by Daniel Benson
Immigration was once a wonderful thing. Nowadays, though, to come to America has become a tool to downgrade our culture and lifestyle and to make us the minority. Immigration was how we all got to America in the first place and I have no issues with legal immigration. It's the illegals that bother me because rules don't mean anything to them. When legal immigrants come here they come for a safer lifestyle and a better chance to work to feed their families, and a better chance to be free. But illegal immigrants today account for more violent crimes than legal ones ever will.
Legal immigration can be done in two ways. They come here looking for a new chance, or the federal government brings them in here to place somewhere. That's not the most ideal situation. Take a good long look at Minnesota, where the government placed 10,000 Muslin (supposed) refugees and then gave them money (ours) to start a life over. Well, they've multiplied, and now they want Sharia law in Minnesota, the very thing they were running from, supposedly. Guessing you didn't see that coming with the forced immigration of these wonderful new "American citizens." Did other states get that many of them? I'm guessing 4-5 other states got clobbered like that, but don't know for sure.
Most of the Mexicans I know are friendly and family-oriented. I have no issues with these people. It's the drug cartel people we could all do without. They are the violent ones who don't care about our laws. They come here and infiltrate our society how often? If we don't uphold our values and traditions they will happily trod all over you and me. They don't believe in our way of life, so if they trample it, does it matter to them? Not really.
Slowly the American dream is slipping away. Big government has its fingers into so many countries that don't agree with us and our way of thought that they can bring lots of them over here from there and our understanding of America will be gone forever.
Central American countries send people here constantly. They have what for governments in most of these places? Your first guess doesn't count. So between the Middle East and Central America, how many have come here--legally or otherwise? No wall keeps people out forever. But a wall keeps us in. Immigration laws will have to change or Mexico will slowly move back into our territory and what will a war of attrition like that do to us?
In closing, I'm guessing that a fair number reading this might really have some small inkling as to what's going on. But it's the ones that won't bother reading this that need to. Will you share it with those you know or will you "hide it beneath a bushel?" I'm guessing too many will hide it. If so, then too bad America won't be a free country long enough for your grandkids to taste the freedom you had--and wouldn't defend.
Showing posts with label Muslim Expansionism yesterday and today. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslim Expansionism yesterday and today. Show all posts
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Monday, October 02, 2017
A "Civil War" To Commemorate 100 Years Of Communism?
by Al Benson Jr.
Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America
October of 2017 is now upon us, with a rather fiery beginning in Las Vegas, Nevada, which we will comment on below. This is a very special time for Communists around the world. It is the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution. It is often referred to as Red October. This was the Bolshevik Revolution led by Lenin. Wikipedia says it was "...instrumental in the large Russian Revolution of 1917. It took place with an armed insurrection in Petrograd on the 25th of October (7 November, New Style) 1917." I don't want to go into the whole bloody scenario except to note that the Communists have always been very "date conscious" when it came to big anniversaries such as this. If you all remember, we were treated to the first official celebration of Earth Day on the 100th anniversary of Lenin's birth. This was hardly a coincidence!
So what will we have for the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution? Las Vegas just may be a sneak preview.
How about Antifa giving us a "civil war" in the United States?
If you follow some of this stuff like I do, you have been getting all manner of reports about the Las Vegas shooting this morning. The shooter(s) opened fire on concert goers at a Country Music concert--folks who are probably pretty much traditional Americans, and therefore, automatically enemies to Antifa and the Communists both.
It was originally reported by the mainstream media that the shooter had committed suicide. I've seen other reports that say an FBI rescue team killed him after he opened fire on them. I have also seen sketchy reports of a possible second shooter. I'd be willing to bet that if there was one that will be the last you hear about him. There was one fairly good article on www.independent.co.uk ISIS has also claimed responsibility for the shooting and it has also been claimed that the shooter "converted to Islam several months ago" and therefore, was "a soldier of the Islamic State." We will just have to keep our eye on this and be discerning enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, because with the mainstream media out there, you are guaranteed to get lots and lots of chaff--along with the calls for more gun control.
Doug Hagmann put out some commentary about a possible civil war in his Northeast Intelligence Network on August 31, 2017. He mentioned his first contact with a DHS "whistleblower" on May 25th, 2012. It was documented on his site and others as well, including the Canada Free Press. Mr. Hagmann said: "On that occasion, this source stated that 'DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States. He then corrected himself, stating that a civil war is the more appropriate term. Certain elements of the government are not only expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it. That was several months before the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama, the man of questionable origins, dubious bona fides and an inherent, visceral hatred for everything that made America a once-great nation.Obama had to win re-election to complete his task of destroying our Representative Republic. He was handily re-elected without much viable opposition, giving him additional time to complete his duties as the front man for his Globalist puppet masters." Do you begin to see now why they could not afford to let Ron Paul win in 2012? He noted that "plans, tactics and timetables change, but the objectives of the Globalists don't."
What threw the Globalist plot out of whack in 2016 was the election of Donald Trump. Hillary was supposed to win--and complete what Obama had started--the proverbial stake through the heart--which means that even the One World Government crowd isn't always able to get it right and so they have to go back and retrench. They have done that with their ongoing attacks on Trump.
But there is a lesson there for us--the Globalists are not God--although they would like to be. Ultimately God calls the shots, not them. That's not to say they will quit in their quest for god-hood. If plan A doesn't work out they just move on to plan B.
Mr. Hagmann has observed: "Obama's 'fundamental transformation' although momentarily interrupted by the victory of Donald Trump, will be facilitated by an armed resistance aided by holdovers inside government loyal to Obama, Clinton and the Globalist cause." Do you begin to see now why Obama had to come back and live in Washington, two miles from the White House, after his lengthy "vacation?" The Obama holdovers in government plan on hanging around as long as possible and it is beginning to look more and more like Jeff Sessions has no intention or plans for getting rid of them? I wonder why? I won't venture an opinion here, but I've got one.
So, a couple more questions: Will Antifa begin a "civil war" in this country, possibly sometime in October, to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution? Have they already begun it in Las Vegas? Why would they do this? How about as a "response" to some kind of false flag attack, supposedly committed by "right-wing groups?" This could well be the rationale they present to the world, as they reach for "victim status" to justify what they are going to do.
This is nothing more than the next installment of the same old "pressure from above and pressure from below" scam that has been used on us so often in the past. Doug Hagmann has thought some of this might start around the middle of October, but in light of Las Vegas you have to wonder if Antifa and the Communists were just too impatient to wait that long. Keep your eyes open--and your powder dry. You are going to see lots more of Red October!
Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America
October of 2017 is now upon us, with a rather fiery beginning in Las Vegas, Nevada, which we will comment on below. This is a very special time for Communists around the world. It is the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution. It is often referred to as Red October. This was the Bolshevik Revolution led by Lenin. Wikipedia says it was "...instrumental in the large Russian Revolution of 1917. It took place with an armed insurrection in Petrograd on the 25th of October (7 November, New Style) 1917." I don't want to go into the whole bloody scenario except to note that the Communists have always been very "date conscious" when it came to big anniversaries such as this. If you all remember, we were treated to the first official celebration of Earth Day on the 100th anniversary of Lenin's birth. This was hardly a coincidence!
So what will we have for the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution? Las Vegas just may be a sneak preview.
How about Antifa giving us a "civil war" in the United States?
If you follow some of this stuff like I do, you have been getting all manner of reports about the Las Vegas shooting this morning. The shooter(s) opened fire on concert goers at a Country Music concert--folks who are probably pretty much traditional Americans, and therefore, automatically enemies to Antifa and the Communists both.
It was originally reported by the mainstream media that the shooter had committed suicide. I've seen other reports that say an FBI rescue team killed him after he opened fire on them. I have also seen sketchy reports of a possible second shooter. I'd be willing to bet that if there was one that will be the last you hear about him. There was one fairly good article on www.independent.co.uk ISIS has also claimed responsibility for the shooting and it has also been claimed that the shooter "converted to Islam several months ago" and therefore, was "a soldier of the Islamic State." We will just have to keep our eye on this and be discerning enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, because with the mainstream media out there, you are guaranteed to get lots and lots of chaff--along with the calls for more gun control.
Doug Hagmann put out some commentary about a possible civil war in his Northeast Intelligence Network on August 31, 2017. He mentioned his first contact with a DHS "whistleblower" on May 25th, 2012. It was documented on his site and others as well, including the Canada Free Press. Mr. Hagmann said: "On that occasion, this source stated that 'DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States. He then corrected himself, stating that a civil war is the more appropriate term. Certain elements of the government are not only expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it. That was several months before the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama, the man of questionable origins, dubious bona fides and an inherent, visceral hatred for everything that made America a once-great nation.Obama had to win re-election to complete his task of destroying our Representative Republic. He was handily re-elected without much viable opposition, giving him additional time to complete his duties as the front man for his Globalist puppet masters." Do you begin to see now why they could not afford to let Ron Paul win in 2012? He noted that "plans, tactics and timetables change, but the objectives of the Globalists don't."
What threw the Globalist plot out of whack in 2016 was the election of Donald Trump. Hillary was supposed to win--and complete what Obama had started--the proverbial stake through the heart--which means that even the One World Government crowd isn't always able to get it right and so they have to go back and retrench. They have done that with their ongoing attacks on Trump.
But there is a lesson there for us--the Globalists are not God--although they would like to be. Ultimately God calls the shots, not them. That's not to say they will quit in their quest for god-hood. If plan A doesn't work out they just move on to plan B.
Mr. Hagmann has observed: "Obama's 'fundamental transformation' although momentarily interrupted by the victory of Donald Trump, will be facilitated by an armed resistance aided by holdovers inside government loyal to Obama, Clinton and the Globalist cause." Do you begin to see now why Obama had to come back and live in Washington, two miles from the White House, after his lengthy "vacation?" The Obama holdovers in government plan on hanging around as long as possible and it is beginning to look more and more like Jeff Sessions has no intention or plans for getting rid of them? I wonder why? I won't venture an opinion here, but I've got one.
So, a couple more questions: Will Antifa begin a "civil war" in this country, possibly sometime in October, to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution? Have they already begun it in Las Vegas? Why would they do this? How about as a "response" to some kind of false flag attack, supposedly committed by "right-wing groups?" This could well be the rationale they present to the world, as they reach for "victim status" to justify what they are going to do.
This is nothing more than the next installment of the same old "pressure from above and pressure from below" scam that has been used on us so often in the past. Doug Hagmann has thought some of this might start around the middle of October, but in light of Las Vegas you have to wonder if Antifa and the Communists were just too impatient to wait that long. Keep your eyes open--and your powder dry. You are going to see lots more of Red October!
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)