon when Arabs attacked Jews with clubs and murdered a yeshiva student. The next morning, joined by local villagers, Arabs swarmed through Hebron screaming “Kill the Jews.” They broke into the home of Eliezer Dan Slonim, where many Jews had gathered for safety. There they wielded knives and axes to murder 22 innocents. In the Anglo-Palestine Bank, where 23 corpses were discovered, blood covered the tile floor. That day, three children under the age of five were murdered. Teenage girls, their mothers and grandmothers were raped and killed. Rabbis and their students were castrated before they were slain. A surviving yeshiva student recounted that he “had seen greater horrors than Dante in hell.”

When the slaughter finally subsided, 67 Jews had been murdered. Three days later, British soldiers evacuated 484 survivors, including 153 children, to Jerusalem. The butchery in Hebron, Zionist and religious officials alleged, was “without equal in the history of the country since the destruction of the Temple.” Sir Walter Shaw, chairman of an exhaustive British royal investigation, concluded that “unspeakable atrocities” had occurred.

Tarpat extinguished the most ancient Jewish community in Palestine. With synagogues destroyed, Jewish property converted into storerooms and barns for livestock, and the ancient cemetery desecrated, few signs remained that there had ever been a Jewish presence in Hebron.

But nearly 40 years later, after the Six-Day War of 1967, a small group of religious Zionists returned to Hebron to rebuild the destroyed community. “What was in the past in Hebron,” declared their matriarch Miriam Levinger, “is what will happen in the future. Always!” So it would be.

The Jewish community of Hebron—some 700 people—recently celebrated the 40th anniversary of their return. This month they commemorate the 80th anniversary of Tarpat. All the other ancient peoples mentioned in the Bible have vanished. But Jews, a community of memory, still live in Hebron.

Hebron Jews are relentlessly vilified as fanatics who illegally occupy someone else’s land. As religious Zionists, they are the militant Jewish settlers whom legions of Jewish and non-Jewish critics love to hate. It is seldom noticed that their most serious transgression—settlement in the biblical land of Israel—is the definition of Zionism: the return of Jews to their historic homeland.

Mr. Auerbach, a professor of history at Wellesley College, is the author of “Hebron Jews: Memory and Conflict in the Land of Israel,” published in July by Roman & Littlefield.

Palestinian prof: No Jewish ties to Western Wall


Latest Islamic figure to deny documented archeological history

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – The Jews have no historical connection to Jerusalem or the Western Wall, declared a Palestinian Authority lecturer on official PA television.

“[The Jews have] no historical roots. This is political terminology to win the hearts and the support of the Zionists in Europe, so they would emigrate and come to Palestine. Nothing more!” stated Shamekh Alawneh, a lecturer in modern history at Al-Quds Open University.

“The [Jews’] goal in giving the name ‘Wailing Wall’ to this [Western] Wall is political,” continued Alawneh, speaking on a PA television program called “Jerusalem – History and Culture.”

“The Jewish Zionists had no choice but to invent an excuse [about Jerusalem] to spread among the Zionists or the Jews in Europe, to connect to something concrete from the past about Jerusalem. They made false claims and called the ‘Al-Burak Wall’ the ‘Wailing Wall,” Alawneh said.

His remarks were translated from Arabic by Palestinian Media Watch.

Alawneh was the latest PA-connected official to deny the Jewish historical connection to Jerusalem and the Western Wall, which are intimately tied to Judaism. Islam largely did not consider the area holy or important until the late 19th century.

Mainstream Palestinian leaders claim the Temple Mount and Western Wall are Muslim in spite of overwhelming archaeological evidence documenting the First and Second Jewish Temples.

Last June, WND quoted the chief of staff (link:) of PA President Mahmoud Abbas claiming Jerusalem and the Temple Mount belong to the Muslims. He warned any Israeli action that “offends” the Mount will be answered by 1.5 billion Muslims.

“Jerusalem is Muslim. The blessed Al Aqsa mosque and Harem Al Sharif (Temple Mount) is 100 percent Muslim. The Israelis are playing with fire when they threaten Al Aqsa with digging that is taking place,” said Abbas’ chief of staff Rafiq Al Husseini.

In a WND exclusive interview in March 2007, Taysir Tamimi, chief Palestinian justice and one of the most influential Muslim leaders in Israel, argued the Jewish Temples never existed, the Western Wall really was a tying post for Muhammad’s horse, the Al Aqsa Mosque was built by angels, and Abraham, Moses and Jesus were prophets for Islam.

Tamimi is considered the second most important Palestinian cleric after Muhammad Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

“Israel started since 1967 making archeological digs to show Jewish signs to prove the relationship between Judaism and the city, and they found nothing. There is no Jewish connection to Israel before the Jews invaded in the 1880s,” said Tamimi.

“About these so-called two temples, they never existed, certainly not at the [Temple Mount],” Tamimi said during a sit-down interview in his eastern Jerusalem office.

The Palestinian cleric denied the validity of dozens of digs verified by experts worldwide revealing Jewish artifacts from the First and Second Temples throughout Jerusalem, including on the Temple Mount itself; excavations revealing Jewish homes and a synagogue in a site in Jerusalem called the City of David; or even the recent discovery of a Second Temple Jewish city in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

Tamimi said descriptions of the Jewish Temples in the Hebrew Tanach, in the Talmud and in Byzantine and Roman writings from the Temple periods were forged, and that the Torah was falsified to claim biblical patriarchs and matriarchs were Jewish when they were prophets for Islam.

“All this is not real. We don’t believe in all your versions. Your Torah was falsified. The text as given to the Muslim prophet Moses never mentions Jerusalem. Maybe Jerusalem was mentioned in the rest of the Torah, which was falsified by the Jews,” said Tamimi.

He said Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and Jesus were “prophets for the Israelites sent by Allah as to usher in Islam.”

Asked about the Western Wall, Tamimi said the structure was a tying post for Muhammad’s horse and that it is part of the Al Aqsa Mosque, even though the Wall predates the mosque by more than 1,000 years.

“The Western Wall is the western wall of the Al Aqsa Mosque. It’s where Prophet Muhammad tied his animal which took him from Mecca to Jerusalem to receive the revelations of Allah.”

The Kotel, or Western Wall, is an outer retaining wall of the Temple Mount that survived the destruction of the Second Temple and still stands today in Jerusalem.

Tamimi went on to claim to WND the Al Aqsa Mosque , which has sprung multiple leaks and has had to be repainted several times, was built by angels.

“Al Aqsa was built by the angels 40 years after the building of Al-Haram in Mecca. This we have no doubt is true,” he said.

The First Temple was built by King Solomon in the 10th century B.C. It was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. The Second Temple was rebuilt in 515 B.C. after Jerusalem was freed from Babylonian captivity. That temple was destroyed by the Roman Empire in A.D. 70. Each temple stood for a period of about four centuries.

The Temple was the center of religious worship for ancient Israelites. It housed the Holy of Holies, which contained the Ark of the Covenant and was said to be the area upon which God’s presence dwelt. All biblical holidays centered on worship at the Temple. The Temples served as the primary location for the offering of sacrifices and were the main gathering place for Israelites.

According to the Talmud, the world was created from the foundation stone of the Temple Mount. It’s believed to be the biblical Mount Moriah, the location where Abraham fulfilled God’s test to see if he would be willing to sacrifice his son Isaac.

The Temple Mount has remained a focal point for Jewish services for thousands of years. Prayers for a return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple have been uttered by Jews since the Second Temple was destroyed, according to Jewish tradition.

The Al Aqsa Mosque was constructed in about A.D. 709 to serve as a shrine near another shrine, the Dome of the Rock, which was built by an Islamic caliph. Al Aqsa was meant to mark what Muslims came to believe was the place at which Muhammad, the founder of Islam, ascended to heaven to receive revelations from Allah.

Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran. It is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible 656 times.

Islamic tradition states Muhammad took a journey in a single night on a horse from “a sacred mosque” – believed to be in Mecca in southern Saudi Arabia – to “the farthest mosque” and from a rock there ascended to heaven. The farthest mosque became associated with Jerusalem about 120 years ago.

According to research by Israeli Author Shmuel Berkovits, Islam historically disregarded Jerusalem. Berkovits points out in his new book, “How dreadful is this place!” that Muhammad was said to loathe Jerusalem and what it stood for. He wrote Muhammad made a point of eliminating pagan sites of worship and sanctifying only one place – the Kaaba in Mecca – to signify the unity of God.

As late as the 14th century, Islamic scholar Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya, whose writings influenced the Wahhabi movement in Arabia, ruled that sacred Islamic sites are to be found only in the Arabian Peninsula and that “in Jerusalem, there is not a place one calls sacred, and the same holds true for the tombs of Hebron.”

It wasn’t until the late 19th century – incidentally when Jews started immigrating to Palestine – that some Muslim scholars began claiming Muhammad tied his horse to the Western Wall and associated Muhammad’s purported night journey with the Temple Mount

A guide to the Temple Mount by the Supreme Muslim Council in Jerusalem published in 1925 listed the Mount as Jewish and as the site of Solomon’s Temple. The Temple Institute acquired a copy of the official 1925 “Guide Book to Al-Haram Al-Sharif,” which states on page 4, “Its identity with the site of Solomon’s Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which ‘David built there an altar unto the Lord.'”

Obama’s ”Solutions” Will Endanger Israel

All Julie Pateet and other political "anthropologists" love terrorists israel 67 73 48 borderSay No To A Palestinian State

Daniel Doron, 05.16.09, 03:00 PM EDT

Irving Kristol said that whomever the Gods want to teach humility they first tempt to resolve the Middle East conflict.

Solving this conflict has been so difficult because it has always been misconstrued. As a result of confusion about the conflict’s nature, the solutions that were nevertheless tried, such as the Oslo agreement establishing the Palestinian Authority, or Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, resulted in costly failures. The suffering of Israelis and Palestinian Arabs increased.

The most common approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, held by the well-connected Peace Now camp, holds that the conflict is about nationhood and territory. It blames Israel for the conflict, claiming Israel’s reluctance to fully withdraw its settlements from the West Bank (it did from Gaza) denies the Palestinian Arabs a contiguous territory and enough living space to assert their sovereignty.

This must be why the Obama administration seems to believe that pressuring Israel to immediately accept a Palestinian Arab state and to withdraw to the 1967 boundaries will bring about peace. Obama seems determined to take serious risks to pursue what he believes is a strategic imperative and a moral duty. Indeed, the two-state solution seems like the decent and rational solution to the conflict. But there are many serious doubts about its feasibility.

Advocates of the two-state solution consider themselves political realists. But they always stress the historical and judicial justification for establishing a Palestinian state. They see it as not only politically necessary but an absolute moral imperative, doing justice to a dispossessed people.

But should not the establishment of such a state–which the Europeans so strongly promote–adhere to the European Union’s 1993 Copenhagen Political Criteria for new members, which states, “Membership criteria require that the candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities”?

Clearly a Palestinian Authority state will not even remotely meet such criteria. What moral justification is there, then, for forcing a vulnerable Israel, threatened by an irredentist Palestinian state, to help establish it when a powerful European Union refuses to take much smaller risks in the case of Turkey?

While Israel has impeded the evolution of Palestinian Arab society toward statehood, it is not the major culprit. Until Oslo, relatively free economic interaction between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs resulted in spectacular economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza. This created an informal peace process that greatly improved Arab life and promoted a Palestinian civil society committed to peace.

But external economic setbacks compounded by increasing Israeli bureaucratic oppression reversed this prosperity. Increasing Arab frustration finally exploded in 1987 in a popular uprising that led to the 1993 Oslo accords. The Palestinian Liberation Organization, a terrorist organization, was invited to set up a Palestinian Authority as a preparation for an independent Palestinian state living in peace beside Israel.

But Arafat’s Authority was not interested in living in peace with Israel; it wanted to destroy it. Arafat gladly sacrificed Palestinian welfare, even lives, for this purpose. Ruining the Arab economy and using a totalitarian propaganda campaign to blame Israel for Palestinian misery, Arafat exploited Arab anger to escalate the conflict.

He succeeded because the conflict between the Palestinian Arabs and Israel is only superficially about nationhood and territory. Since the 1948 partition of Palestine, British Mandate Arabs had several opportunities to create an independent state. Jordan and Egypt ruled the area until 1967; recently, they could have done so after Oslo, after the Gaza withdrawal. But they did not, because they were intent on first destroying Israel.

As long as this is so, granting the Palestinian Arabs a state will not result in peace, but in continued war.

As for the historic and legal claims for a Palestinian Arab state, the argument that the Arabs seek the restoration of “stolen Palestinian lands” is sheer fabrication. The area of the former British mandate of Palestine (which included Jordan) was for centuries under the Ottomans an empty, deserted land.

Private rights never amounted to more than 4% of the land; 96% remains to this day mostly arid and government-owned. Palestine, as Mark Twain found it in 1860, was an empty “prince of desolation.” There was not even a Palestinian people–the few inhabitants considered themselves Syrian.

Palestine became a “promised land” again only after Jewish pioneers, in the second half of the nineteenth century, miraculously revived it, making it the most developed land in the region. It was then also that, as a result of their clash with Zionism, the Arabs started identifying themselves as Palestinians. So much for their “stolen” rights.

The claim that “illegal settlements” are an obstacle to peace is absurd too. Jewish settlements occupy less than 4% of the West Bank territory, mostly constructed on deserted government land. The reason the Arabs want them removed (but not Arab settlements in Israel) is that their radical leadership cannot tolerate any Jews living among them. All Arab lands were ethnically cleansed after 1948, forcing more than 1 million Jews to flee countries in which they had lived long before the Muslim occupation.

The Arabs’ struggle to retrieve “stolen Palestinian lands” is really an attempt to get rid of all Jews in the Middle East. The Palestinian Authority maps of Palestine never mark an area as the state of Israel, and their leaders refuse to recognize the Jewish right for a national state.

International law too does not support Arab claims to a state in former Palestine. The last international adjudication of the rights to this territory took place in the post-World War I peace conference in San Remo, Italy. The victors generously granted the vast former Ottoman territories to newly formed Arab states (like Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq). Less than 1% of these vast territories were to be given in trust to the British to establish “a Jewish national home.”

The League of Nations decided that the Jews had a stronger legal claim to Palestine, their historic and national homeland. The Arabs, represented by Emir Faisal, agreed. They were happy to receive huge areas of land for such a small price. Fiasal welcomed the Jews back to their homeland. Only later British colonial machinations incited the Arabs to renege on this fantastic (for them) deal.

The conflict persists because the Arabs, and the Palestinians in particular, cannot forget their 1948 defeat by the Jews. It is a blot on their honor that only the destruction of Israel can wipe out.

But the greatest difficulty in the immediate establishment of a Palestinian Arab state is the unlikelihood that it can be established and maintained right now. It is not by accident that the Arabs missed several opportunities to establish such a state.

The creation of yet another dysfunctional Palestinian Arab state will not only mortally threaten Israel, its irredentist nature will inflame the region. As importantly, it will continue making the personal and communal life of Palestinian Arabs unbearable. Remember what happened in Gaza after Israel vacated it: the wanton destruction of the hot houses Israel left behind to enable the Gazans to make a better living from agriculture; the rule of oppression and mayhem Hamas has instituted in Gaza; the continued impoverishment and immiseration of their hapless citizens. Is this the kind of government America wants extended to the West Bank?

But this will inevitably happen as a result of the premature formation of a Palestinian state. Within a very short time, it will disintegrate and be taken over by the extremist Hamas movement.

As in Gaza, a Hamas West Bank government, an Iranian proxy, will quickly launch missile attacks against Israel. From the West Bank, however, the missiles will not hit a sparsely inhabited Negev but the densely populated heartland of Israel, the greater Tel Aviv metropolitan area. They will hit Israel’s only links to the world, Ben Gurion International Airport and the ports of Haifa and Ashdod.

Eventually Israel will be forced to go to war and re-occupy the West Bank. Such a campaign, as the recent Israeli Gaza operation demonstrated, will involve bloody fighting in densely populated areas, many casualties and great destruction. It won’t spare the civilian population. … This is surely not what the “realists” want, but can they honestly dismiss the probability that this may happen?

Chances that advocates of a Palestinian state will be convinced by such arguments are small. It is hard to dispel faith with facts. President Obama and his advisers seem convinced that they will succeed where others failed.

Israel may have to accede to Obama’s demands. But since there are great risks involved in the two-state solution, it would be fair for Obama to assure Israel that the U.S. will protect it from its serious consequences, should they unexpectedly materialize, as they have in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Daniel Doron is president of the Israel Center for Social and Economic Progess.

READ IT ALL!!!

Islamic States: Religious Freedom Report Does Not Sufficiently Attack Israel

Heretics crusade celebrates May 14 Israeli Independence Day

Heretics crusade celebrates May 14 Israeli Independence Day

Ah yes, Islam, the Fred Phelps of World Religions!

UN Watch – March 12, 2009
During a debate at the U.N. Human Rights Council today, Islamic countries complained that a report on religious freedom did not adequately attack Israel, while daring to criticize Islamic countries. The report was presented by U.N. expert on Freedom of Religion and Belief, Ms. Asma Jahangir of Pakistan.

Palestine was the first to protest the report’s lack of focus on Israel. Referring to Israel as “the occupier,” Palestine exclaimed, “We reject the policy of promoting religious hatred, and we call on Israel to review its policies.” Denying that school books issued by the Palestinian Authority preach hatred, it pointed the finger at the purported bigotry of Israeli school curricula.

Yemen, speaking for the Arab Group, asked why the report did not address “the restrictions on freedom of movement and access to places of worship” for the Palestinian people. It accused Ms. Jahangir of “obvious bias” and “espousing of the Israeli viewpoint in this report.”

Iran and Algeria also spoke vociferously about purported Israeli assaults on Arab Muslim and Christian holy places, including during the recent attack on Gaza. Iran condemned “Israeli discriminatory practices and incitement to hatred.”

Egypt complained that Ms. Jahangir was not responding in a satisfactory manner to these complaints. It aggressively accused her of coming to the session with pre-written speeches that do not address the concerns raised regarding Israel, telling her that if this is the case, it is a waste of time to attend the council. It would be better, Egypt told her, “that you just e-mail us your statement and we will e-mail our reply.”

The debate became especially heated when certain Western countries highlighted the abuses of religious freedom in Muslim countries—some of which were alluded to in Ms. Jahangir’s report.

Canada called upon Iran to release several Baha’i political leaders. The Czech Republic, speaking for the European Union, also noted the plight of the Bahai’s in Iran.

In its “right to reply,” Iran called these allegations “baseless” and a “distortion of reality.”

The United Kingdom inquired about Ms. Jahangir’s pending requests for country visits to Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Burma, and “particularly Iran.” Ms. Jahangir had repeatedly been denied her requests to investigate rights abuses in Iran.

Canada also urged the Egyptian government to issue identification cards to all its citizens.

Members of certain faiths had been denied this right. Without an official identification card, these Egyptians are unable to have a driver’s license, open a bank account, register children for schools, or be admitted to a government hospital.

Egypt interrupted Canada at this point, arguing that this issue is not mentioned in the report, is thus not a legitimate statement, and should be deleted from the meeting record. Canada rightfully responded that its statement was made in the context of paragraphs 58 and 59 of the reports among others, and continued speaking.

Aside from raising issues surrounding religious freedom for specific groups, Ms. Jahangir has also expressed concern about the attempt by Islamic countries to criminalize “defamation of religions,” i.e. impose Islamic anti-blasphemy laws on the international community. In this context, the United States stated its concern about the “undue limitations” of freedoms of expression and belief posed by such provisions.

The Jerry Falwell of Islam Today

Wow! I just finished watching this video from “peace”tv. The intro and “commercials” are rather distrubing but, the main lecture is  by a man who could be considered as close to a moderate as devout Muslims get.

It is a long vid but it is worthwhile to watch the whole thing. This is the Jerry Fallwell of Islam not the Rev. Phelps! Watch it all and consider if there might be a problem to the West.

Bad judges: The lowest of the low

corruption judges eat your children

Too True to be Comfortable

Adam Graycar, of the Rutgers Institute on Corruption Studies, explains that what is really unusual about this tale is the scale of the corruption. First the judges received monetary rewards for sanctioning the building of a new private-sector prison in their area. Second, they were paid for closing a county-funded prison nearby. And, then, of course, they offered up the “juvenile delinquents” for the benefit of the owners of the new jail.

Feb 26th 2009 | NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition

The judges are going to jail, …

EARLIER this month, two judges in Pennsylvania’s Luzerne County admitted sentencing thousands of children to jail in return for kickbacks from a prison-management company. Judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan received a commission for every day they sent a child to private juvenile detention centres run by Pennsylvania Child Care and a sister company. The pay-offs came to $2.6m over seven years.

Hillary Transue, who is 15 and faced Mr Ciavarella without a lawyer, was sentenced to three months because she constructed a fake MySpace page ridiculing the assistant principal at her high school. Her case led to the judges’ downfall; children have a constitutional right to a lawyer, …

This is not really news to me. While living in New Orleans I saw what police and judicial corruption really was. Growing up in Southern California I just wasn’t prepared for what I witnessed. At the time the city sheriff had managed to convert the city jail into an actual “prison”. This meant that people could end up spending up to two years at this facility and the city (read, sheriff) got paid for each prisoner each day. The “prison” had virtually no educational or communal facilities. By all reports tiers of 44 or so inmates with a small common area with benches sat around and talked, played chess or watched a single TV or fought, day after day. Anyone who was arrested an unable to make bail ended up here along with those who could not afford a lawyer. Court appearances will follow after court appearance until they plead guilty to a charge selected by the city. I have seen reports of inmates playing this dance, with the judges in full cooperation, for over a year before finally being released without charge. Not many have that kind of patience and after being sent back a few times will change their plea, receive time served and be released. The amount of tax money wasted on this while actual, violent criminal are released to make room for new warm bodies is stunning. The money New Orleans has made on this atrocity of a “jail” is staggering. IT is a common policy in New Orleans to arrest a poor local or tourist, hold them overnight then release them with no charge after getting “court costs” from them. If you ever visit the deep South in general or New Orleans in particular, NEVER argue with the cops. It just doesn’t pay…..you.

Changing minds by not shutting doors to change

Reforming Moderate Islam Muslims

Let me give an example of how spin does not help our cause. The video Islam:what the West needs to know
This film has loads of wonderful information that is completely accurate. However it seeks to deny that there is an under current of moderates in the Islamic world. They confuse the voices of the leaders and terrorists and ignore the views of the masses of Muslims who go about their lives in peace.

Why have certain blogs almost ignored the story about the Changes the King of Saudi Arabia has introduced? Why won’t they give the moderates they yell at to stand up a chance to get to their feet without partisan criticism?

If you despair of real support for Western Civilization you only need peruse a few months of The Religious Policeman a blog written by an educated Arabian Muslim over a period of four years.

His voice and many others show a strong ferment of free thought and desire for reform in Islam.

How can the moderates stand up and begin reform if we, their supposed supporters, say that Islam is unreformable? Down this path lies total war between West and East. Black and White ideology is what we are fighting AGAINST isn’t it?

It is very important for a Westerner to understand Abrogation and Taqqyia but they also need to understand that morals and decency come from the human heart, not laws or books. People who are not strictly thought policed tend almost universally to react like PEOPLE not soulless robots.

Our goal should be toe remove the disproportionate voice of the Wahabi financed organs of Islam while holding out our hand to all who seek to grow beyond that way of life. The Bible and Torah DO contain horrific elements. It may be argued whether they are as “bad” as the Koran. But what is without doubt is that the chief difference is not in the inherent peacefulness of the oldest scriptures. The chief difference is that Judaism and Christianity have reformed!!!

In the days of the last Temple in Jerusalem the Jews tended to behave in ways that were very similar to Muslims today. But they changed.

In the Middle Ages in Europe you did not have the option most times of disagreeing with the clergy. IF you did you died. But they changed.

The early Protestants could be as nasty as just about any when it came to repression. But they changed.

Today the mainstreams of thought for all major religions but one hold that human brotherhood and connection trumps any verse that denies that concept.

As Hillel said; “Love God and Love your neighbor, all else is commentary”. Few Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Pagan clergy will care to have to refute that doctrine for to do so will render them seemingly callous and “unholy”.

It have been said that a holy man is known in spite of the name of his religion, not because of it. A previous post about Muslims who saved Jews during WWII is a great example of that.

If we are going to hold Islam’s feet to the fire about not accepting the idea of universal brotherhood then we need to stop denying that they are capable of realizing it.

Yes, we will get our hands bitten now and then. But is that reason to become hard of heart? But we need to keep the door open for those who seek to reform their religion.

The film linked above shows a number of Western leaders talking about how we are not at war with Islam and that Islam is a religion of peace. The way I see it that kind of language is not a bad thing if used properly. Turn the idea on it’s head. Over and over and over they are declaring that a Muslim who believes in violence in the name of God is NOT religious. Now I will be the first to oppose censorship regarding who is doing what and WHY they say they are doing it.

Bottom line time. If you can’t recognise ANY step by Muslims toward a better world then you ARE an Islamaphobe and should proudly wear the title. I am not afraid of Islam, I am not afraid of Judaism, I am not afraid of any religion. I am afraid of people who so literally interpret their scripture as to forget that we all are in it together.

So I will link to some things that I hope will serve the cause but I shudder when I think how many people will not be able to un spin the antagonism from the truth.