Intro to Ungurean Post on ‘CRUSADES: The TRUTH’


John R. Houk, Editor

Posted November 27, 2018

About those Christian Crusaders that loaded their weaponry to RE-TAKE the Holy Land from Muslim invading conquerors. Closer to the truth than lying Multicultural Leftists and Muslim Apologists.

 

My only criticism I have is Geri Ungurean’s source downplays the Antisemitism of the Crusaders. That’s a bit surprising considering Ms. Ungurean is a Messianic Jew (i.e. a Jew that has accepted Christ as Lord and Savior).

 

Not deviate too much from this otherwise awesome post, my take is the Crusaders were Antisemites largely because the Church had spent centuries calling Jews Christ-Killers which if you read your Bible is a bit of a stretch. The Pharisee/Sadducee ruling class empowered by the Roman government feared any Jewish movement that might be a threat to their station in life under Roman rule. The Jewish population on the other hand reviled Roman rule; hence many Jewish Messianic and Rebellion Movements (of which as far as Christians concerned was the Messianic Movement of Christian Redemption in Christ).

 

But as Gentiles became the dominating group over the Jewish Christians, Jew-hatred began to be taught even though pre-Resurrection Jesus was raised under Jewish traditions and every single person among the Twelve Apostles was Jewish.

 

The Jewish perspective of Jew-hatred Medieval propaganda HERE.

 

The Christian perspective for Jew-Hatred Medieval propaganda HERE and HERE.

 

JRH 11/27/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks to keep my blogging habit flowing:

Please Support NCCR

***********************

The CRUSADES: The TRUTH About Islam and Why Christendom FINALLY Pushed Back

 

By GERI UNGUREAN

NOVEMBER 27, 2018

Absolute Truth from the Word of God

 

Truth About the Crusades

 

The devil is a liar.

 

We know this because God told us this in His Holy Word.  Satan is the father of lies. He is a master of deception and the author of confusion.

 

Through the centuries, history has been rewritten with the help of the evil one. If you asked the typical person on the street about the Crusades, most of them would begin to disparage Christianity and speak of  ‘horrors’ committed against Muslims.

 

Do you remember when Obama spoke of  Christian aggression during the Crusades?

 

VIDEO: Starnes: Why Obama smeared Christians at prayer event

 

Watch Dinesh Desouza’s comments at the 4:27 mark in this video:

 

VIDEO: Malzberg | Dinesh D’Souza weighs in on President Obama’s “Crusades” comments

 

I would encourage the reader to print this article out.  I am using a piece from thenewamerican.com to dispel the lies which have been perpetrated throughout the centuries about the Crusades.

 

This article is rather long. For those who would rather watch a video concerning truth about the Crusades, I will insert a link for that at the end of this piece.

 

From thenewamerican.com

 

The year is 732 A.D., and Europe is under assault. Islam, born a mere 110 years earlier, is already in its adolescence, and the Muslim Moors are on the march.

 

Growing in leaps and bounds, the Caliphate, as the Islamic realm is known, has thus far subdued much of Christendom, conquering the old Christian lands of the Mideast and North Africa in short order. Syria and Iraq fell in 636; Palestine in 638; and Egypt, which was not even an Arab land, fell in 642. North Africa, also not Arab, was under Muslim control by 709. Then came the year 711 and the Moors’ invasion of Europe, as they crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and entered Visigothic Iberia (now Spain and Portugal). And the new continent brought new successes to Islam. Conquering the Iberian Peninsula by 718, the Muslims crossed the Pyrenees Mountains into Gaul (now France) and worked their way northward. And now, in 732, they are approaching Tours, a mere 126 miles from Paris.

 

The Moorish leader, Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, is supremely confident of success. He is in the vanguard of the first Muslim crusade, and his civilization has enjoyed rapidity and scope of conquest heretofore unseen in world history. He is at the head of an enormous army, replete with heavy cavalry, and views the Europeans as mere barbarians. In contrast, the barbarians facing him are all on foot, a tremendous disadvantage. The only thing the Frankish and Burgundian European forces have going for them is their leader, Charles of Herstal, grandfather of Charlemagne. He is a brilliant military tactician who, after losing his very first battle, is enjoying an unbroken 16-year streak of victories.

 

And this record will remain unblemished. Outnumbered by perhaps as much as 2 to 1 on a battlefield between the cities of Tours and Poitier, Charles routs the Moorish forces, stopping the Muslim advance into Europe cold. It becomes known as the Battle of Tours (or Poitier), and many historians consider it one of the great turning points in world history. By their lights, Charles is a man who saved Western Civilization, a hero who well deserves the moniker the battle earned him: Martellus. We thus now know him as Charles Martel, which translates into Charles the Hammer.

 

The Gathering Threat in the East

 

While the Hammer saved Gaul, the Muslims would not stop hammering Christendom — and it would be the better part of four centuries before Europe would again hammer back. This brings us to the late 11th century and perhaps the best-known events of medieval history: the Crusades.

 

Ah, the Crusades. Along with the Galileo affair and the Spanish Inquisition (both partially to largely misunderstood), they have become a metaphor for Christian “intolerance.” And this characterization figures prominently in the hate-the-West-first crowd’s repertoire and imbues everything, from movies such as 2005’s Kingdom of Heaven to school curricula to politicians’ pronouncements. In fact, it’s sometimes peddled so reflexively that the criticism descends into the ridiculous, such as when Bill Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown University and, writes Chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University Thomas Madden, “recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.)” Why, indeed. Yet, it is the not-so-ridiculous, the fable accepted as fact, that does the most damage. Madden addresses this in his piece, “The Real History of the Crusades,” writing:

 

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

 

But what does good history tell us? Madden continues:

 

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War…. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western [sic] Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

 

[The Crusades] were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

 

The reality is that in our modern conception — or, really, misconception — of the word, it is the Muslims who had launched “crusades” against Christendom. (In the true sense of the word, the Moors couldn’t be Crusaders, as the term means “those who are marked with a cross,” and the Muslims just wanted to erase the cross.) And like Martel before them, who ejected the Moors from most of southern Gaul, and the Spaniards, who — through what was also a Crusade — would much later wrest back control over Iberia, the Crusades were an attempt to retake conquered Christian lands. So how can we describe the view taken by most academics, entertainers, and politicians? Well, it is the Jihadist view. It is Osama bin Laden’s view. It is a bit like ignoring all history of WWII until December 8, 1941 — and then damning the United States for launching unprovoked attacks on Japan.

 

Christendom Pushes Back

 

So now the year is 1095. Just as the Muslims had invaded Europe from the west in the days of Charles the Hammer, now they are pushing toward it from the east. And just as they had taken the Byzantine lands of the Mideast and North Africa in the seventh century, they now have seized Anatolia (most of modern Turkey), thus robbing the Byzantines of the majority of what they had left. The Muslims are now just a few battles away from moving west into Greece itself or north into the Balkans — the “back door” of Europe. Rightfully alarmed and fearing civilizational annihilation, Byzantine emperor Alexius I in Constantinople reaches out to a rival, Pope Urban II, for aid. Inspired to act, in November of 1095 the pope addresses the matter at the Council of Clermont, an event attended by more than 650 clerics and members of European nobility. On its second-to-last day, he gives a rousing sermon in which he appeals to the men of Europe to put aside their differences and rally to the aid of their brothers in the East. Here is an excerpt of the sermon as presented by the chronicler Fulcher of Chartres:

 

Your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians.

 

In addition to this call, the pope articulates a second goal: the liberation of Jerusalem and other Mideast holy sites. The pope’s words are so moving that those in attendance are inspired to shout, it is said, “God wills it! God wills it!” The first crusade is born.

 

Modernity, the Middle Ages, and Myth

 

Yet, in modern times, much cynicism would be born. People just can’t believe that these medieval “barbarians” didn’t have ulterior motives. This brings us to the “ambitious pope” and “rapacious knights” bit, the 20th-century myths about 11th-century motivations. Let’s examine these one at a time.

 

First we have the notion that the Crusaders were imperialists. This is an understandable perspective for the modern mind, as the not-too-distant past has been one of a dominant West colonizing a world of backwaters. Yet this was a recent and relatively short-lived development. Do you remember how Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi considered the eighth-century Europeans barbarians? It was no different in the 11th century; Dar al-Islam was the burgeoning civilization. It was the imperialist force — and this wouldn’t change for another 600 years.

 

Next we have two myths that contradict each other; although, considered individually, they may seem tenable. One is that, despite the Crusaders’ purported religiosity, they were just seeking riches by the sword. The other myth is, they were so darn religious that they were seeking to convert Muslims by the sword. It seems unlikely that both could be true, and, as it turns out, neither is.

 

Today we like to say “Follow the money.” Well, if you followed it in the 11th century, it led right back to Europe. The reality is that most Crusader knights were “first sons,” men who had property and wealth — much to lose (including their lives) and little to gain. And just as the United States can drain the public treasury funding Mideast interventions today, medieval warfare was expensive business. Lords were often forced to sell or mortgage their lands to fund their Crusading, and many impoverished themselves. It also doesn’t seem that the average knight entertained visions of becoming “the man who would be king” in a faraway land, either. As Madden said in an October 2004 Zenit interview, “Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home.”

 

As for conversion, the Crusaders were warriors, not missionaries. They had no interest in converting Muslims; in fact, I doubt the notion ever entered their minds. They viewed the Muslims as enemies of God and His Church and a threat to Christendom, nothing more, nothing less. Treating this matter in a piece entitled “The Crusades: separating myth from reality,” Zenit cited medieval history expert Dr. Franco Cardini and wrote:

 

“The Crusades,” says Cardini, “were never ‘religious wars,’ their purpose was not to force conversions or suppress the infidel.” … To describe the Crusade as a “Holy War” against the Moslems is misleading, says Cardini: “The real interest in these expeditions, in service of Christian brethren threatened by Moslems, was the restoration of peace in the East, and the early stirring of the idea of rescue for distant fellow-Christians.”

 

Yet, whether or not the Crusades were religious wars, they certainly flew on the wings of religious faith. And when the Crusaders sought treasure, it was usually the kind that was stored up in Heaven. As to this sincerity of belief, Madden has pointed out that Europe is peppered with thousands of medieval charters in which knights speak of their deepest motivations, of their desire to do their Christian duty. Then, Professor Rodney Stark, author of the new book God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades, tells us that while the knights were serious sinners, they were also serious about becoming more saintly. Anne Godlasky of USA Today quotes him as stating, “These knights did such terrible things that their confessors kept saying, ‘I don’t know how you will ever atone for this — why don’t you try walking to Jerusalem barefoot.’ And they would do it — they took their faith very seriously.” Moreover, when the Crusaders met with failure, Europeans embraced a characteristically religious explanation: They blamed their own sinfulness. Then, seeking to purify themselves, piety movements arose all across their lands. Perhaps this is why Oxford historian Christopher Tyerman has called the Crusades “the ultimate manifestation of conviction politics.

We should also note that the Crusaders didn’t see themselves as “Crusaders”; the word wasn’t even originated till the 18th century. They viewed themselves as pilgrims.

 

Having said this, it would be naïve to think that all Crusaders’ worldly endeavors were animated by heavenly thoughts. Some say that Pope Urban II might have hoped he could regain control over the Eastern Church after the Great Schism of 1054. It’s also said that Urban and others wanted to give those militant medieval knights someone to fight besides one another. As for those on the ground, the Crusades involved a motley multitude encompassing the regal to the rough-hewn, and it is certain that some among them dreamt of booty and betterment. Yet is this surprising or unusual? People are complex beings. Within a group or even an individual’s mind, there are usually multiple motivations, some noble, some ignoble. Charles the Hammer might have very well relished the glory won on the battlefield, for all we know. But it would be silly to think that was his main motivation for fighting the Moors. Likewise, if the Crusaders were primarily motivated by covetous impulses, it was the most remarkable of coincidences. For those dark urges then manifested themselves just when a Christian emperor appealed for aid, just when Europe again seemed imperiled — and after 400 years of mostly unanswered Muslim conquests.

 

Into the Mouth of Dar al-Islam

 

But however great the Europeans’ faith, the first Crusade was a long shot. The soldiers had to travel on foot and horseback 1,500 miles — traversing rivers, valleys, and mountains; braving the elements; dealing with hunger and thirst and whatever unknowns lay ahead — and then defeat entrenched Muslim forces. And the endeavor had gotten off to a rather inauspicious start: An unofficial Crusade comprising peasants and low-ranking knights had already departed — only to be massacred by the Seljuk Turks.

 

So, now, it is August 15, 1096, and the official Crusader armies depart from France and Italy. Arriving in Anatolia many months later, they lay siege to Muslim-occupied Nicea; however, Emperor Alexius I negotiates with the Turks, has the city delivered to him on June 1, 1097, and then forbids the Crusaders to enter. They then fight other battles against the Muslims on the way to their next objective: the great city of Antioch. It is a must-win scenario; if they do not take it, they cannot move on to Jerusalem. The siege continues for seven and a half months, during which time the Crusaders are hungry, tired, cold, and often discouraged; Antioch’s formidable walls seem an impenetrable barrier. On June 2, 1098, however, they are able to enter the city with the help of a spy. It is theirs.

 

Yet the Crusaders soon find themselves besieged and trapped in Antioch with the arrival of Muslim relief forces. Nevertheless, they manage a break-out on June 28, defeat the Turks, and, after a delay caused by internecine squabbling, move south to Jerusalem in April 1099. Starving after a long journey, they arrive at the Holy City on June 7 — with only a fraction of their original forces. Despite this, Jerusalem will not pose the problems of Antioch, and they capture it on July 15.

 

The First Crusade successes give Christendom a foothold in the Mideast for the first time in hundreds of years with the establishment of four outposts known today as “Crusader states.” They are: the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch, founded in 1098; the Kingdom of Jerusalem, founded in 1099; and the County of Tripoli, founded in 1104. Perhaps the tide has finally turned in Christendom’s favor.

 

But it was not to be. It was still a Muslim era, and more Crusades would be launched in the wake of Islamic triumphs. In fact, there was a multitude of Crusades — if we include minor ones — lasting until the end of the 17th century. However, it is customary to identify eight major Crusades, dating from 1096 through 1270, although this does omit many significant campaigns.

 

Great passion for a second Crusade was sparked when the County of Edessa was overcome by Turks and Kurds in 1144. Led by Kings Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany and advocated by St. Bernard, it was an utter failure. Most of the Crusaders were killed before even reaching Jerusalem, the campaign did more harm than good — and Muslim power continued to grow.

 

Because of this, Madden writes, “Crusading in the late twelfth century … became a total war effort.” All are asked to answer the call, from peasants to patricians, either by devoting blood and treasure to the defense of Christendom or through prayer, fasting, and alms to make her worthy of victory. Yet these are the days of the great Muslim leader Saladin, and in 1187 he destroys the Christian forces and takes one Christian city after another. And, finally, after almost a century of Christian rule, Jerusalem surrenders on October 2.

 

The loss of the Holy City inspires the Third Crusade. Led by storybook figures such as England’s King Richard the Lionheart, German Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, and France’s King Philip II, it is sometimes called the Kings’ Crusade. Yet it is no fairytale affair. Frederick’s army quits the campaign in 1190 after their aged German leader drowns while crossing a river on horseback, and King Philip leaves after retaking the city of Acre, owing to continual friction with Richard. Despite this, the English King is undeterred. Displaying brilliant leadership and tactical skill, he fights his way south, taking on all comers, and eventually recaptures the Holy Land’s entire coast. Yet the crown jewel, Jerusalem, eludes his grasp. Believing he would not be able to hold it (since most Crusaders will be returning home), he must swallow hard and settle for what he can get: an agreement with Saladin to allow unarmed pilgrims unfettered access to the city. Richard then returns home and never sees the Holy Land again, dying from a battle-related wound sustained in Europe in 1199.

 

While the passion for Crusading remained strong in the 13th century and the Crusades were greater in scope, funding, and organization, they were lesser in accomplishment. There would be no more Richard the Lionhearts. Mideast Christian lands would slowly be overcome. And Jerusalem would never again be in Crusader hands. In fact, by 1291, the Crusader kingdom had been wiped off the map.

 

The Next Crusades Battle: The History Books

 

Because the Crusades ultimately failed to achieve their objectives, they are typically viewed as failures. And this brings us to a common Crusades myth. It’s said that those medieval campaigns are partly to blame for anti-Western sentiment in today’s Middle East, but this is nonsense. The reality is, as Madden told Zenit, “If you had asked someone in the Muslim world about the Crusades in the 18th century he or she would have known nothing about them.” This only makes sense. Why would the Crusades have been remembered? From the Muslim perspective, they were just routine victories — like so many others — events that would just naturally fade into the mists of time. What in truth is partly to blame for Islamic anti-Western sentiment is 19th-century pro-Western propaganda. That is to say, when England and France finally started colonizing Arab lands, they wanted to rubber-stamp imperialism. To this end, they taught Muslims in colonial schools that the Crusades were an example of an imperialism that brought civilization to a backward Middle East. And, not surprisingly but tragically, when imperialism was later discredited, the Crusades would be discredited along with it. Muslims would start using the false history against the West.

 

But there are many Crusade myths. For example, some would characterize the campaigns as anti-Semitic. Yet, while there were two notable massacres of Jews during the Crusades, there is more to the story — as Madden also explained in the Zenit interview:

 

No pope ever called a Crusade against Jews. During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army [the aforementioned “People’s Crusade”], descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there…. Pope Urban II and subsequent popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews. Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it.

 

This obviously adds perspective. In every war there are rogue forces that commit transgressions. Why, the United States had the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam and Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Yet, to echo Madden on this count, it would be unfair to claim that the goal of American forces was to, respectively, murder innocent civilians or commit sexual abuse.

 

There were other Crusader sins as well. In the Second Crusade, the warriors foolishly attacked Muslim Damascus, which had been an ally of the Christians. Worse still, the Fourth Crusade saw the sacking of Constantinople itself — occupied by the very eastern Christians the Crusades were designed to protect — after the Crusaders helped an imperial claimant gain the Byzantine throne and then were refused the aid he had promised them as a quid pro quo. In response, the pope at the time, Innocent III, condemned the attack (and he had already excommunicated the Crusade). Nevertheless, the damage was done. The act widened the Great Schism of 1054 to perhaps irreparable proportions.

 

Yet, again, perspective is necessary. Medieval armies didn’t have modern discipline or rules of engagement, and they were, above all, medieval. You could not have put hundreds of thousands of men in the field during the course of centuries in that age without writing some dark chapters. Really, though, you couldn’t do it in the modern age, either.

 

With all these failures and missteps, we may wonder why Europeans continued Crusading well beyond the 13th century’s close. We may ask, was it worth the blood and treasure? Yet the answer boils down to one word: survival. The threats to Europe mentioned earlier would not remain theoretical. The Muslims would extinguish the Byzantine Empire — and Constantinople would be renamed Istanbul. They would cross into the Balkans, and their descendants would clash with Christians there in the 1990s. The Ottoman Turks would capture the Italian town of Otranto in 1480, prompting the evacuation of Rome. The Ottomans would occupy what is now Hungary for 158 years. And, in 1529 and 1683, they would reach the gates of Vienna.

 

Yet the tide would finally turn against Dar al-Islam. The Ottomans would lose the Battle of Vienna in 1683, and, more significantly, Europe was blossoming. It would outpace the Muslim world technologically, and in its march toward modernity, the Christian “barbarians” would become the burgeoning civilization. In fact, they would become dominant enough to forget how recent their time in the sun is — and how, perhaps, it almost never was.

 

So, were the Crusades really a failure? Sure, there was no Charles Martel and Battle of Tours, no Duke of Wellington at Waterloo; there was no history-changing engagement where we could say, ah, that is where we slew the dragon or “this was their finest hour.” And they accomplished none of their stated goals. But the Crusades era might have constituted a “holding action,” a time when Christendom was pushed toward the abyss and, outweighed and wobbling, pushed back. Of course, this isn’t the fashionable view. But it is easy today to characterize those medieval warriors any way we wish; they are no longer around to defend themselves. But had they not defended the West, we might not be troubling over the past at all — because we might not have a present. – source

 

VIDEO: The Truth About The Crusades

 

Brethren, it is important to be able to chronicle the events leading up to the Crusades. We must attempt to shut down revisionist historians who present history from a politically correct vantage point.

 

Truth is truth!!   Jesus would have us tell the truth about events in history regarding His church.

 

The Left have made Islam and Muslims into “victims.”  Not all Muslims are war lords or terrorists, but many are.  Their prophet Muhammad was the originally war lord and his fundamental followers continue in his footsteps.

 

Shalom b’Yeshua

 

MARANATHA!

______________________

Intro to Ungurean Post on ‘CRUSADES: The TRUTH’

John R. Houk, Editor

Posted November 27, 2018

_______________________

The CRUSADES: The TRUTH About Islam and Why Christendom FINALLY Pushed Back

 

About Geri Ungurean 

 

Bio: I am a Jewish Christian who was born-again in 1983. Yeshua is my life. Writing about Him is my passion. My subject matter varies. Sometimes I write on Bible Prophecy. Other times on apostasy in the church. And often times I address the political climate of our country and our world. My greatest love is writing about my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. I pray that some of my articles will fall in the hands of my Jewish people. If you would like to bless us with a gift, please send to: Geri Ungurean P.O. Box 1031 Savage, MD 20763 Your generosity is most appreciated! Shalom

 

View complete profile

 

Watching Arizona Voters Drag America Down Again


John R. Houk

© November 13, 2018

Pink tutu Sinema - witch prayer

Assuming there was no election fraud in Arizona, it appears a majority of Arizona voters stand with Kyrsten Sinema over the GOP nominee Martha McSally who has officially conceded defeat.

 

The Sinema/McSally battle is a classic example of the ideological divide in the United States of America. McSally is a veteran and Conservative endorsed by President trump, yet she has to Sinema who represents everything contrary to traditional American values. Sinema is a gal whose candidacy would have been hysterically laughed at as a viable candidate even 20 years ago.

 

Here are some spliced excerpts of what represents the Sinema a majority of Arizonans voted into the U.S. Senate:

 

  1. She once depicted American servicemen as scary skeletons exporting “terror” abroad on a flyer protesting the Iraq War

 

  1. Defended men who solicit underage prostitutes

 

  1. Protested the Iraq War in a tutu

 

  1. Once described herself as a “Prada socialist”

 

  1. Called Arizona the “crazy” state and the “meth lab of democracy” 

 

  1. Said she didn’t care if a constituent went and fought for the Taliban

 

  1. Chummy with anarchists: Said it was inappropriate to criticize anarchist property destruction. Also, she worked with a local anarchist group that helped organize a rally.

 

  1. Promoted events at Arizona State University featuring the execrable Lynn Stewart, a lawyer convicted of aiding an Islamist terror organization and its leader

 

  1. Falsely claimed to be Latino (Allegedly)

 

  1. Hosted a radio show on Air America Phoenix with a 9/11 truther

[Blog Editor: PJ Media fails to name the Truther, but the link is to a CNN article that does, viz., Jeff Farias. But CNN does a deficient job explaining Farias’ connection to the debunked 9/11 Truthers. Fox News does a better job:

 

Fox News can also disclose that, in 2005, she befriended a conspiracy theorist who believes 9/11 was perpetrated by the U.S. government.

 

Between 2005 and 2006, Sinema co-hosted a radio show together with Jeff Farias. Farias is a conspiracy theorist who signed a 2008 petition that claims the World Trade Center collapsed because of explosives planted inside the buildings by the U.S. government.

 

Farias frequently promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories during his radio show up until 2010 and was the co-master of a conference in 2007 that rejected the government’s explanation of the 2001 terror attacks. The conference was attended by InfoWars’ Alex Jones.

 

He also asked his guests on his radio shows in 2006 whether they saw the film “Loose Change 9/11” – a film that was produced in part by Jones. The premise of the movie is that the U.S. government planned the 9/11 attacks.]

 

  1. Used to hang out with witches!

(11 Freakiest Things About Arizona Senate Candidate Kyrsten Sinema; By DEBRA HEINE; PJ Media; 10/16/18)

 

Let’s do a recap of who a majority of Arizona voters elected as their new Senator:

 

  • Favored Islamic terrorists over military veterans

 

  • Protected child-prostitute clients

 

  • Sinema was anti-war even though Islamic terrorists attacked U.S. soil

 

  • A Socialist activist

 

  • Sinema has the distinct ironic fact of calling voters crazy (Legal Insurrection has the videos!)

 

  • Sinema supports anarchists, you know – the folks who destroy property to bring chaos hoping to install Communism.

 

  • Sinema so flippant on Islamic terrorists she doesn’t care if Americans fight for the Taliban and promoted a speaking engagement of the Blind Sheik’s (the guy who first tried to bomb the Twin Towers in 1990s) convicted lawyer Lynne Stewart who passed messages to the Sheik’s terrorist buddies.

 

  • Had her similar Pocahontas moment falsely being listed as Latino.

 

  • Sinema was in cahoots with 9/11 Truthers who blame the government for Twin Towers collapse rather than Islamic terrorists.

 

  • AND she encouraged a New Age witch coven (you know – anti-Christian folks) to pray against the Iraq war invasion along with the pink-tutu Code Pink gals.

 

Since Sinema is supportive of witch covens and political ideologies that are anti-Christian it is not surprising that she identifies as a bisexual – an anti-Christian lifestyle.

 

Everything Kyrsten Sinema represents is everything American would not have conceived as an elected official 20, 30, 40, 50 and so years ago.

 

God have mercy on the majority of Arizonan voters contributing to destroying anything that makes America great.

 

Thank God for the huge minority of Arizona voters that still wanted to Make America Great Again that voted for a Pro-Trump GOP candidate.

 

JRH 11/13/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

 

Oklahoma: Saudi Muslim Immigrant Who Attended al Qaeda Training Camp Arrested


I live in Oklahoma so this concerns me! Think of it. A trained Muslim terrorist from Saudi Arabia and trained at an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan came to the USA as a husband to a Muslim woman who a gained a student visa under the Obama Administration. How many other crazy Muslim terrorists did Obama allow into America?

Black Robed Regiment: ARISE!


Bring Back Black Robed Rgiment

Dr. Lively is calling on Pastors to stand up for a moral America and the Conservative values that have made America great instituted by our Founding Fathers. Today the Dems are the Red Coat King George oppressing America with Leftist Deep State contradicting values.

 

JRH 1/30/18

Please Support NCCR

********************

Black Robed Regiment: ARISE!

 

By Dr. Scott Lively

sdllaw@gmail.com

January 30, 2018

Christian Newswire

 

Scott Lively as Jonathon Edwards - T-Party Rallt 7-4-10

Photo: Dr. Scott Lively, in the persona of Jonathan Edwards, Tea Party Rally, Boston Commons, July 4, 2010

 

SPRINGFIELD, Mass., Jan. 30, 2018 /Christian Newswire/ — In the Revolutionary War, pastors who joined the Continental Army were called the Black Robed Regiment, and there were many because they understood the need for Godly Leadership to defeat tyranny. Without them we would not have become the first and greatest Constitutional Republic in the history of the world: a nation founded upon the Bible and a Covenental Oath called the Declaration of Independence.

Today, America faces a comparable test. President Trump’s miraculous victory in 2016 saved us from subjection to the Clinton Crime Family and provided a window of reprieve in which to take back our country from the predatory leftist elites of the deep state, an adversary far more insidious than King George.

Under the banner of “Resistance,” all the powers and principalities of the hard left, deploying all their fascist tactics, are waging a massive political offensive and massing for the Great Election War of 2018. Their goal is to crush our rebellion, oust our president, and finish their task of subsuming Christian America under global socialist control.

Today we face a critical test of Christian courage and resolve. The Black Robed Regiment MUST rise again and provide Godly leadership on America’s political battlefield.

As a proud member of that regiment, I issue a challenge to every Bible-believing pastor: ARISE BROTHERS! Enter the fray at this critical juncture! Run for political office wherever you are, but especially in places where the Godless Left has the tightest stranglehold. Run to win! But even where that end is unlikely, run sacrificially, willing to govern if God grants the victory, but forcing the adversary to expend resources defending ground they thought was secure. Shun political “norms” and expectations, using your platform to boldly shine the light of the Gospel and Biblical truth into the darkness of the political realm. Bravely defy media mockery and intimidation to give hope and encouragement to every believer, seeker and conservative ally under the yoke of liberal oppression.

In this I am leading by example, running aggressively as a pro-life, pro-constitution conservative against the most popular governor in America (a pro-abortion, anti-family, pork-shoveling Republican) – in ultra-liberal Massachusetts.

In God’s eyes we win just by standing up to speak plain truth without apology or equivocation. So, for the Love of God, our Families, and our Fellow Americans, BLACK ROBED REGIMENT: ARISE!

Dr. Scott Lively is a pastor and constitutional law attorney running as a Republican for Governor of Massachusetts who may be reached by email at sdllaw@gmail.com or at 413-250-0984. He will formally issue this challenge on behalf of the national Christian activist group Reclaiming America for Christ on February 6th, 6:30PM at Fairview Baptist Church Fellowship Hall, 1230 N Sooner Rd, Edmond, Oklahoma. He will be joined by Pastor Dan Fisher, Candidate for Governor of Oklahoma and author of Bringing Back the Black Robed Regiment (2013).

_______________

© Christian Newswire 2018. All Rights Reserved.

 

Message about your e-mail notices


Ann Corcoran believes WordPress may be messing with Refugee Resettlement Watch notifications. I hope she is mistaken, but if not show your support by going to the RRW blog and show your support.

Refugee Resettlement Watch

rrw-logo-1I’m sorry if you signed up and subscribed to RRW and then without explanation you stop receiving those e-mail notices each time I post.  

Know that I can’t control those e-mails and have complained on many occasions to WordPress.  Another reader today alerted me to the problem. She, like most readers who stop getting the e-mails, think that I am (for some reason) not writing.

Additionally, some of you have said that you attempted to re-subscribe and cannot.

I don’t know if this is being done on purpose by WordPress, or your e-mail server has decided they don’t like my work, or simply a case of lousy service from WordPress.

But…..

I can’t emphasize this enough: please please just come to RRW directly and see what I have posted that day or the day before (or the day before that….).  You don’t need to wait for an e-mail!  And…

View original post 82 more words

Top Nuclear Official Suggests Obama Admin Lied About…


Uranium One Collusion-Conspiracy

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee was so uninformative that the smell of coverup comes to mind.

 

When asked about Uranium One and FBI investigative bias Wray defended FBI-integrity while Rosenstein defended Mueller and his team as not contaminated by hate-Trump bias.

 

These two refused to answer various questions with “can’t comment on open investigation” (Trump) or the Inspector General investigation on FBI bias. President Trump needs to fire these guys and get some swamp draining people in the FBI and DOJ!

 

Having vented against Rosenstein and Wray, let’s look at how William D. Campbell exposes corruption and wait for the Dem/Leftist coverup trying to discredit Campbell. This brief post by Joshua Caplan examines probable lying in the Obama Administration about Uranium.

 

JRH 12/14/17

Please Support NCCR

*******************

Top Nuclear Official Suggests Obama Admin Lied About Uranium One Deal — GOP Senator Says He Has Stone Cold Proof

 

By Joshua Caplan

December 13, 2017

Gateway Pundit

 

Did the Obama administration lie about key aspects of the Uranium One deal approval process? In a letter to Congress, a leading nuclear official appears to suggest so. 

 

Obama Nuke Fallout

Obama Nuke Fallout

 

Daily Caller reports:

 

The current chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said that one of her Obama-appointed predecessors’ responses to Congress on a key aspect of the Uranium One deal did not capture the intricacies of the matter.

 

“I would note that, as your letter makes clear, the responses you have received have not fully depicted the complexity of this issue,” NRC chairwoman Kristine Svinicki said in response to  a question from Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso during a Wednesday Senate hearing. […]

 

Barrasso also said he had evidence the Energy Department misled him on their role in the approval of uranium exports. He asked both agencies for documents to find out if he was intentionally misled.

 

“Uranium One did not need a specific NRC license to export U.S. uranium,” Barrasso said. “Instead, Uranium One only needed to be, and later was, listed as a supplier on a transport company’s NRC export license.”

 

Last week, Barrasso expanded his investigation into the infamous Clinton-Uranium One deal.

 

On Monday, Barrasso sent the following letter to the Department of Energy:

 

On March 21, 2011, former NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko responded to my letter on behalf of then-President Obama stating: ‘At this time, neither Uranium One Inc. nor ARMZ [Blog Editor: ARMZ is a Russian mining company – AtomRedMetZoloto] holds a specific NRC export license. In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One, Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use in reactor fuel’ … Recent reporting by The Hill uncovered that Uranium One was able to export uranium without obtaining a specific export license. Beginning in 2012, Uranium One exported U.S. uranium by ‘piggy-backing’ as a supplier on an export license held by the shipping company, RSB Logistic Services Inc.

 

The Wyoming GOP lawmaker kicked off his probe into the Clinton-Uranium One deal in October.

 

The Hill‘s John Solomon reported last week that the Obama Justice Department failed to call on the deal’s secret informant, William D. Campbell, when it came time to charging former Russian uranium industry executive Vadim Mikerinn.

 

“While he was Maryland’s chief federal prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s office failed to interview the undercover informant in the FBI’s Russian nuclear bribery case before it filed criminal charges in the case in 2014, officials told The Hill,” reports Solomon.

 

“I’ve never heard of such a case unless the victim is dead. I’ve never heard of prosecutors making a major case and not talking to the victim before you made it, especially when he was available to them through the FBI,” Alan Dershowitz told The Hill.

_________________________

© The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved

 

About The Gateway Pundit

 

Left-Right Supremacism – NO! E Pluribus Unum – YES!


E Pluribus Unum We The People

John R. Houk

© November 28, 2017

 

In the USA, Americans electorally are nearly torn in half by two political ideologies.

 

The American Left has had decades of brainwashing American minds to accept Multicultural Separatist Secularist morality – a transformation nearly given a PERIOD by former President Barack Hussein Obama. Have you ever heard a Dem say something critical of traditional American Judeo-Christian values such as “Trump’s or Conservatives’ values are not American values or our values”? The Dems really mean we transformed America and we are NOT going to accept E Pluribus Unum Judeo-Christian values ever again.

 

The American Right believes traditional American (Out of Many, ONE) Judeo-Christian moral values is the paradigm that has made America great. Very simply, the Right wants to Make America Great Again (MAGA). The American Right has become extremely weary of the national dilution of Secularist Multicultural Diversity making America weaker and weaker watching National Sovereignty drift into a globalist New World Order.

 

The unfortunate issue of the great gulf division between the Left and the Right is a sad emergence of racism on both sides of the aisle.

 

The Left has given Black Supremacists (Interesting perspectives HERE, HERE & HERE) and Latino Supremacist – HERE, HERE & HERE –  (promoting illegal immigration as part of a clandestine Reconquista Aztland Delusion mapparadigm) are given an air of legitimacy. In great irony the Left uses Multicultural Diversity to support the existence of hard-Right standards inherent in the intolerant totalitarian theopolitical ideology of Islam. Obviously using Islamic Supremacism (SEE ALSO: HERE & HERE) to further dilute the hold of Judeo-Christian ethics that had influenced the Founding Fathers concepts of good government of Liberty by and for We The People as opposed to a government of ruling elites not representing the interests of the people.

 

The extreme Right has grown largely as a result of the legitimization of Leftist Race-Baiting politics. I have been horrified that website locations that are normally Patriotic-MAGA locations spew racist bigotry like make America White again or all that ails America and the is the result of Jews running the world. If I have any control over such comments and find them, I DELETE THEM! That kind of bigoted racism – aka White Supremacy or White Nationalism – is NO DIFFERENT than Black Supremacism, Latino Supremacism and Islamic Supremacism. That thinking is all anti-E Pluribus Unum, defeating the unity of the real American melting pot of OUT OF MANY, ONE.

 

True Americans need to stand for E Pluribus Unum to truly Make America Great Again. If Americans continue a descent into promoting racial supremacist ideologies, we are lost and will cease to be great. Our Founding Fathers’ vision for a land of Liberty (which truly had a slow but indeed evolutionary beginning) will die and become a citation in a history book written by which ever supremacist emerges from a certain blood conflict.

 

To be honest, I am willing to participate in shedding blood for E Pluribus Unum, BUT NOT any Leftist or Right-Wing supremacist concepts diversity weakness. It’s time to drain the swamp of both extremist ways of thinking.

 

++++++

Here’s an irony for you. These thoughts evolved from an article written by Geert Wilders about how Islamic culture is absorbing and diluting the Judeo-Christian heritage of Europe. The irony is European and American Leftist Multiculturalists have painted Wilders as a Right-Wing Extremist equating his Conservative stand of protecting Europe’s Judeo-Christian heritage to such wicked racist ideologies of Nazism. It doesn’t help the old Dutchman’s appearance of a big crop of blonde hair and blue eyes. But really he is a Dutch patriot first and anWilders brengt stem uit voor Europese verkiezingen European patriot second in rejecting Islamic Supremacist intolerance that is sweeping all of Europe because Multiculturalist European elitists encourage cultural dilution by taking huge amounts of Muslim immigrants, refugees and allowing illegal migrant Muslim to remain in the name of diversity.

 

Wilders has been slapped a few times with crazy anti-Free Speech hate-speech violations for wanting to restrict further Muslim immigration and the promotion of each European nation’s cultural heritage.

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if Geert Wilders faces some legal action for penning the anti-Multiculturalist elitist essay which I am cross posting.

 

YOU should find the time to read the Wilders essay. The Obama Administration-past, the Dems-present and Leftist Activist Judges are pulling anti-Constitutional rulings and rhetoric against President Trump’s extreme vetting agenda. An agenda that hopefully keeps hate-American cultural and political values Muslims out of the USA so that the Jihad violence and rape Jihad permeating Europe currently does gain a toe-hold here.

 

JRH 11/28/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

Time to Drain the Swamp – Also in Europe

 

By Geert Wilders

November 26, 2017 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • Our democracies in the Western half of Europe have been subverted. Their goal is no longer to do what the people want. On the contrary, our political elites often do exactly the opposite. Our parliaments promote open-door policies that the majority of the people reject. Our governments sell out sovereignty to the EU against the will of the people. Our rulers welcome ever more Islam, although the majority of the people oppose it.

 

  • Our democracies have become fake democracies. They are multi-party dictatorships, ruled by groups of establishment parties…. The establishment parties control everything, not just the politicians in their pay, but also the top brass of the civil service, the mainstream media, even the courts…. They call us “populists” because we stand for what the people want. They even drag us to court.

 

  • We need to show that Europe’s streets are our streets, that we want to stay who and what we are, and do not want to be colonized by Islam. Europe belongs to us!

 

Next month, I will be visiting Prague, the capital of the Czech Republic. I have been invited to speak to a group of Czech patriots. The Czechs are a freedom loving people. In 2011, on the occasion of the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan, they named a street in Prague after this great American president and freedom fighter.

 

This fact reminded me of a shameful event in my home town of The Hague, the seat of the Dutch Parliament and the government of the Netherlands. Look for a Ronald Reagan Street in The Hague and you will find none. A proposal in 2011 to name a street in The Hague after Reagan ran into fierce political opposition. Leftist parties, such as Labor, the Greens and the liberal D66 party, argued that naming a street in honor of Reagan would “do the image of the city no good.” The whole affair ended in a disgraceful political compromise. Last year, a short stretch of a local bicycle path was named the “Reagan and Gorbachev Lane”.

 

This anecdote is indicative of the difference between East and West in Europe. We can see the same difference in the attitude of their ruling elites towards Islam, the new totalitarianism that is threatening Europe today. In the East, political leaders oppose Islam; in the West, they surrender.

 

Islam has already gained a strong foothold in Western Europe. Its streets have come to resemble the Middle East, with headscarves everywhere. Parts of Western Europe, such as the Schilderswijk district in The Hague, the Molenbeek borough in Brussels, the banlieues [suburbs] of Paris, Birmingham in Britain, the Rosengård area in Malmö, Sweden, and many other neighborhoods, have become hotbeds of Islamic subversion.

 

Islam’s totalitarian nature cannot be denied. The command to murder and terrorize non-Muslims is in the Koran. Islam’s prophet Muhammad was a mass murderer and a pedophile. Those who leave Islam supposedly deserve death. And everyone who criticizes Islam and exposes what it actually says, ends up like me: on an Islamic death list.

 

In the past decades, Islam has entered Western Europe with the millions of immigrants from Islamic countries. Now, the European Union wants to distribute third-world immigrants over all the 28 EU member states. The nations in Central and Eastern Europe reject the EU plans to impose permanent and mandatory relocation quotas for all EU member states. They warn about the dilution of their identity, which is not Islamic, but Judeo-Christian and humanist — rooted in the legacy of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome; not Mecca.

 

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has denounced the EU’s pro-immigration agenda as a means to eradicate the culture and Christian identity of Hungary. Czech President Miloš Zeman is an outspoken opponent of immigration and the Islamification of the Czech Republic. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has said that “Islam has no place in Slovakia” and warns that “migrants change the character of our country.” Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydło staunchly defends Poland’s refusal to accept the EU-imposed immigration quotas. “We are not going to take part in this madness,” she says. In the Eastern part of Europe, anti-Islamification and anti-mass migration parties see a surge in popular support.

 

Resistance is growing in the West, as well. This year, we have seen my party, the Party for Freedom (PVV), become the second-largest party in the Netherlands. This is a great achievement in a country with 13 parties in Parliament. In France, Marine Le Pen made it to the second round in the French presidential elections and her party, the Front National, got more votes than ever. In Austria, the FPÖ became the second biggest party. In Germany, the patriots of the AfD forced their way into the Bundestag.

 

Geert Wilders Casts His Vote In The Dutch General Election

Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), casts his vote in The Hague during the Dutch general election that made his the second-largest party in the Netherlands, on March 15, 2017. (Photo by Carl Court/Getty Images)

 

However, the political elites in the West do all they can to keep the winners of the elections from power. Last month, in my country, the Netherlands, a new government coalition consisting of no less than four parties was formed. Because they stubbornly refused to talk to PVV, it took the political elites a record seven months to put together a coalition. They preferred to take in D66, the party which had denied Ronald Reagan his street in The Hague, and still they were only able to form a government with a majority of just one single seat in Parliament.

 

Our democracies in the Western half of Europe have been subverted. Their goal is no longer to do what the people want. On the contrary, our political elites often do exactly the opposite. Our parliaments promote open-door policies that the majority of the people reject. Our governments sell out sovereignty to the EU against the will of the people. Our rulers welcome ever more Islam, although the majority of the people oppose it.

 

Our democracies have become fake democracies. They are multi-party dictatorships, ruled by groups of establishment parties. They wheel and deal, often selling away the principles for which they have been elected. The establishment parties control everything, not just the politicians in their pay, but also the top brass of the civil service, the mainstream media, even the courts. Parties such as mine are excluded from coalition talks. They call us “populists” because we stand for what the people want. They even drag us to court.

 

Three decades ago, the countries in Central Europe witnessed a Velvet Revolution: Democratic, political and peaceful. They took to the streets. They decided that enough was enough. Thanks to their Velvet Revolution, they have leaders today who truly represent the people and who are not afraid to stand up for their nation and its identity.

 

We, in Western Europe, can learn lessons from the Velvet Revolution in the East. We, too, urgently need to make clear that enough is enough. In Western Europe, too, it is time to drain the swamp and to drive the elites from power. Peaceful and democratic, but thorough. We have to make our so-called democratic systems truly democratic again. The political actors should no longer be the professional politicians alone. The crisis is existential. It is time for every man and woman to do his and her duty. Because the survival of our nations itself is at stake.

 

We, too, have to make it very clear that we no longer want to take part in the madness of leaders, who sell out their country to the EU institutions in Brussels, and the madness of the EU elites, who sell out our continent to mass-immigration and Islam. That is why the PVV will demonstrate in the streets of Rotterdam on January 20th. We need to show that Europe’s streets are our streets, that we want to stay who and what we are, and do not want to be colonized by Islam. Europe belongs to us!

 

Geert Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) in the Netherlands.

Follow Geert Wilders on Twitter

____________________

Left-Right Supremacism – NO! E Pluribus Unum – YES!

John R. Houk

© November 28, 2017

__________________

Time to Drain the Swamp – Also in Europe

 

© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: I failed to get written permission ergo if asked, I’ll remove the Gatestone Institute portion.]

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

 

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and READ THE REST