Free Republic

Just as Rev. Wright urged, Obama is damning America.

Read Michelle and Melania’s passages: they are not word-for-word.

In fact, I used plagiarism software on Michelle’s speech with the result that the program found 10 instances of plagiarism affecting Michelle’s phraseology. In addition, like Melania, several words had been used by others, probably including Alinsky: children, work, values, and nation. Michelle also misspelled one word and had four grammatical errors, according to the software.

But Dems never talk about their own weaknesses, from Michelle to Joe “The Plagiarist” Biden to Hillary, who broke several felony laws with the result that national secrets were compromised. Which do you think is worse: Melania’s speech or Hillary’s multiple felonies?

George Carlin on “Saving the Planet”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

If one used plagiarism software on Michelle’s speech, one finds 10 instances of plagiarism affecting her phraseology. In addition, like Melania, several words had been used by others, probably including Alinsky: children, work, values, and nation. Michelle also misspelled one word and had four grammatical errors, according to the software.

But Dems never talk about their own weaknesses, from Michelle to Biden to Hillary, who broke several felony laws with the result that national secrets were compromised. Which do you think is worse: Melania’s speech or Hillary’s felonies?

The Qur’an encourages lying:

Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences.”

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

From 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 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 Traveler (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.

Additional Notes:

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn’t true.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad’s “emissaries” went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who “accepted Islam” did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim “missionaries” approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already “converted” to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader’s promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today’s Muslims often try to justify Muhammad’s murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of ‘hypocrisy.’

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is “a bomb on board” but that everyone will “be safe” as long as “their demands are met.” Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to “slay and be slain for the cause of Allah” (as the Qur’an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it “has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization.” In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

The near absence of Qur’anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur’an, it is nearly always in reference to the “lies against Allah” - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad’s claim to being a prophet.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran’s nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.

http://www.skeptical-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/tumblr_manwbol4UX1rawnpqo1_500.jpg

The Qur’an encourages lying:

Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to “smooth over differences.”

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.

From 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 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 Traveler (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.

Additional Notes:

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn’t true.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad’s “emissaries” went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who “accepted Islam” did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim “missionaries” approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already “converted” to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader’s promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today’s Muslims often try to justify Muhammad’s murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of ‘hypocrisy.’

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is “a bomb on board” but that everyone will “be safe” as long as “their demands are met.” Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to “slay and be slain for the cause of Allah” (as the Qur’an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it “has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization.” In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

The near absence of Qur’anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur’an, it is nearly always in reference to the “lies against Allah” - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad’s claim to being a prophet.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran’s nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.

http://www.skeptical-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/tumblr_manwbol4UX1rawnpqo1_500.jpg

... and Hitler was from Austria. So what? Pay attention to goals set and armies led. Nobody believes Corsica conquered most of Europe and had to be defeated.

You guys forget that Napoleon who invaded Germany was French; that France was the first to declare war in 1870; and, before all that, German-speaking Alsace-Lorraine territories were gradually annexed by France between 1639 and 1697, mainly as a result of 17 invasions, prompting many Palatinate Germans to flee to America. The sad history of conflict over Alsace-Lorraine did not begin in 1914.

A Few Questions that Beg for Answers

Why did RFK ask LBJ: “Why did you have my brother killed?” Was he off his rocker? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tclZrJiJSL0

Why were fingerprints of Mac Wallace, a known assassin who worked for LBJ and Ed Clark, found in the sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository?
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwallaceM.htm

Why did LBJ exclaim to his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown after a meeting at Dallas house of Clint Murchison, attended by J. Edgar Hoover, Nixon, Mafia kingpins, and CIA allies of LBJ) on the eve of the assassination: “After tomorrow, those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again. That’s no threat. That’s a promise”? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79lOKs0Kr_Y

Who desperately wanted to be president and thought JFK had stolen the Democratic nomination from him? Who was going to be dropped from the JFK ticket in 1964 because of financial scandals? Who invited JFK to Dallas? Who changed the president’s route to pass by the Book Depository? Who moved to secure the limousine and JFK’s body immediately after the assassination? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSXQYvm57YM

Who set up the Warren Commission and demanded Oswald be found to be the sole gunman? Who controlled the police in Dallas and the FBI and CIA in Washington? The answer: Lyndon Baines Johnson. LBJ had the motive, the means, the opportunity, the history of eliminating his opponents, and the quotations that point to his arrangement and approval of the JFK assassination and vigorous cover-up. LBJ was the clear winner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiqnU3rbsow

That LBJ was responsible does not deny CIA/FBI/Secret Service and Mafia involvement but strengthens the case against him as he provided the leadership and federal resources to coordinate the assassination, select a patsy (in the CIA’s False Defector Program), and dominate the news media, such that to this day most news outlets are afraid to challenge the Warren Commission’s official story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjU2LtVGxN0

Why do the majority of Texans and a majority of Europeans believe LBJ was behind the murder of JFK? Why do we have such difficulty in accepting the fact that a coup d’etat happened on our watch, given that we elected (and re-elected) a Muslim Marxist with no substantive experience, no discernible achievements, and a profound hatred of things American, i.e., our Constitution and our values, as our most recent president?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3094134/posts, posting #16.

No doubt but that conspiracy theories advance when key questions go unanswered and the evidence contradicts physics and forensics. The reason: there are no good answers that would be satisfactory to the media, which is afraid to even raise the possibility of LBJ’s involvement. New books out by Bill O’Reilly and Vincent Bugliosi duck the tough questions, and unlike a good murder mystery, we don’t have time to pay attention to all those important details that are available or to reason logically to a correct solution.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-men-who-killed-kennedy/

The crime may never be solved in a way most Americans will agree, especially if the documents still withheld don’t get released in the latter part of this century, as promised. Accepting that LBJ was a ringleader-killer would then cause us to admit that our great political system, the widely acclaimed democratic experiment with all its checks and balances, didn’t work, that we might be less pure than we thought we were. The Giant has gone back to sleep.

A Few Questions that Beg for Answers

Why did RFK ask LBJ: “Why did you have my brother killed?” Was he off his rocker? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tclZrJiJSL0

Why were fingerprints of Mac Wallace, a known assassin who worked for LBJ and Ed Clark, found in the sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository?
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwallaceM.htm

Why did LBJ exclaim to his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown after a meeting at Dallas house of Clint Murchison (owner of the Book Depository), attended by J. Edgar Hoover, Nixon, Mafia kingpins, and CIA allies of LBJ) on the eve of the assassination: “After tomorrow, those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again. That’s no threat. That’s a promise”? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79lOKs0Kr_Y

Who desparately wanted to be president and thought JFK had stolen the Democrtaic nomination from him? Who was going to be dropped from the JFK ticket in 1964 because of financial scandals? Who invited JFK to Dallas? Who changed the president’s route to pass by the Book Depository? Who moved to secure the limousine and JFK’s body immediately after the assassination? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSXQYvm57YM

Who set up the Warren Commission and demanded Oswald be found to be the sole gunman? Who controlled the police in Dallas and the FBI and CIA in Washington? The answer: Lyndon Baines Johnson. LBJ had the motive, the means, the opportunity, the history of elimnating his opponents, and the quotations that point to his arrangement and approval of the JFK assassination and vigorous cover-up. LBJ was the clear winner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiqnU3rbsow

That LBJ was responsible does not deny CIA/FBI/Secret Service and Mafia involvement but strengthens the case against him as he provided the leadership and federal resources to coordinate the assassination, select a patsy (in the CIA’s False Defector Program), and dominate the news media, such that to this day most news outlets are afraid to challenge the Warren Commission’s official story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjU2LtVGxN0

Why do the majority of Texans and a majority of Europeans believe LBJ was behind the murder of JFK? Why do we have such difficulty in accepting the fact that a coup d’etat happened on our watch, given that we elected (and re-elected) a Muslim Marxist with no substantive experience, no discernable achievements, and a profound hatred of things American, i.e., our Constitution and our values, as our most recent president?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3094134/posts, posting #16.

No doubt but that conspiracy theories advance when key questions go unanswered and the evidence contradicts physics and forensics. The reason: there are no good answers that would be satisfactory to the media, which is afraid to even raise the possibility of LBJ’s involvement. New books out by Bill O’Reilly and Vincent Bugliosi duck the tough questions, and unlike a good murder mystery, we don’t have time to pay attention to all those important details that are available or to reason logically to a correct solution.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-men-who-killed-kennedy/

The crime may never be solved in a way most Americans will agree, especially if the documents still withheld don’t get released in the latter part of this century, as promised. Accepting that LBJ was a ringleader-killer would then cause us to admit that our great political system, the widely acclaimed democratic experiment with all its checks and balances, didn’t work, that we might be less pure than we thought we were. The Giant has gone back to sleep.

A Few Questions that Beg for Answers

Why did RFK ask LBJ: “Why did you have my brother killed?” Was he off his rocker? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tclZrJiJSL0

Why were fingerprints of Mac Wallace, a known assassin who worked for LBJ and Ed Clark, found in the sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository?
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwallaceM.htm

Why did LBJ exclaim to his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown after a meeting at Dallas house of Clint Murchison (owner of the Book Depository), attended by J. Edgar Hoover, Nixon, Mafia kingpins, and CIA allies of LBJ) on the eve of the assassination: “After tomorrow, those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again. That’s no threat. That’s a promise”? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79lOKs0Kr_Y

Who desparately wanted to be president and thought JFK had stolen the Democrtaic nomination from him? Who was going to be dropped from the JFK ticket in 1964 because of financial scandals? Who invited JFK to Dallas? Who changed the president’s route to pass by the Book Depository? Who moved to secure the limousine and JFK’s body immediately after the assassination? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSXQYvm57YM

Who set up the Warren Commission and demanded Oswald be found to be the sole gunman? Who controlled the police in Dallas and the FBI and CIA in Washington? The answer: Lyndon Baines Johnson. LBJ had the motive, the means, the opportunity, the history of elimnating his opponents, and the quotations that point to his arrangement and approval of the JFK assassination and vigorous cover-up. LBJ was the clear winner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiqnU3rbsow

That LBJ was responsible does not deny CIA/FBI/Secret Service and Mafia involvement but strengthens the case against him as he provided the leadership and federal resources to coordinate the assassination, select a patsy (in the CIA’s False Defector Program), and dominate the news media, such that to this day most news outlets are afraid to challenge the Warren Commission’s official story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjU2LtVGxN0

Why do the majority of Texans and a majority of Europeans believe LBJ was behind the murder of JFK? Why do we have such difficulty in accepting the fact that a coup d’etat happened on our watch, given that we elected (and re-elected) a Muslim Marxist with no substantive experience, no discernable achievements, and a profound hatred of things American, i.e., our Constitution and our values, as our most recent president?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3094134/posts, posting #16.

No doubt but that conspiracy theories advance when key questions go unanswered and the evidence contradicts physics and forensics. The reason: there are no good answers that would be satisfactory to the media, which is afraid to even raise the possibility of LBJ’s involvement. New books out by Bill O’Reilly and Vincent Bugliosi duck the tough questions, and unlike a good murder mystery, we don’t have time to pay attention to all those important details that are available or to reason logically to a correct solution.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-men-who-killed-kennedy/

The crime may never be solved in a way most Americans will agree, especially if the documents still withheld don’t get released in the latter part of this century, as promised. Accepting that LBJ was a ringleader-killer would then cause us to admit that our great political system, the widely acclaimed democratic experiment with all its checks and balances, didn’t work, that we might be less pure than we thought we were. The Giant has gone back to sleep.

Yesterday, President Barack Obama SIGNED the U.N. gun ban treaty.

You know what this means. Now Obama and the U.N. are one BIG step closer to wiping out our Second Amendment freedom, our national sovereignty, and our American rule of law...once and for all.

Only you and I can stop Obama and the U.N., but we have to act NOW.

Please sign NRA-ILA’s Emergency Petition to the U.S. Senate as soon as you can.

Only the Senate can ratify treaties, so it’s up to you and me to convince an overwhelming majority of U.S. Senators to vote NO on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. And we have to do it RIGHT NOW.

We need to line the halls of the Senate with boxes and boxes of these petitions. We need to make it clear to every Senator if they team up with Obama and the U.N. to destroy our gun rights — there will be a heavy political price to be paid at election time.

That’s why every petition counts, starting with YOURS.

So please, sign your petition TODAY.

And after you sign your petition, I need you to make a much-needed contribution to NRA-ILA so we can make certain that U.N. bureaucrats never get the chance to trample our constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

With your help now, NRA-ILA can launch a BLISTERING ad campaign that exposes Obama’s treachery. We can blanket the Senate with hundreds of thousands of these petitions. We can put every critical NRA-ILA campaign tool to work and stop this dangerous treaty before it becomes the law of the land.

But we can’t do ANY of it without a generous commitment from you TODAY.

Looks like former MF Global CEO Jon Corzine, who "lost" 1.6 billion from customer accounts and was indicted today, had much in common with his Japanese counterparts except for his sinister motives. Still, there is little doubt that Corzine is "the smartest guy" Joe Biden knows. Not a joke. Not a joke.

Since when is preparation for the Presidency important to Democrats? I can understand the celebrity status, but as her disastrous stint as SecState demonstrates, Kunta Klinte is hardly highly respected.

In reference to a native of Florida or Georgia, however, it [cracker] is sometimes used in a neutral or positive context

However, here there is no "neutral or positive context". So, why would the reporter tommy christopher write "It’s possible he [defense attorney Don West] just assumed the derogatory meaning, but you’d have to ask him why he would do that, why he would assume that two Florida residents could not have been using a Florida-specific colloquialism.

Well, maybe it's because the modifier "creepy-ass" created a negative context, or maybe the reporter just assumed that being a dumb-ass reporter is a source of pride in his profession.

6,000? That would be his entourage, bodyguards and sundry ex-pat liberals. Maybe all the commies have come to the US. Let us not lose sight of the fact that we are the ones who have the problem by making Obama our president: over 69 million Americans voted for Obama in 2008. In 2012, over 64 million preferred Obama over Romney ... including many FRs.

If Obama’s ultimate goal is to cripple the U.S. (and promote Islam), why would he want to avoid a looming fiscal cliff?
.

Islam Permits Lying to Deceive Unbelievers and Bring World Domination!

By Don Boys, Ph.D. Published Nov 17, 2004

It is impossible to understand Islam and Muslims by listening to their protestations against terror and their proclamations of patriotism for America. Usually, it is wise and fair to give people the benefit of the doubt but when it comes to national safety and the future of America, we had better look twice, even thrice at Muslim patriotism. Why? Because Islam permits lying! It is called “Al-taqiyya.” One Muslim said that Al-taqiyya means dissimulation then he expanded it to diplomacy but he should have gone further to deception. Now some Muslims who do not follow the Koran are as faithful Americans as any of us, but the problem is, we cannot know....

Muslims lie when it is in their interest to do so and “Allah” will not hold them accountable for lying when it is beneficial to the cause of Islam. They can lie without any guilt or fear of accountability or retribution. A lie in the defense of Islam is approved even applauded in their “holy” books.

Muslims are permitted to lie: (1) to save their lives, (2) to reconcile a husband and wife, (3) to persuade a woman into a bedroom and (4) to facilitate one on his journey. Muslims are even permitted to disavow Islam and Mohammed if it is not a genuine heart-felt rejection. Muslims will tell you that concealment of a truth is not an abandonment of that truth if it benefits Islam.

Mohammed gave permission for a follower to lie in order to kill a Jewish poet who had offended Mohammed....

Muslims may appear very sincere; in fact, they are sincere, when they lie for their own protection or in the cause of Islam. They have permission to lie. Yes, Christians have also lied but never are they given permission to lie. However, a Muslim has no guilt since the Koran and Hadith permit his deception....

You can trust the Muslims to be Muslims. They are lying their way to world domination!

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 (2:225)- “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”

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 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.

If we followed Singapore’s example and made the commission of a crime with a deadly weapon a mandatory capital offense, we would solve many problems.

Dear RedState Reader,

As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld Obamacare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4 decision. Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out, but John Roberts saved it.

Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.

First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.

Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.

Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.

Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.

60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.

It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now.

Sincerely yours,

Erick Erickson
Editor,RedState.com