The grand mufti of Jerusalem, the Muslim cleric in charge of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, said Sunday that there has never been a Jewish temple atop the Temple Mount, and that the site has been home to a mosque “since the creation of the world.”
The grand mufti of Jerusalem, the Muslim cleric in charge of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, said Sunday that there has never been a Jewish temple atop the Temple Mount, and that the site has been home to a mosque “since the creation of the world.”
“This is the Al-Aqsa Mosque that Adam, peace be upon him, or during his time, the angels built,” the mufti said of the 8th-century structure commissioned by Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan.
Hussein has held the post of mufti since 2006; he was appointed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. He has previously endorsed suicide bombings against Israelis.
He vehemently denied that there has ever been a Jewish shrine atop the Temple Mount, despite rich archaeological and textual evidence to the contrary, including from Muslim sources. The 10th-century Muslim historian Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad Shams al-Din al-Muqaddasi wrote in his description of Syria and Palestine that “in Jerusalem is the oratory of David and his gate; here are the wonders of Solomon and his cities,” and that the foundations of the Al-Aqsa Mosque “were laid by David.” (Read more from “Jerusalem Mufti: Temple Mount Never Housed Jewish Temple” HERE)
Family members could be kept alive forever virtually so that living relatives could interact with their avatars, an academic has suggested.
Simon McKeown, a Reader in Animation and Post Production at Teesside University, claims that within 50 years computers will be advanced enough that they can create ‘synthetic digital life’ based upon people’s past movements, preferences and history on social media.
The avatars would be created using a process called ‘photogrammetry’ which can accurately reconstruct a virtual 3D shape of a human being from existing photographs and video. Computer voice synthesis, will take account local and regional accents to deliver a more accurate representation of what they sounded like.
The digital lifeform would also be linked up to social networks and large databases so they would be kept ‘up to date’ with their relative’s activities and could communicate with them about their day.
Mr McKeown has dubbed the idea ‘Preserved Memories’ and claims that people would be able to construct a reality to avoid ever having to say goodbye to loved ones. (Read more from “Family Members Could Be Kept Alive Forever Using Social Media History” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-27 23:51:282016-04-11 10:56:52Family Members Could Be Kept Alive Forever Using Social Media History
By David French. This weekend, Ben Carson did what he does best. He clearly and plainly stated a mainstream conservative view that most Republican politicians dare not utter — in this case, that the debate over abortion is comparable to the debate over slavery. Speaking to NBC’s Chuck Todd, Carson said: “During slavery — and I know that’s one of those words you’re not supposed to say, but I’m saying it — during slavery, a lot of slave owners thought they had the right to do whatever they wanted to that slave, anything that they chose. And what if the abolitionists had said, ‘I don’t believe in slavery, but you guys do whatever you want’? Where would we be?”
Carson’s statement is an entirely mainstream, pro-life view. As my National Review colleague Ian Tuttle wrote in July, the debate over abortion is “every bit as urgent a question of justice, of fidelity to our fundamental tenets” as the debate over slavery. He continued: “In the Civil War, we fought to vindicate every man’s right to liberty. What is at stake in the current conflict is the only right more fundamental: that of life.”
Throughout my entire career, pro-life Americans have made the argument that the moral dimensions of the case for life are similar to the moral dimensions of the case against slavery. In both instances, the abhorrent practice rested on dehumanization: the declaration that black Africans were somehow innately inferior to whites, and the declaration that unborn children are somehow less than fully and completely human.
In other words, while women seeking abortions bear moral responsibility for their actions, that responsibility generally pales in comparison with the moral responsibility of the abortionist. Even worse than a slave-owner, the abortionist is a mass killer who possesses scientific knowledge far superior to all but the tiniest percentage of his or her patients. The abortionist knows the facts about the baby’s distinct DNA. The abortionist knows the gruesome reality of the procedure itself. And by relentlessly fighting against common-sense informed-consent laws, the abortion industry actively seeks to perpetuate ignorance in their targeted population. (Read more from “Ben Carson Is Right to Compare Abortion With Slavery” HERE)
_________________________________
‘The View’ Hates Ben Carson’s Views on Abortion
By Steve Guest. The hosts of “The View” called Ben Carson’s views on abortion “despicable” and pathetic.”
Monday on “The View,” Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Raven-Symone and Michelle Collins criticized Carson’s views on abortion, which he shared on “Meet the Press.”
“If people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby, I’ll listen,” he said.
After the interview clip, Behar said, “What can you say to that, you know? It’s pathetic.”
Collins called Carson’s views “despicable.” (Read more from “‘The View’ Hates Ben Carson’s Views on Abortion” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-27 00:20:352016-04-11 10:56:52Ben Carson Is Right to Compare Abortion With Slavery
Ex-Muslim, now Christian Pastor Umar Mulinde of Kampala, Uganda, was attacked by Muslims, targeted because he had not only left Islam and converted to Christianity, but also was committed to preaching the gospel. On December 24, 2011 he was attacked with acid, which burned half of his face and the back of his head. The attackers screamed “Allahu Akbar” three times before they ran away.
Crying, he tells his story to Tom Trento, of The United West, while still recovering at the Sheba Hospital in Tel Aviv, Israel. He explains he cries because, “he knows he is doing something right;” because “God is mighty.”
Aged 37 at the time, married with six children, Mulinde was born into a Muslim family. His father leads the Muslim community in Kampala and he and his older brother both finished the Da’wah to Islam, specific teaching, training for Islamic “missionaries” a Da’i’, to convert non-Muslims to Islam.
To Americans, Mulinde declares:
“God Almighty has given you grace. Whatever you do in America influences the world. You have that grace. One thing that Islam is doing to defeat you is causing you to be a coward and fearful.”
He admonishes that Americans must,
“Stand up and speak against the invasion of Islamization, which is going on in your country.”
Americans are privileged– and have an imperative opportunity to lead the world in fighting Islam. But they must first realize Islam is their most serious present danger.
(“Warning to America From Ex-Muslim, Pastor Mulinde,” originally published HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-27 00:17:502016-04-11 10:56:53Watch: Warning to America From Ex-Muslim, Pastor Mulinde
[According to Judge Napolitano], the Department of Justice and FBI audience was looking for “perjury, for misleading statements and for what federal law calls ‘bad acts’” [from Hillary Clinton’s Thursday testimony before Congress on Benghazi].
“Perjury is lying under oath. Mrs. Clinton committed perjury when she denied that she knew anything about supplying arms to rebels,” Napolitano said. “Not only did she know about it, she authorized it,” he asserted.
Napolitano noted a New York Times columnist called her the “midwife of chaos” for her “introduction of U.S. military hardware into the hands of gangs in Libya, some of whom were run by known al-Qaida operatives, several of whom murdered Ambassador Stevens.”
[He went on to assert that the] “crime of misleading Congress carries the same penalty as lying to Congress – five years per misleading statement,” Napolitano pointed out. “Her frequent use of double negatives and her professed lack of memory may save her from perjury but not from the charge of misleading – being deceptive. What she plainly revealed is a willingness and natural proclivity to deceive,” he concluded.
“We know she knew the true source of the Benghazi attacks the day they happened, even as she was lying and blaming a cheap video,” he noted. ”The FBI knows how to build a case on ‘bad acts’ – here, persistent deception – and how to use that to trap and indict the perpetrator.” (Read more from “Judge Napolitano: Hillary Clinton Committed Perjury Last Week, FBI Will Pursue Indictment” HERE)
I get why you’re excited about Donald Trump. Like you, I find the prevailing political culture in Washington almost hopelessly corrupt, and I’m outraged at how the Republican establishment keeps trying to push through immigration amnesty without real border security. Like many of you, I consider immigration the most decisive issue that faces us today: Demography is destiny. Flooding our country with poor, less-educated people who will likely skew pro-choice, pro-welfare state and pro-Democrat at the voting booth for decades to come is not just political but national suicide. We are turning our country, state by state (see California) into the kind of poorly governed, statist quagmire that immigrants are understandably fleeing.
Like Trump, I think that the unique greatness of America is not a brute fact of nature, like the Grand Canyon, but something delicate and magnificent, like an heirloom grandfather clock. We have been reckless and careless, and the system just might break down, in our own time or in our children’s. And because of America’s specialness, that would be a tragedy of unthinkable proportions, like the fall of Rome.
I have stood in your shoes. I have supported “insurgent” conservative candidates in the past: I turned out for Pat Buchanan in 1992. In 1995, I joined insurgent Mike Foster in Louisiana — who was still a pro-gun, pro-life Democrat. I pitched his campaign manager the bumper sticker: “Arm the Unborn!” and was promptly hired as Foster’s press secretary. I helped arrange Foster’s cross-endorsement with Pat Buchanan, who carried Louisiana. I was elected an alternate delegate for Buchanan at the GOP convention. I backed Ron Paul in 2008, and Rick Santorum in 2012. I’m the furthest thing from an establishment Republican.
Because I care deeply about the same issues as most Trump voters, I want to ask you to consider whether he is really the GOP candidate most likely to faithfully execute the policies he is promising.
The challenges facing our next conservative president are daunting. On immigration, for instance, securing the border, preventing employers from exploiting illegal workers, and tracking all visitors to the U.S. who (like many of the 9/11 hijackers) overstay their visas — these are all crucial policy reforms. And they make fine campaign talking points. But getting them through Congress will be hard, between all the Democrats dependent on ethnic activists, and those Republicans in tight with the big business/cheap labor lobby. The battle to secure our immigration future will be a long and painful slog through hostile territory, with immense pressure put on the president and individual lawmakers, whom he will have to reach out to and bravely lead.
Is Trump really the man for this job? Even very recently he supported immigration amnesty, criticizing Mitt Romney (!) for taking too tough a line on illegal immigrants.
And this is just one of many issues on which we need our next president to take an unwavering, principled stance. We need to restrict the powers of the U.S. Supreme Court and return the legislative power to those the Constitution gave it to: the people’s duly elected legislators. We must overturn Roe v. Wade and restore legal protection to the most vulnerable Americans. But Trump was publicly “very pro-choice” for most of his career. And even after his politically necessary pro-life “conversion,” Trump let slip his anything-but-conservative preference for Supreme Court justice — his left-wing, judicial activist sister who supports even partial birth abortion.
We also need a president who will roll back the disaster that is Obamacare, but Trump until very recently supported a government takeover of our health system — and even in the first debate couldn’t help himself from praising socialized medicine in other countries. If he can’t even make it through an evening debate without wavering on the issue, how is he going to stand firm for the many months it will take to salvage healthcare from the clutches of Leviathan? Don’t mistake bluntness and brashness for principled commitment.
We also need a president who will stop the federal government’s abusive use of “eminent domain,” the seizure of private property in pursuit of crony capitalist deals between big business and big government. Here, again, Trump’s history is far from reassuring. In his own business endeavors, as Robert Verbruggen put it, “The man has a track record of using the government as a hired thug to take other people’s property.” Verbruggen continued:
A decade and a half ago, it was fresh on everyone’s mind that Donald Trump is one of the leading users of this form of state-sanctioned thievery. It was all over the news. In perhaps the most-remembered example, John Stossel got the toupéed one to sputter about how, if he wasn’t allowed to steal an elderly widow’s house to expand an Atlantic City casino, the government would get less tax money, and seniors like her would get less “this and that.”
Add to this Trump’s well-documented and longstanding chumminess with Democrats such as Al Sharpton and Bill Clinton. (It seems likely that Clinton urged Trump into the race against his wife. Ever wonder why?)
In the light of all these cold, hard facts, it is our duty as faithful citizens to ask whether Trump is really the principled leader who will stand against massive pressure, defend America’s founding ideals and preserve our sovereignty. Or will he turn to the voters shortly after his inauguration and tell them that “some really fabulous people, best in the business” have convinced him of the wisdom of open-arms amnesty, socialized medicine or any of the other leftist policies that he quite recently supported? I ask you, with all respect for your patriotic instincts and your willingness to buck the establishment, to take such questions seriously. (For more from the author of “An Open Letter to Donald Trump Supporters” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-27 00:14:532016-04-11 10:56:53An Open Letter to Donald Trump Supporters
The politically correct Glamour Magazine has reportedly waived the one defining requirement of candidates for its “Woman of the Year” honor—a double X chromosome—in conferring the title for 2015 on crossdresser Bruce Jenner, a move many women are finding insulting.
The magazine is expected to formally announce its choice of Jenner as woman of the year, along with actress Reese Witherspoon, on November 3.
Criticisms are already piling up from women who find the choice of Jenner to be demeaning, and are falling into two main camps. First, out of all the real women in the world, could Glamour not find one worthy of the title of Woman of the Year without needing to fish in the male pool of boys dressing as girls?
Second, what in the world has Jenner done in the past year—other than get a makeover—that qualifies him as a model for achieving woman around the world?
In a stinging commentary, Nicole Russell writes that by choosing Jenner as woman of the year, “Glamour endorses the idea that men are better at being women than we are.” (Read more from “The Person Named Woman of the Year by Magazine Will Outrage You” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-27 00:13:102016-04-11 10:56:53The Person Named Woman of the Year by Glamour Magazine Will Outrage You
Last month, it was a Muslim flight attendant who sued her airline after it suspended her for refusing to serve booze. This month it’s two Muslim truck drivers, except in this case, handling booze — which is forbidden under Islamic law — was pretty much their entire job description.
The pair, Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale, had the backing of the federal government in their religious discrimination lawsuit against their former employer, who rightfully terminated them for refusing to make beer deliveries.
The Washington Examiner notes that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission won $240,000 in damages to the former drivers, both of Somali heritage, who were fired in 2009.
The EEOC said that Star Transport Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated their religious rights by refusing to accommodate their objections to delivering alcoholic beverages.
“EEOC is proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or practices,” EEOC General Counsel David Lopez announced Thursday. “This is fundamental to the American principles of religious freedom and tolerance.”
(Read more from “Feds Go to Bat for Muslim Truckers Fired for Refusing to Do Their Jobs” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-27 00:11:162016-04-11 10:56:54Feds Go to Bat for Muslim Truckers Fired for Refusing to Do Their Jobs
President Obama’s most senior national security advisers have recommended measures that would move U.S. troops closer to the front lines in Iraq and Syria, officials said, a sign of mounting White House dissatisfaction with progress against the Islamic State and a renewed Pentagon push to expand military involvement in long-running conflicts overseas.
The debate over the proposed steps, which would for the first time position a limited number of Special Operations forces on the ground in Syria and put U.S. advisers closer to the firefights in Iraq, comes as Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter presses the military to deliver new options for greater military involvement in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.
The changes would represent a significant escalation of the American role in Iraq and Syria. They still require formal approval from Obama, who could make a decision as soon as this week and could decide not to alter the current course, said U.S. officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions are still ongoing. It’s unclear how many additional troops would be required to implement the changes being considered by the president, but the number for now is likely to be relatively small, these officials said.
The recommendations came at Obama’s request and reflect the president’s and his top advisers’ concern that the battle in Iraq and Syria is largely stalemated and in need of new ideas to generate momentum against Islamic State forces.
The list of options that went to the president was generated by field commanders and vetted by the president’s top national security advisers, including Carter and Secretary of State John F. Kerry, in a series of meetings over the past few weeks. (Read more from “Obama Weighs Moving U.S. Troops Closer to Front Lines in Syria, Iraq” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-27 00:09:552016-04-11 10:56:54Obama Weighs Moving U.S. Troops Closer to Front Lines in Syria, Iraq
The United States on Monday sent a guided-missile destroyer to challenge 12-nautical-mile territorial limits that China claims around artificial islands it built in the South China Sea.
A U.S. defense official said the USS Lassen was nearing Subi and Mischief reefs in the Spratly archipelago, features that were submerged at high tide before China began a massive dredging project to turn them into islands in 2014.
The Lassen would be in the area for several hours in what would be the start of a series of challenges to China’s territorial claims in one of the world’s busiest sea lanes, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Earlier, the official said the ship would likely be accompanied by a U.S. Navy P-8A surveillance plane and possibly P-3 surveillance plane, which have been conducting regular surveillance missions in the region.
The patrols represent the most serious U.S. challenge yet to the 12-nautical-mile territorial limit China claims around the islands and are certain to anger Beijing, which said last month it would “never allow any country” to violate its territorial waters and airspace in the Spratlys. (Read more from “U.S. Navy Destroyer Nears Islands Built by China in South China Sea” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-27 00:08:392016-04-11 10:56:54U.S. Navy Destroyer Nears Islands Built by China in South China Sea
