by Al Benson Jr.
I have followed what I refer to as the "global warming scam" for quite some time now and have seen nothing to convince me that it is not a scam. Most other folks I talk to feel the same way. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern that the whole game is a collectivist fraud designed to make some of the government's friends even more wealthy than they are now as well as restricting our liberties in the name of "environmentalism." And restricting our liberties is a goal deal to the heart of all collectivist types. It's what they live for.
And so the global warming propaganda continues to flow from the mouth of big government, telling us how we have destroyed the environment with our huge "carbon footprints." Their ultimate solution--shut down most of the industry in this country and go back to cooking over campfires and living in caves. Interestingly they never discuss the carbon footprints left by countries like Red China. I know, that's something we are not supposed to talk about and once they have "neutralized" the Internet such discussion will be verboten.
I just find the propaganda to be, not even humorous, but rather ludicrous. I read an article at the end of January that stated that this January had been the second warmest on record. Where? Near the Equator? It surely wasn't warmer in the South and from what I read of other parts of the country it was colder than usual. As I write this, the usual temperature for this time of year in North Louisiana is a little over 60 degrees. Today the temperature here is 29 and we had an ice storm yesterday. It's not supposed to get out of the low 40s all this week.
In fact, its so bad, even the weather services have had to admit that February has been just plain cold this year. AccuWeather.com had an article on the Internet for February 23 in which it stated: "Additional waves of frigid air will continue to flow southward out of Canada and into the central and eastern United States this week, but there are indications the cold will ease up next week...While the air masses moving through this week are not quite as extreme as that of last week, daily record low temperatures will continue to be challenged. Once again, record lows dating as far back as the late 1800s will be on the table...Multiple locations including Boston, New York City, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Chicago are likely to finish the month within the top three coldest Februaries on record. In some cases, temperatures for the remainder of the month may deliver the coldest February on record and could rank as one of the coldest months ever."
Doesn't sound to me like global warming is having much of an effect on the weather in this country. At least not as much as it will have in July! So, with even the weather bureau being forced to admit that this is one of the coldest Februaries on record, you have to wonder how these people in Washington have to gall to keep telling us this has been one of the warmest years on record so far.
If you follow the Yankee/Marxist "logic" flowing out of Sodom on the Potomac you will be forced to conclude that warmer is really colder, that slavery is really freedom, that if we just spend enough money we can spend ourselves into riches, and that war is really peace. And in amongst all of this political malarkey will be buried the fact that, according to Isaiah the prophet in the Scriptures, there are some who call evil good and good evil, some that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. And it occurs to me that what Isaiah described is exactly what is going on right now. Government is telling us that colder is really warmer and that (our) slavery is really freedom--and they hope we are too stupid to know the difference. In fact, their fondest wish is that we are too stupid to know the difference.
And, while global warming is a hot (pardon the pun) topic right now, the thought, hopefully, will occur to some of us that if they have lied to us about this--the what else have they lied to us about?
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Thursday, February 12, 2015
The Crusades, Islam, and Obama's Anti-Americanism
by Al Benson Jr.
By now everyone has heard about our Marxist president's comments at the National Prayer Breakfast where he excoriated Christians for the Crusades which happened 700 years and more ago but he could barely bring himself to find fault with Muslim terrorists today. As usual, the president has done no history homework on this subject, or if he has then he sincerely hopes you don't come up with what he did because that would blow his speech out of the water.
I find it almost incomprehensible that Christians would invite this man to any kind of Christian function. I know he's the president and all that, but his attitude toward Christians and their faith has been exceedingly negative since he took office and though he claims to be a Christian, if you do any research on the church he attends you will be in for a shock. It's practically the Black (Marxist) Liberation capitol of the country, which probably explains why Obama even attends there. To say that it is a place where socialism trumps the Christian faith would be an understatement.
But now that the president has publicly castigated the Crusades (and by implication the Christian faith) it might not hurt to look a little more at the Crusades to see what they were really all about. I recently read a good article by A. J. Delgado which was posted on http://ajdelgadoblog.files.wordpress.com entitled The Crusades are nothing for which to apolotize.
In the article Delgado quotes Professor Thomas F. Madden, a professor of history as well as an author, and a leading authority on the Crusades. Professor Madden observes: "The Crusades are quite possibly the most misunderstood event in European history...The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of a full two-thirds of the Christian world...Despite modern laments about medieval colonialism, the (First Crusade's) real purpose was to turn back Muslim conquests and restore formally Christian lands to Christian control. The entire history of the crusades is one of Western reaction to Muslim advances. The crusades were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy."
And Delgado also quotes Dr. Timothy Furnish, who has a doctorate in Islamic history, and Dr. Furnish notes: "The Crusades, far from being the first time Muslims and Christians fought, were actually merely the first time that Christians, after four centuries of defeats (and lost territory), really fought back." It seems that, if you really get in there and start to read some of the history, provided you can find some accurate history books, that the "peaceful" Muslims were quite a bit like the "peaceful" Communists--whatever "peace" was to be had was required to be on their terms. It was, literally, their way or the highway.
I recently saw a map showing most of the battles the Muslims had fought in Europe and there were literally hundreds of them. If they had not been an expansionist and aggressive religion why would they have been fighting in Europe, the cradle of Christendom? They were fighting there because they sought world domination in the Middle Ages, and they still do. Delgado stated that: "With the fall of Acre, the Crusaders finally went home in 1291 and the "Crusades" as we know them officially ended. But did the Muslims call it a day and keep to their land (they certainly had conquered enough Christian territory), leaving us to ours? Nope! Their campaign of expansion by the sword--what prompted the Crusades in the first place, and even preceded it by centuries--continued into the very heart of Europe." So remind me again who the aggressors were and why I should apologize for the Crusades?" Well, I guess we should apologize for it because Mr. Obama and the politically correct (Marxist) community organizer coterie in this country feels that if we don't we might "offend" the Muslims. Wouldn't that be a pity?
Earlier this week I also read an article by a Robert Spencer entitled Most U.S. Mosques Teach Violence. Mr. Spencer noted that: "Last week came new confirmation that mosques in the U.S. aren't quite holding potluck suppers and teaching civic pieties. A new study has demonstrated that 80% of mosques right in this country are teaching jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism. Researchers Mordechai Keder and David Yerushalmi reported in the Summer of 2011 issue of Middle East Quarterly about a new survey that found that '51% of mosques had texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Sharia-based political order or advocated violent jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance to a Muslim.' Another 30% of mosques in the United States 'had only texts that were moderately supportive of violence,' while only 19% had no violent texts at all." It really makes you wonder what goes on in their Friday afternoon prayer services.
It seems that the more Muslim violence that takes place the more excuses for it we get from the political correct, Cultural Marxist leftists having to do with it. I will admit that the U.S. should have kept its long nose out of the Middle East. Everyone would have been better off. However, I am beginning to think there is more than that involved. In spite of all their protests and the protests of their friends to the contrary, the Muslim theology is one of aggressive expansion and force and they will try to convert you to Islam--with words if they can, with swords if they can't. Such an ideology must be resisted both here and abroad, and if the Christian church is too afraid to speak out against this, they may end up getting the sword.
By now everyone has heard about our Marxist president's comments at the National Prayer Breakfast where he excoriated Christians for the Crusades which happened 700 years and more ago but he could barely bring himself to find fault with Muslim terrorists today. As usual, the president has done no history homework on this subject, or if he has then he sincerely hopes you don't come up with what he did because that would blow his speech out of the water.
I find it almost incomprehensible that Christians would invite this man to any kind of Christian function. I know he's the president and all that, but his attitude toward Christians and their faith has been exceedingly negative since he took office and though he claims to be a Christian, if you do any research on the church he attends you will be in for a shock. It's practically the Black (Marxist) Liberation capitol of the country, which probably explains why Obama even attends there. To say that it is a place where socialism trumps the Christian faith would be an understatement.
But now that the president has publicly castigated the Crusades (and by implication the Christian faith) it might not hurt to look a little more at the Crusades to see what they were really all about. I recently read a good article by A. J. Delgado which was posted on http://ajdelgadoblog.files.wordpress.com entitled The Crusades are nothing for which to apolotize.
In the article Delgado quotes Professor Thomas F. Madden, a professor of history as well as an author, and a leading authority on the Crusades. Professor Madden observes: "The Crusades are quite possibly the most misunderstood event in European history...The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of a full two-thirds of the Christian world...Despite modern laments about medieval colonialism, the (First Crusade's) real purpose was to turn back Muslim conquests and restore formally Christian lands to Christian control. The entire history of the crusades is one of Western reaction to Muslim advances. The crusades were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy."
And Delgado also quotes Dr. Timothy Furnish, who has a doctorate in Islamic history, and Dr. Furnish notes: "The Crusades, far from being the first time Muslims and Christians fought, were actually merely the first time that Christians, after four centuries of defeats (and lost territory), really fought back." It seems that, if you really get in there and start to read some of the history, provided you can find some accurate history books, that the "peaceful" Muslims were quite a bit like the "peaceful" Communists--whatever "peace" was to be had was required to be on their terms. It was, literally, their way or the highway.
I recently saw a map showing most of the battles the Muslims had fought in Europe and there were literally hundreds of them. If they had not been an expansionist and aggressive religion why would they have been fighting in Europe, the cradle of Christendom? They were fighting there because they sought world domination in the Middle Ages, and they still do. Delgado stated that: "With the fall of Acre, the Crusaders finally went home in 1291 and the "Crusades" as we know them officially ended. But did the Muslims call it a day and keep to their land (they certainly had conquered enough Christian territory), leaving us to ours? Nope! Their campaign of expansion by the sword--what prompted the Crusades in the first place, and even preceded it by centuries--continued into the very heart of Europe." So remind me again who the aggressors were and why I should apologize for the Crusades?" Well, I guess we should apologize for it because Mr. Obama and the politically correct (Marxist) community organizer coterie in this country feels that if we don't we might "offend" the Muslims. Wouldn't that be a pity?
Earlier this week I also read an article by a Robert Spencer entitled Most U.S. Mosques Teach Violence. Mr. Spencer noted that: "Last week came new confirmation that mosques in the U.S. aren't quite holding potluck suppers and teaching civic pieties. A new study has demonstrated that 80% of mosques right in this country are teaching jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism. Researchers Mordechai Keder and David Yerushalmi reported in the Summer of 2011 issue of Middle East Quarterly about a new survey that found that '51% of mosques had texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Sharia-based political order or advocated violent jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance to a Muslim.' Another 30% of mosques in the United States 'had only texts that were moderately supportive of violence,' while only 19% had no violent texts at all." It really makes you wonder what goes on in their Friday afternoon prayer services.
It seems that the more Muslim violence that takes place the more excuses for it we get from the political correct, Cultural Marxist leftists having to do with it. I will admit that the U.S. should have kept its long nose out of the Middle East. Everyone would have been better off. However, I am beginning to think there is more than that involved. In spite of all their protests and the protests of their friends to the contrary, the Muslim theology is one of aggressive expansion and force and they will try to convert you to Islam--with words if they can, with swords if they can't. Such an ideology must be resisted both here and abroad, and if the Christian church is too afraid to speak out against this, they may end up getting the sword.
Thursday, February 05, 2015
Jesus, Israel, and the Prophecy Situation
by Al Benson Jr.
Lots of people end up interpreting much of what Jesus said so that it comes out sounding sort of like an "ooey-gooey" love that opposes no one and nothing and just accepts anything and everything in the name of "love." Although God truly is Love, I don't believe that's really what He had in mind. After all, the Scripture does say "Ye that love the Lord, hate evil: (Psalm 97:10).
Jesus' earthly ministry stirred up intense opposition, most of it from the Jewish religious leaders. A reading of the Gospels will verify that. About a year or so ago, as we did family devotions and were going through the Gospels, I was struck by the fact that most of Jesus' opposition came from the religious leaders of Israel and it was vehement and unstinting in most cases. The Pharisees and Sadducees literally hated Jesus. Guess you couldn't say they displayed much love toward Him. But then, He came to uproot their religious establishment and they quickly realized that. If people started listening to Jesus then there was no longer a need for their religious establishment or for them. They couldn't let that happen.
It has been observed that the world doesn't hate sin, but rather it hates righteousness, whether it be the Jewish world or the Gentile world. Therefore, anyone that is truly faithful will face opposition. In fact, the question might be asked--if everyone loves you and there is never any opposition to what you say or do--why isn't there? Could that mean you are not doing anything?
At the time of Jesus' first coming, it has been noted in Matthew, chapter 10, that Jesus had said Israel was "like sheep without a shepherd." At the time of Jesus' ministry Israel had no faithful shepherds to lead them. One can hardly call the Jewish religious leaders that plotted His death faithful shepherds that would lead Israel in the right direction. In fact, the question ought to be asked just where were they leading Israel?
Pastor Steve Wilkins of Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana has commented on the parables that Jesus spoke to Israel and noted: "We often think parables were intended to make the teachings of the kingdom plain and obvious. But Jesus tells His disciples that He teaches in parables to hide the truth (Matt 13:13). In doing this the prophecy of Isaiah 6 is being fulfilled (Matt 13:14-15). In Isaiah 6 God tells Isaiah that He is calling him to give Israel the opportunity of rejecting His word one last time before He brings judgment upon them. Jesus says that the final fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy is going to be brought to pass through Him. The majority of the people and nearly all the teachers and leaders of Israel are just like the people who heard Isaiah. But this time, a final judgment is coming upon Israel, and will soon come in full force upon them in 70 A.D....When God speaks in parables to Israel, judgment is coming. Thus, it is significant that in the middle of these parables, Matthew quotes Psalm 78 (Matt 13:34-35). God has spoken to Israel so many times and yet they refused to listen. Now, He speaks to them one last time through His Son and He speaks in such a way that unless they are willing to hear and search out the meaning--they will not be able to understand. Jesus teaches in parables for the same reason that Nathan spoke to David--to call Israel to repentance, because judgment is coming."
In Matthew 23:37-38 Jesus says: " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."
Jesus gave Israel one last chance at repentance--and they weren't having any--and after that, judgment would come for Israel and her religious system in 70 A.D.
To be continued as the Lord allows.
Lots of people end up interpreting much of what Jesus said so that it comes out sounding sort of like an "ooey-gooey" love that opposes no one and nothing and just accepts anything and everything in the name of "love." Although God truly is Love, I don't believe that's really what He had in mind. After all, the Scripture does say "Ye that love the Lord, hate evil: (Psalm 97:10).
Jesus' earthly ministry stirred up intense opposition, most of it from the Jewish religious leaders. A reading of the Gospels will verify that. About a year or so ago, as we did family devotions and were going through the Gospels, I was struck by the fact that most of Jesus' opposition came from the religious leaders of Israel and it was vehement and unstinting in most cases. The Pharisees and Sadducees literally hated Jesus. Guess you couldn't say they displayed much love toward Him. But then, He came to uproot their religious establishment and they quickly realized that. If people started listening to Jesus then there was no longer a need for their religious establishment or for them. They couldn't let that happen.
It has been observed that the world doesn't hate sin, but rather it hates righteousness, whether it be the Jewish world or the Gentile world. Therefore, anyone that is truly faithful will face opposition. In fact, the question might be asked--if everyone loves you and there is never any opposition to what you say or do--why isn't there? Could that mean you are not doing anything?
At the time of Jesus' first coming, it has been noted in Matthew, chapter 10, that Jesus had said Israel was "like sheep without a shepherd." At the time of Jesus' ministry Israel had no faithful shepherds to lead them. One can hardly call the Jewish religious leaders that plotted His death faithful shepherds that would lead Israel in the right direction. In fact, the question ought to be asked just where were they leading Israel?
Pastor Steve Wilkins of Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana has commented on the parables that Jesus spoke to Israel and noted: "We often think parables were intended to make the teachings of the kingdom plain and obvious. But Jesus tells His disciples that He teaches in parables to hide the truth (Matt 13:13). In doing this the prophecy of Isaiah 6 is being fulfilled (Matt 13:14-15). In Isaiah 6 God tells Isaiah that He is calling him to give Israel the opportunity of rejecting His word one last time before He brings judgment upon them. Jesus says that the final fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy is going to be brought to pass through Him. The majority of the people and nearly all the teachers and leaders of Israel are just like the people who heard Isaiah. But this time, a final judgment is coming upon Israel, and will soon come in full force upon them in 70 A.D....When God speaks in parables to Israel, judgment is coming. Thus, it is significant that in the middle of these parables, Matthew quotes Psalm 78 (Matt 13:34-35). God has spoken to Israel so many times and yet they refused to listen. Now, He speaks to them one last time through His Son and He speaks in such a way that unless they are willing to hear and search out the meaning--they will not be able to understand. Jesus teaches in parables for the same reason that Nathan spoke to David--to call Israel to repentance, because judgment is coming."
In Matthew 23:37-38 Jesus says: " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."
Jesus gave Israel one last chance at repentance--and they weren't having any--and after that, judgment would come for Israel and her religious system in 70 A.D.
To be continued as the Lord allows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)