Our two political commentators have been watching all these media people that have howled about leaving the country if Trump was elected president. They have a couple questions for the folks doing the howling which I think are fair questions. Just don't hold your breath waiting for answers.
Al Benson Jr.
If you are still here then maybe we should boycott you
by Schwartz & Viscount
One thing we have noticed since just before the recent presidential election is the amazing number of Hollywood "personalities" that claimed that if Donald Trump was elected president they were moving to another country. It sounded so dramatic when you all said it that we have wondered, since the election is now over and Mr. Trump won, just how many of you have left? We have seen nothing in the "news" media anywhere about any of you having departed the scene, and our intrepid "news" media would definitely have taken note of any of you that left for parts unknown, just to give you credit for fulfilling your threat.
That being the case, the question arises--Why are you all still here? Why have you not booked passage for one of the socialist utopias you all profess to love so much and that you claim are so much better than this country with Trump as president?
We are left with the conclusion that you never really intended to leave to start with--that your braggadocio was just your painless way of expressing your contempt for Mr. Trump because, in your narrow perception, you viewed him as some sort of a "right-winger" and you wanted to issue a political statement that sounded good but really didn't cost you anything. In other words, to put it politely you are a bunch of frauds! But, then, from the political and cultural Left, we would expect nothing else. Bombast and fraud!
You have the good life here and don't really plan on giving it up and moving to someplace less comfortable no matter the pompous statements you issue to the contrary. No wonder some of you do so well in the movies. You are all just actors playing parts--on the screen or off.
So it seems that the vast majority of you, instead of buying plane tickets to Hanoi or Peking, have decided to stay here and content yourselves with issuing incendiary statements.
We have heard about comments from Gloria Steinham, the supposed Women's Rights advocate and Abortion Promoter, along with Exhibitionist "Madonna" and so-called performer of "Burlesque-like" performances, both of which have degraded decency in this country, all in the name of women's choice. Madonna uttered, among other remarks, some about "blowing up the White House. The comments of these people are among the more bizarre and ridiculous uncivil statements of many entertainers.
Well, here are our thoughts about such low class and Un-Christian behavior. We think it's a good idea to Boycott them and all those with similar attitudes. Let's see what would happen if conservatives and Christians (and their friends) completely boycott all of their movies, videos, recordings and performances to the fullest extent. Actually these people and their lowbrow, nearly pornographic behaviors play right into the hands of those Muslims who are offended by their displays of indecency and may even contribute to the inexcusable and outright flagrant public group raping of women "in the name of Allah, and ridiculous Jihad and Sharia-like rights."
And this is not just hearsay. It has been happening all over the world, due to basic indecency and immodesty, which is part of the reason Muslims claim to have no respect for Americans, especially women.
Furthermore, the utter stupidity of most American TV "sitcoms" make people all around the world think that ALL Americans are "stupid fools" just like those they see on American networkds. There is some programming out there that required intelligence, but such programs are few and far between.
There are rumors that a Trump administration might be considering slashing federal funding to entities like National Public Radio and others that take federal funds. That might not be a bad idea, because it is a known fact that "he who pays the piper calls the tune." That might be a big step in getting the federal government out of the propaganda business.
There is also information out there on several websites about the Chinese Communists buying up movie studios in Hollywood. One of the best articles was on http://www.thenewamerican.com for November 3, 2016. There is another good one on http://www.judicialwatch.org for the same date. And if you are interested in Leftist influence on television we would recommend a book that came out several years ago called The Left Leaning Antenna. You might check and see if you can still find it on Amazon.
Showing posts with label Jihad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jihad. Show all posts
Saturday, January 28, 2017
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)