Sunday, December 27, 2015

MOOCHELLE GORED











=====================================================================
More fact than theory, but as usual the government overlooks one glaring fact. You can’t replace the tax revenue generated by millions of machinists, autoworkers, and skilled laborers with that produced by busboys, lawn care workers and Quickie Mart clerks.

JAS says:
December 23, 2015 at 8:13 am
Government borrowing explained in 15 points or,
Government Borrowing for Dummies (like me). If I’m wrong please correct me. 
Government has no “inherent” right to taxation and no “inherent” right to borrow.
Government borrowing is done every year that the government spends more money than it collects in taxes.
Government borrowing is a promise to pay the borrowers principal and interest from the proceeds of future taxation.
“The deficit” is the negative difference between income and spending every year. No deficit with no surplus only means that they spent everything taxed – that year.
Who does the government borrow from? 1/3 is borrowed from itself, which is still from us (ex., surplus social security funds), 1/4 from foreign nations, the rest from the public at large (all approximate).
The government has been borrowing almost every year for a long time.
Every year that the government borrows without paying its matured debt obligations, it must keep paying interest on said matured debt, and also on the new debt.
From the previous sentence it is obvious that the both debt and interest payments increase over time in a snowball effect.
In 2014 the government collected 3.02 trillion in taxes, and it still borrowed money.
In 2015 government debt (it’s ours through taxation) surpassed 18 trillion.
In 2014 the government’s interest payments were 431 billion.
Total interest paid on the debt now exceeds total “corporate” taxation. Corporations are being taxed to the hilt and more and more are fleeing the country, leaving individual taxpayers the lion’s share of the debt.
The debt (tax) burden for every single American is now 18,000,000,000.000 / 320,000,000 = $56,250.
If all the borrowing stopped today, and the government (we) were able to pay back $500,000,000,000 (500 billion) every year (including interest), it would take more than 50 years to pay all of it back (didn’t do the interest math on that).
Therefore, government has borrowed on future taxation, not only from our children, but also from our grandchildren and great grandchildren. This unless one of two things happen, much higher tax rates and/or much more taxable income, assuming of course zero borrowing.
Our questions to every politician should be: How are we going to pay the debt?, and How long is it going to take? They wont answer you.
If you owed 180,000 and you made 30,000/yr, would a bank lend you money?
And finally a wild theory of mine. Why all the push for more immigration? Maybe, it’s because American born citizens are reaching retirement age in greater and greater numbers, and the powers that be have decided that a larger population is needed in the hope for larger tax revenues so that they can perpetuate a Ponzi scheme.







Published on December 17, 2015

Michelle Obama Ticks Off Marine…So He RIPS Her to Shreds In Must Read Letter


This is what happens when Michelle Obama ticks off a Marine so much that he decides to respond.
This letter is brutal and filled with hard truth…not to mention, it also echoes what so many of those who love our country feel about MO and BHO.
Mrs. Obama,
It sickens me that I have to take time to write you this letter. I am a Marine who doesn’t recognize color because every color has lived and died for you. You live in a free country to blame your life on the color of another man’s skin. All colors have given their lives for an educated woman to have the freedom to be so ignorant. I don’t blame black people for the ignorance that comes from your mouth.
I love all colors because I love all that God creates. I don’t have to like you to love you because we can’t always like the ones we love. Just because I don’t like you today doesn’t mean I can’t like you tomorrow. I don’t like you or your husband today because of what you’re doing to this country. Isn’t it funny how the truth always reveals itself in time. You and your husband never showed this side of yourselves in 2008 before he was elected.
You both live better than 99% of the people in this world because of this country. You said that you are for the first time proud to be an American. Well, I will tell you that most of us are ashamed of you. You and your husband have become millionaires off the people of this country, but demonstrate very little appreciation for all that we give. White, black, brown or indifferent millions have fought and died for you to have the freedom to say the ignorant things you say.
You are educated, but clearly have very little common sense. You blame past generations of Americans for the troubles of a few. Stop blaming white people for your misery and take a look at yourself in the mirror. We are responsible for our own happiness and misery. The KKK is ignorance wrapped in a sheet while the Black panthers are raised on ignorance and hate. No different from the teaching of Islam thinking their race is better than all other men.
God is love and creates every color to include everyone’s skin. To truly love God is to love all that He loves. For that I love each of you and pray that we all start taking responsibility for our own damned sins.
Martin Luther King had a dream that we would all live in the promise land. He is not remembered for being black. He is remembered for the love, and character he had within his heart. If you don’t like this country get on that plane and never come back. I will stay here and love all Americans, regardless of skin. I will love the beauty of what God created and stand tall with my American friends. Not because of their color but for the character and love they carry within. This country doesn’t owe you anymore than it owes me.
So many have thanked me for my service and I will always be grateful. I pray that one day you and your husband might cause me to be grateful for yours. You will never be remembered as the First Lady of Color but soon forgotten after you leave the White House. You nor your husband shall ever divide us. I wish you no harm, but pray you will take your troubles to a land you no longer hate. Hate shall come and go but His love shall last forever. (Source)



Tuesday, December 22, 2015

ERECTION KILLER






======================================

New Orleans Erasing History, Confederate Monuments Are Officially Coming Down…

Lee Circle
Hasn’t ISIS been ripping down monuments declaring them heretical?
The New Orleans City Council voted 6-1 today to remove four historical monuments in the city: Robert E Lee Circle, PGT Beauregard’s City Park statue, the Jefferson Davis monument and the Liberty Place monument.
Mayor Mitch Landrieu first requested the proposal back in June after the AME Charleson Church shooting. At the time, Landrieu said he wanted to hold a “60-day discussion period” so that residents could converse about the four monuments on the chopping block.
Though, the Hayride exclusively reported how the Landrieu administration knew that they had the votes to remove all four monuments before even proposing the idea. Also, the Mayor’s administration apparently has been looking into warehouse spaces and construction companies to remove the monuments since August, even though the “60-day discussion period” was not over.
Councilman Jared Brossett compared the monuments to the “Berlin wall,” while Councilwoman Susan Guidry said she and others were “justifiably offended” by the monuments.
Councilwoman Latoya Cantrell and Councilwoman Stacy Head, however, felt differently. Cantrell said she felt “disrespected” by Landrieu for proposing the idea with no input from residents or the City Council.
Councilman Jason Williams, though, said that other council-members should not be “too upset” with the Landrieu administration for bringing up the issue.
Cantrell also took a major issue with the fact that Landrieu suddenly got an anonymous donor to pay for the removal of the monuments. Cantrell said she and the residents of New Orleans deserved to know who was behind removal of the monuments.
The Hayride exclusively reported months ago that the anonymous donor was Democrat-funder John Cummings, however Cummings denied being the anonymous donor.
Head, the only ‘no’ vote on the monuments issue, said removing the monuments will do nothing for the city, saying that she asked for a compromise, but that compromise was not “given any chance.”
Last month, Head confirmed exclusive Hayride reports which found that the Landrieu administration had been looking into construction companies and warehouse spaces for months now.
Cantrell also confirmed last week that she was actually against removal of monuments because she felt as though the Landrieu administration had rammed the process through the city, taking no input from historians or residents.

I still don't understand why people can't research history and understand it for what it was.  The south didn't invent slavery.  Nor was the war started over slavery. Read the Emancipation Proclamation.  It specifically freed only slaves that were held in the south, while allowing slavery to remain in the north. If slavery were truly the issue, why did Lincoln not free all slaves?  The north had far more slaves than the south had. Yet somehow we've allowed ourselves to believe over the years the confederacy was responsible for slavery.

MWS

From: Victor Abraham
There were some things about the confederacy that was noble...slavery was not one of them...States Rights was.
I personally would not fly the CSA flag but, I see nothing wrong with others flying it.  The left truly are the intolerant ones.
From: Lorra of Pantherville 
The rewriting of history continues...This is wrong on so many levels.  The people doing this are no better then the Islamist's who are blowing up historical sites.   What a shame. All these confederate sites could just as well be thought of as how far we have progressed as humans. Instead, they are being AH's bu showing how far we are declining as humans. Truly as joke on this once great country.   Those who refuse to learn from history....

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
― George Orwell


WalkingHorse
It is passing strange that if a precious snowflake sees a Confederate flag, it is grounds for expunging all vestiges of the Confederacy from the public square, everywhere. Meanwhile, if a couple of Islamists kill 14 people and injure over a score more, we must counsel people against a "muslim backlash".
"To be wrong, and to be carefully wrong, that is the definition of decadence."
-- G.K. Chesterton
NavyGal
And the removal of Confederate battle flags and other monuments has done absolutely nothing to quell the racially-motivated violence. All this does is encourage the race-baiters and thugs to demand more and more. It's like giving in to a three-year-old's temper tantrum where the kid learns what he or she needs to do to get his or her own way and the parent loses control and may never get it back.

Lar of Galen...I should probably give my little treatise about the political, economic, and principled reasons for most Southerners supporting the Confederacy, but I’ll stick to the current issue as best I can.  And as Victor says, slavery moots the good things the South stood for. But there were more men of honor on the South’s side than on the North’s.  Our late pastor theorized that some of the great Christian men like “Stonewall” Jackson had to die before God could allow the South to fall.  It would be one explanation for why the South won all the major engagements up until Gettysburg, which is the first big battle after Jackson’s death. 
    I think it is harmful to try to erase or ignore any aspect of history, and wrong to dishonor good men even if their side was not entirely in the right.  I could probably fly the official flag of the CSA without causing a ripple because most people only know the Battle Flag (“Southern Cross”), which was originally a naval ensign but adopted by land forces because of the confusion the “Stars and Bars” caused in battle.
Image result for stars and bars                        Image result for southern cross battle flag               
       
Stars and bars                                        Southern Cross
    I don’t believe any man deserves to be deified, but if there were ever any truly pure men of honor in US history, I’d venture they would be George Washington and Robert E. Lee.  Lee was a brevetted Colonel (a LtCol temporarily promoted to fill a Col’s position) in the US Army stationed in Texas, and when we seceded, all Federal troops were ordered out of the state.  When he got to the railroad station in Galveston, the teamsters there refused to place the “blue belly’s” 200+ pound trunk onto the train. This forced him to abandon his personal belongings, which disappeared from history.  When he reported to Supreme HQ in DC, he was offered command of the entire Union Army, meaning he would be promoted over scores of senior officers!  He declined, knowing that Virginia would probably secede soon, and he said he couldn’t lead troops against “my country”. It was pointed out that staying in the army at his current rank would only reduce the number of men under his command, but not prevent him from having to fight fellow Virginians.  He therefore resigned his commission, and retired to manage his wife’s estate.  He was pressed to accept a commission as a Brigadier (one star) General in the Confederacy because of his experience, but was originally relegated to staff work in Richmond.  He rose to command the CS Army’s largest contingent, the Army of Northern Virginia.  After the war, his wife’s estate – Arlington – was confiscated and turned into a Federal cemetery to punish him. So a man who personally opposed slavery had his home taken for daring to fight for the South. Yeah, let’s tear that bastard’s statue down.
What if some future American president wants to remove MLK’s statue in D.C.?

I don’t know the numbers of slaves on either side at the time of the war, but the Emancipation Proclamation was issued at a time when the North was still losing.  Lincoln had hoped it would incite an insurrection in the South which would tie up Confederate troops and give the damnyankees a fighting chance.
 
For Lincoln, the issue was preservation of the Union.  He famously said “If I could preserve the Union by freeing all of the slaves or none of the slaves, that is the course I would take.”
 
Slavery was a moral issue for the nation, and a serious economic issue for the South. The North was industrialized and being flooded with immigrants anxious to find work.  They no longer needed a massive, mandatory labor force. The South, however, was still wholly dependent on cotton and tobacco.  And at the same time they wanted to eliminate the means of production, the yankee-controlled Congress placed a high tariff on goods imported from England.  England, in response, greatly lowered its purchase of American goods – namely cotton and tobacco.  Since England was still our primary customer, the South was being pressured on both ends of the the economic equation.  While ending slavery was the moral thing to do, it’s a whole lot easier to be moral if you aren’t starving. Founding Fathers like Washington and Jefferson opposed slavery on a personal level, but would not have been able to compete with their agricultural rivals without it. Washington did stop purchasing slaves, and deemed that the children of his current force would be born free.
 
Believing that Lincoln would engineer an end to their means of production, destroying their economy, the Southern states saw no recourse but to separate from the North.  There was nothing in the Constitution to prevent states from seceding, but the North opted to use force to make the Southern states remain. In order to separate, the Southern states naturally had to expel all Federal troops from their territory.  Most left peacefully, but they continued to occupy Fort Sumter on the grounds that it was built with Federal funds. [For some reason that has a familiar ring to it] This position was taken for the very purpose of forcing the South to fire the first shot, giving the North the moral high ground again.
 
The reason this is important to us today, other than offering historical arguments about what the true causes of the war and who was right, is the subjugation of the states to an ever-growing, ever-hungry central government.  We have far exceeded the Constitutional limits placed on the Federal government, and these excesses have long become institutionalized.  States are supposed to set their own speed limits, but if they don’t comply with the wishes of the central powers-that-be, the Feds will withhold highway funding (which came from the states to begin with).  This may seem trivial until you see it repeated endlesslyAnd we have the potential for another “civil war” situation.  One of BO’s big “moral” issues is “Climate Change”, which is blamed on the use of evil fossil fuels.  He already has greatly damaged the coal industry, driving up the cost of electricity just as he promised.  He has made similar attacks on the petro-chemical industry, which is primarily centered in the South.  But darned if those guys didn’t make advances in fraking, which has driven down the cost of gasoline instead of “necessarily skyrocketing” as he planned. But he has until February 2017 to frack with us, so we will see if the Union survives him or not.
 
PS: Another thing about the Emancipation Proclamation --  Not only was it issued regarding slaves in a foreign country (The Confederate States of America) over which he had no jurisdiction, it was an Executive Order, not a law passed by Congress.  Doesn’t that, again, have a familiar ring to it?


ohnMG  10 hours ago

Dear Senator Reid;

Thanks in large part to your legacy the Washington Redskins finally agreed to drop what you regard as an offensive name.

Dan Snyder, owner of the NFL Redskins, has announced that the team is dropping "Washington" from the team name, and it will henceforth be simply known as "The Redskins." 

It was reported that he finds the word 'Washington' imparts a negative image of poor leadership, mismanagement, corruption, cheating, lying, and graft, and is not a fitting role-model for young fans of football.

Thank you for influencing this outcome.

Sincerely, 

JohnMG /s/





Friday, December 18, 2015

GO TO PRISON

The Twelve Days of Christmas---Obama forced on me

On the twelfth day of Christmas
Obama forced on me
12 Golfer’s golfing
11 Black Lives Mattering
10 Lies a lying
9 Trannies dancing
8 Jihadi’s bombing
7 Climates changing
6 Premiums rising
5 Arab Springs
4 Parsing words
3 Phones and pens
2 Healthcare gov’s
And a Middle Eastern ref-u-gee!
========================================================================!
LAR OF GALEN...We started Luke 13 last night, which introduces Pontius Pilate.  His first mention was that he ordered the random murder of several Jewish worshipers in their temple.  Pilate didn’t care about religion, he only cared about compliance with Roman rule.  He used terror to frighten the Jews into behaving.  However, this led to talking about today’s religious war, where religion IS the issue, and terror is once again the weapon to gain compliance.   Professor Addicott --
Radical Islam – Why
Jihad is a major component of Islam.  Regardless of what some may want it to mean, it is “holy war” – violence to defend or spread Islam.  Aggressive war is a fact in Moslem history.  It is the most noble duty in Islam.  It is totally justifiable (used in defense of original World Trade Center bombers in 1993), and commanded by the Quran over and over again.  It can be accomplished by providing material support.  Those who do not participate are inferior Muslims, and subject to repression.  Anyone who speaks ill (truthfully) about Jihad are silenced by political correctness.  Why else are “moderate” Muslims offended by criticism of radical Islam when Islamic extremists have killed more Muslims than anyone else?
================================================================

Like Most People, President Obama Gets The Crusades Wrong

President Obama, like many nowadays, think it’s fair to equate Islamist terrorism with the medieval Crusades. It’s not.

Greg Scandlen
By 
In light of President Obama’s recent remarks comparing the brutality of the Islamic State to the Crusades, it might be time to take a fresh look at those events. Were they really the one-sided Dark Ages barbarism we have been taught? Were they an early manifestation of Western imperialism and global conquest?
In his landmark book, “God’s Battalions” (HarperOne 2009), Baylor University social sciences professor Rodney Stark suggests otherwise. It is a well-researched chronicle, including 639 footnotes and a bibliography of about 300 other works, yet reads like an adventure story full of military strategy and political intrigue.

What Prompted the Crusades
He begins in the final years of Mohammed and describes how a newly united Arab people swept through (Zoroastrian) Persia and the (Orthodox Christian) Byzantine-  controlled areas of Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa. (Byzantine refers to the Greek-speaking eastern remainder of the Roman Empire.) Eventually Arabs took over control of the Mediterranean islands, most of Spain, and the southern part of Italy, and even reached as far as 150 miles outside of Paris before being turned back by the Franks, or early French.
The Muslims were brutal in their conquered territories.
The Muslims were brutal in their conquered territories. They gave pagans a choice of converting to Islam or being killed or enslaved. Jews and Christians (other People of the Book) were usually but not always treated somewhat better, and allowed to retain their beliefs but under conditions of Sharia subjugation.
But the Muslim-held territories were not monolithic. Stark writes:
Perhaps the single most remarkable feature of the Islamic territories was the almost ceaseless internal conflict; the intricate plots, assassinations, and betrayals form a lethal soap opera. North Africa was frequently torn by rebellions and intra-Islamic wars and conquests. Spain was a patchwork of constantly feuding Muslim regimes that often allied themselves with Christians against one another.
Not surprisingly, there was intense Christian resistance and determination to take back lost territories. Especially effective were the Normans and the Franks in Spain and Italy.

The Golden Middle Ages Belonged to Europeans

Western scholars have often characterized this clash of cultures as an Islamic Golden Age versus a European Dark Age, but Stark demolishes this as a myth. He says the best of the Islamic culture was appropriated from the people Muslims conquered—the Greeks, Jews, Persians, Hindus, and even from heretical Christian sects such as the Copts and Nestorians. He quotes E.D. Hunt as writing, “the earliest scientific book in the language of Islam [was a] treatise on medicine by a Syrian Christian priest in Alexandria translated into Arabic by a Persian Jewish physician.” Stark writes that Muslim naval fleets were built by Egyptian shipwrights, manned by Christian crews, and often captained by Italians.  When Baghdad was built, the caliph “entrusted the design of the city to a Zoroastrian and a Jew.” Even the “Arabic” numbering system was Hindu in origin.
And, while it is true that the Arabs embraced the writings of Plato and Aristotle, Stark comments,
However, rather than treat these works as attempts by Greek scholars to answer various questions, Muslin intellectuals quickly read them in the same way they read the Qur’an – as settled truths to be understood without question or contradiction…. Attitudes such as these prevented Islam from taking up where the Greeks had left off in their pursuit of knowledge.
Meanwhile, back in Europe was an explosion of technology that made ordinary people far richer than any people had ever been. It began with the development of collars and harnesses that allowed horses to pull plows and wagons rather than oxen, doubling the speed at which people could till fields. Plows were improved, iron horseshoes invented, wagons given brakes and swivel axels, and larger draft horses were bred. All this along with the new idea of crop rotation led to a massive improvement in agricultural productivity that in turn led to a much healthier, larger, and stronger population.
Technology was also improving warfare with the invention of the crossbow and chain mail. Crossbows were far more accurate and deadly than conventional archery, and could be fired with very little training. Chain mail was almost impervious to the kind of arrows in use throughout the world. Mounted knights were fitted with high-back saddles and stirrups that enabled them to use more force in charging an opponent, and much larger horses were bred as chargers, giving the knights a height advantage over enemies. Better military tactics made European armies much more lethal. Stark writes:
It is axiomatic in military science that cavalry cannot succeed against well-armed and well-disciplined infantry formations unless they greatly outnumber them…. When determined infantry hold their ranks, standing shoulder to shoulder to present a wall of shields from which they project a thicket of long spears butted in the ground, cavalry charges are easily turned away; the horses often rear out of control and refuse to meet the spears.
In contrast, Muslim warriors were almost exclusively light cavalry, riding faster but lighter horses bareback with little armor, few shields, and using swords and axes. Their biggest advantage was their use of camels, which made them much more mobile than foot soldiers and gave them the ability to swoop in and out of the desert areas to attack poorly defended cities.

Muslims Slaughter, Rape, and Pillage

These differences provided Crusader armies with huge advantages, but what would prompt hundreds of thousand Europeans to leave their homes and travel 2,500 miles to engage an enemy is a desert kingdom—especially after the Muslim conquest of Europe had been turned back?
In 638 Jerusalem surrendered to Muslim invaders, and mass murders of Christian pilgrims and monks became commonplace.
There had been long-festering concern about the fate of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. After his conversion to Christianity in the early 300s, the Roman Emperor Constantine built the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on the site of what was believed to be Jesus’ tomb, and other churches in Bethlehem and on the Mount of Olives. These sites prompted a growing number of European pilgrims to visit the Holy Land, including Saint Jerome, who lived in Bethlehem for the last 32 years of his life as he translated the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin. By the late fifth century, Stark reports, more than 300 hostels and monasteries offered lodging to pilgrims in Jerusalem alone.
But in 638 Jerusalem surrendered to Muslim invaders, and mass murders of Christian pilgrims and monks became commonplace. Stark includes a list of select atrocities in the eight and ninth centuries, but none worse than the some 5,000 German Christians slaughtered by Bedouin robbers in the tenth century.
Throughout this period, control of Palestine was contested by several conflicting Muslim groups. Stark writes, “In 878 a new dynasty was established in Egypt and seized control of the Holy Land from the caliph in Baghdad.” One hundred years later, Tariqu al-Hakim became the sixth caliph of Egypt and initiated an unprecedented reign of terror, not just against Christians but against his own people as well. He burned or pillaged some 30,000 churches, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the tomb beneath it.
Soon enough, newly converted Turkish tribes came out of the north to seize Persia and Baghdad (by 1045) and press on to Armenia, overrunning the city of Ardzen in 1048, where they murdered all the men, raped the women, and enslaved the children. Next they attacked the Egyptians, in part because the Turks were Orthodox Sunnis and the Egyptians were heretical Shiites. While the Turks did not succeed in overthrowing the Egyptians, they did conquer Palestine, entering Jerusalem in 1071. The Turks promised safety to the residents of Jerusalem if they surrendered the city, but broke this promise and slaughtered the population. They did the same in Ramla, Gaza, Tyre, and Jaffa.

Emperor Alexius Pleads for Help

Finally, they threatened Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire. Emperor Alexius Comnenus wrote to Pope Urban II in 1095, begging for help to turn back the Turks. This was remarkable given the intense hostility between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Perhaps the pope saw an opportunity to unite or at least reduce tensions between the two Christian churches, but he responded with a call to create an army that would go to the Middle East.
Without ongoing support from Europe, the Crusaders could not survive constant attacks from the Muslims.
I am not going to regurgitate all the battles of the Crusades themselves. It is a fascinating history well worth studying in part for its parallels and lessons for today. Let’s just say that the Crusaders were extremely effective militarily, often defeating far larger Muslim armies, despite having traveled some 2,500 miles into an alien desert climate. Their biggest enemies were disease, starvation, and political betrayal. Plus, the Crusades were expensive and home countries grew weary of paying the taxes needed to support them (sound familiar?)
The Crusaders ended up establishing their own kingdoms in the Holy Land, which lasted for about 200 years or, as Stark notes, almost as long as the United States has existed; but without ongoing support from Europe they could not survive constant attacks from the Muslims.

How the Crusades Were Different from Military Action of the Day

So, what to make of all this?
The current idea that Jews in Israel are usurping the rights of indigenous people is nonsense. This has always been a hotly contested area. In the Old Testament, the Jews wrested control from the Canaanites, then were overrun by the Assyrians, then the Babylonians, then the Persians, then the Greeks, then the Romans. The Romans of Jesus’ time were displaced by the Greek Byzantine Empire, then replaced by the Arabs, then the Egyptians, then the Turks, and finally by the British. For most of human history the wealth of a society was created by conquest and plunder. It is hardly unique to Christians, and certainly not to Jews.
The Crusaders were unique in that they did not seek to plunder or enslave.
Actually, the Crusaders were unique in that they did not seek to plunder or enslave. They didn’t even try to forcibly convert anyone to Christianity. Their sole interest was to protect the pilgrims and Christian holy sites. They sometimes sacked cities that refused to provide food to a hungry army, but they didn’t take riches back to Europe. There were few riches to be found. Rather than exploiting indigenous resources to benefit Europe, Europe sent money and resources to the Middle East. Pilgrims were quite lucrative for host countries, just as tourism is today.
War was a nasty and brutal business at the time, and had been for all of recorded history. Cities fortified themselves as protection against invading armies. A siege of a city meant surrounding the area and cutting off supplies until the population surrendered, often by starving. In the Bible, II Kings 6:24-33 relates the story of the siege of Samaria, in which two starving women agree to kill and eat their sons.
The rule of war at the time was that, if a city surrendered, the population would be spared, but if it resisted and the invading army had to take it by force all the inhabitants would be killed or enslaved. But Stark notes that Muslim armies often violated even this rule—promising sanctuary, then slaughtering the population that surrendered. (Before we get too smug and condescending about the savagery of these ancients, let’s not forget the rocket bombing of London, the firebombing of Dresden, and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a mere 70 years ago.)
Muslim armies often promised sanctuary, then slaughtered the population that surrendered.
One way in which Muslim fighters today have advanced over their forebears is that during the Crusades they did not adopt new tactics to counter the technological advantage of the Europeans. They never used crossbows or shielded infantry, even after several hundred years of fighting. Today, Muslim warriors quickly evolve to make the most of Western technology, although they still never seem to develop anything of their own.

An Enduring Clash Between Inquiry and Submission

One final thought on this. As Stark indicates above, there is in too many Muslim countries a sense of obedience that precludes robust debate or new ideas, let alone technological innovation. In his classic, “The World is Flat,” Thomas Friedman quotes Osama bin Laden as saying,
It is enough to know that the economy of all Arab countries is weaker than the economy of one country that had been part of our (Islamic) world when we used to truly adhere to Islam. That country is the lost Andalusia. Spain is an infidel country, but its economy is stronger that our economy because the ruler there is accountable. In our countries, there is no accountability or punishment, but there is only obedience to the rulers and prayers of long life for them. (pp. 400-401)
Friedman confirms that this is based on a 2002 report, the first Arab Human Development Report. This report, written by Arabs, found that Spain had a larger gross domestic product than all 22 Arab states combined!
I think Stark is closer to the mark than bin Laden. The problem is a cultural way of thinking that starts with the Qur’an and the Prophet and emphasizes unquestioning obedience. The very name of the religion, Islam, means “submission.” The thinking of bin Laden that emphasizes punishing poor rulers is a complete misunderstanding how progress is made. European cultures place a high value on questioning everything, even the divinity of Jesus Christ. Certainly there have been exceptions to this, but in the sweep of history it is an unmistakable trait.
So we have perhaps the starkest conflict of worldviews imaginable: on one hand, a robust and virtually unlimited spirit of inquiry, and on the other a fervent dedication to universal obedience and submission. How this plays out is the story of our times

===============================================
"It is time for Christians to realize they have only two cheeks." 
World War 3 will pit humanity against the Muslims also known as Satan's army.


Avatar
Roger W. Knight  17 hours ago
Here I am minding my own business. What am I doing?
Eating a ham sandwich. With my left hand.
Do I worry if such offends anyone? Didn't offend the guy who sold me the ham sandwich. Nor the farmer who raised the pig and sold it. Nor the slaughterhouse who turned the pig into ham slices for the restaurant. Nor the local government that regulates the sandwich stand and collects taxes from it.

No, I live my life as I see fit without a care who might be offended. If someone tells me that he would like me to at least use my right hand, I would tell him that perhaps he should look away. That way he would not be offended by either my eating with the left hand or the gesture that I make with my right hand.
Should he give me cause and necessity to defend myself, I will defend myself. Even if the police and courts prove to be insane, it is better to be alive in jail than 6 feet down. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Be offended all you like. Just DON'T TREAD ON ME.
Sometimes the rattlesnake bites!


December 18, 2015

Who is full of hatred?

By Richard Butrick

According to renowned teen feminist crusader and Nobel laureate, Malala Yusafzai, Trump's ideology is “full of hatred.”  And then there was the shopworn canard that “the more you speak about Islam and against all Muslims, the more terrorists we create.”  The latter being the guiding principle behind the Obama, Clinton, and Kerry approach to political Islam.  Better be careful in dealing with ISIS and Islamism in general, otherwise we might antagonize 2 billion-plus 
Muslims worldwide.  Then what would we do?  Horror of horrors – 2 billion Muslims shouting, “Death to America.”

Some 64% of the Koran is devoted to the kafir.  Nearly all of the Sira (81%) deals with kafirs, and the Hadith (Traditions) devotes 32% of the text to kafirs.  The Sira devotes about five times as many words to politics as religion on a yearly basis.  It gives politics five times the coverage because it is that much more important.  All but about 2.6% of the Koran (245 verses) excoriates Jews and Christians.  Moreover, Christians and Jews receive the goodness of Islam only if they agree that their sacred texts are corrupt, the Koran is true, and Mohammed is a prophet of the Christian and Jewish religions.

And then we have all seen the posters of Muslim rallies in Western countries spewing hatred toward the kafir and predicting the downfall of Christianity.  And then there is the little matter of Khamenei leading rallies in Iran shouting, "Death to America."  And then…

It seems that Muslims are not overly concerned about antagonizing America.  And with the Obama, Clinton, and Kerry team at the helm, why should they be?

If Yousafzai wants to point fingers and chastise, maybe she should point to her own.  Could it be that Islam is creating its own backlash?  A justifiable backlash?  Need one start with 9/11, Fort Hood…

It is time for Christians to realize they have only two cheeks.
==================================================
Here is a list of the senators who voted no ON THE 2016 BUDGET DEAL (see a complete roll call list here):
1.Boozman (R-AR)
2.Burr (R-NC)
3. Cassidy (R-LA)

4. Cotton (R-AR)
5. Crapo (R-ID)
6. Cruz (R-TX)
7. Daines (R-MT)
8. Enzi (R-WY)
9. Ernst (R-IA)
10. Fischer (R-NE)
11.Flake (R-AZ)
12. Grassley (R-IA)
13. Lee (R-UT)
14. Manchin (D-WV)

15. Markey (D-MA)
16. McCain (R-AZ)
17. McCaskill (D-MO)
18. Merkley (D-OR)
19. Moran (R-KS)
20. Paul (R-KY)
21. Portman (R-OH)
22. Risch (R-ID)
23. Sanders (I-VT)
24. Sasse (R-NE)
25. Scott (R-SC)

26. Sessions (R-AL)
27. Shelby (R-AL)
28. Sullivan (R-AK)
29. Tester (D-MT)
30. Thune (R-SD)
31. Toomey (R-PA)
32. Vitter (R-LA)
33. Wyden (D-OR)

Here is the full list of the Republicans who voted against the spending bill (see the complete roll call vote here):
  1. Abraham
  2. Amash
  3. Amodei
  4. Babin
  5. Barletta
  6. Black
  7. Blackburn
  8. Blum
  9. Brat
  10. Bridenstine
  11. Brooks (AL)
  12. Buck
  13. Byrne
  14. Clawson (FL)
  15. Crawford
  16. DeSantis
  17. DesJarlais
  18. Duncan (SC)
  19. Duncan (TN)
  20. Emmer (MN)
  21. Farenthold
  22. Fleming
  23. Forbes
  24. Fortenberry
  25. Franks (AZ)
  26. Garrett
  27. Gibbs
  28. Gohmert
  29. Goodlatte
  30. Gosar
  31. Gowdy
  32. Graves (LA)
  33. Griffith
  34. Guinta
  35. Hardy
  36. Harris
  37. Heck (NV)
  38. Hice, Jody B.
  39. Holding
  40. Hudson
  41. Huelskamp
  42. Hultgren
  43. Hunter
  44. Hurt (VA)
  45. Jenkins (KS)
  46. Johnson, Sam
  47. Jones
  48. Jordan
  49. Kelly (PA)
  50. King (IA)
  51. Labrador
  52. LaHood
  53. LaMalfa
  54. Lamborn
  55. Lance
  56. Latta
  57. Long
  58. Lummis
  59. Marino
  60. Massie
  61. McClintock
  62. McKinley
  63. Meadows
  64. Meehan
  65. Miller (FL)
  66. Mooney (WV)
  67. Mulvaney
  68. Palmer
  69. Perry
  70. Pompeo
  71. Posey
  72. Ratcliffe
  73. Roby
  74. Roe (TN)
  75. Rogers (AL)
  76. Rohrabacher
  77. Rothfus
  78. Salmon
  79. Sanford
  80. Schweikert
  81. Shuster
  82. Smith (MO)
  83. Smith (NE)
  84. Smith (TX)
  85. Stutzman
  86. Tipton
  87. Walker
  88. Webster (FL)
  89. Westerman
  90. Whitfield
  91. Williams
  92. Wittman
  93. Yoho
  94. Young (IA)
  95. Young (IN)

Blog Archive

Followers

Blog Archive