Posted on 02/13/2011 6:48:22 AM PST by llandres
Glenn Beck has always been known as someone to make some fairly bold and strange predictions, but the protests in Egypt may have given birth to a Beck prophecy on a whole other level. Beck has said that the Egyptian uprising is not merely about an oppressed and impoverished people fighting for their rights, but instead, Beck sees the uprising as an effort by radical Muslims and socialists to establish a one world government called a caliphate. Under Beck’s theory, the caliphate will eventually lead the “end of the Western world as we know it.” Beck has warned his viewers that the revolution is not merely about Egypt, but about their own towns, homes, and way of life...
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Exactly right. Their religion, Islam, dictates that everyone on earth believe what they do. If they don't convert, or pay a fee, then they are to be killed.
Those are the facts.
As long as a minority of muslims believe that violent, world-engulfing Jihad is a necessary part of their religion we will have exactly what we see in the mideast now, what we saw with the crusades in centuries past, and what our children's children will have to face if we don't stop this madness now.
Your criticism of Glenn's accurate assessment of the situation won't change these verifiable facts.
Beck’s goofiness and sarcastic presentation on TV, when he still used it, was refreshing. I decided he was a free range adult and a free range child at the same time. I viewed his ADD as an agile mind wanting to look at all kinds of ideas. I didn’t see anyone else on TV that was more curious about the world than careful of his/her image; I thought it like a cool drink on a hot day.
As Beck has become more succesful, it’s apparent that he’s assembling an array of people and researchers that are getting wider results to many more people. He changes his focus every year or half year, and is thematic, which maintains vitality. More than anything, he challenges perceptions and understandings about some things, while validating others, thus germinating national discussions that would not occur otherwise.
Sometimes, his style has been unnerving, locker-room or preachy. However, once I realized the nature of what I’d been taught about Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt was shaped by these ‘Progressives,’ right down to naming our entire system of ‘Progressive’ income tax, I began looking at American principles using a different perspective; this included wondering what and how our parents and grandparents were taught. I have come to wonder what else I don’t know, and where would I look to find it—if I had the time. Further, if I haven’t found it, why not? How can I help others, especially younger people, to look for it?
The Middle Eastern coverage puts on national TV things I have believed for decades. That’s another story.
The most important point for me of following what Beck is doing has become wondering what and who would have a similar venue to get the conversation and research out into the vernacular of public thinking. Who would have the ability, the courage and the sources to uncover another ‘Van Jones’ or ‘Black Robe Regiment’ or ‘Caliphate’? What network would permit it? In the absence of a Beck, what would we—especially our young people—have/not have as a direct result of not having the information he presents on a national stage?
I hope he and his staff grind out more stories about facts we are not/are no longer being taught. We here at FR are already true belivers in conservativism, but so many people are not getting these issues presented. In the present age of ‘media,’ opening the next can of worms is increasingly difficult, especially given a government that uses its own pledge to be ‘transparent’ as a cover to suppress careful, thorough examination of matters critical to our national health, if not survival.
Watch, listen or don’t, but at least read some of what he and his crew are publishing. Please research it and spread the word, before said information/history/understanding is paved over with revisionist spin and accepted as ‘fact.’
“when facing O’Reilly”.
I can’t stand the way Beck acts when he is on B’OR’s show: he giggles ..like a school boy who is being challenged by a big brother type whom he love/hates
B’OR can’t resist the urge to try to intimidate the “new kid on the block”.
As for Beck’s show, sometimes watching him at the board with his pointer, I’m thinking, “WTH? Since when is he an authority on foreign policy or anything else?”
Beck has a good staff that does the homework. Then they present it to him and he runs with it. But his classroom “Three E’s” or “Seven R’s” are really ridiculous, especially for his many viewers who are savvy.
There are times when he is on fire..and his exposes of Van Jones, Soros and other Progressives have been invaluable.
But he needs to tone it back a little and remember that though he may be excited to pass on information to us... he can make his points with less words, theatrical flourish and drama. And lose the blackboard and intro, “Hello America”. At least he finally got a tailor and has some suits that fit!
As for Beck’s radio show, I can’t listen anymore. It’s just an inside joke, laughfest(again) with him and Stu and Pat. Come on, guys. Get it out before the show!
“Meanwhile Rush blathers on about football and golf”.
I agree, WKWE. Sometimes after a big news event or political happening,especially after a drought-like weekend without talk radio, I anxiously tune in to listen to what Maharushi is going to say..only to hear him start the show talking about someone named Hairy Bahls who is having something named after him.
He gets to the good stuff eventually ..but it seems that since he got married, he is so smitten that he has lost some of his edge..and though he claims to be committed to Conservatism, sometimes it seems that he only gives a damn about Punkin, Abbey, his stogie, Kathryn, a tee time and Allen Bros. steaks..
“I agree with his politics most of the time”...
Beck is self proclaimed apolitical..and if he says one more time that the GOP is just as much to blame for our country being in trouble as Rats, gonna scream!
Maybe I should’ve elaborated more in my brief comments following that article - I’m a huge fan of Glenn and have been for a few years now. His researchers (like Rush’s) are top-notch - they have to be, or he (and Rush) would’ve been sued from here to eternity long ago.
I just posted that article (and my comments after) to illustrate the type of maligning criticism that we constantly get blasted with by the media and other libs.
To the poster who spoke of GB needing to use some comedy and theatrics for TV to get (and keep) people’s attention, I totally agree. I find myself defending him almost daily to my hopelessly liberal BF who leaves the room when Glenn’s on a (great) rant. He prefers the quieter (often boring) NPR/PBS/Charlie Rose snooty style. Therefore, he (like the editorial author) thinks Glenn’s a nut-job.
However, on a good day, he’ll watch/listen to an entire GB show without comment (which gives me some satisfaction, though I’d never say so :-))))))))
You may not have seen the following thread, but I’m including it with a response I wrote to someone who said that, essentially, Christians are just like Muslims in that our religion condemns non-believers the same way. In light of your own personal experiences, let me know what you think.
“Muslim pupils learn to cut off hands of thieves”
Thu Feb 10 2011 14:36:11 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) · 27 of 36
llandres to Soothesayer9; All
“I don’t approve of Islam either but a little perspective is in order. We preach the same thing!”
NO, we don’t. Christ commands us to be tolerant, love one another and hate the sin but not the sinner. Our faith teaches that only God can judge, NOT us, and that judgment will be in the hereafter. Muhammed (the prophet) commands his followers to be judge, jury and executioner. And NO tolerance for non-Muslims. Christ respected women; Muhammed was a pedophile, polygamist and advocated stoning, beating, mutilation, and all manner of murder against females who don’t “toe the line” according to his sick standards. Christ promised eternal life to all who believe in Him - Muhammed wrote that the only sure way to Paradise is to kill, or be killed, in the name of Allah. (Hence, suicide bombers - “livin’ to die for virgins in the sky”.)
The two religions are fundamentally different, but then, Islam is fundamentally different from all other major world religions.
And the tired, old rant about “more wars were fought in the name of religion” is not a valid argument against Christianity, either. While there has been violence through the ages by those who twisted it wrongfully for their own ends, the New Testament upon which our faith is founded advocates no such thing. The “new testament” of the Koran, however (writings of Muhammed after Medina when he became increasingly violent in his beliefs and teachings, and which Islam believes supercedes the earlier part of the Koran), commands world domination of Islam through its followers by any and all means possible (including lies/deception), and death to ALL infidels who will not convert or agree to being subjugated as second-class citizens.
Brigitte Gabriel has said that those Muslims who are “peaceful and moderate” are either not familiar with the entire Koran or choose to cherry-pick the pleasant parts of it in order to lead a comfortable life harmonious with their neighbors in non-Muslim societies.
Sorry to be long-winded, but I wrote this because we will all, more and more, be called upon to defend the facts of our religion, and Christ’s love, against Islam and the true hatred that Muhammed commands.
“Those that think this is good and those that think this is bad.”
Well, what I meant in my comments was that there are two types of negative/media critics of Glenn - those who just don’t get what he’s saying (& naively are in denial), so they call him a crazy conspiracy theorist, or those who DO understand what he’s saying, but DON’T want it said, so they also call him a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Some years ago, a relative of mine showed me an item in some regional Catholic newspaper. It wasn’t an ad, just some filler with CAIR as the cited source. It said that many people don’t realize that the god of islam and the God of Christianity are the same. I found it rather unsettling to read this in the official newspaper of our diocese.
Muslims will always tell you straight up, that “Allah” has no son. Their god is not Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
The differences start there and as you have shown, they are profound. Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. Muhammad’s objective, and that of all muslims, is precisely the conquest of this world. (It happens to be Satan’s objective as well.)
Of course, Jesus is not actually analogous to Muhammad. Better to say that in Christianity, the Word was made flesh (Jesus) and in Islam the word was the quran. Muhammad was merely the vessel; they say he did not write it himself, he conveyed it at the command of an angel; his illiteracy corresponds to Mary’s purity.
And therein lies the fatal flaw. To muslims, the quran is divine, perfect, sinless, and beyond question or criticism or alteration. It is in a permanently fixed state and therefore so is the religion. Muslims cannot improve. They are what they were in the seventh century, insofar as they are muslim.
Beyond that, their culture was virtually frozen by islam, partly because of the early traditions of islam (hadith). Traditions and cultural practices are venerated, and no devout muslim wants to stray far from them.
In consequence, we see a martial people, fanatical, backward, rigid. Throw some gasoline on those fires — their oil riches — and you get a holocaust.
I truly believe they will bring about World War III. If the decision were mine, we’d invade their countries and seize the oilfields, every last square inch. We won’t, and the apocalypse that will result from our irresolution will be deserved.
You are quite correct. The problem, of course, is that our history is not that of Islam. There is no particular reason they should follow the same path Christendom did.
It is also reasonable to point out that the T of W ended (more or less) 125 years of pretty continuous religious warfare in most of Europe. It was not due to a sudden outbreak of religious tolerance in Europe, it was the result of complete exhaustion on all sides. People were just tired of fighting over religion.
It is also notable that religious warfare is not a root principle of the Christian faith, in fact it is an obvious perversion of it, while it most definitely is a root principle of Islam.
BTW, “monotheists” is a better expression of what the Almohads were about than “unitarians.” They were extremist monotheists.
Hey Henry, Glen needs to grow up a little... all I’m sayin’... how do you expect to convince anyone if they don’t know when your being serious, or making a joke, or selling gold? That’s the big question. I believe fully what he says about the MB, BUT, if I can hardly stand him when he starts the snicker business, or goes from making dire warnings right into a gold sales pitch, how is anyone supposed to know when to take him seriously? Tell me you’re not just a little annoyed when he puts on the phony snicker when talking with BO. I like funny stuff as much as anyone, but he can’t pull off being funny and dire at the same time...
You are quite correct. The problem, of course, is that our history is not that of Islam. There is no particular reason they should follow the same path Christendom did.
It is also reasonable to point out that the T of W ended (more or less) 125 years of pretty continuous religious warfare in most of Europe. It was not due to a sudden outbreak of religious tolerance in Europe, it was the result of complete exhaustion on all sides. People were just tired of fighting over religion.
It is also notable that religious warfare is not a root principle of the Christian faith, in fact it is an obvious perversion of it, while it most definitely is a root principle of Islam.
BTW, “monotheists” is a better expression of what the Almohads were about than “unitarians.” They were extremist monotheists.
“Islam has taken over Europe, with PC protection like in Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway.”
We simply MUST learn from Europe - they keep telling us not to go down the same paths they did, with disastrous results. First economically, and now Islamization. To wit, Merkel, then Cameron, then Sarkozy (probably with more to follow), all stating ruefully (too late) what a dreadful mistake “multi-culturalism” has been for their countries (and security).
Pardon the pun, but I fear that genie can’t be put back into the bottle.
“Beck, crying in the wilderness a river of crocodile tears?”
He really hasn’t gotten weepy that often over the years, it’s just that when any high-profile male does, it’s talked about so much and replayed so often that it gets magnified.
I believe GB’s emotion is real, and there are many admirable, accomplished public people who respect, like, and call him a genuine friend.
Well, I don't. I've seen clips of him crying on cue for the camera.
I believe he's pitching crackpot nonsense that is being fed to him by the Romney campaign. I think Romney's goal is for Beck to round up a gullible army of Mittbots for 2012.
It isn't going to work. Romney will go down in flames and take Beck with him.
“Which begs the question: What exactly do you believe Islamo terrorism is meant to achieve?”
Dear FRiend - many, many people don’t even believe there IS such a thing as Islamo terrorism. I know too many of them in my own life, and they call that a paranoid, bigoted term. And OMG, don’t say Islamo-fascism!
Millions are in a state of denial. (Remember when it used to be a funny joke - “Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt”? Now, not so much.)
Leni - very well said and I agree with you!
“So you prefer style over substance. I guess you voted for Obama then?”
That’s exactly why millions voted for BHO. The message sucks, but the delivery is so cool (they think). How shallow our society has become :-(
“switch over to all the screaming, overtalking financial panel gurus hired by the Fox Business network.”
I like most of the financial guys/gals on FBN, watch their shows on FNC on Saturday mornings. Their debates are pretty funny.
But if you’re talking screaming financial gurus, no one tops Mad Jim Cramer on CNBC (11 EST mon-fri). I can’t stand that guy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.