It isn’t surprising that Trump would be reading Jihad Watch. ... What makes this striking is that Trump made no secret of reading this site, unlike numerous others who are so afraid of the politically correct thought police that they read it in secret — even back when I was giving seminars for the U.S. military on the terrorist mindset, one colonel urged me not to say that I had been there, so afraid was he of Hamas-linked CAIR. It’s long past time to stop that kind of kowtowing. Those of us who are defending human rights against jihad terror and Sharia oppression have nothing to feel guilty about or ashamed of, and must not accept the enemy characterization of us, as that characterization itself is just a weapon in their arsenal and an attempt to clear away opposition to jihad and Sharia. It’s good news that the corrupt media is being passed over in favor of the truth tellers. Kudos to Trump for not bowing to the self-appointed arbiters of acceptable opinion.
Robert Bruce Spencer Connected to the Carolinas
Source
After Donald Trump linked to a Jihad Watch post on his Facebook account. Donald Trump links to Jihad Watch story on Facebook (August 3, 2016), Jihad Watch.
- year
- 2016
Cite this record
“It isn’t surprising that Trump would be reading Jihad Watch.…” Robert Bruce Spencer. Carolina Quotes, record CQ-528B49858A. https://carolinaquotes.com/quote/528b49858a
More from Robert Bruce Spencer
Hindutva isn't an American problem, @AudreyTruschke It never was and never will be. Hindutva means "Hinduness" or the qualities of being a Hindu; it's simply Hinduism. What you call Hindutva are Hindus who oppose the Hinduphobia that your Leftist/Islamic hate alliance produces.
Propaganda may be effective in the short term, but reality cannot be hidden forever. (Chapter 1)
Here’s why the life of Muhammad [and Jesus] matters: Contrary to what many secularists would have us believe, religions are not entirely determined (or distorted) by the faithful over time. The lives and words of the founders remain central, no matter how long ago they lived. The idea that believers shape religion is derived, instead, from the fashionable 1960s philosophy of deconstructionism, which teaches that written words have no meaning other than that given to them by the reader. Equally important, it follows that if the reader alone finds meaning, there can be no truth (and certainly no religious truth); one person’s meaning is equal to another’s. Ultimately, according to deconstructionism, we all create our own set of “truths,” none better, or worse than any other. Yet for the religious man or woman on the streets of Chicago, Rome, Jerusalem, Damascus, Calcutta, and Bangkok, the words of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Krishna, and Buddha mean something far greater than any individual’s rendering of them. And even to the less-than-devout reader, the words of these great religious leaders are clearly not equal in their meaning.