President Bush and the Muslim Brotherhood, and 9-11.


If the truth suggested in the title isn’t enough, hear how the Muslim Brotherhood is mechanically destroying America.

Now that their tactics are clear, what the hades are we waiting for!


Start listening at 5  minutes, podcast 3. (Although, the whole 10 minutes is eye opening.)

Islam 101 and Lying, Part II.b

In the prior post (Part II.a), I began examining the topic of Lying within Islam. Most lying is viewed as sin.  Some is not. The prophet Mohammed himself identified the categories within which lying does not count as sin. Muslims cannot disagree with the prophet’s words and should attempt to live as he lived.  Any Muslim who rejects the prophet’s words rejects him. Such an attitude is looked upon by other Muslims as intolerable.

Non-Muslims should understand Islam’s views on lying in its various forms and that the distinctions between what type is sinful to them or not sinful are structural components to their thought processes. This is their “normal.” Therefore, non-Muslims should act prudently in situations where trust and the validity of information from Muslim sources are involved. This is not a call to judgment, but based on Islam’s own sources it is a call to be wise. We now consider a form of lying designated as Misleading.

Misleading: Misleading communication is intentional lying. Our focus concerns examining motive and communication structure. The objective of misleading communication is to make it appear the liar is telling “a” truth and that such a reply satisfies the questioner without repercussions to the liar or anything else Islamic. This is by design. It is another example where end justifies means.

Scholars’ comments on lying and misleading, found in section r10.1-10.3 of the Traveller, state that misleading someone is “religiously more precautionary” than to speak a straight out lie. While both are lies, one is ranked as less severe than the other: “But it is religiously more precautionary in all such cases to employ words that give a misleading impression, meaning to intend by one’s words something that is literally true, in respect to which one is not lying, while the outward purport of the words deceives the hearer.”

This fuller statement establishes the point that misleading is intentional, and the next couple of statements show why misleading is permissible:

“This is true of every expression connected with a legitimate desired end, whether one’s own or another’s.” (r8.2) [Legitimate: acceptable according to an established law, principle, rule…]

“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.” (RT r8.2)

Well, isn’t that comforting! It takes a scholar to tell Allah’s followers, his best people on earth, there is a slim technicality between blatant lying and crafted lying, and choosing one over the other somehow makes a “religious” difference. Wow! No wonder the Koran speaks of Muslims being accountable for an “atoms weight” of good or evil found during Allah’s final judgment! (Koran 99:8, 10:61)

For their sake, they must know this difference exists, then correctly understand their context in which the decision needs to be made to choose lying that is sinful or  non-sinful, and then speak or act in such a way that what they do is actually in accordance with their lie being sinful or not. I’m so glad the Bible makes it clear all lying has its roots in the devil, and this makes ALL lying sinful. (John 8:44) Clear and simple! But, let’s examine this subject a bit further.

“Giving a misleading impression means to utter an expression that obstinately implies one meaning while intending a different meaning the expression may also have, one that contradicts the ostensive purport.  It is a kind of deception.” (r10.2)

This example may illustrate the point. Imagine a U.S. law enforcement officer seeking information on a possible terrorist threat to the United States knocking on the door of a home whose owner is thought to have information on the suspect, perhaps even hiding him.  The officer knocks on the door and the following conversation takes place.

“Is so-and-so here?”  To which the householder, purposely meaning the space between himself and the questioner rather than the space inside the house, replies, “He is not here.” (r10.2)

Did you catch the intentional shift of location intended by the officer’s question that was different from that of the homeowner’s reply?  I will let the Traveller speak for itself to clarify the distinction of a misrepresentation present in the example: “It often takes the form of the speaker intending a specific referent while the hearer understands a more general one.” (r10.2)

“Scholars say that there is no harm in giving a misleading impression if required by an interest countenanced by Sacred Law that is more important than not misleading the person being addressed [i.e. the outcome is more desirable than telling the truth], or if there is a pressing need which could not otherwise be fulfilled except through lying.” (r10.3)  In all other situations, there is debate among the legality and sinful nature of misleading. This puts the weight for the entire process of knowing whether or not a Muslim is going to speak a lie considered sinful or not sinful on that individual’s shoulders! Any error in judgment and what one considered non-sinful lying might just be lying that is sin, and that person just added another weight to the Hell side of their account. Not good.

In the next post, I will cover both Exaggeration and Hypocrisy.

Infowars» Threats to Assassinate Romney Explode After Debate

» Threats to Assassinate Romney Explode After Debate by Paul Joseph Watson

Despite numerous media outlets attempting to downplay the issue, Twitter exploded last night following the debate with new threats from Obama supporters to assassinate Mitt Romney if he defeats Obama in the presidential race.

As we reported yesterday, in addition to threats by Obama supporters to riot if Romney wins, innumerable Twitter users are also making direct death threats against Romney.

The primary reason given for Obama supporters wanting to see Romney dead is the fear that he will take away food stamps.

The only thing that will fix this is to kick these people off welfare, and respond appropriately when they riot, as they will. Lock and load, people. One consolation: If they are liberals, they probably don’t have guns. -You Know I’m Right

What I Didn’t Hear at the Republican Convention

The Republican National Convention is now over, with Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan accepting the nominations for president and vice-president, respectively. I heard many uplifting life stories from the speakers: stories of climbing the success ladder one rung at a time – and yes, they did build it; of parents and grandparents immigrating to the US because of freedom and opportunity; and the valuable lessons passed down to subsequent generations. I heard a good amount of talk of faith and pride in our country and in being Americans.

There were some things I didn’t hear: I heard no racism. No class envy. No lies or false claims about the “other side.” Although there were a few mild jabs here and there, there were no vicious personal attacks, and I heard no really strong campaign rhetoric.

But there were some things I was hoping to hear from the candidates that never materialized. There was not one word about Obama’s illegal executive orders or other abuses of power and disdain for our system of checks and balances. The words “corruption” and “cronyism” were only uttered once. There was nothing said about the rule of law applying to government officials. Nothing about investigating corruption and crime, and prosecuting whoever and wherever the investigations lead. Nothing about cleaning up Congress. Nothing about going after the likes of Corzine or HSBC.

No mention was made of Eric Holder and the administration arming drug cartels – who are invading the southwestern United States – with thousands of weapons that they used to kill hundreds if not thousands of Mexican citizens, as well as at least two Americans. Neither candidate said anything about protecting our 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to protect ourselves.

There was a good deal of talk about improving education through “choice,” whatever that means, but nothing about going after the unions or shutting down the DOE or returning control of our schools to our local communities. There was nothing about de-centralizing education (or anything else). In fact, Romney mentioned national education standards, indicating he would maintain some sort of federal involvement in the education our children receive. Federal involvement in education leads to indoctrination, but that is a subject for another time.

Perhaps most telling, there was nothing specific from either candidate about shrinking government except in a very vague way when Paul Ryan said they would hold the budget to 20% of GDP. No mention of shutting down government agencies. No talk of rolling back government involvement in things that should be done by the private sector.

In fact, Mitt Romney said he would “repeal and replace Obamacare.” WE DON’T WANT IT REPLACED. Government has no Constitutionally-allowed role in our health decisions other than making sure we can buy insurance across state lines.

The focus was almost totally on the economy and jobs, but that’s not enough to put this country back on track. Focusing solely on the economy will not put us back under the rule of law and force government back inside its Constitutional limits. It will not clean up the cultural rot the progressives have brought about and return us to being a morally upright people. It will not halt the threat to our way of life inherent in Islam and shariah law.

It would be nice to know our candidates have noticed – and abhor – the tyranny the current administration is trying to usher in through its many attacks on our very foundations. It’s not just the economy anymore, stupid. Not by half.


%d bloggers like this: