• July 2018
    S M T W T F S
    « Apr    
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    293031  
  • Truth about Islam and Shari’a law

  • Blog Stats

    • 130,596 hits
  • Must Read! Click Picture!

  • Must Read: click picture!

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 36 other followers

  • Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

    Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

  • We love & support Israel!!!

  • Get Educated & Educate Others!! Click the Picture!

    CLICK THIS PICTURE!!!

  • Key Strategies for the Counter Jihad!

    Click on image above - read about strategies!

  • Advertisements

Who Are the Muslim Brotherhood-Linked Leaders Obama Met?


Advertisements

The Real History of the Crusades


Posted by sharia unveiled on February 8, 2015

crusader-knights-templar-3-resized

by, Thomas F. Madden | Shoebat Foundation & Shoebat.com | h/t Bill Muehlenberg

As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. The Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn’t the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades’ brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren’t the Crusades really to blame?

Osama bin Laden certainly thought so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he 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.) Clinton took a beating on the nation’s editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president’s fundamental premise.

Well, almost no one. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a “teaching moment,” an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening. It won’t last long, so here goes.

The threat of Islam
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.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

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. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. 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 Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

Understand the crusaders
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They 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.

Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it? The answer to that question has been badly misunderstood. In the wake of the Enlightenment, it was usually asserted that Crusaders were merely lacklands and ne’er-do-wells who took advantage of an opportunity to rob and pillage in a faraway land. The Crusaders’ expressed sentiments of piety, self-sacrifice, and love for God were obviously not to be taken seriously. They were only a front for darker designs.

During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.

What really happened?
Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:

How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? … Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?
“Crusading,” Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an “an act of love”—in this case, the love of one’s neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, “You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, ‘Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.’”

The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:

Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and traitors … unless they had committed not only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him? … And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood … condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to help Him?
The re-conquest of Jerusalem, therefore, was not colonialism but an act of restoration and an open declaration of one’s love of God. Medieval men knew, of course, that God had the power to restore Jerusalem Himself—indeed, he had the power to restore the whole world to his rule. Yet as St. Bernard of Clairvaux preached, His refusal to do so was a blessing to His people:

Again I say, consider the Almighty’s goodness and pay heed to His plans of mercy. He puts Himself under obligation to you, or rather feigns to do so, that He can help you to satisfy your obligations toward Himself. … I call blessed the generation that can seize an opportunity of such rich indulgence as this.
It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and his Church. It was the Crusaders’ task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence.

All apologies
The Crusades were wars, so it would be a mistake to characterize them as nothing but piety and good intentions. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars). There were mishaps, blunders, and crimes. These are usually well-remembered today. During the early days of the First Crusade in 1095, a ragtag band of Crusaders led by Count Emicho of Leiningen made its way down the Rhine, robbing and murdering all the Jews they could find. Without success, the local bishops attempted to stop the carnage. In the eyes of these warriors, the Jews, like the Muslims, were the enemies of Christ. Plundering and killing them, then, was no vice. Indeed, they believed it was a righteous deed, since the Jews’ money could be used to fund the Crusade to Jerusalem. But they were wrong, and the Church strongly condemned the anti-Jewish attacks.

Fifty years later, when the Second Crusade was gearing up, St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:

Ask anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm. “Not for their destruction do I pray,” it says. The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered … Under Christian princes they endure a hard captivity, but “they only wait for the time of their deliverance.”
Nevertheless, a fellow Cistercian monk named Radulf stirred up people against the Rhineland Jews, despite numerous letters from Bernard demanding that he stop. At last Bernard was forced to travel to Germany himself, where he caught up with Radulf, sent him back to his convent, and ended the massacres.

It is often said that the roots of the Holocaust can be seen in these medieval pogroms. That may be. But if so, those roots are far deeper and more widespread than the Crusades. Jews perished during the Crusades, but the purpose of the Crusades was not to kill Jews. Quite the contrary: Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these “collateral damage.” Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children.

crusaders-4-resized

The failure of the Crusades
By any reckoning, the First Crusade was a long shot. There was no leader, no chain of command, no supply lines, no detailed strategy. It was simply thousands of warriors marching deep into enemy territory, committed to a common cause. Many of them died, either in battle or through disease or starvation. It was a rough campaign, one that seemed always on the brink of disaster. Yet it was miraculously successful. By 1098, the Crusaders had restored Nicaea and Antioch to Christian rule. In July 1099, they conquered Jerusalem and began to build a Christian state in Palestine. The joy in Europe was unbridled. It seemed that the tide of history, which had lifted the Muslims to such heights, was now turning.

But it was not. When we think about the Middle Ages, it is easy to view Europe in light of what it became rather than what it was. The colossus of the medieval world was Islam, not Christendom. The Crusades are interesting largely because they were an attempt to counter that trend. But in five centuries of crusading, it was only the First Crusade that significantly rolled back the military progress of Islam. It was downhill from there.

When the Crusader County of Edessa fell to the Turks and Kurds in 1144, there was an enormous groundswell of support for a new Crusade in Europe. It was led by two kings, Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany, and preached by St. Bernard himself. It failed miserably. Most of the Crusaders were killed along the way. Those who made it to Jerusalem only made things worse by attacking Muslim Damascus, which formerly had been a strong ally of the Christians. In the wake of such a disaster, Christians across Europe were forced to accept not only the continued growth of Muslim power but the certainty that God was punishing the West for its sins. Lay piety movements sprouted up throughout Europe, all rooted in the desire to purify Christian society so that it might be worthy of victory in the East.

Crusading in the late twelfth century, therefore, became a total war effort. Every person, no matter how weak or poor, was called to help. Warriors were asked to sacrifice their wealth and, if need be, their lives for the defense of the Christian East. On the home front, all Christians were called to support the Crusades through prayer, fasting, and alms. Yet still the Muslims grew in strength. Saladin, the great unifier, had forged the Muslim Near East into a single entity, all the while preaching jihad against the Christians. In 1187 at the Battle of Hattin, his forces wiped out the combined armies of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem and captured the precious relic of the True Cross. Defenseless, the Christian cities began surrendering one by one, culminating in the surrender of Jerusalem on October 2. Only a tiny handful of ports held out.

The response was the Third Crusade. It was led by Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa of the German Empire, King Philip II Augustus of France, and King Richard I Lionheart of England. By any measure it was a grand affair, although not quite as grand as the Christians had hoped. The aged Frederick drowned while crossing a river on horseback, so his army returned home before reaching the Holy Land. Philip and Richard came by boat, but their incessant bickering only added to an already divisive situation on the ground in Palestine. After recapturing Acre, the king of France went home, where he busied himself carving up Richard’s French holdings. The Crusade, therefore, fell into Richard’s lap. A skilled warrior, gifted leader, and superb tactician, Richard led the Christian forces to victory after victory, eventually reconquering the entire coast. But Jerusalem was not on the coast, and after two abortive attempts to secure supply lines to the Holy City, Richard at last gave up. Promising to return one day, he struck a truce with Saladin that ensured peace in the region and free access to Jerusalem for unarmed pilgrims. But it was a bitter pill to swallow. The desire to restore Jerusalem to Christian rule and regain the True Cross remained intense throughout Europe.

The Crusades of the 13th century were larger, better funded, and better organized. But they too failed. The Fourth Crusade (1201-1204) ran aground when it was seduced into a web of Byzantine politics, which the Westerners never fully understood. They had made a detour to Constantinople to support an imperial claimant who promised great rewards and support for the Holy Land. Yet once he was on the throne of the Caesars, their benefactor found that he could not pay what he had promised. Thus betrayed by their Greek friends, in 1204 the Crusaders attacked, captured, and brutally sacked Constantinople, the greatest Christian city in the world. Pope Innocent III, who had previously excommunicated the entire Crusade, strongly denounced the Crusaders. But there was little else he could do. The tragic events of 1204 closed an iron door between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox, a door that even today Pope John Paul II has been unable to reopen. It is a terrible irony that the Crusades, which were a direct result of the Catholic desire to rescue the Orthodox people, drove the two further—and perhaps irrevocably—apart.

The remainder of the 13th century’s Crusades did little better. The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221) managed briefly to capture Damietta in Egypt, but the Muslims eventually defeated the army and reoccupied the city. St. Louis IX of France led two Crusades in his life. The first also captured Damietta, but Louis was quickly outwitted by the Egyptians and forced to abandon the city. Although Louis was in the Holy Land for several years, spending freely on defensive works, he never achieved his fondest wish: to free Jerusalem. He was a much older man in 1270 when he led another Crusade to Tunis, where he died of a disease that ravaged the camp. After St. Louis’s death, the ruthless Muslim leaders, Baybars and Kalavun, waged a brutal jihad against the Christians in Palestine. By 1291, the Muslim forces had succeeded in killing or ejecting the last of the Crusaders, thus erasing the Crusader kingdom from the map. Despite numerous attempts and many more plans, Christian forces were never again able to gain a foothold in the region until the 19th century.

Europe’s fight for its life
One might think that three centuries of Christian defeats would have soured Europeans on the idea of Crusade. Not at all. In one sense, they had little alternative. Muslim kingdoms were becoming more, not less, powerful in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The Ottoman Turks conquered not only their fellow Muslims, thus further unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of one of the last remnants of Christendom to survive. Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its aim of conquering the entire Christian world. One of the great best-sellers of the time, Sebastian Brant’s The Ship of Fools, gave voice to this sentiment in a chapter titled “Of the Decline of the Faith”:

Our faith was strong in th’ Orient,
It ruled in all of Asia,
In Moorish lands and Africa.
But now for us these lands are gone
‘Twould even grieve the hardest stone …
Four sisters of our Church you find,
They’re of the patriarchic kind:
Constantinople, Alexandria,
Jerusalem, Antiochia.
But they’ve been forfeited and sacked
And soon the head will be attacked.
Of course, that is not what happened. But it very nearly did. In 1480, Sultan Mehmed II captured Otranto as a beachhead for his invasion of Italy. Rome was evacuated. Yet the sultan died shortly thereafter, and his plan died with him. In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery, it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city. Germany, then, would have been at their mercy.

Yet, even while these close shaves were taking place, something else was brewing in Europe—something unprecedented in human history. The Renaissance, born from a strange mixture of Roman values, medieval piety, and a unique respect for commerce and entrepreneurialism, had led to other movements like humanism, the Scientific Revolution, and the Age of Exploration. Even while fighting for its life, Europe was preparing to expand on a global scale. The Protestant Reformation, which rejected the papacy and the doctrine of indulgence, made Crusades unthinkable for many Europeans, thus leaving the fighting to the Catholics. In 1571, a Holy League, which was itself a Crusade, defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto. Yet military victories like that remained rare. The Muslim threat was neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the once awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic—no longer worth a Crusade. The “Sick Man of Europe” limped along until the 20th century, when he finally expired, leaving behind the present mess of the modern Middle East.

From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.

Thomas F. Madden, is one of the top historians on medieval history and also on the Spanish Inquisition. He is an associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including The New Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.

Dr. Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs. The Crusades (Excellent Video)

Video courtesy of: Bill Warner (Thank you Bill)

Posted on 8 Feb 15 by Sharia Unveiled

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. What Barack Hussein Islama is trying to do again, to make Islam look ok and Christianity to look bad. The Crusades were actually the Roman Catholic Church (the ones that created Islam initially, until it got out of hand, just like the Muslim Brotherhood created ISIS until it got out of hand) going against the Muslims that were hellbent on killing everyone that did not believe the same way they did…so to defend themselves, the crusaders decided to kill EVERYONE that was not a Catholic…which included Jews and true Christians that did not believe what the Catholic Church conned off as being from Jesus.]

muslim_crusade conquests

Four Star Admiral: the Muslim Brotherhood Has Penetrated ALL of Our US National Security Agencies Under the Obama Administration [Video]


05 Feb, 2015 by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

I could not agree more. Every one of these Marxists should be removed from office, especially Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett (who is not even in office, but is the consigliere to Obama and is from Iran). We have allowed the enemies from within to gain control of virtually every security and intelligence agency we have. We are lousy with Islamists within our walls, who are conducting a silent coup within our government. Our conquest by Islam is happening right before our very eyes. The Muslim Brotherhood has meetings with the Obama Administration all the time and then they call for a decade of Jihad and the death of Egypt’s al Sisi. All with the blessing of Barack Obama. Everything our president has done screams that he is aiding and abetting the enemy.
obamamuslimA

From TPNN:

Retired 4-Star U.S. Navy Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons, speaking at the National Press Club in January, says that under Obama’s guidance, the Obama Regime has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood terrorism front group, saying that the radical anti-freedom organization has penetrated every U.S. security agency. Admiral Lyons said that “the transformation of America has been in full swing ever since 2008,” the year Obama was elected based upon his campaign promise to “fundamentally transform America.”

Speaking about Obama’s refusal to attend the recent march in France, reportedly attended by more than 50 world leaders to condemn Islamic terrorism following the gruesome murders of cartoonists who had the audacity to lampoon Islam, Admiral Lyons said that act was a “signal to Islamic Jihadis,” and is “one of many signals he sent over the years while in office.”

“There’s no question we got a hell of a job ahead of us,” Admiral Lyons said. “With the Muslim Brotherhood penetration in every one of our national security agencies, including all our intelligence agencies,” he proclaimed.

Admiral Lyons said that our “lead intelligence agency” is “headed by a Muslim convert,” a reference to Obama CIA head John Brennan.

The new GOP majority in both houses of Congress were elected to “stop the transformation of America, not to see how they could work with the president.”

Admiral Lyons asserted that there is no such thing as radical Islam, but that “Islam is Islam.”

“The threat is Islam. Let’s make no mistake about it. There’s no such thing as radical Islam,” Lyons asserted.

When four-star admirals come forward and tell you that Islamists are running the show in America, you had better listen. This is something that Trevor Loudon and I have been harping on for years. Barack Obama will not stop our enemies, because he is one of them. He has gutted our military and intelligence agencies. He has replaced our leaders with Islamists, communists and sycophants. The treasonous damage he has done will cripple or destroy us if we do not have the spine to face evil and cull the Islamists and their sympathizers from our midst in our halls of power, our military and our intelligence agencies. Islam does not need a Trojan horse…they have Obama.

Posted on 5 Feb 15 by Right Wing News

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters or the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. Sorry to say this, but with a Word from the Lord that came down that tells us that if America does not come back to God, as a covenant country (only two countries exist that have a covenant with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob…Israel and America) we have been given harbingers, and refused to come back to Him, we have been given signs and prophesies in the Old Testament through Israel’s history when they turned their backs on God…they always suffered an economic collapse, then a capture/destruction…America now, is far worse than any country in the past that has been judged by God…and America is not mentioned, through iconology or symbolism, in the end times of Revelation, the “Apocalyptic” book of the Bible. There is a Shemitah that will happen against the US in September, where the dollar…our entire economy…will die, the US dollar will be taken out of the World currency, then shortly afterwards, Barack Hussein Obama will enforce martial law on the US, and will rid the US of American law, and will shuffle in Shari’a (Islamic law)…and the Muslim Brotherhood will have conquered America, just as they have planned, with a Trojan horse as president.

When the Word comes that America needs to come back to Christ, it doesn’t mean just an “Ask the Lord for forgiveness and everything will be ok again”…it means we need to come back to Him…by turning away from our national signs…the sins of homosexuality/transgendering (Sodom and Gomorrah was punished for this and was destroyed), all crime, both violent and non-violent (the laws of God, and the laws of the US originally were basically, an eye for an eye…but we no longer do that, so criminals get away with murder so to speak), abortion (this falls under the worship of the idol/god molocke), following false gods (wanting more wealth, more material things, more clout…being obsessed with hobbies like material items {PC gaming, console gaming, texting, best house, anything that is being obsessed over} is actually following false gods because they have become the god in your life, they are what you want most of), pornography (this is a lust, fornication, adulterous problem…it causes some people to become obsessed over stalking people, raping people, having illicit sex with people they don’t know, having illicit sex without marriage, cheating on spouse if married), pharmacia (Greek word for pharmacy…but overall it entails ALL drugs, good and bad), not to mention uncourteousness, selfishness, laziness, unhelpfulness…the list goes on…America would have to repent, and turn away from all this…the proper medication usage is the only exception…but drug use, improper medicine use, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, following false gods, lack of manners…all must be changed…or America will be destroyed…destroyed as we know it…destroyed from what it is now…

Obama Cooperates With Grandson of Muslim Brotherhood Founder


Adina Kutnicki

IF one understands how dangerous the Muslim Brotherhood is to western civilization, let alone America, one then realizes what it means to embrace the grandson of its founder, Hassan al-Banna!! Ramadan Exhorts COLONIZING U.S./Canada FBO Islam!

IT is with this mind that the readers should internalize the following commentary. Enough said.

Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

 TariqRamadan

AS always, one can count on the (w)academic community – intellectual “acanemics” –  to propagate the most outrageous falsehoods, all in order to push through their ideological objectives. In fact, historical truth is as valued as soiled toilet paper.

INHERENTLY, anti-American/anti-western profs lend “intellectual” cover to Islamic supremacists/jihadists. Dangerous reprobates.

BUT when you factor in enumerable Islamists educated in the west, the landscape becomes even more ominous. Deadly.

IN this regard, they selectively bare their Islamic fangs before certain audiences, yet, their western educated silvery tongues – honed via their pedigrees – convince many that they are “reformers”. Moreover, some attended (and teach) at the most prestigious universities, garnering them even bigger megaphones and wider prestige. Mind you, to those who are paying attention, it puts paid to the hogwash that Islamists are deprived, uneducated, alienated and otherwise disadvantaged!

John Kerry said it would be a mistake to link Islam to criminal conduct rooted in alienation, poverty, thrill-seeking and other factors.

ENTER, Tariq Ramadan (via this linked video), as slippery as a snake, opining that “Islamophobia” is a root issue to examine, yet feigns “moderation” in this and that. Oh yeah. Orwellian doublespeak.

 Brother Tariq

MOST significantly Tariq Ramadan…hold onto your seats…is the GRANDSON of the Muslim Brotherhood’s founder Hassan al-Banna!!

YES, it must be understood how earth shaking this factor is, as he is an heir apparent to the most dangerous (worldwide) Islamic umbrella/front group, bar none. Regardless, Barack HUSSEIN Obama gave him open sesame, as indicated below.

 icna-0163

AS expected, Islamists, whatever their stripes, can’t stay away from Muslim Brotherhood and other associated terror groups: Ramadan headlined at ICNA!

ICNA has established a reputation for bringing anti-American radicals to speak at its annual conferences. Moreover, experts have long documented the organization’s ties to Islamic terrorist groups. Yehudit Barsky, a terrorism expert at the American Jewish Committee, has said that ICNA “is composed of members of Jamaat e-Islami, a Pakistani Islamic radical organization similar to the Muslim Brotherhood that helped to establish the Taliban.” (Pakistani newspapers have reported that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a leading architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, was offered refuge in the home of Jamaat e-Islami’s leader, Ahmed Quddoos.) On September 27, 1997, another Pakistani Islamist leader, Maulana Shafayat Mohamed, played host to an ICNA conference at his Florida-based fundamentalist madrassa (religious school), which served as a recruitment center for Taliban fighters.

In 2000, CNSNews.com made public a press release, originally posted on a Middle Eastern website, from a July 2000 ICNA meeting, which read: “Jamaat e-Islami’s supporters have an organization in America known as ICNA …” The press release also recounted some of the views expressed at the aforementioned ICNA meeting. These included an exhortation that “Islam must be translated into political dominance”; pleas for support for “jihad” in “Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq [against U.S. forces], southern Sudan, and … in Bosnia/Kosova [sic]”; an appeal for unity among Pakistani Muslims against “Hindu Brahmins and Zionist Jews”; and an endorsement of Muslim women’s inclusion in carrying out jihad. One Islamic leader present at the ICNA event complained about “human rights violations” being carried out by the U.S. government against the terrorist mastermind Omar Abdel Rahman, spiritual leader of Egypt’sIslamic Group.

In part because of such revelations, ICNA is now under investigation by U.S. authorities for possible connections to terrorist groups. In December 2003, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee requested that the Internal Revenue Service provide detailed information on 25 U.S. Muslim organizations, including ICNA…..

DESPITE the above – or more accurately due to it – Barack HUSSEIN Obama opened America’s gates to Ramadan, a Swiss citizen of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood legacy!

MUSLIM SUPREMACIST TARIQ RAMADAN says, “We are not here to adopt Western values, we are here to colonize the U.S. (and Canada) and spread Islamic sharia law”

Banned from entering the U.S. by George W. Bush, Ramadan was welcomed back by Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton. He states that “Canada has one of the easiest legal systems to penetrate and advance sharia from within…but if that doesn’t work, we won’t hesitate to use violent jihad.”

IN the main, you gotta thank said Islamic supremacists for slipping up, even though Tariq Ramadan believes that his doublespeak via taqiyya is lost on clueless Americans. In other words, while some are more “in your face” than others, their Islamic designs are one and the same: a global caliphate under Shariah Law!

SO realize that another linked video clip, by leading British Islamist Anjem Choudhary, is a mirror image to Ramadan. Choudhary is the same jihadist who was cited in an intelligence analysis this investigative journalist was part of. It was not for nothing.

INTRINSICALLY, when one is less than 6 degrees separated from “43 Islamists on trial for a Euro-terror plot” (for starters), well, others would do well to hear what he (they) have to say. Indeed, they mean (Shariah law) business.

BOTTOM LINE: it is always, hands down, better to know with whom you are dealing, thus, to internalize where you stand.

IN effect, just like Choudhary lays it on the line, so too does Tariq Ramadan. A host of others alike. Agreed, some choose to come out in full Islamic garb, while others charm with their smooth-style western clothing and affectations, yet, their final messages are still the same:submission to Allah!

IS it any wonder why the Islamist-in-Chief granted him a visa and embraces these same brothers in the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia? 

“My bothers and sisters, we must exploit the so-called democracy and freedom of speech here in the West to reach our goals.

Our prophet Muhammad, peace be unto him and the Koran teach us that we must use every conceivable means to defeat the enemies of Allah.

Tell the infidels in public we respect your laws and your constitutions, which we Muslims believe that these are as worthless as the paper they are written on.

The only law we must respect and apply is the Shari’a.”

Tariq Ramadan – www.facebook.com/pages/Quoting-Islam 

CLEAR as a bell!!

 alalak

Posted on 1 Feb 15 by Joe for America

BREAKING: US Pacific Fleet Commander Drops Bombshell About Obama and Muslim Brotherhood


Sunday, January 25th, 2015

It’s pretty bad when a former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet feels compelled to write a telling piece as to why his former boss, President Obama, is on the verge of single-handedly handing over the fate of American citizens to radical Islamists.

Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons, a 36-year Navy officer, wrote the column for Breitbart, which is beyond shocking and infuriating. Coming from a man who often reported directly to the White House and was responsible for a long list of victories, both diplomatic and physical, Lyons is about as credible as a source could ever hope to be.

The big news over the past few weeks was Obama’s no-show for the massive march in solidarity that took place in Paris with forty other world leaders in attendance. Obama’s absence was nothing short of a message, albeit subtle, to the Islamic nation that as long as he’s king, they’re free to advance their radical agenda.

Lyons brought to light a shocking number of instances over the course of Obama’s time in office when he has given a virtual green light to radical Islamists and has completely reversed America’s stance in the Middle East, at least during the current administration. (H/T Breitbart)

One instance he wrote about was when Obama showed his support for the Islamic uprisings that were eventually known as the “Arab Spring.” He pointed to a frightening statement Obama made during a 2012 UN Assembly where he declared, “that the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

The Arab Spring was not a movement of freedom and democracy, rather, it was an obvious awakening for radical Islamists across the Middle East and the start of a revolution against the West.

Another glaring issue that still plagues U.S. military leaders today is the fact that we essentially changed teams in the Global War on Terror. Instead of aligning with important allies in the region, we began backing militias who are aligned with Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood, a group which Obama is quite familiar with and even friendly toward, have already began the process of accomplishing their goal to bring the U.S. to its knees and infiltrate all levels of U.S. government.

Because Obama has embraced this radical group, who operate under the guise of the front group CAIR in the U.S., they’ve managed to take top positions of leadership and influence throughout the U.S. intelligence community – even going as far as directing the removal of negative references to Islam in every training manual used by government agents and law enforcement.

The psychological operation they’re running against the U.S. is powerful and effective, to say the least.

It doesn’t appear that much will change as long as Obama is president and the GOP is still controlled by Obama’s Republican puppet, Rep. John Boehner. So until then, we can hope for good men such as Rep. Trey Gowdy, Allen West and a handful of other no-nonsense leaders to keep America from completely succumbing to the growing shadow of radical Islam.

We salute Admiral Lyons for his willingness to expose his former boss for American citizens to see.

Posted on 25 Jan 15 by Conservative Tribune

“Will Obama Step Down?”


Did you know this? Unbelievable. Nobody is reporting this yet. Why?

January 25, 2015 5:58 am Global Insecurity

039-newt-gingrich-940

(gopthedailydose) – Newt Gingrich speaks to the gathering of conservatives at the Iowa Freedom Summit, characterizing the current global threat in crystal clear terms. He says, “There is one common pattern occurring everywhere across the planet and that is radical Islamists, who hate our civilization, are prepared to cut off our heads and are determined to impose their religion by force.”

Gingrich says he’s not going to spend a lot of time talking about Hussein Obama’s “pathological incapacity to deal with reality.” He says, “There’s no point in trying to get him to learn how to say the words ‘radical Islamists’ because he has a speech impediment which blocks him from being able to say the words.”

He points out that even the institution of the U.S. Army has become so corrupted by the dishonesty we now live with that they described the Ft. Hood attack as a workplace violence incident.

He says, “We have an elite, frankly in both parties, unwilling to tell the truth. You’re not going to win this war if you can’t tell the truth. You’re not going to win this war if you can’t admit it’s a war.” He affirms his willingness to live in peace with respectful, peace loving Muslims who allow other views but when faced with the Sharia insistent radicals, Gingrich admits to a desire to kill them before they cut off his head.

He points to the critical nature and the significance of the fight in which we are now engaged, comparing it more than once to the battle against communism. Gingrich recommends Congressional hearings into the threat of radical Islam and completely writes off the dangerous Obama regime as well as a potential Hillary Clinton presidency as incapable or unwilling to responsibly address the threat.

Gingrich supports driving them off of the Internet and that whatever it takes to do so we should do.

He also points out the Saudi funding of supposed objective experts who are engaging in the “undermining and weakening the survival of the United States.”

He says we should make it clear that from here on out, the United States is not going to tolerate any kind of advocacy for Sharia or violence against the West, recruiting or fundraising by any terrorist organizations or individuals. He supports those who leave the United States to engage in radical Islamic terrorism losing their U.S. passports and citizenship.

Gingrich points out how, while his countrymen were showing total cowardice in the face of confronting Adolph Hitler, Winston Churchill actually took the time to read “Mein Kampf,” and determined that Hitler actually meant what he was saying, and eventually Hitler proved him to be correct.

Gingrich believes that today we are in the same environment, that our government lies to us daily about the threat, that the intelligence community has been co-opted and that the military is afraid to tell the truth.

He says that, starting with the Congress, we the people need to demand the truth highlighting the indisputable fact that we the people have a right to defend our civilization as well as ourselves and our families from these barbarians.

Posted on 24 Jan 15 by GOP The Daily Dose

Why Won’t The White House Name Islamic Extremism?


An Islamist protest in the UK. (Photo: © Reuters)

An Islamist protest in the UK. (Photo: © Reuters)

By Elliot Friedland | Mon, January 19, 2015

The White House has refused to name Islamic extremism directly as the motivating factor behind the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, instead referring to the ideological motivations indirectly.

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary was asked in a briefing why the White House will not speak about Islamic extremism. A reporter asked him “the leader of France, your ally in this effort, has put a name on this ideology, which he calls “radical Islam.” You have bent over backwards to not ever say that. There must be a reason.“

He responded “I certainly wouldn’t want to be in a position where I’m repeating the justification that they have cited that I think is completely illegitimate, right? That they have invoked Islam to try to justify their attacks.” Earnest here is categorically refusing to accept the terrorists’ own explanation for their attacks, seemingly on the grounds that attempting to understand the motivations that terrorists themselves put forward is tantamount to a tacit acceptance or even support for their views.

On being pressed, Earnest detailed two reasons for not wanting to name the ideology behind worldwide Islamist terrorism.

“The first is accuracy” he said. “We want to describe exactly what happened. These are individuals who carried out an act of terrorism, and they later tried to justify that act of terrorism by invoking the religion of Islam and their own deviant view of it.”

This proffered explanation is completely devoid of any context or teleological purpose. It is also deceptive. An act of terrorism is only that because of its connection to a political ideology, the advancement of which the spread of terror is supposed to aid. There is no such thing as an act of terrorism shorn of an attendant ideology, that is simply murder. Seemingly the White House is attempting to construct the idea of  “an act of terrorism” in a way that removes any need for the state to identify the causal ideology. That way it is not part of a broader trend, it simply is. Furthermore, Earnest places the act of terrorism first, arguing that the explanations only came afterwards, as if the true goal is wanton slaughter, with any explanation sufficing afterwards in an attempt to cover it up. This line of thinking is palpably false.

Earnest goes on “The second is this is an act that was roundly condemned by Muslim leaders. Again, I’m describing to you the reasons why we have not chosen to use that label because it doesn’t seem to accurately describe what had happened. We also don’t want to be in a situation where we are legitimizing what we consider to be a completely illegitimate justification for this violence, this act of terrorism.”

It is absurd to say that identifying a person’s motivation is the same as legitimizing it. One can speak perfectly easily about apartheid (for example) without legitimizing a legal system which enshrines white people as superior to black people. On the contrary, identifying and deconstructing the ideology behind apartheid was a key factor in ultimately defeating it.

He does not mention that many of those Muslim leaders who condemned the Charlie Hebdo attacks are themselves terrorist sympathizers or supporters. The King of Saudi Arabia, for example, had Raif Badawi, the human rights activist, flogged just after the attack on Charlie Hebdo. The Council on American Islamic Relations also condemned the terrorist attacks, despite being designated by the United Arab Emirates as a terrorist organization themselves. They are a Muslim Brotherhood front group that operates in America and are listed by the State Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror financing trial in American history.

The point blank refusal to refer to Islamic extremism as such drew criticism. MSNBC covered the issue on its “Morning Joe” show, asking a government spokesman to explain why the government refused to name the issue, in sharp contrast to other world leaders who have defined the driving ideology of global terrorism in no uncertain terms.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, for example, described Islamic extremism as a “poisonous, fanatical death cult.” The British communities secretary, Eric Pickles, has just written to 1,100 Imams and mosques across the country, urging them to do more to tackle “men of hate” within Muslim communities. Responding to criticism of the letter, Cameron said that “Anyone reading this letter who has a problem with it, I think really has a problem. It’s the most reasonable, sensible, moderate letter that Eric could have written.”

Instead of identifying the issue in this way, however, the White House will be hosting a summit in February on countering violent extremism in general.

Earnest said that the summit aimed to “discuss how extremists are using social media platforms to try to inspire acts of violence and inspire extremism — expressions of extremism by other people.” He also said there would be a focus on ”strategies that we can employ to better promote pluralism, inclusion and resilience in communities all across the country.”

Earnest also alluded to the possibility of putting White House pressure on journalists and other media professionals to self-censor when it was deemed to be in the national security interest to do so. He was asked a question about a statement made by a previous White House press secretary regarding the 2012 Charlie Hebdo firebombing. Asked about the cartoon cited as provocation by the terrorists the spokesperson said that the White House “questioned the judgement of the publication of that particular cartoon.”

In response Earnest upheld the previous statement, saying that certain publications can put American soldiers abroad in danger, adding “the President and his spokesman was not then and will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform.”

The White House has failed to lay out a either a comprehensive defense of free speech or accurately identify Islamic extremism as the source of international jihadism. It’s inability to do so will severely hamper American efforts to fight global terrorism.

Posted on 19 Jan 15 by The Clarion Project

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters nor the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. This shows 2 things…#1 that our government only follows after what they are told to say, which is dictated by our illustrious king, Barack Hussein Islama (when he tries to hide the truth about Islam, his religion and his “Change” for the United States of America), and #2, the federal government is very incompetent and stupid, and does not have a clue concerning Islam. They go by what they are told by their king and leader (BHO)…they (the DEMONcrats) refuse to do any research into what Islam is, nor the history of Islam, to find out what these radical. extremist, Islamic terrorist are doing is actually Islam…in fact, it is OBLIGATED for them to do…

ob·li·ga·tion
ˌäbləˈɡāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: obligation; plural noun: obligations

an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.
“he has enough cash to meet his present obligations”
synonyms: duty, commitment, responsibility, moral imperative; More
function, task, job, assignment, commission, burden, charge, onus, liability, accountability, requirement, debt;
literary trust
“no obligation may be placed upon you without your consent”
compulsion, duty, indebtedness;
duress, necessity, pressure, constraint
“he felt an obligation to tip well”
the condition of being morally or legally bound to do something.
“they are under no obligation to stick to the scheme”

So, for the “radical, extremist Muslims to perform these acts, is very much what Islam is…contrary to what the president/mahdi Barack Hussein Islama, or anyone in the White House, or any “Moderate” Muslim leaders say, the true fact concerning Islam IS THAT THESE ACTS ARE ISLAM, AND NOT JUST DEMENTED VERSIONS OF PSYCHOS CALLING THEMSELVES MUSLIMS…it’s like ISIS…they are doing exactly what their final prophet (although a false, demon possessed one) told them to do, more so than any other terrorist group…even destroying the Kaaba, because, marching around the meteorite stone seven times, then kissing/touching/looking at it is worshipping it, which goes against what Muhammed said. ISIS killing Shi’ite Muslims, and even Sunni Muslims as hypocrites, is what Muhammed said to do, because they are not follow, exactly, word for word, what Muhammed said to do…which was perform lesser jihad to terrorize the world into becoming so scared the world submits to allah or dies…

So, for the WH to make such an ignorant statement concerning the extremist Islamic terrorism, is just imbeciles following the wolf in sheeps clothing, that is leading them to their deaths, which BHO is doing that…because the US will not be free, nor Christian by the middle of 2016…due to prophesies of the dollar/economy dying in Sept 2015, and martial law coming around Oct 2015, the once president, but then newly appointed DICKtator will push off his GRAND JIHAD that the Muslim Brotherhood vowed they would perform to conquer America, the Great Satan, and make it an Islamic country.

Yes this is my opinion, but it is based on prophecy that has been put out, as well as watching the signs and seeing the evidence coming out…one more piece of bad news…in my Bible studying, I regret to say that, through symbolism and iconology and such in Revelation, America isn’t really mentioned, and going to back to the Old Testament, when you look at what had happened to Israel/Judah many times that they left God/ Yeshua’s side, Israel/Judah suffered economic destruction, then country destruction/slavery…there is a prophecy against America that sometime in 2017 Russia will attack America, the dominoes are lining up for this to happen, after all we are friends now with Cuba (which is also friends with Russia), and nuclear ICBMs can reach us without a problem from Cuba. And if you do research on Russia and America currently, there is a huge distrust and a new cold war, with reports going on about Obama trying to to do a false flag against Russia using Ukraine, and the mess is just going on between Russia and the United States of Obamamerica.

One thing that the White House (other than Barack Hussein Obama, the WH Imam, because he already knows) does not know concerning the Muslim world leaders that talk against the “extreme Islamists” is that, once again, according to the Qur’an, the Sira, aHadiths and Shari’a, Muslims are to perform taqiyya…]

In Shi’a Islam, taqiyya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation,[1] or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.[2] The corresponding concept in Sunni Islam is known as idtirar (إضطرار) “coercion”. A related concept is known as kitman “concealment; dissimulation by omission”. Also related is the concept of ḥiyal, legalistic deception practiced not necessarily in a religious context but to gain political or legalistic advantage.

The Qur’an:

  • Qur’an (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
  • Qur’an (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”
  • Qur’an (9:3)“…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…”  The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture.  They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
  • Qur’an (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
  • Qur’an (2:225)“Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”  The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.
  • Qur’an (66:2)“Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”
  • Qur’an (3:54)“And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.”  The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’.  If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.

From the Hadith:

  • Bukhari (52:269)“The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.'”  The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad’s men after he “guaranteed” them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
  • Bukhari (49:857)“He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.”  Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.
  • Bukhari (84:64-65) – Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an “enemy.”
  • Muslim (32:6303)“…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).”
  • Bukhari (50:369) – Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence.  The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad.  This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveller (p. 746 – 8.2) –  “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.  When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…

“One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

H/T to The Religion of Peace

%d bloggers like this: