Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Libya: Who are we fighting? Who are we saving?!


“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” Those prophetic words come from Obama’s biography.  Bare Naked Islam brought this interesting, fact filled video to my attention. In it we learn that one of the rebel leaders  was captured and held by our armed forces engaged in the battle against “Islamic extremism” aka al-Qaida.   We learn that the areas home to the rebels are heavily infested with “Islamic extremism” and supplied many of the suicide bombers who murdered civilians and our forces in Iraq.

We learn that those tribes are racists who are likely to exact genocidal revenge on Blacks who supported the regime. Clinton sent our armed forces to fight on the wrong side in Serbia. Obama sent them to fight on the wrong side in Libya.  There is no right side in Libya; we should let them kill each other without interference, then bomb the winners.

No matter who wins in Libya, the outcome will leave that nation and its oil wealth in the hands of our enemies. The current policy is not only stupid and wasteful, it is treasonous.  We are risking lives and wasting  treasure in the wrong place, on the wrong side of a power rivalry that is none of our business and can have no good outcome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_vR9RswSs&feature=player_embedded

March 30, 2011 Posted by | GWOT, Political Correctness | , , , , | Leave a comment

Defamation of Islam: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory


While USCIRF, Human Rights First and Christian news media dance around their bonfires emitting victory whoops, those with more common sense analyze the resolution and wait for the backfire.  I bring you tidings of the first backfire from International Islamic News agency . [Emphasis added.]

Informed sources in the OIC General Secretariat in Jeddah stated clarified that the Islamic Group, represented in the OIC, in international fora did not back down from its position, pointing out that the Western countries, which lost all rounds of voting on the previous resolution on anti-defamation of religions, has made a major concession by accepting the new version of the resolution which aims to the same goals of promoting tolerance, non-discrimination and violence based on religion, which is exactly what the OIC is seeking in order to provide a decent living for Muslim communities in the West.

The OIC did not back down, it was Western Civilization that lost the previous votes and made a major concession.  The new resolution maintains the  same goals as its predecessors.

Return to  http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/Draft_Resolution_Defamation_Religions.pdf, which passed in the HRC last year and study ¶14, 15 & 16.  Exactly what are they demanding?  For those lacking the patience & diligence to do the research, here is my blog post detailing it: Defamation of Religions UNHRC March 25 ’10. The tactical objective of the series of resolutions is national & international legislation criminalizing all questioning and criticism of Islam.

The sources pointed out that the West’s acceptance of the new resolution reflects an implied admission of a problem already exist within their communities.

That is a clear restatement of the obvious; there was no need to say it.

…to put an end to the campaign of hostility to Islam, better known in the west as Islamophobia.

Can you obtain a clue from Allah’s word?  From Moe’s word??  From Islamic law???

  • 2:190. And fight in the Way of Allâh those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. [This Verse is the first one that was revealed in connection with Jihâd, but it was supplemented by another (V.9:36)].
  • 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
  • 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
    • Sahih Muslim 19.4294 …If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them…
    • Al-Hedaya Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1, Page 141: The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the sacred writings which are generally received to this effect.
      • This marginal note found on page 140 sums it up nicely: “War must be carried on against the Infidels, at all times, by some party of the Muslims. “

What did Allah command Muslims to do?  What did Moe tell them to do?  What does Islamic law say about who initiates & perpetuates the conflict?  Our attempts at self-defense  by raising the alarm are characterized as a “campaign of hostility” but Allah’s imperative to conquer us is just, righteous & peaceful.  Yeah, right.

According to the sources, the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had had invited the OIC to lead the efforts with both Washington and the European Union to draft a new resolution to ensure the foundations adopted by the previous resolution, giving a wider range of freedom of expression, but at the same time the sources confirmed that the decision (defamation of religions) has not been abandoned, and it is still valid, and can be resorted to if necessary.

Our Secretary of State and an NGO are behind the new tactic.  Meet the new resolution, same as the old resolution.  Guess what they will introduce to the General Assembly in September.

While we are beset with an implacable existential foe, the best we can muster are Morons & traitors. Western Civilization is in great peril.

March 29, 2011 Posted by | Hillary, Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Hillary Clinton’s big lie: Combating Discrimination…


Our secretary of State, SCIRI and Human Rights First are prancing about with excrement faced grins, chortling over their great victory, how they put one over on the OIC and defeated a resolution inimical to our right of free expression.

No, we have no victory; we have a defeat, engineered by those sworn to protect us. Instead, they bent down, lifted Satan’s tail and planted a big wet kiss.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
March 24, 2011

Adoption of Resolution at Human Rights Council Combating Discrimination and Violence


The United States welcomes today’s action by the UN Human Rights Council to further the international community’s efforts to combat religious intolerance. The consensus resolution adopted by the Council today represents a significant step forward in the global dialogue on countering intolerance, discrimination, and violence against persons based upon religion or belief. We appreciate the leadership shown by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and member states on today’s landmark achievement.

The United States strongly supports today’s resolution, which rejects the broad prohibitions on speech called for in the former “defamation of religions” resolution, and supports approaches that do not limit freedom of expression or infringe on the freedom of religion. This resolution demonstrates a desire to move the debate on these shared challenges in a constructive and affirmative direction. Our divides can be bridged through an effort to listen to each other and to seek common ground. This resolution is a direct result of this type of engagement with the global community.

Today’s adoption of this resolution by the UN Human Rights Council is an important statement that must be followed by sustained commitment. At a time when violence and discrimination against members of religious minorities is all too common, we urge the international community to continue to uphold the freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As I said last month in Geneva, we must support those who are willing to stand up on behalf of the rights we cherish.

 

religious intolerance

3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

3:118. O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitânah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand.

Please show me exactly how the resolution combats that; post relevant, verifiable facts in the comments.

discrimination

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum”;

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

Please show me exactly how the resolution reduces discrimination against Jews & Christians living under the heel of Islam in Pakistan & Egypt.  Who shall enforce it and how?

violence against persons

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious – see V.2:2).

Please show me exactly how the resolution combats Allah’s jihad imperatives. Does it repeal Allah’s words? Who will enforce it, and how?

landmark achievement

Instead of having an honest debate and roll call vote which would probably reflect diminished support for the “defamation of Islam” construct, you accepted a dishonest “compromise” which altered the language without changing the meaning and effect of the resolution.

Reaffirming the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can
play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance,

Kindly elaborate on the positive role of free expression in combating intolerance. Under the first amendment, I have a right to truthfully write and publish the fact that Islam snctifies rape, pillage & plunder in the process of world conquest. The Secretary General of the resolution’s sponsor will tell you that my truthful expression defames Islam and negatively stereotypes Muslims and that you must pass laws to prohibit it.

When Geert Wilders uttered & published the same fatal fact in his short documentary, Fitna, Ban Ki-moon declared it to be “hate speech” & “incitement of violence”, not involving the right of free expression.

If the general public knew the full truth about Islam, they wound not tolerate it. Truthful expression about Islam militates against tolerance of the intolerable.  The intent of the paragraph quoted above is to stifle free expression, not encourage it.

in addition to the negative projection of the followers of religions

That excerpt, properly viewed, reveals a great deal.  What is uttered about  the  war cult reflects on its membership, jointly and severally.  If Islam  mandates genocidal conquest, then what of Muslims?  Perhaps  the Qur’an will enlighten you.

9:111. Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur’ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success .

9:120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh’s Messenger (Muhammad  when fighting in Allâh’s Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allâh wastes not the reward of the Muhsinûn

Believers fight in Allah’s cause (world conquest) killing and being killed. Any step they take to enrage or injure a disbeliever is imputed to them as a good deed.  We can not expose the evil at the core of Islam without exposing Muslims as the agents of Satan who do and applaud evil acts.

Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or beliefs, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups  aimed at creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups, in particular when condoned by Governments;

Exactly what are they complaining about?  I highlighted the crucial clauses, read it again, read it repeatedly until it sinks in.  They express  deep concern about  “creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups”.  To fully comprehend the enormity of the resolution, you need to recall a boiler plate  expression from previous resolutions: “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with terrorism and human rights violations.”  Does that ring a bell?  Can you connect the dots?

  • negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion
  • creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups

Those arrogant, condescending Muslims, bureaucrats & politicians are convinced that we are too stupid to comprehend the big lie they are putting over on us.

Expresses its concern that incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of religion or belief continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, as set forth in this resolution, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to  address and combat such incidents;

 

  • incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence
  • negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of religion or belief
  • advocacy of religious hatred
    • constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence
  • urges States to take effective measures

“Religious intolerance” is a code phrase for criticism of Islam; “negative stereotyping…” is a parallel  code phrase. “Advocacy of religious hatred” is another. “Incitement  to discrimination, hostility or violence” is gilding the turd. “Effective measures” is a code phrase for prohibitive legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Condemns any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means;

Recall what they said about Fitna and the Motoons. Recall what they said and are saying about burning the Qur’an.  It is not possible to tell the truth about Islam without violating their resolution.

Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief;

Recall what the Secretary General  of the United Nations said about Fitna. Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

By the U.N.’s own definition of terms, exemplified by the Secretary General, the resolution demands that revelation of facts about Islam be criminalized. There is no real, effective difference between the stated offenses:

  • defamation of Islam
  • denigration of Islam
  • vilification of Islam
  • negative stereotyping of Islam
  • negative stereotyping of individuals based on religion.

The primary demand was and remains the criminalization of all criticism and questioning of the doctrines & practices of Islam.

March 25, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Combating Defamation of Islam: only the name changed


In the wake of negative publicity over two high level assassinations in Pakistan, the OIC switched tactics, adopting a style suggested by Article 19 and other NGOs.  This new style replaces the ‘defamation of Islam’ concept with ‘negative stereotyping’, ‘stigmatization’, ‘discrimination’ & ‘incitement to violence’ against ‘persons’ based on their religion.

If anyone can find a significant difference between ‘defamation’ and ‘negative stereotyping’, please post it in the comments.

Recall what Ban Ki-moon said about Fitna, the short documentary by Geert Wilders which put the Qur’anic imperatives and Islamic actions side by side for easy comparison. Ban said it was ‘hate speech’ & “incitemen’; that the right of free expression was not involved.

Whenever we bring up the fact that Islam sanctifies & mandates genocidal conquest featuring terrorism as a victorious battle tactic or the fact that its 52 year old founder consumated marriage to 9 year old  Aisha, we will be accused of ‘negative stereotyping’ and ‘inciting’ ‘hatred’ & ‘violence’.  The name has changed, the strategy has not: cut the watchdog’s throat to prevent him from warning of impending danger.

On March 24, the Human Rights Council passed two resolutions by acclamation:

http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/combating_intolerance_neg_steretyping.pdf

http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/A_HRC_16_L.10.pdf

My analysis of those resolutions is in these blog posts:

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization

Freedom of Religion and Belief: For Muslims Only!

Article 19 & SCIRI hail those resolutions as a great victory. In fact they represent a tragic defeat for truth, justice & liberty.  They represent victory of al-Taqiyya over truth.  A skunk dyed solid color still stinks. A rattlesnake with its rattles cut off remains deadly.  These resolutions continue the outrageous demand that Islamic blasphemy law be imposed upon us, making these blog poswts illegal.

If you have any doubts about this fatal fact, consider the statement of  Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC, concerning International Judge the Koran Day. Here are some highlights.

  • “the worst example of extremism”
  • need for a normative approach to discourage such practices
  • Prof. Ihsanoglu urged the international political elite to take the necessary steps with a view to avoiding recurrence of such acts of extremism that could inflame religious sentiments with grave repercussions towards interfaith harmony as well as global peace, security and stability.

Those are code phrases for international and national blasphemy laws, backed up by intimidating threats of riot and war.

The whole ball of feces is predicated upon two false premises:

  1. “Islam is a religion of peace” and an “equally valid path to God”.
  2. “Muslims have a right to practice Islam”.

In fact, Islam is jihad. Jihad is offensive warfare.  Jihad is established as the ‘original religion’ of Islam; commerce & agriculture are stipulated as alternatives to jihad.  Abandoning jihad for commerce or agriculture is cursed by Allah.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.

Therefore, the right to practice Islam includes a right and demonic mandate to conquer us. It is not possible for such an egregious evil to be a right!  If we have a right to live, secure in our persons, property and liberty, then there is no right to practice  manifest  and propagate Islam.  Choose one, the two can not coexist.

March 24, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization


Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization

This three page draft resolution is dated 03/21/11, considerably post
deadline. The database shows it as being submitted on the 18th, one day
late.

Despite its length and due to the target rich environment it presents,
I reproduce the entire draft resolution, with superscripts linked to my
commentary which follows the text of the draft.    To
read my comments in coordination with the text,
click the superscript and use your back button to return to the text.

Article 19 & CHRS have published a call for member states to vote for this resolution.
The resolution represents a change of tactics, not strategic
objectives. It is designed to deceive human rights activists, and it
appears to be a success.

It is probable that the resolution will be debated
and adopted Thursday or Friday of this week, too soon to mount an
effective opposition. This blog post will stand as a model for rebuttal
when the resolution is repeated next year.  Please follow the
links and take maximum advantage of the information provided.

A/HRC/16/L.38

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization

of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence

against persons based on religion or belief

Human Rights Council

Sixteenth session

Agenda item 9

Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related

form of intolerance, follow-up and implementation

of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference):
draft resolution 16/…

Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization

of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence

against persons based on religion or belief1

The Human Rights Council,

Reaffirming the commitment made by all States under the Charter of the
United

Nations to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance
of all human rights

and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to, inter alia,
religion or belief,

Reaffirming also the obligation of States to prohibit discrimination on
the basis of

religion or belief and to implement measures to guarantee the equal and
effective protection

of the law,

Reaffirming further that the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights

provides, inter alia, that everyone shall have the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and

religion or belief, which shall include freedom to have or to adopt a
religion or belief of his

choice2, and
freedom, either individually or in community with others
and in public or

private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance,
practice3
and teaching,

Reaffirming the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom
of opinion and

expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and
impart information can

play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance,4

Deeply concerned about incidents of intolerance5,
discrimination6
and
violence

against persons based on their religion7 or belief in all regions of the
world,

Deploring any advocacy of discrimination or violence on the basis of
religion or

belief,8

Strongly deploring all acts of violence against persons on the basis of
their religion

or belief, as well as any such acts directed against their homes,
businesses, properties,

schools, cultural centres or places of worship,9

Concerned about actions that willfully exploit tensions or target
individuals on the

basis of their religion or belief,

Noting with deep concern the instances of intolerance, discrimination
and acts of

violence in many parts of the world, including cases motivated by
discrimination against

persons belonging to religious minorities, in addition to the negative
projection of the

followers of religions and the enforcement of measures that
specifically discriminate

against persons on the basis of religion or belief,

Recognizing the valuable contribution of people of all religions or
beliefs to

humanity and the contribution that dialogue among religious groups can
make towards

improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all
humankind,

Recognizing also that working together to enhance implementation of
existing legal

regimes that protect individuals against discrimination and hate
crimes, increase interfaith

and intercultural efforts, and to expand human rights education are
important first steps in

combating incidents of intolerance, discrimination and violence against
individuals on the

basis of religion or belief,

 

1. Expresses deep concern at the
continued serious instances of derogatory

stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization10 of
persons based on
their religion or

beliefs, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist
organizations and groups11

aimed at creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious
groups, in particular

when condoned by Governments;

 

2. Expresses its concern that incidents
of religious intolerance, discrimination

and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of
individuals on the basis of

religion or belief continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in
this context, any

advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes
incitement to

discrimination, hostility or violence12, and urges States to take
effective measures, as set forth

in this resolution, consistent with their obligations under
international human rights law, to

address and combat such incidents;13

 

3. Condemns any advocacy of religious
hatred that constitutes incitement to

discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of
print, audio-visual or

electronic media or any other means;12

 

4. Recognizes that the open public
debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and

intercultural dialogue at the local, national and international levels
can be among the best

protections against religious intolerance, and can play a positive role
in strengthening

democracy and combating religious hatred, and convinced that a
continuing dialogue on

these issues can help overcome existing misperceptions;14

 

5. Notes the speech given by
Secretary-General of the Organization of the

Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, at the fifteenth session of
the Human Rights

Council, and draws on his call on States to take the following actions
to foster a domestic

environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect, by:
 

(a) Encouraging the creation of
collaborative networks to build mutual

understanding, promoting dialogue and inspiring constructive action
towards shared policy

goals and the pursuit of tangible outcomes, such as servicing projects
in the fields of

education, health, conflict prevention, employment, integration and
media education;

(b) Creating an appropriate mechanism within the government to, inter
alia,

identify and address potential areas of tension between members of
different religious

communities, and assisting with conflict prevention and mediation;

(c) Encouraging training of government officials in effective outreach
strategies;

(d) Encouraging efforts of leaders to discuss within their communities
causes of

discrimination and evolving strategies to counter these causes;

(e) Speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious
hatred that

constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;

(f) Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence
based on

religion or belief;15

(g) Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious

stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by
strategizing and

harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international
levels through, inter

alia, education16
and awareness-building;

(h) Recognizing that the open, constructive and respectful debate of
ideas, as

well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national
and international levels,

can play a positive role in combating religious hatred, incitement and
violence;

6. Calls upon all States:

(a) To take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries in
the conduct

of their public duties do not discriminate against an individual on the
basis of religion or

belief;

(b) To foster religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability
of

members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to
contribute openly

and on an equal footing to the society;

(c) To encourage representation and meaningful participation of
individuals,

irrespective of their religion, in all sectors of society;

(d) To undertake a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which
is

understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in
conducting questionings,

searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures;17

7. Encourages States to consider providing updates on efforts made in
this

regard as part of ongoing reporting to the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner

for Human Rights;

8. Calls upon States to adopt measures and policies to promote the full
respect

and protection for places of worship and religious sites, cemeteries
and shrines, and to take

measures in cases where they are vulnerable to vandalism or destruction;

9. Calls for strengthened international efforts to foster a global
dialogue for the

promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on
respect for human

rights and diversity of religions and beliefs, and decides to convene a
panel discussion on

this issue at its seventeenth session within existing resources


  1. This sentence contains the main change: from combating
    defamation of Islam to Muslims; from the institution to its members.
    That is a change in tactics, not strategic
    objective.  The goal remains unchanged: to erect a legislative
    shield to protect Islam from all questioning and criticism, consistent
    with Shari’ah, which prescribes the death penaltyA for
    ‘reviling’ Allah, Moe & their war cult. B
    Muslims are supposed to be stigmatized individually by accurately
    describing the accursed doctrines of the war cult which enslaves them
    to Satan.  Thus, every exposure,questioning & criticism of
    Islamic doctrines will be held to ‘stigmatize’ Muslims, an act to be
    prohibited by law.

    ‘Incitement’ will be defined broadly, as in Ban
    Ki-moon’s condemnationC
    of Geert Wilders’ short documentary, Fitna, which exposes, but does not
    constitute incitement to violence. The MotoonsD a graphic
    depiction of Islamic jihad-terrorism also exposed incitemenht, but are
    themselves, not an example of incitement.

  2. ICCPR,
    Article 18,
    ¶2
    implies, but does not clearly state, the right to disaffiliate from one
    religion and adopt another. International consensus on that right is
    impossible because Islam prescribes the death penalty for apostasy.
    Refer to the relevant Islamic law.A
  3. Manifestation & practice of Islam is
    problematic because participation in offensive wars of conquestE is ordained
    for MuslimsF
    and is their essential life missionG.  Islam is inseverable, Muslims
    are not empowered to select what they like and reject the violent parts.H It
    is not possible to practice Islam peacefully in the long run.
  4. “Combating religious intolerance” is
    assumed to be a good thing. Why should anyone tolerate a ‘religion’
    that asserts a demonic mandate–right & duty to conquer him and
    enslave his widow & orphansI?
    Why
    should anyone tolerate a ‘religion’ that imputes any step taken to
    “injure” or “raise the anger of” a disbeliever to the believer’s credit
    as a “deed
    of righteousness”J?

    The citation of the right to freedom of
    expression is deliberately
    deceptive because the intent of this resolution is to criminalize any
    and every expression that questions or criticizes the doctrines &
    practices of Islam.  How, exactly, will freedom of expression
    combat
    intolerance?  The unstated premise of this and all similar
    resolutions,
    including the preceding resolutions “combating defamation of religions”
    is that all questioning & criticism of Islam constitutes
    incitement, intolerance & hate speech.

  5. Muslims are so “deeply concerned” about ‘intolerance”
    that its holy scripture declares it intensely intolerant of all rival
    religions so that if anyone chooses another religion, “it will never be
    accepted of him”K.
  6. Muslims are so “deeply concerned” about ‘discrimination’
    that their Shari’ah dictates that conquered Christians living under
    Islamic domination are prohibited from making public processions,
    prayers or funerals, ringing bells, displaying crosses and building
    churches.L
  7. Muslims are so “deeply concerned” about violence
    based on the victim’s religion that their holy scripture , oral
    tradition & Shari’ah mandate & exemplify offensive wars of
    conquest against pagans, Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians.M
  8. How can you be a Muslim while deploring
    Islam? This is the Acme of hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance! M

  9. If you deplore the burning of homes &
    churches and
    the killing of Christians & other minorities in Nigeria,
    Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia & Egypt, why do you remain
    affiliated with the war cult that inculcates hatred and incites those
    acts?
  10. Deep concern about “derogatory stereotyping,
    negative profiling and stigmatization”? Are you concerned about your
    own scripture and Shari’ah? N
  11. They are complaining about the Dutch PVV and
    similar political parties in Austria, Germany Switzerland and
    elsewhere. They want such parties outlawed.
  12. They just condemned Islam’s own canon of
    scripture, tradition, biography & jurisprudence!
  13. That is a demand for legislation
    outlawing “negative stereotyping’, which translates to all questioning
    and criticism of Islamic doctrines and practices, including this blog
    post informing you about their outrageous arrogant demands.
  14. If the interlocutors had sufficient knowledge of Islamic doctrine
    and courage to expose it, such dialogue might disabuse a few people of
    the mis-perception that Islam is the
    “religion of peace”.
  15. This is derived from the boilerplate
    demands for criminalization of ‘defamation of Islam’. It encompasses
    all negative expression about Islam. Review the exemplary statement by
    Ban Ki-moon quoted below.C
  16. They demand that we convert our schools into Islamic indoctrination centers, a process that is
    already  underway.
  17. Consider the most recent mass casualty
    attacks, both successful and interdicted. What was the affiliation of
    the perpetrators? How many of them were not Muslims?  Islam
    inculcates hatred and incites violence. It promises participants
    admission to a celestial bordelloO and threatens shirkers with
    eternity in HellP.
    Muslims are commanded to wage war against us and rewarded for any
    injury they inflict.  Of course it is unreasonable to be
    suspicious of them. Yeah, right.

  1. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 8, ¶1.
  2. ibid, Book O, Chapter 8, ¶7.
  3. Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban
    Ki-moon about Fitna: 

    “There is no justification for
    hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The
    right of free expression is not at stake here.”

  4. View the Motoons
  5. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, ¶0 pg. 617

    ibid, ¶1, pg. 618

    ivid, ¶8, pg. 620

    Al-Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1, pg. 141

  6. Noble Qur’an, Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayah 216.
  7. ibid, Surah
    At-Taubah,
    ayah 111
  8. ibid,Surah Al-Baqarah, Ayah 85
  9. ibid, Surah Surah Al-Ahzab, Ayah 26

    Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, ¶13

  10. Noble Qur’an, Surah At-Taubah, Ayah 120
  11. ibid, Surah Al-Imran , Aya 85
  12. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 11 , ¶5
  13. Noble Qur’an, Surah Al-Anfal, Ayah 39

    ibid, Surah At-Taubah, Ayah 29

    Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387

    Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, ¶8

  14. Noble Qur’an, Surah Al-Baiyyinah, Ayah 6

    Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 11, ¶5,
    items 2-7

  15. Noble Qur’an, Surah As-Saff, Ayat 10-12

    ibid, Surah Surah An-Naba’ , Ayah 31

  16. Ibid, Surah At-Taubah, Ayat 38-39

    ibid, Surah an-Naba’, Ayah 21

 

March 23, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, Religion, Religion of Peace, United Nations | , , , , , | 1 Comment


My email subscription to UNHRC documents turned up an interesting letter from the representative of Cyprus. I keep telling you hat freedom of religion is a one way street, few pay any attention.

Turkey is interfering with Greek Orthodox services in occupied Cyprus. As I keep telling you, if you ain’t Muslim, you have no rights. Perhaps this will give you a clue.  Turkey is violating the rights of Christians in occupied Cyprus, interfering with church services, arbitrarily and with outrageous regulations.

Upon instructions from my Government, I would like to bring to your attention a
grave human rights violation that occurred on 25 December 2010 in the Orthodox church of
Saint Synesios, in the town of Rizokarpaso located in the part of Cyprus under the military
occupation of Turkey. This issue is directly related to the mandate in accordance with
which the yearly reports on the question of human rights in Cyprus are prepared, as
provided for in Commission on Human Rights resolution 4 (XXXI) and General Assembly
resolution 3450 (XXX).
As confirmed by the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), on
25 December 2010, security forces of the subordinate local administration of Turkey
interrupted an ongoing religious service, forced the priest to remove his liturgical vestments
and to terminate the liturgy, ordered the churchgoers, mainly Greek Cypriot enclaved
persons, to evacuate, then sealed the church on the pretext that no “permission for the
conduct of mass” had been obtained. At the same time, the occupation regime did not allow
for a Christmas mass to be held in the Church of the Holy Trinity (Ayia Triada) in the
nearby town of Yialoussa. Subsequently, the occupation regime informed UNFICYP that a
new “procedure” had been established, whereby prior authorization should be sought 30
days in advance for all scheduled religious services, except those celebrated on Sundays.
These acts contravene the third Vienna agreement of 2 August 1975, which, inter
alia, explicitly provides that the Greek Cypriots who remained enclaved behind the military
lines in their villages in the north-eastern Karpass peninsula in the aftermath of the Turkish
invasion would be “free to stay” and that they would “be given every help to lead a normal
life, including facilities for education and for the practice of their religion, as well as
medical care by their own doctors and freedom of movement”. Even more serious, these
acts constitute a clear violation of international and European human rights law, including
article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 3 and 9 of the
European Convention on Human Rights.

Lets review the fatal facts:

  • Muslims are commanded to wage war against us.
  • Our blood is not sacred to Muslims.
  • Our property is not sacred to Muslims.
  • We have no rights until we become Muslims.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”

We know blessed well that the Human Rights Council will not do anything to remedy this situation, which will continue to be ignored. They are occupied with more important matters such as condemning Israel for defending itself. 

March 21, 2011 Posted by | Political Correctness, United Nations | , , | Leave a comment

Fort Hood Benefits Act


I received an email from the Wake Up America movement reminding me of an important issue which I should not have forgotten. I raise it here to remind you of it and urge you to take action.

Fort Hood massacre was November 5, 2009 –  Now it’s 2011 and these bills sit in committee – with no decision nor action yet taken.

 

Senate bill: Fort Hood Protection Act S316

House bill:  Fort Hood Benefits Act  HR625

 

Both these bill are sponsored by Republicans  (with 1 Democratic and 1 Independent cosponsor each)

Both bills make the same request – click bill # above to see clear, brief contents.

 

Take A Stand!
MAKE YOUR VOICE heard – to move this measure forward now – by contacting your Congressman and Senators.
All of US are aware, by now, Congress drags their feet if not prompted to act. So, your voice will matter. Please draw their attention to this overdue resolution in support of HR 625 and S316. The young soldier listed above died when he dived in front of a nurse and saved her life. Surely his, and the families, of others struck down deserve recognition these losses were a result of an act of war.
Please FORWARD. BLOG & TWITTER this action and post ON YOUR FORUMS. Thanks!

If  the bills are not enacted into law, the victims and their survivors will suffer an unwarranted injustice, receiving minimal benefits instead of what they justly deserve.  Please go immediately to http://www.congress.org/ and send emails to your Representatives & Senators urging them to get into gear and get the legislation out of cmte. and onto the floor for a vote.

At congress.org, you don’t need to know your Rep’s name or district number. If you know your zip code, you know enough. Signup is free and easy. If I can do it, so can you.

March 21, 2011 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , | Leave a comment

International Judge the Koran Day: Execution


nternational Judge the Koran Day: Execution

This video of the sentencing & execution of a Koran was posted on Facebook.  I was not able to view the judgment with Firefox.  I was able to log on with Internet Explorer, but the audio quality was poor, and  the prosecutor was speaking in Arabic.  I did not hear the promised translation.  When I attempted to reload the page, the server timed out, which it continues to do more than four hours after the event.

I suspect that the site which streamed the video might have suffered a distributed denial of service attack, but one source asserts that they went off line voluntarily.  I will continue to try the site periodically in hopes of finding video of the trial.  If and when I obtain more information about the trial I will write a new post about it.

At present, there are two news stories about the trial and execution fo the Koran.

The Straits Times story should guarantee adequate coverage in Asia.  It is just a matter of time until the hot heads learn of the execution, then the rabble rousing will begin.  How much Hell they will raise is anyone’s guess, the less the better.    Any violence which might ensue must be blamed on those who incite it and carry it out, not on the acts of judging and burning the Koran.

I will be watching for reaction in and from the Human Rights Council as it enters its last week of deliberation for its 16th session. The council has a full calendar and can not afford to waste time on trifling matters. I doubt that the OIC will view the issue my way.

While I do not disagree with the verdict, I dislike the idea of burning the Koran inside a church.  Even though it was well contained and isolated from flammable surfaces, the issues of fire hazard, liability, insurance and air pollution  would lead me to do it outdoors, in a burning barrel, covered with a fine screen to prevent fly ash from starting brush fires.

http://www.ustream.tv/flash/viewer.swf” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash

March 21, 2011 Posted by | Political Correctness | | 1 Comment

International Judge the Koran Day Update


Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 4p.m., the trial will start, lasting for four hours.  I doubt that is sufficient time, but it is not up to me.  Since Chowderhead backed out, Sheikh Imam Mohamed El Hassan has been recruited to defend the Koran.

The prosecution team is loaded with apostates. Ahmed Abaza, the prosecutor, is a convert to Christianity. Mr. Ahmed Paul is an expert witness, another apostate.  Sheikh Abdulla Al Sabah, another expert witness, also knows Islam from the inside, being an apostate.

According to the press release, the poll is running 69% in favor of immolation.  That should make for some fun, because Dr. Jones previously promised that he would not burn the Koran.  How will he resolve that conflict?  Is he secretly hoping for an acquittal?

One of the charges could be difficult to prove: the Koran is accused of inciting murder, rape and terrorist activities. The Koran commands Muslims to engage in perpetual warfare but I am not convinced that meets the legal definition of murder.  It does sanction sexual exploitation of slaves and commands terrorism.  If you doubt this, visit http://www.quranbrowser.com/ and search for right hands possess; you will find plenty of evidence of rape.  A search for strike terror will bring up direct evidence of the last charge.

The event appears to be drawing little attention from the print media, with only two articles showing up this week in a Google search, but it fares far better in the blogs. I know that there is some government interest because my blog posts about it have been read by the local police and the Department of Homeland Security.  Even a local television station read my most recent previous update post.  There is also some international interest: the OIC Islamophobia Report for February mentioned International Judge the Koran day.

For those of us who can not travel to Gainsville, Florida for the event, it will be broadcast live on the internet at www.truthsat.tv.

March 19, 2011 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , | Leave a comment

Universal Periodic Review: High Treason


Now comes the response of the United States to the U.N.H.R.C Universal Periodic Review, delivered orally by the State Department’s legal counsel. I would vomit, but I am loath to waste a good meal.  Words lack the capacity to express the depth, breadth & intensity of my disgust, but I will give it a good try.

The response appears to be carefully crafted by skilled lawyers,  yet it can not pass close examination in the light of objective factual reality.

Completion of the First UPR of the United States: Statement by Harold Hongju Koh

In the context of counter-terrorism, a number of U.S. civil society groups, and countries – such as Egypt and Algeria – have raised concerns regarding discrimination against Muslims. The United States agrees that the problem of terrorism is not unique to members of any religious or ethnic group. Our government does not support attempts to treat entire communities as a threat to our national security, based solely on their race, religion, or ethnicity.

So, atheists & Catholics have committed acts of terrorism. Over what timeline?  On what scope & scale?  How does their recent engagement compare to that of Islam?  Where in the holy scripture of any other ‘religion’ do you discover the functional equivalent of the following listed abominations?

  • Intention  & sanctification of terrorizing
    • 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).
    • 8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.”
  • Effective imperative to terrorize
    • 8:57. If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.
    • 8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
  • Celebration of the effects of terrorizing
    • 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
    • 33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.
    • 59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Bani An-Nadir) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But Allah’s (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).
    • 59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allah – Islamic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Bani An-Nadir) breasts than Allah. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allah).
      • Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.
      • Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220. I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),
  • Eternal reward for terrorism
    • 9:120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allah’s Messenger (Muhammad SAW when fighting in Allah’s Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allah, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allah wastes not the reward of the Muhsinun.
  • Terrorism as life’s mission
    • 9:111. Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur’ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success .

Islam, having declared and prosecuted perpetual war against us, is a clear, imminent and persistent threat to our lives, property, prosperity & liberty.  Islam, without Muslims, would be harmless. Muslims; believers as defined in 9:111, 49:15 & 8:2 , constitute an imminent threat and should be removed and excluded from our territory.

Periodic Review » Releases » US Response to UN Human Rights Council Working Group Report
U.S. Response to UN Human Rights Council Working Group Report

March 10, 2011

Report of the United States of America
Submitted to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
In Conjunction with the Universal Periodic Review
Response to the U.N. Human Rights Council Working Group Report

A/HRC/IWG.6/9/L9

85. The United Slates delegation responded to a number of questions and concerns regarding
discrimination against Muslims, Arab Americans, and South Asians. The United States is committed to
addressing negative stereotypes, discrimination and hate crimes through measures such as the creation
of a 911 1 backlash task force, litigation to protect religious freedom including the right of school girls to
wear the hijab, nationwide community outreach, and enforcement of employment discrimination
laws. The United States is taking concrete measures to make border and aviation security measures
more effective and targeted to eliminate profiling based on race, religion, or ethnicity.

10. The following enjoy our support:

  • 85.

“The United States is committed to addressing negative stereotypes,”  The highlighted expression refers directly to the connection between Islamic doctrine/practice and terrorism. In a previous paragraph I outlined the Qur’an ayat which establish terrorism as an intrinsic sacrament of Islam and two hadith which exemplify it.  Why is my government “committed to” denying objective factual reality?  The policy is a token of suicidal treachery.

While they claim to support the first amendment’s free speech clause, they declare a policy directly opposed to it; an excellent exemplar of cognitive dissonance.

101. Ban, at the Federal and state levels, the use of racial profiling by police and immigration officers (Bolivia);
Prohibit expressly the use of racial profiling in the enforcement of immigration legislation (Mexico);

102. Revoke the national system to register the entry and exit of citizens of25 countries from the Middle-East, South
Asia and North Africa, and eliminate racial and other forms of profiling and stereotyping of Arabs, Muslims and South
Asians as recommended by CERD. (Sudan);

5. The following recommendations enjoy our support:

  • 68, 101, and 219, in that profiling — the invidious use of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion — is prohibited under the U.S. Constitution and numerous pieces of national legislation.

What is invidious about recognition of the fact that all of the perpetrators of recent mass casualty acts of terrorism were Muslims, acting in Allah’s name?  What can be more insane than scrutinizing innocent citizens while ignoring the obvious threat of Islamic affiliation?

Only those are believers who fight in Allah’s cause, which is global domination; tho “kill others and are killed” and take steps to enrage or injure disbelievers.  The policy of Obamination is suicidal treachery!

190. Take effective measures to counter insults against Islam and Holy Quran, as well as Islamophobia and violence
against Moslems, and adopt necessary legislation (Iran);

191. Continue to create an enabling climate for religious and cultural tolerance and understanding at the grass roots
level (Indonesia);

6. The following enjoy our support, in part:

  • 190. We take effective measures to counter intolerance, violence and discrimination against all members of all minority groups, including Muslims. We cannot support this recommendation, however, to the extent that it asks us to take legislative measures countering insults. Insults (unlike discrimination, threats, or violence) are speech protected by our Constitution.

¶190-191 reflect boilerplate from recent U.N. resolutions “combating defamation of religions”. Islamic law prescribes the death penalty for any negative expression about Allah, his Profit & their damnable system of intra-species predation.  For the benefit of those who value knowledge over prejudice, I present links to the evidence on which the statement above is based. Rational people will follow them, read the relevant Shari’ah and curse Islam.

  • O8.1-2: the penalty for apostasy.
  • O8.7: the list of 20 acts entailing apostasy.
  • O11.10: applicability of O8.7 to conquered Christians.
  • O9.14: the penalty imposed on a Christian who says something “unmentionable” about Islam and its sanctities.
  • O9.0-9.9:   predation upon the human race.

“Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil” It is impossible for a rational and informed person to tolerate Islam and our government should not be attempting to impose irrationality upon us.


Related documents from Eye on the UN:

3/10/2011 U.S. Response to UN Human Rights Council Working Group Report
11/9/2010 Response of the United States of America to Recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group
11/5/2010 Interactive Dialogue on the U.S. Universal Periodic Review: Opening Statement by the U.S. Delegation
11/5/2010 Interactive Dialogue on the U.S. Universal Periodic Review: Statement by the US delegation on National Security Issues
11/5/2010 Interactive Dialogue on the U.S. Universal Periodic Review: Statement by the US delegation on rights and interests of indigenous peoples
11/5/2010 Statement by Cuba during the United States Universal Periodic Review
11/5/2010 Statement by Iran during the United States Universal Periodic Review
11/5/2010 Statement by Israel during the United States Universal Periodic Review
11/5/2010 Statement by the DPRK during the United States Universal Periodic Review

March 18, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 36 other followers

%d bloggers like this: