Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel.
IMPORTANT: The Glazov Gang is a fan-generated program and its life extension is growing short. Please donate through our INDIEGOGO Campaign or our Pay Pal account to help us keep going. We appreciate it!
This special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Raymond Ibrahim Moment with Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
He discussed The Pope Who Gained the World, But Lost His Own Soul, unveiling Pope Francis’ Jihad on Christianity.
Don’t miss it!
Also make sure to watch Raymond discuss Islamic Hate for the Christian Cross, exposing what really lies behind Muslim hatred of the Crucifix:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel and to Jamie Glazov Productions. Also LIKE us on Facebook and LIKE Jamie’s FB Fan Page.
13 thoughts on “Raymond Ibrahim Moment: The Pope Who Gained the World, But Lost His Own Soul”
the catholic church’s history of corruption goes back a long time, “Mussolini and the pope” speaks to the connection of the church and fascism, and today obviously they are making another satanic alliance with islamists today probably in hopes of maintaining the palace life style to which he is accustomed–same reason i believe obama/hillary bow to the islamic wishes of destruction in exchange for vows for their personal safety/monetary gains. what fools they are.
Islam is a cult, unless Christians stick up for themselves and start fighting back we are finished. We must elect politicians that believe in the truth, which is the teachings of the Holy Bible. The Koran is a disease,.Believing in the Holy Bible is what made the West Great. The politicians of this day try and teach the West that going against Islam is a crime. They call it Islamophobia, how sick is that. If we bow to the views of our politicians and Islam, and don’t stick up for ourselves the end is near.
Yeah, right. There is just as much empirical evidence in support of the claims made in either the Bible, as there is in the Koran.
Both, as with other silly superstitious texts, only differ in that one is relatively, morally, worse than another.
Erik: I don’t know, of course, when it is that you last read the New Testament nor if ever you have. I suggest that you take a another or a new look at it. Read what Jesus had to say. Even if you don’t believe that Jesus existed, the wisdom in what He is said to have said will deeply impress you.
Fairy tales. And, I don’t grant your premises.
Study a little logic, critical thinking and quantitative analysis. Oh, yeah, understand it too. Then, you’ll see the falsehood of all religious texts, and of such simple conspiracy theories too.
Good luck there.
You comment is simply ignorant.
Ah yes. Ad hominem. Final refuge of the intellectually challenged.
Please feel free to support your conclusions with some empirical, testable, repeatable evidence. Unlike that which supports the existence of your superstitions.
As a person who could have majored win Medieval History, and writing this from recall, Charlemagne fought many battles in his effort to secure what came to be Western Europe. As a rule his court took great effort to separate missions from marshal activities. There is a popular modern mischaracterization that hold that he fought wars to force the conversions of the peoples he conquered thus identifying his as a Christian equivalent to Muhammed. There was a particularly warlike tribe in the north (Germanic) that raided into Carolingian lands and killed large groups of what we would call today non-combatants. Charlemagne took great offense, raised an army, and battled this warlike group and conquered them. He had many prisoners. In wars like this in those times, the custom was to put the captured armies to the sword. The expectation was that Charlemagne would exercise that option – a right of victory. Instead of executing them, however, he gave them the option of concerting to Christianity and being set free. Of course, they converted. The war was not fought to convert. The distinction is real.
Thank you for making a significant distinction. Any particularly good history’s you would recommend on the subject that would substantiate your claim?
I think the histories to avoid are the one’s postmodern treatments of Western History written to deconstruct and delegitimize the West. I could look into my stacks of Mediaeval History books, including many primary sources – most in Latin (the official language of government until the rise of the French) – it isn’t that controversial. Charlemagne’s battles were chronicled. He was a warrior king how brought some order to the un-ending warlord level fighting. The standards of warfare at that time were brutal and unforgiving.
RE the Pope Francis video
This is a welcome presentation Raymond Ibrahim. Thank you.
I do have wonder though: Isn’t the biggest threat to Christians these days Satanism? It is the Satanists who are setting Muslims against each other and against Christians in hopes that they will destroy each other. They are also trying to kill Western civilization by destroying all morals, the family, free will…just read the Communist Manifesto. Why isn’t Pope Francis addressing that evil? Oh right, Pope Francis is a Marxist, who was a Satanist. Francis isn’t a genuine pope but an infiltrator, one of the fifth column. Where is our modern day St. Bernard of Clairvaux or St. Catherine of Sienna to set him and his heretic entourage straight?
Aren’t some Muslims being persecuted as much as Christians? Who is dropping bombs on them in order to take their land and who is displacing them and funneling them to Europe? Thousands of Muslims didn’t simultaneously and spontaneously decide to move. They were motivated to do so.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. And there are fairies in the garden.
Do you have any video of that? I’d like to find out some