Archive for February 16th, 2007

Muslims Dig Under Temple Mount, Don’t Want Jews Digging Nearby

Friday, February 16th, 2007

This is what I’ve been saying for the last week or so. The very people (the muslims) who are making such a big stink about restoration work being done to a ramp, have been some of the biggest “offenders” by digging under Temple Mount (without permission).

Jerusalem ( – Amid an ongoing storm over an Israeli archeological excavation near Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, a top Islamic official declared Thursday that all digging in the city should be stopped – but an Israeli archeologist pointed out that the biggest excavation in the entire area has been carried out by Muslims, unauthorized, underneath the Mount itself.

Reacting to an Israeli dig near the Temple Mount, Islamic and Arab leaders have accused Israel of carrying out work that would endanger the Al Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, which is located atop the platform.

The Mount – the location of the biblical Temples – is Judaism’s most revered site, but although Israel maintains overall sovereignty of the area, it allows an Islamic authority, the Waqf, to administer the site.


The IAA says the work is taking place now because archeologists want to recover artifacts before construction begins on a new bridge leading up to the Mughrabi Gate – the only entrance used by non-Muslims to access the Temple Mount. (Muslims use other entrances.) (Ah, I missed this point in my previous post. See my thoughts below. -ed.)


Olmert, who is on an official visit to Turkey, showed Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan photographs of the site, but Erdogan was reportedly not convinced that the excavation would not harm the Islamic site.

Saying Israel has “nothing to hide,” Olmert then agreed to Erdogan’s suggestion that a Turkish technical team be sent to inspect the site.

But Adnan Husseini, director of Waqf, said a visit by a Turkish delegation would not be enough.

Husseini said in a telephone interview the authority that he heads wants to see the area of the dig restored to its former state – with the old ramp leading to the Mount.

Furthermore, he said, all archeological digging in Jerusalem should be halted, because it is destroying the city and making it unstable in the case of another earthquake.

Israeli archeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar of the Hebrew University said it was “cynical” for Husseini to call for all digging in the city to cease, as Muslims themselves have dug extensively beneath the Temple Mount.

In the late 1990s, the Waqf received a permit to open an emergency exit from a subterranean mosque below the Temple Mount. Instead, the Muslim authority carried out a massive building project, creating what has been called the largest mosque in the Middle East, the al-Marwani mosque, located beneath the Mount itself.

During that process, there was no archeological supervision, and tons of dirt containing artifacts from previous generations was dumped, archeologists said at the time. Israel chose not to intervene for fear of setting off a worldwide Islamic backlash, but many experts fear the unauthorized work may have destabilized the platform.

“What is astonishing is that the very same people that are responsible for the destruction of the antiquities are the same people that dare to blame Israel,” Mazar said.

She said the current IAA dig was “very important,” having already yielded items dating back some 3,000 years to the first Jewish Temple period and going through the early Islamic period in the 7th century.

Building the bridge was necessary, Mazar said, because the damaged ramp was structurally unsafe, and it was worthwhile carrying out a proper archeological excavation there beforehand.


Avni took a swipe at the critics and questioned their agenda.

“Unfortunately, and not for the first time, it is very convenient for various entities to connect these professional archaeological activities with the national and political dispute in Jerusalem and to exploit archaeology for their own ends.”

Palestinian and other Arab and Muslims officials have long disputed the existence of a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount.

Now I understand why they don’t want this ramp repaired. It’s only for infidels (all the rest of us who aren’t muslims) anyway. They could care less if we get killed by a collapsing ramp. They don’t want us up there anyway. No ramp, no infidels, QED (using warped muslim cleric logic). So what’s the big deal if a couple of hundred infidels get killed when the ramp collapses. It just saves them (the muslims) the trouble of putting the infidels (the rest of us non-muslims) to death for being infidels in the first place (more warped muslim cleric logic).
Of course, when Temple Mount collapses, because of their ill planned underground “mosques” that have left huge structural voids in the Mount, they will be the first to claim Israel caused it. Think of the massive worldwide riots they will be able to stir up because of that. Who cares about logic and the fact that it was their “mosques” that caused it in the first place. I can already hear the condemnation from the World against Israel.

Original Link.

Activists Warn Christians Targeted Under New ‘Hate Crimes’ Proposal

Friday, February 16th, 2007

Jesus said:
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

-Matthew 5:10-12 (New International Version)

I see this proposed law as a stepping stone to Christian persecution here in the United States.

All courtesy of the concept of federal “hate crimes” legislation, which unless defeated soon could be mandatory in the United States, warns a rising chorus of critics.

“All that matters are the delicate feelings of members of federally protected groups,” said Michael Marcavage, director of “Truth is not allowed as evidence in hate crimes trials. … A homosexual can claim emotional damage from hearing Scripture that describes his lifestyle as an abomination. He can press charges against the pastor or broadcaster who merely reads the Bible in public. The ‘hater’ can be fined thousands of dollars and even imprisoned!”

All this, he noted, to attack incidents that according to the FBI’s 2005 Uniform Crime Report make up on one-fifteenth of 1 percent of all crimes.

The language is in a new proposal pending in Congress, H.R. 254, or the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act. That, according to Rev. Ted Pike, of the National Prayer Network, starts out with a federal police state enforcement of “anti-hate” laws but would, as it has in other parts of the world, “lead inexorably to the end of free speech.”

The plan, proposed by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, is “stealth legislation at its most devious,” Pike has written in a campaign to alert people to the potential problems. He said people respond with, “This bill just wants federal power to prosecute bias-motivated violent crimes in the states – what’s wrong with that?”

“There’s plenty wrong with that!” he said. First, the Constitution does not grant federal government the “police state privilege” of being your local law enforcement. “Unless the government finds evidence of slavery in the states, jury tampering, voter fraud, or crimes involving interstate commerce (where jurisdiction is unclear), the Constitution’s message to the federal government is blunt and emphatic: ‘Butt out of local law enforcement!'”

However, Pike said the authors of the new legislation have been clever, inserting in the proposal assertions that because five states do not have hate laws, the federal government has “no choice” but to “enhance federal enforcement of hate crimes.” That includes new ranks of federal agents to address the “serious national problem” that exists.

Worse yet, there are some key phrases that open doors wide that many people don’t want opened. For example, Pike said, the bill is to “prevent and respond to alleged violations,” meaning “the government does not even have to wait until a hate crime has been committed but may act pre-emptively to ‘prevent’ crime.”

Such cases already have developed in other nations, where the “progressive” effort to “advance” anti-discrimination laws are further down the road, he noted.

Peter LaBarbera, of Americans for Truth, noted that in Canada and France both, legislators have been fined for publicly criticizing homosexuality. Three years ago, a Swedish hate crimes law was used to put Pastor Ake Green, who preached that homosexuality is a sin, in jail for a month.

“And recently, a British couple told how they were denied the chance to adopt because it was determined that their Christian faith might ‘prejudice’ them against a homosexual child put in their care,” LaBarbera added.

Already in the United States, Catholic Charities of Boston halted all adoption operations in the state after being told under Massachusetts’ pro-‘gay’ nondiscrimination law, only agencies that placed children in homosexual-led households would get licensed by the state.

Pike said to get around the U.S. Constitution’s demands for certain circumstances to exist before the federal government can intervene, the legislation blatantly adds the statement that hate crimes actually are “slavery.”

“Violence motivated by bias is a relic of slavery that can constitute badges and incidents of slavery,” the proposal proclaims.

Additionally, Pike notes, another “absurd ruse” is that “hate criminals affect interstate commerce, by terrorizing their victims into traveling across state lines – or not.”

“Considering the pervasive influence of interstate commerce upon our lives, how often can the government meddle in local hate crimes enforcement? Any time,” Pike wrote. “In fact, this ridiculous argument could be used to justify federal intervention in a crime of any kind, since any crime victim might be scared into different spending or traveling choices.”

He said America’s justice system requires proof of physical tangible damage before an arrest, but H.R. 254 changes that. “It seeks to establish a different ‘bias motivation’ justice system, which will be defined in courts by judges, as has happened in Canada.”

“Judges will establish legal precedents – precedents that protect groups such as homosexuals not only from physical bias-motivated violence but also from ‘verbal violence,'” Pike warned. “This will include the ‘hate speech’ of Bible-believing evangelical Christians.

“H.R. 254 thus does more than violate states’ rights in law enforcement. It also leads inexorably to an end of free speech!” he wrote.

The plan, being supported by “the powerful Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith” is the seventh attempt to get such legislation turned into law just since 1998, Pike said. The bill is pending in the House Judiciary Committee, and is a streamlined version of earlier proposals that passed in the U.S. House.

LaBarbera noted that in “post-Christian England,” the government even has set out to prosecute “homophobic” speech.

“It is almost inconceivable that the same country that gave us the rule of law and limited government – and powerfully gifted Christian preachers like George Whitfield who helped shape America – now bows down to the homosexual revolution of organized sin masquerading as ‘civil rights,'” LaBarbera said.

“Is it progress to empower a legal and cultural revolution that criminalizes the common sense idea that society should put the welfare of children first by favoring natural parenting (mom and dad) over an experimental version (dad and male lover) that models perversion to innocent children in their own home?” asked LaBarbera.

He suggested a visit to to hear the testimonies of those who have had first-had experience with so-called “hate crimes” laws. A 75-year-old grandmother describes how she was jailed for testifying about the Bible, in the United States.

“Prime Minister Tony Blair unwittingly cut to the nub of how ‘sexual orientation’ laws inevitably destroy religious freedom when he said that Britain’s ‘gay’-inclusive nondiscrimination laws should not exempt Catholic adoption agencies that refuse, for reasons of faith, to place children in homosexual households:” said LaBarbera.

“There is no place in our society for discrimination. That’s why I support the right of gay couples to apply to adopt like any other couple. And that way there can be no exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies offering public funded services from regulations that prevent discrimination,” Blair had said.

Jackson-Lee’s proposal states that “the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived … sexual orientation … of the victim poses a serious national problem,” and that “disrupts” communities. Since “existing federal law is inadequate” and “such violence affects interstate commerce” and “violence motivated by bias that is a relic of slavery can constitute badges and incidents of slavery,” the thought police plan is needed.

Members who commented on a blog expressed alarm.

“This lays the groundwork for the ‘thought police,'” said “onlymom,” while “curveboy” said, “the implications of such a bill would put dissent of the government under hate speech and (offenders could) be arrested and thrown into detention camps… hate bill legislations needs to be dealt with in a fine line. once crossed there won’t be any freedom of speech….”

In my opinion, the fallacy of “hate crime” laws is that one must know what the accused person was thinking AT THE TIME THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED. With all due respect to law enforcement officials, who I support completely for the difficult job they are called on to do, when did they add mind reading and time travel to their arsenal of crime fighting weapons?
In order to know what a person was thinking, at the time the person committed a supposed “hate crime”, it would be necessary to be reading that person’s mind at the time they were committing the crime.
All kidding aside, I know for a fact that law enforcement does not have those capabilities. Until they do, prosecuting “hate crimes” is pure conjecture and an effort in futility.

Original Link.

Border Agents’ Trial Transcript Shows Judge Ordered Smuggler’s “2nd Delivery of Marijuana” Information Withheld

Friday, February 16th, 2007

This situation just keeps getting smellier and smellier.
There is some good news:
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., has sponsored a resolution (H.R. 563) calling for a congressional pardon for Ramos and Compean, and his office confirmed the resolution already has 82 co-sponsors.
Please take time to contact your representative in support of this resolution. It takes, at most, 10 minutes to leave your congressperson a note on their website, and these notes are treated with the same seriousness of a letter mailed to them. So please, take 10 minutes and write to your congressperson about this issue.

WASHINGTON – Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, the Mexican drug smuggler given immunity to return to the United States and testify against two Border Patrol agents, was involved in smuggling a second load of marijuana into the United States after he was given court protection, records have confirmed.

Newly released transcripts of the trial for Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos have corroborated WND reports that the Mexican illegal alien was involved in the second drug case, this one involving a load of marijuana brought into the U.S. in October 2005.

That followed his grant of immunity by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton in return for his truthful testimony against Compean and Ramos, who now are serving 11 and 12 year prison terms following their convictions that they shot Aldrete-Davila as he was fleeing back into Mexico.

A number of activist organizations have been so outraged by the agents’ predicament for doing what many people believe was no more than their reasonable duties there have been repeated calls to President Bush to issue pardons to the former agents.

As WND also has reported Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., has sponsored a resolution calling for a congressional pardon for Ramos and Compean, and his office confirmed the resolution already has 82 co-sponsors.

The transcripts, which were obtained by WND, include a discussion between the agents’ defense attorney, Mary Stillinger, prosecutor Debra Kanof, and Judge Kathleen Cardone, outside of the presence of the jury.


Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., told WND that the trial transcript now makes clear that “the prime witness against these two Border Patrol agents was involved in another major load of drugs and the prosecution made a conscious decision to keep these facts from the jury.”

At the trial, Cardone ruled that Aldrete-Davila was not on trial. She ruled that no reference about the October 2005 drug offense was to be made to the jury and she sealed all records concerning that offense, despite vigorous defense objections that this information not only violated Aldrete-Davila’s immunity grant, but also went to the heart of the defense argument that Aldrete-Davila’s testimony was not credible.

Rohrabacher expressed continued outrage that Sutton had decided to grant immunity to an admitted drug dealer so he could prosecute two Border Patrol agents who were trying to apprehend him.

“Once Aldrete-Davila was caught a second time,” Rohrabacher told WND, “it unmasks the indefensible nature of the prosecutor’s decision to go after the Border Patrol agents. If the jury is not allowed to know about Aldrete-Davila’s second offense, then Ramos and Compean did not get a fair trial.”

The revelation also “raises questions whether what we’re talking about here is two honest Border Patrol agents who stumbled across a drug cartel operation and are being punished for coming up against the power of the cartel,” Rohrabacher said. “The second drug incident makes clear that Aldrete-Davila’s profession is drug smuggling.”

Rohrabacher was harshly critical of both Sutton and President Bush.

“What Ramos and Compean got was a screw job from day one by the U.S. attorney’s office in order to send a message to all Border Patrol agents,” Rohrabacher told WND. “The message from Sutton was that the President of the United States makes policy on the border, so don’t get in the way. If you haven’t gotten the message yet, this is an open border.”

He said Sutton was running a “public relations campaign,” and charged that Sutton’s purpose has been to “poison the well of public opinion, calling Ramos and Compean corrupt, when there never were any corruption charges, then suggesting they shot an unarmed man in the back, when we only have (the) drug dealer’s word he was unarmed and the medical evidence is that he was not shot in the back.”

“In the Ramos-Compean case we have lie after lie after lie coming out of Sutton’s office. And now we’ve got a public relations campaign to protect Sutton because he is a protégé of the president and the president doesn’t want to see his career destroyed,” the congressman told WND.

Original Link.

Philadelphia 11 Appeal Free Speech Limits

Friday, February 16th, 2007

Is it time to roll out the term “Christophobia” and “Christophobe” yet? I think the time is very near indeed.

A notice of appeal has been filed with the 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals over actions by city officials in Philadephia who not only refused to protect the speech rights of 11 Christians at a public homosexual festival, but arrested them for quoting the Bible and speaking against the behavior.

The Alliance Defense Fund said it is appealing a judge’s Jan. 19 dismissal of the group’s federal court lawsuit against the city officials.

“Speech cannot be silenced simply because another person or group does not agree with it,” said Ted Hoppe, an attorney allied with the ADF. “City officials must be held accountable for their decision to violate the First Amendment rights of Christians who wanted nothing more than to engage in peaceful assembly on a public street.”

Members of the “Philadelphia 11” as the group has become known were arrested Oct. 10, 2004, after quoting the Bible and expressing their views against homosexual behavior on a public street during “OutFest,” a publicly funded celebration of homosexual choices.

They were jailed overnight in the case, but a judge later dismissed any criminal counts as having no basis in fact. The individuals then filed the damage lawsuit against the city.

“City officials must be held accountable for their decision to censor those who disagree with homosexual behavior,” Hoppe said. “All citizens are permitted by the Constitution to express their beliefs on a public street during a publicly funded event without fear of arrest.”

As WND has just reported, one of the members of the Philadelphia 11 is Repent America director Michael Marcavage, who said the precedent set by the dismissal would allow police to arrest anyone at any public gathering simply because they would have what the judge calls “a contrary message.”

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Stengel had concluded in dismissing the civil rights claim that a “permit” granted by the city to the homosexuals allowed police to silence the Christian activists’ message on public streets.

“It is without question that Judge Stengel’s decision has set a precedent to eliminate the First Amendment rights of others by citing that a ‘permitting scheme’ can be used by police and event organizers to ‘exclude persons expressing contrary messages’ in public areas and at public events,” Marcavage said.

Rev. Ted Pike, of the National Prayer Network, said the dismissal of the civil rights complaint means that “the Philly 11 were wrong in exercising free speech in what had become a no-free speech zone.”

He said the federal plan “would eventually allow government ‘thought police’ to push aside states’ rights in law enforcement. Such laws would allow federal indictment of Christian ‘haters’ in every state of the Union…”

“It would become a federal crime … to show bias against protected groups [including] homosexuals. However, deviant groups such as witches, Satanists, pedophiles, abortionists, and even ‘sinners’ could quickly catch a ride on the bandwagon of federal protection from the ‘hate’ of biblically oriented criticism,” he said.

The decision by Stengel granted summary judgment to the city of Philadelphia and “Philly Pride Presents, Inc.”

The judge couldn’t escape the facts that “the activity in question took place in a public forum,” and “there is no doubt that the venue for OutFest, a designated section of streets and sidewalks of Philadelphia, was a public place,” but despite that he found that through the permit OutFest “was empowered to enforce the permit by excluding persons expressing contrary messages.”

Original Link.