The Ethics of Speech


The Holy Bible sets out the rules for speech that is acceptable to Almighty God. These rules are set forth in YHWH God’s Holy instructions for life, the four law books of the Torah, and are defined, confirmed and examples are given by our Savior, Yeshua Ha Moshiach [Jesus Christ] in the four books of the Gospels.

America, in throwing out the Torah of the Almighty Creator, has become a nation of accomplished habitual liars and also habitual false accusers.

This essay will address these twin sins, Lashon Hara and Hilchot Rechilut, which are now endemic in American Society, name the most egregious sinners, and lay out YHWH God’s commands and punishments.

Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun and he was correct. The previous “Democratic” Empires such as Greece and Rome fell into ruin for the same universal sin of lying that America is now experiencing.

Here is my list of the worst practitioners of these sins in American life, beginning with the worst offenders. Each of these lying mouths give the same excuses for their sin, which are, “I am only doing my job” and similar self-congratulatory phrases to cover the lies they tell with more lies.

1. American Police, the new Gestapo and the same old lie

2. American Politicians, lies for fame, power and fortune

3. Doctors and Medical personnel, lies for power over life and death

4. Lawyers, lies for riches and power

5. Salespersons for profit

6. Muslims for Muhammud and Islam

These five categories of liars recently destroyed Nazi Germany and they shall surely destroy America. Each will be exposed in the latter part of this essay.

The Love of money is the root of all evil.

The Prohibition of Communicating Lashon Hara in Scripture and commentary on the Bible

The Chafetz Chaim lists 31 mitzvot, which may be violated when a person speaks or listens to Lashon Hara. This is a staggering number. Even though one does not generally violate them all in one shot, it is important to remember how carelessness can lead one into deeper trouble. The central prohibition against unethical speech is Leviticus 19:16 – “Lo telech rachil b’ameicha” — do not go about as a talebearer among your people. [FYI: Rashi’s commentary on this verse is a “classic.” He discusses the origins of the word rachil (a roving merchant), and a few divergent ideas about the Hebrew language.

This verse in Leviticus applies equally to Rechilut and Lashon Hara (abbr.: L”H). The Chafetz Chaim gives their exact definitions later on, but for clarity we should mention them here:

◦ Lashon Hara – any derogatory or damaging (physically, financially, socially, or morally evil speech.

Although Rechilut seems more obviously derived from the verse, both as a cognate (rachil/rechilut) and a concept (talebearer), the Torah is prohibiting any type of harmful or negative speech in this commandment.

There are several other commandments that directly address “gossip”:

Deut. 24:8-9 – “Take heed concerning the plague of leprosy” because it is a punishment of Lashon Hara. “Remember what the L-rd your G-d did unto Miriam by the way as you came forth out of Egypt.” Specifically, she spoke against her brother Moses.
◦ Lev. 25:17 – “You shall not wrong one another” which the Talmud (Bava Metzia 58b) explains that this means saying anything that will insult or anger (stress-inducing) communication.

◦ Rechilut – any communication that generates animosity between people. Rechilut is often the repeating of Lashon Hara. For example, Reuven tells Shimon that Levi is ugly (Reuven spoke L”H), and then Shimon tells Levi what Reuven said about him. Shimon probably made Levi angry with Reuven, which is Rechilut.

Deut. 19:15 – “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sin” because, unlike in a court for monetary matters, the testimony of a solitary witness is not binding, so that his testimony damages the defendant’s reputation without any beneficial result.

Several other commandments are more general, yet in certain circumstances apply when Lashon Hara or Rechilut is spoken:

◦ Ex. 23:1 – “You shall not utter a false report.” Acceptance of a false report also follows from this.

◦ Lev. 19:14 – “Before the blind do not place a stumbling block.” This applies to both the speaker and the listener since they are helping each other violate the commandments.

◦ Lev. 19:12 – “You shall not hate your brother in your heart,” referring to contradictory behavior such as acting friendly but then speaking negatively about him behind his back.

◦ Lev. 19:18 – “You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the children of your people,” such as speaking against someone in anger and for something that was done against the speaker.

◦ Lev. 19:17 – “You shall rebuke your neighbor and you shall not bear sin because of him.” This verse contains two mitzvot: (1) stop someone from speaking Lashon Hara (among other interpretations), and (2) don’t embarrass him in the process. (Note: rebuke is not a simple topic, especially because the one being scolded may not always listen. This is covered in some detail in the second section of the book, Hilchot Rechilut.)

◦ Lev. 19:18 – “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

◦ Num. 17:5 – “You shall not act similar to Korach and his company” who sustained a dispute.

◦ Deut. 10:20 – “To Him [and (by implication) his wise ones] shall you cleave.” ◦ Ex. 23:2 – “You shall not follow a multitude to do evil.” The above two commandments refer to keeping good company, which includes those who will refrain from improper subjects in their discussions.

If you’ve been counting, you’ll realize that there are still a good number of commandments that we haven’t mentioned yet. To see the complete list, please see the Sefer Chafetz Chaim or its English adaptation, Guard Your Tongue, by Rabbi Z. Pliskin.

It is certainly good to be aware of the various mitzvot. However, the halachot discussed in the Chafetz Chaim are more specific, basically revolving around “Lo telech rachil b’ameicha,” “B’tzedek tishpot et amiteicha,” and “hocheiach tochiach et amiteicha.” The Chafetz Chaim delineates different situations and conditions, and identifies when the speech is forbidden, permissible, and even desirable.

 Definition of Lashon Hara: Negative Comments, Whether True or False

It is forbidden to speak disparagingly of one’s “chaveir” (lit. friend–we will discuss who this technically includes later). Even if the information is entirely truthful, it is called Lashon Hara. If the information also contains any fabrication, it is also called motzi shem ra (lit. putting out a bad name). The speaker of Lashon Hara violates the prohibition of “Lo telech rachil b’ameicha (Lev. 19:16).”

Biblical Source for the Prohibition Against Lashon Hara

Leviticus 19:16 explicitly prohibit Lashon Hara and Rechilut (talebearing that

incites hatred and resentment), yet there are many more commandments that bear on the speaking of Lashon Hara, as discussed in the introduction.

Habitual Speakers of Lashon Hara

The above (the seriousness of speaking Lashon Hara) relates to someone who incidentally includes something inappropriate in his speech. But those who make it a habit to talk about others in a derogatory manner (“Did you hear…” “Do you know she…..”, etc.) are labeled ba’alei lashon hara (lit. masters of Lashon Hara, in that such speech is an integral part of themselves), and their transgression is far more severe. They regularly create a chilul Hashem (desecration of the name of G-d; cf. Lev. 22:32) because of their rebellious manner. Though they may view their activities as social tools, such behavior cuts them off from many good things in the world around them.

Profound Consequences of Speaking Lashon Hara

Ba’alei Lashon Hara is also cut off from something else: olam habah (the World to Come). The Sages say (Bab. Erchin 15b) that for three transgressions one forfeits his portion in olam habah: murder, adultery, and idol worship, and that lashon hara is equivalent to all three. The Chafetz Chaim adds that when someone accustoms himself to speaking Lashon Hara, he rationalizes it to the extent that he begins to view Lashon Hara as entirely permissible.

The comparison of Lashon Hara to well-known and agreed-upon sins such as murder is surprising. But at the same time, we can imagine why: just as the “Ten Commandments” sins damage and destroy vital physical aspects of the world, Lashon Hara afflicts the emotional and social realms.

Being “Coerced” into Speaking Lashon Hara

[Police interrogations/good cop or bad cop deceivers]

There is no difference when speaking lashon hara whether one tells a juicy story of his own will or because someone encourages (or pressures) him to do so. Even if the speaker’s Rebbe (teacher) or parent–whom the person must honor and fear, and not contradict–requests that he tell about an incident, if the relating of the information would result in Lashon Hara or even Avak Lashon Hara (speech that provokes Lashon Hara; more about that later), he cannot say it.

If you think about it, Lashon Hara isn’t any different from any other commandment. If someone encouraged you, or even nagged you, to eat a cheeseburger, you would still be fully responsible for your actions. Certainly social pressure for gossip seems more effective than it is for food, drink and many other areas, but that may be because we are not used to saying “no” to evil speech.

 Speaking Lashon Hara to Avoid Financial Loss

Even when subject to great financial loss, one is not permitted to speak Lashon Hara. This may mean that he will be viewed as a fool, and denied financial opportunity by the “intelligent” people with whom he associates. As in all Mitzvot Lo Taaseh (Torah prohibitions), we are commanded to forgo all of our income.

(The source for this is in Shema: b’kol l’vavcha, b’kol nafsh’cha, ub’kol m’odecha: “You shall love the L-rd your G-d with all of your heart, all of your soul, and all of your possessions.”)

It is generally helpful to try and develop a (personal) rational approach to the laws of Lashon Hara. When someone is confronted with a situation in which he is expected to speak derogatorily about someone, if he can respond with a simple personal philosophy (or sometimes just enough self-confidence to convey adherence to a personal philosophy), he will leave most of those situations with others’ respect intact. And in those situations, which are not in the “most” category, the best thing to do is remember the benefits that accrue through hardship in observing this mitzvah.

Speaking Lashon Hara to Avoid Personal Dishonor

If someone stands to lose personal honor by not speaking Lashon Hara, he must also sustain the loss and remain silent. For example, if one is sitting in a group speaking Lashon Hara, and he has no way to separate from them at the moment, he cannot participate in their lively discussion. This applies even if he will look like a simpleton or social clod. He should try to hold himself back and remember the many sayings of the Sages regarding his situation: “Better to be considered a fool in the eyes of man throughout one’s lifetime than as a wicked person in the eyes of G-d for one moment (Eduyot 5:6),” “the reward is according to the effort (Pirkei Avot/Ethics of the Fathers 5:25),” “one hundred times more in hardship than without it (i.e. the reward is one hundred fold; Avot d’Rabbi Natan),” and the Vilna Gaon who writes that “for every second that one remains silent he will merit reward beyond the comprehension of any being, even celestial.”

 Various Methods of Conveying Lashon Hara

Whether spoken, written, or hinted with gestures or any other way (if you looked at the Rashi in Lev. 19:16 you saw that winking was described as a characteristic behavior of holchei rachil – those who go about slandering), any communication of Lashon Hara is prohibited. This also applies if you weren’t the writer of a piece disparaging someone. [Rabbi Pliskin elaborates on a footnote in the Hebrew about the communication of Lashon Hara: showing a letter or other writing (e.g. a newspaper) to belittle its writer would also be forbidden. I would anticipate that this would also apply to footage in a film or other media.]

Hilchot Rechilut:

While Lashon Hara causes damage to the subject (in reputation, finances, emotional anguish or otherwise), Rechilut causes hatred toward the subject, or between the listener and the subject.

 The Prohibition of Rechilut

One who speaks Rechilut about his fellow violates a Torah prohibition: “Lo telech rachil b’ameicha” – do not go about as a talebearer among your people (Lev 19:16). This is a severe sin, as it causes much spiritual bloodshed within the Jewish people, which is why the Torah continues, “Lo tamod al dam re’eicha” – do not stand upon (i.e. allow the shedding of) the blood of your fellow (ibid).

Learn from what happened from the Rechilut of Doeg the Edomite (Samuel I 21-22), [in which he told King Saul that the priest Achimelekh of Nob gave David food and weapon as David was fleeing from Saul, and upon hearing what Achimelekh did for his rival David, Saul commanded that] the entire Priestly City of Nob be annihilated.

This prohibition (“Lo telech rachil b’ameicha”) is the Torah’s explicit prohibition against such speech, although one violates many others, as discussed in the introduction to Sefer Chafetz Chaim.

A Description of the Speaker of Rechilut

A talebearer (Heb. rachil) is one who carries tales among people, saying, “This is what Ploni said about you…” “This is what Ploni did to you…” or “this is what I heard about someone that he did or wants to do to you….” [“Ploni” and “Plonit” is the male and female Hebrew words used for an anonymous person; in English “so-and-so”; might be used in this context. Sometimes a commentary might use Shimon and Reuven (and Levi and Yehuda) to depict several anonymous individuals.]

Even if the information is not derogatory, and even if the person being spoken about were asked would volunteer the information himself, and even if the information is true, or even if the intention of the speaker was something entirely different, it is still Rechilut.

 Regardless of Intention

The prohibition of Rechilut applies even if the speaker did not intend to provoke ill will in the listener’s heart against the subject, and even if the speaker believes that the subject’s actions were correct and just. For example, Shimon criticizes Reuven for something Reuven said about him or did against him, and Reuven asserts that he was right in what he said, and in fact that Yehuda said the same thing. Even if as a defense of his own actions, he has caused Shimon to feel hatred against Yehuda, Reuven’s statement is called as Rechilut.

The severity of stirring up hatred between friends

The parameters discussed in the paragraphs above apply even if all the information is completely true, without any trace of falsehood – speaking Rechilut is prohibited.

It does not matter if they were friendly and someone told what one said about the other – the speaker is called a “rasha” (evil person), and his actions are an abomination, as stated in Proverbs (ch. 6): “Six are hated by G-d and seven are abominations … one who places disputes between friends.” The Sages say that the seventh [Rechilut] is the most severe.

Also, even if they were already bitter enemies, and someone hears one speaking against the other and he goes and tells him, it is called Rechilut (and forbidden).

Rechilut Under Duress is also forbidden

Regarding the prohibition against speaking Rechilut, there is no distinction whether the speaker states Rechilut willingly, or the listener suspects something on his own and pressures the speaker to tell him what another said about him. Even if his parent or teacher pressures him to tell what the other person said against them, and even if the information is only Avak Rechilut (a lighter form of Rechilut that we will discuss in a later chapter IY”H), in any such case it is still forbidden.

 Rechilut to Prevent Personal Loss is also forbidden

Even if the speaker realizes that not relating the Rechilut would cause himself a significant loss, it is still forbidden. For example if he works for someone, and the boss realizes [another has said or done something against him] and tries to compel the worker to inform him of the details, and if the worker would refuse, his boss will suspect that he is collaborating with the guilty party, and as a result he would lose his job and have no way by which to provide for his family. Not speaking Rechilut is included among all negative prohibitions (i.e. “do not…” in contrast to positive commandments such as reciting Kiddush on Shabbat), for which one must lose all his possessions in order not to violate them, as discussed in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 157:1.

In some cases it would be permissible to reveal the information in order to prevent such a loss and quell the dissention. But one shouldn’t rush to rely on this allowance, as many prerequisites must be met, which we will outline in the ninth chapter of this section IY”H.

Rechilut to Prevent Embarrassment is forbidden

Further, if through holding back a story the speaker would not be subject to financial damage, but rather only be chastised or embarrassed, it is certainly forbidden to say anything.

The speaker who holds himself back should not feel any remorse when experiencing ridicule or other mental anguish, for in the World to Come he will be counted among the Ohavei Hashem (those who love G-d), and his face will shine with holiness. The Sages say that one who is shamed but does not shame another, one who hears his chastisement but does not respond, earns the scriptural description “those who love him are like the rising of the sun in its strength.” All the more so, one who withstands disgrace for the sake of G-d’s command.

 How to respond when confronted for information [Police]

Regarding what to answer when asked, “What did X say about me?” it depends as follows: if the person can respond in some way without lying and without speaking rechilut, he should do so. If, however, he knows that the person asking him for information will not accept such an answer, then it is permitted to speak outright falsehood for the sake of peace. However, the speaker must not – Heaven forbid – take an oath or swear falsely, as further discussed in the [Hebrew commentary for our text] Be’er Mayim Chaim.

Not naming names

It is also forbidden to help one’s friend deduce who spoke or did something against him even without revealing the name of the culprit. Whether to speak more generally, so that only later will his friend realize the identity of the speaker, or if the friend knows what happened but does not know who did it, to give him hints so the friend will deduce who it was, is prohibited.

Special note: Any translators out there? If you’re following in the Hebrew text, you’ll see that I diverged from the Chafetz Chaim’s own structure (although not content) for this paragraph. I’d be interested in feedback for how a non-amateur translator might have tackled this paragraph. Thanks!

Innocently” stirring up ill will

It is forbidden to speak rechilut through deception. For example, a person knows that his friend suffered some damage or embarrassment from another, and there was a serious argument between them as a result. Now this person wants to stir up the old dispute, yet does not want anyone to realize that he is instigating it. So, he slyly prepares his speech, and mentions this awful damage or embarrassment that happened to his friend some time ago and seemingly innocently remarks that he doesn’t know who did such a thing to him. Through this, the damaged party [the speaker’s “friend”] remembers on his own that so- and-so caused him that damage. Any speech along these lines is forbidden.

Muslims lying as a religious command from their Prophet

Al Taqquia lies are required in order to obey Muhammud. Muslims live in accordance with 7th Century religious duties and dogma. They are dirty, pagan, inbred and lie to all unbelievers in Allah, their Mesopotamian moon god.

 POLICE LIES, the most egregious on planet earth

Police brutality caught on video is becoming so commonplace that you think police would think twice before attacking people without provocation. But it’s probably difficult to change years of unchained aggressiveness that has gone unenforced. Lying police are reducing our justice system to a laughable charade. We expect police, upon whom the whole system rests, to tell the truth. Over and over again, we have seen that they don’t. Any police officer’s testimony must now be treated with suspicion.

Police Officers Only Required to Tell the Truth in Court?

Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Police can lie to you in order to extract a confession, Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969). The only place an officer cannot lie is while testifying under oath in court, and criminal defense attorneys occasionally catch an officer lying, even on the witness stand. Police are only required to advise you of your Constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, if you are in custody and being interrogated about the offense for which you are being confined. This point is usually determined to be the point in which the suspect is placed under arrest, or the suspect would reasonably conclude that he or she is under arrest and not free to leave. Detectives are very good at creating the illusion that you are free to go, when actually, you are not. For example, the detective may tell you that you are free to go at any time, but that it would benefit you to provide your side of the story as the evidence do not look to be in your favor; therefore you can be persuaded into continuing the interrogation.

Police Lies To Obtain Evidence

During interrogations, police who use this tactic may lie about the facts of a
case. For example, where you have an 18 year old male who has a 15 year old girlfriend, the officer will tell him that they have evidence that he raped her, when in fact, they do not. The 18 year old tells the officer that they had consensual sex and that there was no rape involved; now the officer has a confession as to Statutory Rape that came straight from the mouth of the suspect. In trying to exonerate himself from the charge of Rape, the 18 year old legally confessed to the lesser crime of Statutory Rape. In Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739 (1969), the officer was able to extract a confession from the criminal defendant by lying about the strength of the case. During interrogation, the officer lied to the criminal defendant and told him that his cousin had confessed to the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, also implicating the criminal defendant in the crime. The criminal defendant then also confessed to the crime in reliance of the officer’s false statement. The Court determined that the criminal defendants confession was voluntary and the fact that he was given his Miranda rights prior to making the confession was relevant to a finding of waiver and voluntariness. Id.

Evidence Can Be Fabricated by police to Obtain Information

Police officers are also allowed to fabricate evidence to support a deception. In re D.A.S., 391 A.2d 255, (D.C. App. 1978) the police pretended to compare the defendants fingerprints to a fingerprint on the victims checkbook and pronounced them a match when in truth, no fingerprints were recovered from the checkbook. The defendant confessed to the robbery and the Court held that the police deception did not by itself invalidate a voluntary confession. Id. at 258. Confessions are not invalid or inadmissible, even if they are obtained by deception or trickery, as long as the means employed are not calculated to produce an untrue statement. Only if the deception, combined with other factors, coerces the suspect or defendant to confess, will the court deem the confession inadmissible. Id., at 259.

Police May Leverage Victims to Obtain Confession

In order to extract confessions, police may also attempt to persuade the suspect or defendant that her conduct was less blameworthy than anticipated. Deborah Young, Unnecessary Evil, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 425, 433 (1996). Police may lie about the victim to diminish the suspect’s fear of confessing. In People v. Jordan, 597 N.Y.2d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993), the police told the defendant that he may be able to save the victim if he told the police exactly what happened. The police falsely told the defendant that the victim had just received eighteen stitches for her knife wound and would soon be out of the hospital, when in actuality, the victim had died. The defendant confessed to stabbing the victim believing that he would be charged with assault and not murder. The court affirmed the murder conviction, holding that; “mere deception by the police is not alone sufficient to render a confession inadmissible unless accompanied by a promise or threat that could induce a false confession.” Id. at 808.

In Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), federal agents used an informant as a secret conspirator to listen in on the criminal defendants conversations. He made incriminating statements to the informant, not knowing that the informant was secretly working with the federal agents. At the time the statement was made, the criminal defendant was out on bail and had already secured an attorney. The Court held that because the criminal defendant had secured an attorney and had already been indicted, federal agents could not attempt to elicit a confession without the presence of the criminal defendants retained counsel. Id., at 204.

Why Are Police lying Tactics Permissible by the Court?

The Court is reluctant to bar such police tactics and confessions because of the assumption that an innocent person of normal intelligence will not admit to a crime she did not commit. Patrick M. McMullen, Questioning the Questions: The Impermissibility of Police Deception in Interrogations of Juveniles, 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 971, 974 (2005). However, the Court has recognized the inherently coercive nature of police interrogations, thereby mandating the police to provide Miranda warnings to suspects and defendants to lessen such coercion. The intimidation is even greater on juveniles. The power of police to deceive juvenile suspects during interrogations is significant since kids may be even more impressionable and confused. Juveniles are more likely than adults to defer to the wishes of adult authority figures and are more susceptible to suggestions of guilt. Id., at 975. Juveniles are more likely to believe things that adults, especially powerful authority figures, tell them. Many kids are taught to trust police officers and to have faith in them as enforcers of law. They are not raised to believe that officers will resort to deception in order to carry out the law. Id., at 997. Thus juveniles are easily pressured into admitting guilt or agreeing to false information. Unfortunately, the interrogation room is one of the few places where the Court has been unwilling to protect juveniles from their own bad or premature decisions. In Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979) the Supreme Court decided that juvenile confessions were to be assessed under the totality of circumstances standard and thus age was only one of many factors that come into play when assessing the admissibility of juvenile confessions.

Police deception may be helpful in eliciting confessions from guilty suspects. However, such manipulation also extracts false confessions, especially from juveniles. Placing false hope in young suspects by promises of leniency and misrepresentation of evidence are effective in inducing such false confessions. Patrick M. McMullen, Questioning the Questions, 99 Nw. U.L. Rev. 971, 988 (2005). The vast majority of evidence that prosecutors obtain against defendants comes straight from their own mouths because of the Police interrogation methods discussed.

How To Avoid Police Interrogation lying Tactics

For these reasons, it is best to obtain the services of a skilled criminal defense attorney before an opportunity for questioning arises, or any charges are filed. After discussing with the client what is known about the scope of the investigation, the attorney should start by advising the detective that the defendant is represented by counsel, and not to talk to his client without that counsel present. If you have no inkling that you might be investigated or charged with a crime prior to being contacted by law enforcement, it is very important that you consult an attorney before speaking to authorities. While an officer may imply that failure to speak immediately will result in arrest, a person cannot be arrested for exercising the right to remain silent. Police can only arrest a person if probable cause exists, and the choice to remain silent cannot be part of that analysis. If the officers already have probable cause, they would not need to question you. If they do not, the statement you make could well supply it. Know Your Fourth Amendment Rights: Reasonable and Unreasonable Search and Seizure

January 30th, 2006
quote By: Swazi Taylor, Esq. and Jay Mykytiuk

Open up, this is the police! This command is usually delivered with a loud pounding on your door, and usually means that police will soon be entering your home and searching your belongings. In the eyes of the law your home is your castle, but under some circumstances your rights in your residence give way to the power of law enforcement. But this power is not unlimited. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the police from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. Determining what is reasonable can be complicated business so complicated, in fact, that treatises have been devoted to the search and seizure issue. Although the law is complex and constantly evolving, there are several basic rules that govern when, where, and how police officers may search an individual’s home. The more familiar one is with these rules; the better-equipped one will be at identifying an illegal search.
Search and Arrest Warrants

Absent exigent circumstances, the general rule is that police officers may only enter a person’s home with a search or arrest warrant based on probable cause. A search warrant gives the police the right to search a particular place, at a particular time, and only for particular items as approved by a judge. The warrant must clearly spell out what these items are, and generally, the police may not look for items that are not listed in the warrant. For example, if the search warrant authorizes the police to search for a rifle, police may only search places in your home that are big enough to hide a rifle. Therefore, in this example, a small bureau drawer or a jewelry box on that bureau would be out of bounds.

If the police enter a home pursuant to an arrest warrant, they may only search the areas into which the suspect might reach to obtain weapons or destroy evidence. This area is generally measured by the suspect’s wingspan.

There are circumstances, however, when police may extend a search beyond the terms of the warrant. The most significant of these circumstances is known as the plain view doctrine. Under the plain view doctrine, police who are lawfully searching a home may seize any items in plain view whose incriminating nature is immediately apparent. Even if the item is not listed in the warrant, if it is in plain view and obviously incriminating, police may rightfully seize it.


Police Tazers are lethal weapons! Police using tazers since 2001, have murdered over 500 people! Police then lie universally as to why they used tazers and then walk free of any consequences. There is something wrong here in America. This is nothing more than Gestapo thugs at work.

Knock and Announce Rule ignored by Police

Generally before entering your home to serve a valid search warrant, police must knock on your door, and announce their presence, rather than simply forcing their way in. The so-called, knock and announce rule requires that police wait a reasonable amount of time for the resident to open the door. If you then refuse to let the officers in, they have the right to force the door open.

As is often the case with rules governing police searches and seizures, however, there are exceptions to the knock and announce rule. Police may forcibly enter your home without knocking and announcing when a more stealthy approach is required to ensure the safety of police officers or to prevent the destruction of evidence. Even when officers do knock and announce, they need only wait a few seconds before bursting in.

Warrantless Searches

Just as there are exceptions to the knock and announce rule, there are also exceptions to the warrant requirement. First, police do not need a warrant to enter and search your home if they obtain the consent of an occupant. Any person with an apparent equal right to use or occupy the property may consent to a search, and any evidence found may be used against the other owners or occupants. Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering what should happen when one spouse consents to a search of the house, while the other spouse does not.

Even without a search warrant and without the consent of an occupant there are still occasions when police may enter and search a home. Although there is no general emergency exception, the court will decide on a case-by-case basis whether an actual emergency existed that allowed police to conduct a warrantless search. Shots fired, screams heard, or fires emanating from inside a building have all been considered emergencies that justify searches without warrants. A federal appellate court recently ruled that the “strong aroma” of a decaying body, wafting through the open window of a dead man’s house, constituted an emergency exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Essentially, anytime the police have a reasonable belief that and immediate search is required to protect the safety of individuals, police will be permitted to search without a warrant.

Protecting Your Constitutional Rights

Although search and seizure law can be confusing and is constantly evolving, there are some basic steps you can take to protect your Fourth Amendment rights. First, remember that generally, without a warrant, police have no right to enter and search your home. If a police officer asks your permission to search your home you are under no obligation to consent. Consenting to a search automatically makes that search reasonable, and is essentially a waiver of your Fourth Amendment rights. Consequently, whatever an officer finds during such a search can be used to convict the person. Police officers are not required by law to inform you of your rights before asking you to consent to a search. In fact, police officers are trained to use their authority to get people to consent to a search.

If the police have a search warrant, they may enter your home without your consent. In this case, there are still things you can do to protect yourself. Next, ask to see the warrant. If for any reason you believe that the warrant is not valid, make your objections clear to the officer, and announce that you are not consenting to the search. But remember that it’s always in your best interest to remain calm, polite, and non-confrontational. Even if you believe the search to be unreasonable, you have nothing to gain by interfering with the police officers. A person should not risk injury or a separate charge of “interfering with a police officer.” After voicing your objections to the search, simply stand aside and allow a court to decide later whether the officer’s actions were proper. Most importantly, you should immediately contact a criminal attorney whenever you have been the subject of a search or seizure. In the event that the police have conducted an unreasonable search of your home, an attorney will seek to suppress the evidence discovered as a result of that search. This means that the illegally obtained evidence may not be used against you at trial. An experienced attorney will know how to protect you when your Fourth Amendment rights have been violated.

In Lying (New York: Vintage, 1999), Sissela Bok defines a lie as any intentionally deceptive stated message. According to Bok, these are statements that are communicated either verbally or in writing. Lying is a subset of the larger category of deception, and deception is undertaken when one intends to dupe others by communicating messages meant to mislead and meant to make the recipients believe what the agent (the person performing or committing the act) either knows or believes to be untrue. Deception encompasses not only spoken and written statements but any conduct that conveys a message to the listener. Deceptive conduct can range from verbal statements or writings to physical expressions such as a shoulder shrug, eye movement or silence-any intentional action that conveys a message.

Historically, not all intentionally deceptive conduct in social interactions has been considered improper. Indeed, as early as the Middle Ages, Saint Thomas

What Is Police Lying?

Aquinas classified deceptive conduct as helpful, joking, or malicious. Aquinas argued that lying helpfully and lying in jest may be acceptable forms of conduct, whereas telling malicious lies, lies told deliberately to harm someone, was a mortal sin.

Acknowledging that some deceptive conduct is acceptable helps to define deceptive misconduct. For example, the classic dilemma, argued about for centuries, is what to do if a murderer approaches you and asks the location of his intended victim. If you tell the truth, the murderer will kill the victim. If you lie, the intended victim will have the opportunity to escape. Although this hypothetical dilemma forces you to choose between insufficient options with no other choices, it is illustrative of Aquinas’s argument. Lying to a murderer to protect a potential victim is helpful, and it may be both morally and ethically the proper thing to do because it is the lesser of evils under the circumstances.

Police Lies Justified by their Investigative Necessity

In the performance of their duties, police officers frequently engage in a significant amount of deceptive conduct that is essential to public safety. Consider lying to suspects, conducting undercover operations, and even deploying unmarked cars. Presenting a suspect with false evidence, a false confession of a crime partner, or a false claim that the suspect was identified in a lineup are but a few of the deceptive practices that police officers have used for years during interrogations. These investigatory deceptive practices are necessary when no other means would be effective, when they are lawful, and when they are aimed at obtaining the truth.

Some, like John P. Crank and Michael A. Caldero in Police Ethics (Cincinnati: Anderson, 1999), have argued that accepting these types of deceptive practices places the police on a slippery slope, which will create a belief by officers that all deception is acceptable, or a perception by the public that diminishes the trustworthiness of officers. It may be true that some persons who engage in serious misconduct began with minor acts of deception, but it does not follow that all deception is a gateway to serious misconduct. Most police officers can distinguish the differences and do not conclude that specific, lawful deception implies the rightness of all deception. The majority of police officers are quite capable of applying the Constitutional test of whether that deceit would make innocent persons confess to a crime that they did not commit.

Police Lies Made in Jest

Where specific lies can be supported by rational argument, as justified, other lies may be deemed excusable by the same type of ethical analysis. Lies made in jest, although sometimes callous and hurtful, do not affect an officer’s credibility unless they are in such bad taste that they call into question the person’s judgment in general. Between officers, embellishments and exaggerations are commonplace in the descriptions of the misfortunes of others. A sense of humor, even where some deception is involved, can and does help responsible persons cope with great stress and grim circumstances. Indeed, a sense of humor and a sense of proportion may be inseparable under the worst circumstances. Although humor is an acceptable practice at the appropriate time, humor is not a shield to the disciplinary process. When jokes become intentionally harmful to others, they become malicious lies that should be dealt with accordingly. Agency leaders should not strive to create such a sterile workplace that humor is forbidden, for they would succeed only in making themselves objects of derision and ridicule. Police leaders should seek to establish and enforce reasonable standards.

Deception concerning trivial matters, often told to spare another’s feelings may also be excusable. These white lies are meant not for any personal gain but rather for social courtesy. Not every social situation calls for the whole truth. How do I look? What do you think? Sometimes benign statements or tactful silence are the most appropriate responses.

In The Varnished Truth (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), David Nyberg asserts that acts of deception are such common practice in human communication that deceptive conduct would be impossible to prevent entirely by any rule, law, policy, or manner of enforcement. From the social kindness of white lies to embellishments, exaggerations, and boastful behavior, we frequently conceal the truth for a variety of reasons. We not only condone these activities but also teach our children the art of deception from an early age. Children learn from their parents, friends, television, books, and other sources how to deceive. Children quickly learn how to maintain a poker face, so their hand is not easily identified by their body language, or in sporting activities where young athletes fake a throw or head-fake an opponent by looking one way and going another. Our laws and culture have even created exceptions to the unvarnished truth such as in advertising, recognizing that there is speech that tends to embellish the value of a product, but because these speech patterns are so common and easily recognized, they do not dupe a reasonable, mature person into a false belief. This exception, called puffery, encompasses terms like “world’s best,” “the greatest,” “the purest,” and so on.

Police deception – Malicious and threatening Lies

Although lies justified by necessity, lies told in jest, and white lies may be acceptable forms of deception in law enforcement, malicious lies are the true evil of officer misconduct. The difference between lies justified by necessity or lies made in jest and malicious lies is the presence of actual malice by the communicator. Here, malice would include not only lies told with a bad intent but also lies that exceed the limits of legitimacy.

For example, a police officer may be tempted to testify falsely to imprison a criminal. The officer’s intent may be a worthy objective to the public; removing a criminal from society and the officer may validate his intent in his own mind by believing that he is engaging in a greater good. But this lie would violate the standard by which we would say the lie was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances given the status obligations of the person engaging in the lie. Although the intent may be legitimate, the actions are malicious. This malice is the motive by which any sense of limits or constraint or fidelity to law and policy is destroyed.

It is important to understand that motive or intentions can be mixed, so that a person may deceive in order to pursue some worthwhile, utilitarian goal (such as public safety) and at the same time have a malicious disregard for the rights of the suspect and for the laws, policies, and limits that apply to policing. This willingness to betray basic principles of honesty attacks the very public safety that the person believes himself to be pursuing. A police officer who by malicious disregard goes beyond the limits of legitimacy is a threat to the public safety, since the officer may end up violating anybody’s rights, and this poisons the idea that the lie is advancing public safety.

Police Deception Continuum

Perhaps it is easier to assess intentional deceptive conduct on a continuum. At one end is intentional, malicious, deceptive conduct that will take one of three forms:

◦ Deceptive action in a formal setting, such as testifying in court or during an internal affairs investigation

◦ Failure to bring forward information involving criminal action by other officers, also known as observing the so-called code of silence

◦ Creation of false evidence that tends to implicate another in a criminal act Intentional, malicious, deceptive conduct in any of these three areas will permanently destroy an officer’s credibility. Should an officer violate these standards, there is no alternative in an employment context other than termination or permanent removal from any possible activity where the officer could be called upon to be a witness to any action.

At the other end of the continuum are lies justified by necessity, which may be defended, based on the circumstances and excusable lies, including lies made in jest and white lies, which like minor embellishments and exaggerations are not intended to harm others or convey a benefit to the communicator. These types of deceptions are at least excusable if not acceptable.

Deceptive conduct at either end of the continuum can be dealt with easily. At one end, the conduct does no harm and no action is necessary. At the other end, there is great harm and there is no option other than the termination of the officer’s employment. The problem is not the conduct at the ends of the continuum, but rather the conduct that falls somewhere in between. Consider the following example:

A supervisor asks an officer whether a particular report has been completed. The report itself is of very little consequence, and the question was prompted by a routine administrative action rather than any specific employee concern. The officer has not submitted the report but quickly replies that the report has been turned in, fearing what would be at most a minor counseling by the supervisor. The officer then immediately completes the report and turns it in before the supervisor can discover the lie.

In this example, the officer was dishonest. He was asked a direct question by a supervisor and he failed to respond truthfully. Although the officer had no opportunity for reflection, there is no excuse for his misconduct. The question was not posed as part of a formal process, the officer was not engaging in an action to protect another officer, and there was no conduct that would place a community member at risk of a false prosecution. Similarly, there is no evidence that the officer’s deceit was either justified or excusable.

What is left is conduct that falls somewhere in the middle of the continuum. The officer’s response is certainly not acceptable, but it leaves the question of whether it is far enough on the other end of the continuum to be grounds for termination. There is a strong argument for termination in this case. After all, the officer was asked a direct question by a supervisor about a work-related subject and the officer responded untruthfully. The difficulty for managers is balancing the need of the department and community to have officers that are beyond reproach against the recognition that all officers are human beings and that they have human failings. The officer’s response may best be described as a spontaneous, unintelligent statement, and there are other factors that should be considered in making a final determination. Is the officer remorseful? Does the officer recognize the error? Does the officer have an otherwise acceptable record with the department? Was the underlying issue one of very little consequence?

Consider the following:

A dispatcher asks an officer if he is available for a call. The officer radios that he is out of service and unavailable, when in fact he does not want to receive a call because it is near the end of his shift. Based on the officer’s statement, the dispatcher assigns the calls to another officer.

As in the last scenario, the officer’s conduct is neither justifiable nor excusable. However, the conduct probably does not amount to the end of the scale that mandates termination. It is this type of intentional, deceptive, misconduct that can be termed “administrative deception” that creates consternation for police management. The conduct may not warrant termination, but a sustained finding of untruthfulness creates a Brady issue that many believe will prohibit the officer from continuing his employment. The question then becomes, does Brady mandate termination on the basis of any lie or act of deception?

The concession that the lie is preferred over force as a means of social control forms the basis for the morality of policy lying, i.e., in any situation in which police have a legitimate right to use force they acquire a moral right to achieve the same ends by lying.

Police Conclusion

The American police we see daily are the biggest liars in America of the categories of Liars at the head of this essay.

It matters not if these police liars claim to be Christian or heathen, their condemnation after death is sure, final and set in eternity. This is the unpardonable sin set forth in scripture.

Psalms_58:3: From the womb, the wicked are estranged, liars on the wrong path since birth.

Psalms_63:11: But the king will rejoice in God. Everyone who swears by him will exult, for the mouths of liars will be silenced.

Revelation_21:8: But as for the cowardly, the untrustworthy, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those involved with the occult and with drugs, idol-worshippers, and all liars — their destiny is the lake burning with fire and sulfur, the second death.”

The judgment call is for ALL LIARS, with no exceptions.


There was the former Navy SEAL Pennsylvania pastor, the silver and bronze star-winning defense contractor and then the Congressional Medal of Honor- winning California local official — each with inspiring stories of service to the nation and heroism in the line of fire. The only problem was, none of it was true.

The pastor, Jim Moats, was in the Navy but was never in the SEALs like he claimed. The defense contractor, former Marine Sgt. Gary Lakis, served for 10 years in the Corps, but was never in combat and never won the medals he wore. And Xavier Alvarez, the man who claimed to win the nation’s highest military honor, the Congressional Medal of Honor, never served a day in the military.

And though hundreds of military service liars came before Alvarez and dozens more have been outed since he was exposed, the former California public official is the one at the center of a landmark Supreme Court case today.

Alvarez and his attorney are challenging a law, known as the Stolen Valor Act that makes it illegal to represent oneself as being awarded military honors that have not been rightfully won.

After Alvarez was found out, he was convicted in 2007 under the Stolen Valor Act and sentenced to three years probation, a $5,000 fine and community service. But he appealed and his lawyer, Jonathan Libby, argued the law is a violation of the First Amendment — in short, it violates the right to lie.

“The Stolen Valor Act criminalizes pure speech in the form of bare falsity, a mere telling of a lie,” Libby said. “It doesn’t matter whether the lie was told in a public meeting or in a private conversation with a friend or family member.”

But according to several veterans well acquainted with false war stories, claiming you’re a medal-winner can be “more than just lying.”

“It’s not the barroom loudmouth that anyone is interested in,” said Don Shipley, a former SEAL who has been given unique access to the SEAL personnel database so he can route out fakers. “People tend to believe what they’re told, they use that… They do an awful lot of damage.”

Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, another military watchdog, Doug Sterner, told ABC News that cases of fake military heroes aren’t likely to stop overnight — after all, there’s a new Navy SEAL movie coming out and, most likely with it, imposters ready to latch on to the fame.


“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has, it has stolen.”
“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”

!Friedrich Nietzsche, German Philosopher, 1844-1900

Are lying politicians trying to fool us, or are they just telling us the same lies we tell ourselves? It is the latter in most cases, and it is necessary for their political survival. Here is my explanation of how the process works.

One side says that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” The other side says the gun control can save lives. On each side, the politicians play to their constituents. What do none of them say? None of them can say that maybe there would be lives saved if there was more gun control, but that we have a right to have guns, so we will accept the violence that comes with them.

The deception practiced by politicians comes with a terrible price

The moral consequences of totalitarian propaganda, which we must now consider are, however, of an even more profound kind. They are destructive of all morals because they undermine one of the foundations of all morals: the sense of and the respect for truth.

American totalitarians must propagandize not only about values (e.g., placing the government above individuals), but about facts as well. The government’s “values” must be connected to genuine values held by the people, and the people must be spoon-fed government’s view of the “facts” so that the government’s desired conclusion appears inevitable.

So politicians tell myths (or, to use Plato’s term, “noble lies”) to con the people into supporting certain acts.

In the process, however,

The whole language becomes despoiled, and words become empty shells deprived of any definite meaning, as capable of denoting one thing as its opposite and used solely for the emotional associations which still adhere to them.

The word “truth” itself ceases to have its old meaning. It describes no longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in any particular instance the evidence (or the standing of those proclaiming it) warrants a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of the unity of the organized effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it.

The warnings about “totalitarian propaganda” apply very nicely to the propaganda currently served up for gullible consumption by the American and British governments.

Lying American and British politicians proclaim that the current enemies politicians are liars, and that such lying justifies war.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

All presidents are politicians. All politicians are salespersons. All salespersons are liars. This may sound like a brazen conclusion, but in today’s world it is a reality that must be confronted and dealt with.

!This practice of using fallacies to mislead may be of even greater importance to our entire nation when the nation’s highest leaders make these deceptive, misleading statements. Our democratic system of government, in which the people are required to make judgments about issues that effect the entire nation, our economic well being or the peace of the world, demand that the nation’s leaders give to the people the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In their critical positions, politicians and presidents must be held accountable for every fallacy or misleading statement that they give whether they are straightforward lies or deceptive propaganda. In general, selfish politicians lie to promote their own personal agenda and their own personal well being often to the detriment of the rest of the nation and the world.

The office of the president of the United States is not a private office to be used by any individual for private financial gain, personal ambition or self-serving glorification for themselves or for any special interest groups. The office of the president exists to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and promote the peace and the best interests of the entire nation.

The president of the United States should never use fallacies, lies or any deceitful misleading statements in any speech either public or private for any reason whatsoever. Obama is the worst President America ever had. Lying {al Taqiya] is an Islamic principle of Stealth Jihad in the Koran where Muslims are taught that it is a religious duty to never tell nonMuslims the truth. Obama was born a Muslim, was trained in Islamic schools in Indonesia and remains a lifelong Muslim. Therefore, as a believer in Allah, he lies at all times and in all circumstances as a religious duty. The people must demand truthful leaders. The alternative can be disastrous as it is today while America is being systematically dismantled from within.
The suspicion that politicians are inclined to tell lies is as old as politics itself. Yet when a politician is caught in a lie, the consequences are often dire, at least in democratic countries. Indeed, proving that a politician is a liar is just about the only way to get rid of him or her quickly and terminally, which is why the attempt is so attractive to political opponents.


To begin with, we are all salespersons to different degrees, in our everyday lives. We all have something that we want to sell. We want to sell our boss on our talent or skills. We want to sell our neighbors on our friendliness or personality. Almost everything that we do, the style of clothes we wear, the model of car we own, our mannerisms and behavior are all carefully selected to sell ourselves, to attract the opposite sex, to increase our income or just to become more popular. Everyone in almost all professions are salespersons. A lawyer is trying to sell the jury on the defendant’s guilt or innocence. All public speakers are trying to sell the audience on whatever subject they are promoting; a book, an idea, an ideology or whatever. A politician is also trying to sell to the public his agenda, his ideology or his qualifications for an office he is seeking.

The statement that all salespersons are liars needs to be explained. There are many different ways in which a person can tell a lie. There are simple straightforward lies in which the liar is simply stating a fact that is false.

Sometimes many will believe this type of lie; if repeated often enough, especially if it comes from someone in a place of authority. However most of the lies that people tell are more complicated and are better classified as fallacies. These are complex deceitful statements that are used to sell an idea by misleading claims. Different individuals to different degrees do this for different purposes. Some are harmless but some are dangerous and illegal.

Why was the statement made that all salespersons are liars? This is because all of the sales tactics learned in any sales training class are based on fallacies and all fallacies are intentionally deceptive. This is the definition of a lie. A lie is a statement that is intentionally deceptive. Fallacies are all lies. Many examples could be given. If one salesperson was well dressed and friendly and another salesperson was sloppy and rude, which one would you buy a product from? People would almost unanimously choose the first. This is a fallacy because the buyer is not buying the salesperson, they are buying their product. Their choice should be based on the characteristics of the product and not the characteristics of the salesperson. This is true of almost all fallacies. The fallacies have nothing to do with the product. What a salesperson says and what they do and their product should be evaluated separately. This is especially true of politicians. In today’s professional advertising campaigns, politicians almost always read speeches written by professional speech writers. What a politician says in a beautiful patriotic speech should be clearly separated from their actual experience, their character, their qualifications and their real accomplishments in relevant professions. These political speech’s are essentially lies simply because no matter what they say, they were written by another person. The speaker is simply an actor reading another’s words. He is misleading because he is pretending that the ideas are his own.

The obvious question is why do salespersons use fallacies? Why don’t salespersons simply tell the truth? The answer to this is very simple. They use fallacies because they work. They sell products. People in general don’t spend a lot of time analyzing a sales pitch. They are easily swayed by a friendly smooth talking salesperson. Simple fallacies are the most effective way to sell any product, whether it is a used car, a political ideology, a religious creed or any consumer product. A salesperson (politician, lawyer, used car salesperson etc.) does not want to tell the whole truth. They only want to tell the potential buyer the good features of their produce, not the bad features. The detrimental result of this practice is that the buyer can only make a sound judgment if all features of a product are known. However this is irrelevant to the seller, who is only interested in making a sale.
In most of our daily activities, many of these sales judgments we make are trivial and not of significant importance. Choosing between two different TV sets or two automobiles may have little lasting consequences. Unfortunately, the general public’s habit of not analyzing a sales pitch about consumer products, which is not especially important, also have the same attitude toward sale pitches in other areas, such as politics, economics or law, which are very important.

In many situations, these choices may be of extreme importance. If a lawyer uses misleading fallacies, a guilty person may be freed or an innocent person may go to prison. A jury must be critically observant when any lawyer is being deceitful.

NEWS MEDIA as liars

The nation’s news media also have the highest responsibility to tell the whole truth. As the fourth branch of government, the news media are the sources of information that the public relies on to make sound judgments about everything local or national. Fallacies and misleading articles have no place in any news media. Unfortunately these are quite common and contribute to the public making bad choices in elections.

Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to it.

I must close by restating the obvious:

(Rev 21:8) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake, which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

This condemnatory scripture not only applies to lying persons; it is also applicable to lying nations. History is a great teacher. The great lying empires of the past are gone, leaving only ruins. You can walk through the crumbled stone monuments and see the results for yourselves.

Written in 1817, by Percy Bysshe Shelley! An Epitaph for America?!

“I met a traveller from an antique land,

Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert … near them, on the sand,

Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.

And on the pedestal these words appear:

“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

The hand belonged to the sculptor, the heart to the king, nursing the passions the sculptor read. Today, the hand belongs to the historian who must account for so great an empire in its glory – and for its passions spent. To tread on an empires dust, as Shelley’s contemporary, Lord Byron remarked, is to be reminded of the earthquake that was once below.
THE ‘OZYMANDIAS PRINCIPLE proves all empires to be transient.
So went Egypt, Greece, Rome, The Ottoman, the British and soon, the American empire, all fallen from the political and religious rottenness within.
Sic transit gloria mundi: It is a Latin phrase that means, “Thus passes the glory of the world”. It has been interpreted as “Worldly things are fleeting.”

The phrase played a part in the ritual of papal coronation ceremonies until 1963. As the newly chosen pope proceeded from the sacristy of St. Peters, the procession stopped three times. On each occasion a papal master of ceremonies would fall to his knees before the pope, holding a silver or brass reed bearing a piece of smoldering tow. For three times in succession, as the cloth burned away, he would say in a loud and mournful voice, “Sancte Pater, sic transit gloria mundi!” (“Holy Father; so passes worldly glory!”) These words, thus addressed to the pope, served as a reminder of the transitory nature of life and earthly honors. The stafflike instrument used in the aforementioned ceremony is known as a “sic transit gloria mundi”, named for the master of ceremonies’ words.

“For over a thousand years Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of triumph, a tumultuous parade. In the procession came trumpeters’, musicians and strange animals from conquered territories, together with carts laden with treasure and captured armaments. The conquerors rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. Sometimes his children robed in white stood with him in the chariot or rode the trace horses. A slave stood behind the conqueror holding a golden crown and whispering over and over in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting.”

– Gen. George C. Patton

Is this always so? YES, with one exception.

Yeshua’s Eternal Kingdom is coming soon, ! GLORIA IN EXCELSIS DEO!!

Rav James Talbott, far from the wilderness of religion


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s