David Yeagley is the great-great-grandson of Comanche leader Bad Eagle. 
by David Yeagley"/>
America hasn’t declared war on any country since 1941–on Japan, December 8, and then on Germany, December 10. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and a dozen other encounters, have all been nation-building projects. War is out. The progressives of the world will simply not allow one nation to declare war on another nation. The mechanisms of war, the explosives, the carnage, is all permitted, but not the formal declaration of war. Like the ancient dignity of dueling, war has gone by the wayside. The romance of honor is long passed.
In this image provided by the U.S. Navy Pearl Harbor survivors observe the U.S. Naval Sea Cadets Concert Band of the West perform at the Pearl Harbor Visitor’s Center during Kama’aina and military appreciation day Sunday Dec. 4, 2011. This year marks the 70th anniversary of the 1941 attacks on Pearl Harbor in which more than 2,400 people died. According to the New York Times this is the last year the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association will mark the anniversary. The association will disband on Dec. 31. (AP Photo/US Navy – Daniel Barker)
Conservatives and patriots rest their souls on the honor of the last of the WWII veterans. Today, December 7, the memory of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, harbors the last of the spirits of nobility left in the country. Without the declaration of war, the United States strips all subsequent and future veterans of true patriotic honor. It is now only theory, or value homage, precious as that can be.
When, after the Arab Muslim attack on New York City on September 11, 2001, the United States failed to declare war on Saudi Arabia, our government neutered any sense of national honor. It just doesn’t exist anymore. It can’t. Only through war is national identity created and preserved. Behold, this is the very history of the United States of America. But, that history is forbidden to repeat. It is only a memory. Conservatives have become bleeding heart liberals when it comes to crying over the dead.
There is no righteousness in lamentation. There is no courage in tears for the past. It is unacceptably hypocritical to cry over the past, but not be willing to emulate those we would feign honor.
But, it is hard for a country to be honorable when its leadership is without honor, and forbids its practice.
The absence of national war–nation against nation–represents the erosion and eventual dissolution of all nations. This is the globalist, one world government plan.
America’s enemies are certainly preparing for war, as liberals in our government work to make America easily defeatable. We daren’t declare war at this point, for practical reasons, let alone politically correct submission to other races and nationalities.
It is completely irresponsible to separate a people from its government. But without national declaration of war, we continually pretend that governments are not responsible for their own people. The United States should have declared war on Saudi Arabia the minute it was known that the murderous pilots were Saudi. The idea that a few bad guys don’t represent a whole country, or even a whole religion, is irresponsible liberalism. It allows exactly what we see in the world today–mammoth perversions like the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA, open borders, and the complete abuse of Americans. It allows and encourages our enemies to claim American citizenship (like Barry Soetoro has).
What do a people do whose government has betrayed them? How do people hold their government responsible? The maniacal Muslims hold Americans responsible for it. They are willing to kill as many Americans as possible, whenever possible.
And sense when is a religion to be distinguished from the government that hosts it, that espouses it, that promotes it? Again, such thinking is what got us where we are today.
With all due respect to post-WWII veterans, America is in error on the matter of war. Today’s military is the most unusual mass of soldiery ever evolved. Our military people are missionaries! They are defending America so much as trying to spread her basic values. Our forces are not allowed to win. That isn’t why they’re engaging in warfare. Victory is not about defeating and destroying the enemy. Victory is about changing a people’s way of life, somehow.
I don’t know how our military keeps their head on straight. No wonder there are so many help and counseling services for them when they return. (Or, is that just liberals at work, denigrating human strength?) They are putting their lives on the line for line-lessness. They are spilling their blood for border-less notions of human values. Is that all America has become, an amorphous evolution of materialistic, Communist “equality”? Is America now only about making sex, religion, and race utterly undefined, or worse, ill-defined?
So, today, let’s have mercy on ourselves. Let’s remember the dignity of war, and the honor of nationhood. Let’s remember Pearl Harbor with a willingness to declare war–on other countries! Let’s remember our warriors with the courage to declare war on enemy religions. Let’s be ready to defend who and what we are–after, of course, we have determined that identity through the study of American history, our Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution.
At this point, I must say, I think a willingness to declare war must precede even our study of American history. Without such a will, we misread our own history. This is the secret of liberal success–to forbid the declaration of war. This removed the willingness to declare war, and thus erased all definition of American nationhood.
34 responses so far ↓
1 Thrasymachus // Dec 7, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Asia has recovered!
Famous Italian designer (not of fashion) warns that the “White Population of the World is out of the game.” “This is a dangerous situation for the White Population of the world. The Yellows are coming.”
Luigi Colani Interview
2 Maharishi of Mayhem // Dec 7, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Oh, how I long for the days when there were real leaders who were not politicians…
Officers quoted General Patton’s speech to them before the invasion of Sicily, referring to Italians and Germans: “When we land against the enemy, don’t forget to hit him and hit him hard. When we meet the enemy we will kill him. We will show him no mercy. He has killed thousands of your comrades and he must die. If your company officers in leading your men against the enemy find him shooting at you and when you get within two hundred yards of him he wishes to surrender – oh no! That bastard will die! You will kill him. Stick him between the third and fourth ribs. You will tell your men that. They must have the killer instinct. Tell them to stick him. Stick him in the liver. We will get the name of killers and killers are immortal. When word reaches him that he is being faced by a killer battalion he will fight less. We must build up that name as killers.”
CNN and MSNBC would not let this happen today. The effeminate and homosexual Brobama would not let us fight.
3 Maharishi of Mayhem // Dec 7, 2011 at 1:58 pm
General George Patton on Arabs:
“The more I see of Arabs the less I think of them. By having studied them a good deal I have found out the trouble. They are the mixture of all the bad races on earth, and they get worse from west to east, because the eastern ones have had more crosses.”
Letter to Frederick Ayers (5 May 1943), published in The Patton Papers 1940-1945 (1996) edited by Martin Blumenson, p. 243
4 REG // Dec 7, 2011 at 5:55 pm
How do I say this- You’re right in many ways and our soldiers are being used in inappropriate ways and there are many things to say about this subject; however, I am a member of the Patriot Guard Riders. We attend funerals for Veterans, welcome home and send off service men and women at the airports. I would extend a welcome invitation for anyone reading this blog to join us in one of our missions. To stand by a casket of a young man that just died in Iraq or one of the other countries that our government sent him to. Think about how that young man will not provide a young woman with a home and children, no children if he has them already, will grow up with a father. Maybe a step father but that’s not the same. Then get the job of presenting the invocation to the mother, widow while you look into that grieving face and thank her for giving you the honor of being able to show that son or husband respect. Then, we can discuss the importance of declaring war.
5 David Yeagley // Dec 7, 2011 at 7:14 pm
If war were declared, you might be attending less funeral services. If the goal is saving lives (avoiding funerals), sometimes the bomb has to be dropped.
Patriot Guard Riders.
Just to show I appreciate your position!
6 zephyr // Dec 7, 2011 at 8:21 pm
David: “Today’s military is the most unusual mass of soldiery ever evolved. Our military people are missionaries! . . . Our forces are not allowed to win.”
Case in point–Dept of Defense just downgraded the Ft Hood Massacre to “workplace violence”:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/military-growing-terrorist-target-lawmakers-warn/
7 David Yeagley // Dec 7, 2011 at 8:33 pm
There is no wrong; there are no wrong doers. There is no enemy. There are no enemy attacks.
War is not a sport. War is not about rules and fairness. War is about winning. Else, it is not war that is happening. It is something else.
8 Thrasymachus // Dec 7, 2011 at 10:21 pm
This organization is entirely new to me and I have not heard the entire presentation. I do not know the political persuasion of the organization. I suspect they are one sector on the Left.
In Logic, the truth of an argument stands on its own or falls on its own; the views of the one presenting the argument on other subjects does not validate or invalidate any particular argument being considered.
“Economic Globalization” is the explanation offered here for these so-called “wars.”
It seems to be relevant to the topic in hand, however, so I am posting the link below:
Perpetual War for Peace?
9 Maharishi of Mayhem // Dec 8, 2011 at 12:34 am
“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
“It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.”
Both by General George Patton
10 Asaph // Dec 8, 2011 at 7:58 am
“The idea that a few bad guys don’t represent a whole country, or even a whole religion, is irresponsible liberalism.”
Just wondering if you believe some rogue American mercenaries, criminals of some kind, involved in an activity in another nation which kills their citizens should prove a declaration of war upon the USA.
Consider the now known fact that several of the supposed Saudi hi-jackers have been identified as alive and well. That is the reason no declaration of war was made against Arabia. Plus oil interests. Of course, such reasoning falls into your parameters of weakness and corruption in the military and government. Nonetheless, there is, of course, far more to 9/11 than meets the MSM eye.
Like many words in language that go through various changes in meaning, “war” is certainly one that has.
11 KO // Dec 8, 2011 at 9:32 am
A familiar saying from Heraclitus: War is the father of all things.
12 zephyr // Dec 8, 2011 at 12:19 pm
David: “The idea that a few bad guys don’t represent a whole country, or even a whole religion, is irresponsible liberalism.”
” . . . it would be intellectually dishonest to claim, as liberals often do, that because exceptions exist to a rule, the rule is no longer relevant.”
–Ben Shapiro, _Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth_
Great blog, David. Sadly true. I pity WWII vets who have had to sit by and watch the country they fought for morphing into a hideous, unrecognizable monster of communism.
13 David Yeagley // Dec 8, 2011 at 12:28 pm
I know I may have seemed a bit extreme in this blog about war. I’m just trying to defend and protect the meaning and honor of war. That’s all. It is connected to nationhood. Therefore, a correct understanding of war is essential.
I would never honor greed, blood lust, or violence for the pleasure. those things are Satanic. But, since they exist, one must be prepare to handle them with “iron hands,” as old King David said. 2 Sam. 23:6,7.
14 David Yeagley // Dec 8, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Asaph, you think the Jihadists are mercenaries?
15 Maharishi of Mayhem // Dec 8, 2011 at 1:22 pm
“In war there is no prize for the runner-up.”
General Omar Bradley
‘It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it.”
General Douglas MacArthur
16 Pamela K. // Dec 8, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Asaph, you think the Jihadists are mercenaries?
- David Yeagley
If I may answer this question, yes. And because you live in America, war has been declared against you. Take it personal. You are considered an infidel Christian, and like myself and all other believers, we are automatically marked for death. And these mercenary Sons of Allah neither have mercy, nor do they discriminate between honorable WWII veterans, or other American military personnel, pregnant women, newborn babies, innocent schoolchildren, newlywed couples, white, black, Hispanic, American Indian, Asian, male, female, Jew, Christian, atheist, straight, gay, etc. You are from the West so you are going to die. This is uppermost in the mind of the Jihadist. And the more violent means of the death to the hated infidels, the more glory for Allah! Not to mention the reward of 72 virgins waiting with anticipation in Seventh Heaven (Islamic Paradise)
What were those immortal words Kipling wrote?
“Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet…”
His warning apparently fell on a lot of deliberately deaf ears.
17 R. May // Dec 8, 2011 at 4:00 pm
I’ve always hated undeclared war, but your essay has caused me to understant WHY I hate it so much. Superb. I’ve linked to this and commented on it here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2011/12/war-and-honor.html
18 Asaph // Dec 8, 2011 at 7:00 pm
“Asaph, you think the Jihadists are mercenaries?”
Hadn’t thought of it that way, but based upon the definition, Yes, to a certain degree. But my question was just using some type of involvement of rogue Americans in another nation. If people are killed should that nation declare war on America?
19 David Yeagley // Dec 8, 2011 at 8:04 pm
I should think any nation has the right to declare war whenever it feels it needs to. That is a national privilege.
I’d wager that a nation’s people would be far more responsible if they knew their behavior counted more seriously–wherever they were, and whatever they were doing.
Self-preservation is a pretty reliable source of behavior control.
But, I admit, I have not solid understanding of what happened at the Trade Center in NYC. I know that Saudi has made no effort to exonerate itself from any claims that it was Saudi Muslims to did it.
20 Asaph // Dec 9, 2011 at 8:15 am
To a lesser degree this resembles the controversy over parental responsibility. Parents can raise “good” kids who take a 180 and get into crazy stuff. Should parents be held responsible for 180 kids? Why should a nation be held responsible for rogue citizens who couldn’t care less about national effects and repercussions off their own actions in another land? This is something of what diplomacy is all about. Otherwise, who knows how many wars would have been fought?
Then there is the whole CIA/covert ops subject. Who knows how many wars have been averted or instigated because of such activities?
Without proof the Saudi government knew of the attack and chose to remain silent, going to war with them would have terminated the financial world.
Bad enough we went to war with Afghanistan and still have no, and never will have victory there, because we are not fighting a nation. Same can be said for Iraq. These wars, plus Vietnam, Korea … bases all over the globe. It’s all a mess. It’s all repugnant to American history and principle. Characters more rogue behind these wars than the Saudi 9/11 crew. Makes me sick to think about it.
When a nation attacks you, it is a declaration of war. When religious fanatics attack you unconnected to any national flag, and would as soon wipe out their own leaders and flags in their hatred and lunacy, it’s a war of another color.
You love the Iranian people. How many will die if Iran gets an unconstitutional preemptive attack?
21 zephyr // Dec 9, 2011 at 9:29 am
There is “proof” of terrorist training camps in Saudi, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United States. I’m sure there are other countries that could (or already have been) added to that list. Some of these were known prior to 9-11.
For several years now, our government has known that most of zakat, which Muslims are required to pay, is used to finance terrorism. Ever since the Holy Land Foundation Trial and the infiltration of CAIR by the FBI, our government has the documents, the wire transfers, canceled checks, etc that prove this.
And yet, these “camps” still exist in the U.S. under the guise of “religious freedom”. In Islam, that means “freedom”–actually, OBLIGATION–to kill non-Muslims.
If that’s not an enemy, I don’t know what is.
Instead of addressing the problem, our destructive administration is now busily at work “revising” all law enforcement/fbi/cia/DoD training manuals to delete words like “Islam”, “jihad”, and “terrorism”–because they don’t want law enforcement to see the obvious connection and heaven forbid that anyone should read the Qur’an.
http://news.investors.com/
Article/589489/201110261902/
Delinking-Islam-And-Terror.htm
22 David Yeagley // Dec 9, 2011 at 10:28 am
I’m with Zephyr on this one, Asaph, in spite of the reasonable positions you take as well.
The Torah can be pretty cruel, especially in the wilderness days. Parents could bring a wayward son before the elders, and have him stoned. If they recognized a irreparable rebellious nature, which would bring nothing but harm and shame, the parents have the option of execution. Deuteronomy 21: 18-21.
This is an hard saying. Who can hear it?
Early Americans rose up and threw off an evil government. I think more people in the world should be willing to do that, rather than run to America for unearned privileges.
23 Pamela K. // Dec 9, 2011 at 10:29 am
I think Pakistan stands out as the active nerve center of Jihad recruitment/ training activities. Osama Bin Ladin, a Saudi expatriate, although this claim is dubious at best, was allegedly holed up there before they killed him. I guess there must be a lot of Walking Dead in that country too. Anyway, Obama has definite ties to this Asian terror resort.
In his book “Dreams Of My Father” Obama talked about when he lived in NYC and about his Pakistani roommate, a man he called “Sadik” who had overstayed his tourist visa and was making a living as a waiter.
Then, while as a student at Occidental College, Obama became friends with another Pakistani exchange student named Whahid Hamid.
In 1981, Obama traveled to Pakistan. At the time of his visit, the nation of Pakistan was on the list of banned travel destinations for US citizens. The Soviet-Afghan War was in full swing and Pakistan was flooded with refugees, not to mention the center of operations for the Afghan Mujuhedeen in their offensive against the Russians.
Why would a young western man want to travel to a nation that was banned to Americans for travel and which was caught up in the middle of a terrible war being fought in neighboring Afghanistan?
However, if he were a young man of the Muslim faith, which we all believe that Obama is, there are three possible reasons:
To learn how to wage in Jihad, which is required of every Son of Allah
To receive indoctrination into the beliefs of Wahhabism in a Saudi-funded Madrassa
And may be-as a side line activity- to smuggle dope from Pakistan back to dealers in the United States.
Although this third reason can not be proved nor disproved, it makes sense that if a young western man was going to smuggle dope, it would be better if he “blended in” with the rest of the populace of Pakistan. And what better way than to use his Muslim religion as a cover?
24 JollyGreen // Dec 9, 2011 at 10:42 am
The day is coming when the real sleeping giant (the Papacy), will awake from its slumber and once again become a persecuting power. Having no military might of its own, it will enlist the military might of the U.S. to do its bidding. The Beast Power of Papacy (King of the North) will then go to work to stem the tide of Islam (King of the South) which is currently seen as the biggest threat to human freedom. (Daniel Chapters 11 & 12). While some would never believe that the U.S. would back the Papacy, please consider that the Papacy is a nation with a permanent seat at the U.N. No other “religion” has the status. According to Malachi Martin in his magnum opus, “The Keys of this Blood,”the U.S. and Vatican worked together to usher in the fall of Soviet Communism. Jesuit intelligence and money set it all up.
This scenario of cooperation could again develop between the U.S. and the Vatican to work against Islam. The Supreme Court is Catholic, much of Congress, and the current Republican front-runner, Newt Gingrich is a Lutheran turned Southern Baptist turned Catholic.
Unfortunately, Rome will also use its power to enforce worship of all people. This will be widespread and will also be enforced by the U.S. (Lamblike beast (or power) of Revelation 13:11).
When Rome goes to war, there are no national boundaries. Her adherents will be the soldiers of oppression to enforce worship and obedience.
This will be a universal war declared by Satan himself. No one will be safe, except for those who refuse to worship the Beast.
It is being set up, and it will happen.
25 David Yeagley // Dec 9, 2011 at 10:51 am
Hmmm. Interesting interpretations.
So, religion will be the defining factor, not nationhood? Religion trumps race, sex, and nationality?
The proffered intellect over the natural world?
A likely story…
That ol’ human imagination has been our hang up since the beginning…
26 Pamela K. // Dec 9, 2011 at 11:01 am
“When Rome goes to war, there are no national boundaries. Her adherents will be the soldiers of oppression to enforce worship and obedience”.- JollyGreen.
Since the Vatican supported the unspeakable atrocities committed by the Croatian Ustaci militia against hundreds of thousands of innocent Serbians in Yugoslavia during WWII, and then later helped the leaders of the group escape prosecution for crimes against humanity by helping them escape to South America, this does not surprise me in the least.
27 David Yeagley // Dec 9, 2011 at 11:45 am
Nah, but American Catholics are different, no? They’re more independent-minded. Look at Pelosi! I can’t see American Catholics doing what they’re told. They’re too Americanized..
Or, am I dreaming?
28 JollyGreen // Dec 9, 2011 at 12:11 pm
“…I can’t see American Catholics doing what they’re told. They’re too Americanized..” Bad Eagle.
Good observation Dr. Yeagley. However, I believe that Rome even has this one covered.
Here are my thoughts. Yes, Rome recognizes and despises the independent and free-thinking spirit of American Catholics. Rome recognizes that American has become so effeminate that it is difficult to foment moral outrage on many issues (abortion being a good example).
Therefore, Rome saves the best play for last…pardon the pun, but the good ole “Hail Mary” pass….the Holy Grail of Roman instigation….the only method that will enlist the RC masses in America…..that is MONEY!!!
Rome, meaning the Papacy, is without argument, the richest nation on this earth. While like the Federal Reserve, the Vatican Bank remains outside of independent audit, we know that her holdings (including worldwide real estate) are massive. We must also understand that her political sway gives her access to the treasuries of nations.
Now, why do I feel that this could be a determining factor in bringing the USA on board? Well, man has two desires that often lead to debauchery….sex & money. They are often linked. However, we will leave sex out of the equation for the moment.
The world is in chaos. Nations are crumbling…they are failing and hardly anyone takes notice. When a nation fails financially, it is more vulnerable than if it had failed militarily.
Rome has the resources to step in and “bail-out” nations. However, she is waiting. For she does not want to bail out just any nation. No, she wants to bail out the only nation that has the power to influence, or force other nations to bow before Peter’s throne….that is, the good ole USA.
America will fail financially, but there will be a savior that will “bail us out.” This financial bailout will come from the Beast that sits on seven hills.
This bailout will come with a price. The U.S. will become a puppet and arm of the Antichrist.
29 JollyGreen // Dec 9, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Just an added thought.
I stated that when a nation fails financially it is more vulnerable than if it had failed militarily.
A nation that is conquered by another nation usually despises their conquerors. They still retain a sense of nationalism that can lead to insurrection and violence toward the conquering armies (Iraq is a prime example).
However, a nation that is not at war with another nation but fails financially is a different story. In this case, cohesion of the masses on a nationalistic or political level is lost as every man considers how he will save his own life and to take care of his own. In such a scenario, this man that is desperate, can and will be open to outside suggestion and influence.
When the government fails to keep its people warm, fed, and in a bed; they had better watch out for the repercussions.
Rome knows this and is waiting to celebrate the financial fall of the U.S.
30 David Yeagley // Dec 9, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Here are a couple of pieces I wrote, one last year:
Will the Vatican Bail Out the U.S.? (December, 2010)
The Pope, the Bank, and Babylon (Oct. 30, 2011).
31 Pamela K. // Dec 9, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Nasty Nancy Pelosi is about as Catholic as her boss, Barak Hussein Obama is a Christian, meaning not at all!
Furthermore, the Catholic-In-Name-Only Abortion Queen of the US Senate feels that her fellow Catholics should be bereft of having a conscience.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/28/hey-nancy-pelosi-catholics-should-have-a-conscience/
Just like herself.
32 JollyGreen // Dec 9, 2011 at 1:46 pm
I cannot vouch for the entire website, but I found the following article regarding Vatican financial holdings interesting:
http://one-evil.org/acts_global_depression/acts_global_depression.htm
33 zephyr // Dec 9, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Pamela–thanks for sharing re: _Dreams_. I started to read the book prior to the election and got about 2 chapters into it–couldn’t handle the constant urge to vomit.
Yes, BO IS Muslim–by definition of the Qur’an and hadith. Under shari’a law, all children born in a Muslim marriage automatically belong to the father. In case of divorce, there are NO custody disputes because the children always belong to the father. The Qur’an (2.233) specifies that the children may stay with the mother until they are weaned, but then they go to the father.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of idiotic Western women who marry Muslim men–not realizing their own children do NOT belong to them. And when the child is weaned, it’s not uncommon for the Muslim father to take off with the kid to a country that has no extradition treaty with the U.S.–you know, the ones that recognize only shari’a law.
Large sections of surah 2 deal w/ divorce, and they are not abrogated. It’s a Medina surah.
Any non-Muslim women who marry Muslim men must convert to Islam, and Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men.
34 Pamela K. // Dec 9, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Zephyr, I was reading the book, “Dreams” when Obama was running for president to try and be fair before passing judgment, and to try and find out what makes this man tick, but after the first few chapters I had to quit myself! Especially when Obama raved about a light-skinned black girl named Joyce, “the green-eyed sista, all the brothers wanted her…..”
His play at being cool by being a sleazeball towards this girl made me sick!
Anyway, the Bible specifically warns Christians about marrying outside the faith.
“Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers, do not make mismatched alliances with them or come under a different yoke with them, inconsistent with your faith.”
For what partnership have right living and right standing with God with iniquity and lawlessness? Or how can light have fellowship with darkness?”
2 Corinthians 6:14
When a Christian woman willingly marries a Muslim man, she comes under the “yoke” or the burden of Islam. In other words, she subjects herself to be controlled and subjugated to the satanic principality behind the face of Islam.
I recently read a quote from Mavis Leno, wife of Tonight Show host, Jay Leno, regarding the treatment of Muslim women in Afghanistan, who said that, “the Quran is more liberal (meaning fair) with women than the Bible.”
How could anyone in their right mind make such a statement? Why are Muslims being given preference in their demands for Sharia Law here over the rest of the American people?
Again, it is a spirit of witchcraft in operation. The core tenet of witchcraft is the imposing of the will, through supernatural means, on the will of others. It also blinds secular or “worldly” people-spiritually and mentally- to the truth.
Muslims are not the problem, Islam is the problem. And when the devil is through using these people that have bowed their knee to Allah to serve his purposes, he will kill them too.
You must log in to post a comment.