Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Obamination: State Of The Union


January 30, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness, Politics | , , , , | Leave a comment

Seat Scott Brown Now!


Sign the petition for immediate certification & swearing in o
Tea Party Express is promoting a petition effort insisting that Scott Brown be immediately seated in the U.S. Senate.  Their petition has accumulated 27,000 signatures, it needs more.

Please add your signature to mine, copy this blog post and email it to everyone you can influence. The Democrats are desperate for a way to delay and nullify Brown’s vote in the Senate.  We must be more insistent on the immediate certification of the vote and swearing in ceremony so that Brown can begin executing the voter’s will.

Two exit polls were conducted, the results from one of them have been published.  This is how Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates summarized their analysis of the results.

  • Plurality of Brown voters said their vote was meant to send a message to Washington – not a vote for Brown’s candidacy
  • Voters desire to send a message was so strong, Brown is elected despite President’s higher than average image and job approval ratings and dismal job ratings for Congressional Republicans
  • Brown scored big with Independents and even edged Coakley with Union Households
  • Tea Party Movement gets mixed reviews, but Brown got overwhelming majority among its supporters
  • Despite Brown’s victory, GOP shouldn’t start dancing yet as their Congressional job approval is still dismal among Independents

poll results reveal the fact that one single message was being sent above all others.

“What SINGLE issue ABOVE ALL OTHERS helped decide your vote in this Senate Race today?”

Total Republicans Democrats Independents
Health care reform 48 55 50 45
Economy 5 4 4 5
Time for a change//Wanted someone new 5 4 2 7
Democrats//Want a Democrat//Supports Obama 4 8 3
Abortion 3 1 3 4
Republican//Want a Republican//Opposes Obama 3 6 2 4
Like Coakley//Dislike Brown//Agree with Coakley’s policies 3 1 4 2
Taxes 3 7 1 3

Opposition to Obama Don’t Care was at the top of the list, overshadows the other issues.

“What was the MOST important reason why you voted FOR Scott Brown today?”

Total GOP DEM IND
Healthcare Stance/ Against Healthcare Reform 39 40 40 38
Republican/ Dislike Democrats/ Oppose Obama 17 21 17 16
Dislike Other Candidate/Coakley 17 9 24 19
Agree With Policies 12 12 15 11

The electorate of Massachusetts sent a clear political message.  The Democrats are seeking a way to ignore that message. It is up to us to backup those voters and reinforce their clear message. We can do that by signing and promoting the Tea Party Express petition demanding the  immediate certification and swearing in of Senator elect Scott Brown.

That senate seat has been monopolized by the Democrats for nearly fifty years. Democrats outnumber Republicans among registered voters in Mass.  That fact adds great emphasis to the electoral message. We have one way to make that message more emphatic, lets do it now!

January 24, 2010 Posted by | Politics | , , | Leave a comment

Judicial Hypocrisy in India


DNA reports that the Bombay High Court upheld a state  ban on the publication of  Islam — A concept of Political World Invasion by RV Bhasin.

Freedom of expression granted by the Constitution, the bench said, should not be used to trigger “senseless destruction of lives and property and breach of public order”.

If a book describing Islamic doctrines and practices is judged to trigger violence, then what about the Qur’an, which  sanctifies and mandates genocidal terrorism?  The Calcutta Qur’an Petition was arbitrarily dismissed,. yet this case upholds this book banning.  Which is worse, a book which  perpetuates an order to engage in aggressive warfare or a book which describes its effects?  It is obvious that the wrong book was banned.

January 24, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , | Leave a comment

Geert Wilders On Trial


http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/geert-wilderss-speech-at-his-trial-today.html
Jihad Watch also has a five minute video in addition to the transcript.

Update 12/15/11:  While Wilders was acquitted in the second trial, Muslims are dragging the case into the U.N.  Since Fitna continues to be an exemplar of the subject matter the OIC seeks to outlaw, this subject retains its vitality.

 

The trial of Geert Wilders began January 20 ’10  and will resume February 3 unless the judge acts affirmatively on Wilders’ motion for dismissal.
At the opening of his trial, Geert Wilders spoke briefly. Two paragraphs stand out from the rest

Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.

Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.

As I interpret it, Geert Wilders is referring to the great risk that freedom of expression will be lost, never to be recovered, in which case future generations may take a very dim view of our generation. He also raises the issue of special privilege, the exalted status asserted by Islam.

It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

He characterized Islam as an ideology that threatens freedom, and postulated a right and duty to speak out against it. This raises  necessity as a defense. In his concluding remarks, he expressed hope that the court will allow him to call witnesses who will testify about Islam’s threat to liberty and to the truthfulness of his documentary and speeches. Thus he also raised the truth defense. If what he said is objectively true, it can not be  slander  or defamation.

The importance of this trial can not be exaggerated. Freedom of expression is at risk. While it may be lost to Holland in this trial,  this trial may set a precedent for similar trials elsewhere in Europe and perhaps even in the United States.

The ayat quoted by Wilders in Fitna and his speech to the Dutch Parliament were documented in a previous post, part of which is  reproduced below, slightly edited.  The cited ayat are listed and quoted with links to Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir.  Reasonable people, reading this evidence, can only conclude that Wilders told the truth; that his speech and documentary are factual, neither slanderous nor defaming to Islam.
In  a recent address to the Dutch Parliament, Geert Wilders cited the following  ayat, some but not all of which are quoted in his movie, Fitna.

Each of the above listed ayat is linked to ten parallel translations.

This is the  text of the violent ayat in the list above: [Links to Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir supplied when available.]

  • Riyad us-Salaheen, Book 11, Ch. 234 cites  many ahadith in proving the obligation of Jihad. It does not mention the above cited ayat, but does cite several others.  Reliance of the Traveler specifically offers 9:29 as  justification for declaring war on Jews and Christians.

    O-9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
    The caliph (o-25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o-11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
    “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9.29)

January 24, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , | 3 Comments

Climate Skeptics Present Vital Facts


Sponsored by an Australian political party, Climate Sceptics [their spelling],  this presentation contains absolutely vital information which you need to see. It displays graphs which explicitly and clearly contradict the false assertions of the  plunderers and how much they are plotting to steal from Australians.  The same logic applies to the Cap & Tax scheme proposed by Obamination.

I received a Powerpoint presentation by email.  The Sceptics’ web site offers the same information in a 4mb pdf file. We must strike while the iron is hot, while the Democrat Party machine is reeling from the effects of the special election in Massachusetts. Now is the time to tell your friends about the availability of free scientific information about the global warming issue.

We need to apply pressure to the politicians. http://www.congress.org/ makes it easy to send an email to your Representative & Senators. All you need to know is your Zip Code. Just copy and paste this url into your email: http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/PPP-printing-version.pdf .

This is a prime example of the information contained in the report. Notice the large area of divergence between CO2 producing fuel consumption  and temperature.

Graph showing divergence between fuel consumption and temperature.

The graph makes one fact obvious: global temperature is not a direct function of fossil fuel consumption.  The graph below  makes it clear that global temperature is not a direct function of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Graph of CO2 vs temperature

I want you to click this link to view the full report, then  use the url included in the previous paragraph to share it with your legislators and friends.  This may be our last best chance to stop the plundering of our economy, don’t let it slip through your fingers.

January 23, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , | Leave a comment

Obama Don’t Care: Last chance to Stop It!


Grass Fire Nation is ramping up its final emergency petition campaign to stop Obama Don’t Care. They are seeking 50,000 more signatures on their petition to be delivered within the next two weeks.  This may be your last chance to sign on to their petition demanding NO! votes on legislation that will lead to loss of liberty, the destruction of our medical care system and both personal and national bankruptcy.

Please click this link http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=24135&PID=21414098 and add your name to the  petition.  If the machine fails to steal enough votes from Scott Brown  in the  Massachusetts  Senate race,  there will be increased pressure on Congress to heed our objections to that potentially fatal legislation.  Let us strike now,  while the iron is hot and may begin to soften.  Hope will live right up to the final cloture vote in the Senate. Lets do everything we can to keep that hope alive! Your petitions will be hand delivered to your Representative and Senators.

Congress.org makes it easy to send an email to your Representative & Senators. You don’t need to know their names or district numbers, you only need to know your Zip Code.  Enter it and click the Federal Officials link, then  fill in the simple form.

Don’t just say NO! when you can say HELL NO!!! You don’t need to write it yourself, just paste in this link to the biggest, brightest, boldest  execration possible within the format of the blog where  the message is posted.

<a href=”https://snooper.wordpress.com/hell-no/”>the bottom line</a>

If you want a bureaucrat  between you and your doctor, if you want restrictions on your drug and procedural options, if you want to be told to go home and die quietly, then sit there and do nothing. If you want long waiting periods, shortages and denial of care, go back to sleep.  Otherwise, sign that petition and send those emails. Our health, prosperity and freedom depend on it!


				
                

January 19, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , | Leave a comment

Genocide Hadith Revisited Again


Censorship and Libel at USC

David Horowitz has once again raised the issue of the infamous genocide hadith which was restored to the USC ‘s database after he had campaigned for its removal.  I have added emphasis for the sake of clarity. [An edited transcript of Horowitz’s Nov. 4 speech is available, plus a video and a report of the attempts to prevent him from speaking. The speech is a very articulate appeal for free speech on campus, an extremely important issue.]

I was invited to USC to speak about this problem and specifically about an incitement to kill Jews posted on an official USC website and attributed to the prophet Mohammed. The incitement was originally posted by the USC Muslim Student Union. It was removed last spring by Provost Nicias, who called it “disgusting,” over protests from the Muslim Student Union. It was recently restored to a USC website by another campus group. When this re-posting came to my attention, I contacted USC students and said I would like to come to campus to address this and related issues. This led to my invitation from College Republicans.

What incitement?

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

That saying is part of Islam’s canon of codified oral tradition, a prophecy which sets the final genocide of the Jews as a precondition for the Muslims reaping their rewards in Paradise. It is not the cry of “Itbach-al-Yahud” often heard in  Islamic sermons, it is part of the basis for those sermons. Variant forms of that saying are common in Islamic literature, including the Charter of Hamas.

A variant remained in the database:  Sahih Bukhari 4.52.177. Whether they are published on a university web site or not, those sayings inform us of the genocidal character of Islam. They serve to warn us of Islam’s intentions. Removing them is like amputating a snake’s rattles or  painting a skunk’s stripes, depriving us of a warning.

My principle objection to censoring the hadith is that it deprives us of a means of authenticating the evidence of Islam’s genocidal character.  I frequently cite that hadith, including a link to it so that readers can verify its authenticity and explore related hadith.  While such sayings re removed from the web, they remain in thousands of books and articles and in the minds of millions of Muslims. Nothing is accomplished by removing one saying from one web site.

The revival of this issue can serve a purpose by affording another opportunity to reveal the evil at the core of Islam.  The Qur’an includes a demonic injunction to make war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians.

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.

Now you know that Muslims are commanded to make war on Jews and that the Muslims can’t enter Paradise until they finish the job. While there is plenty of antisemitism in the Qur’an, one ayeh stands out above the rest.

7:167. And (remember) when your Lord declared that He would certainly keep on sending against them (i.e. the Jews), till the Day of Resurrection, those who would afflict them with a humiliating torment. Verily, your Lord is Quick in Retribution (for the disobedient, wicked) and certainly He is Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful (for the obedient and those who beg Allâh’s Forgiveness).

Ibn Kathir’s tafsir of that ayeh brings a new dimension to it.

…In the future, the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah); and the Muslims, along with `Isa, son of Mary, will kill the Jews. This will occur just before the end of this world….

Another prophesy contains a less explicit confirmation. Read between the lines.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4310:

Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.

When President Obama and others assert that Islam is a “great religion of peace”, those of us who have explored its canon of scripture, exegeses, tradition & jurisprudence can use  quotes from those sources to refute the lie.  Instead of demanding censorship, we should be exposing the core of Islamic doctrine in the harsh light of truth. Expose Islam’s violent antisemitism, don’t obscure it.

January 18, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , | Leave a comment

Irish Law Copied by OIC Defamation Proposal


Having read several articles asserting that  Pakistan’s delegate had, on behalf of the OIC, submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee on Elaboration of Complementary Standards,[See also: Ad Hoc Cmte Draft Document] a proposal containing the text of Ireland’s new blasphemy legislation, my curiosity was aroused.  I posted a blog comment expressing doubt, and disappointment that the post did not provide a link to the source of the claim.  I prepared to compose a blog post about the issue, but after diligent search, I was unable to find  specific information.

Serendipitous discovery of a document hosted by Article 19 has brought the truth to light, proving  my assumption to be in error. I had assumed that the referenced proposal had been made previous to the recent meeting of the committee. In fact, it was submitted on October 23 and it does, in its first section, include  significant text from the Irish blasphemy statute. If Irish Catholics enacted it into law, it must surely be acceptable, right? Not by my standards!

The quote below comes from  page 11 of the following document: A/HRC/13/55, the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. [The link in the UN document system is broken.] Since the pdf is a scanned image, I used Softifree OCR to convert it to text. I have attempted to edit errors introduced by the conversion process but have left original spelling and syntax intact.I have added bold font emphasis to identify the purloined prose.

Friday, 23-10-2009 PM

‘l`he Chair opened the sixth meeting on Friday, 23 October 2009 in the afternoon, explaining that further consultations were necessary before the Programme of Work could be adopted, The agreement to continue discussion of issues put forward in alphabetical order as recorded in the draft programme of work not yet adopted was therefore extended. Accordingly, the meeting considered the issue of “discrimination based on religion or belief.”

c) Discrimination based on religion or belief.

Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, made the following proposal of text:

  1. States Parties shall prohibit by law the uttering of matters that are grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents to that religion.
  2. States Parties must enact legal prohibitions on publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults, or uses offensive language on matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings, with the aim of protecting their fundamental human rights.
  3. States Parties shall prohibit public insults and defamation of religions, public incitement to violence, threats against a person or a grouping of persons on the grounds of their race, colour, language, religion, nationality, or national or ethnic origin.
  4. States Parties shall provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation, and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, and take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs.
  5. States Parties shall penalize public expressions with racist aims, or of an ideology which claims the superiority of or, or which deprecates or denigrates, a grouping of persons on the grounds of their race, colour, language, religion, nationality, or national or ethnic origin, and enact legal prohibitions on offences in which religious motives are aggravating factors.
  6. States Parties shall apply and reinforce existing laws in order to combat and deny impunity for all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes applied to them, including on the basis of religion of or belief .

The following quote is from page 26 of the Irish statute.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if—
(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any
religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion
, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

Of course, there is a little detail which the authors do not tell us about, and which the OIC did not  plagiarize: defenses to the charge.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would
find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.
(4) In this section “religion” does not include an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

The egregious element of subjectivity stands out in both documents. How do you define and measure “grossly abusive or insulting”?   How do you define, measure and establish the existence of “genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value”? How do you establish intent?  Is any nation likely to include, in similar legislation, clearly defined and provable offenses & defenses?

Re-read  the second item in Pakistan’s list. Where did they get the notion of “negative stereotypes”?  Last October, our State Department and Egypt cosponsored the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution. [A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1]

Recognizes the positive contribution that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, particularly by the media, including through information and communication technologies such as the Internet, and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can make to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to preventing human rights abuses, but expresses regret at the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and at the use of information and communication technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human rights, in particular the perpetration of violence against and exploitation and abuse of women and children, and disseminating racist and xenophobic discourse or content; [Pg. 7, ¶’9]

Boilerplate in  previous resolutions expressed concern about “defamation”. President Obama prefers “negative stereotyping” to “defamation”. The OIC can reluctantly drop its demand for the “defamation” clause, Obama can claim victory, and we loose our freedom of expression.

Lets make a close examination of the proposal to censor critics of Islam.

  • grossly abusive or insulting
  • causing outrage
  • a substantial number
  • matters regarded by followers of
    • any religion or belief
    • sacred or inherent to their dignity
  • aim of protecting their fundamental human rights
  • insults and defamation
  • incitement to violence
  • promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs
  • public expressions with racist aims

Is highly refined  abuse or insult  permissible under the proposed legislation?  How does one determine the difference between gross and refined insult?
By what standard is outrage to be established?   What constitutes a substantial number?

Sanctity is in the mind of the believers?  Why is it not defined by the contents of sacred texts?  How are we to know what everyone considers sacred to their dignity?  In what charter is the  right to be shielded from all potential offense established and enshrined as a fundamental human right?

What constitutes incitement to violence?  According to Ban Ki-moon,  Fitna is incitement to violence.. The only incitement in the video comes from the Qur’an and Imams.  By the UN standard, exposing incitement constitutes incitement.

They are demanding that governments promote tolerance and respect for Islam,  which informed and reasonable people consider intolerable because of its intolerance and violence.

How are “racist aims” to be defined and measured?  Islam is not a race, it afflicts members of several races.  Islam began as a manifestation of Arab supremacism.

One glaring defect stands out in the proposal: subjectivity.  Muslims are set up as judge & jury; states as executioners. The offense exists because they invented it. We are guilty of it because they say we are.  This is a status offense: not being Muslim.

The thirty third ayeh of Surah Al-Ma’idah lists hudud for waging war against Allah. Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir defines that term thusly.

(The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.) `Wage war‘ mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. [Emphasis added.]

If you recite a Christian creed, you are guilty of  disbelief, opposing and contradicting Islam and may be sentenced to death.  The OIC is demanding that the UN and its member states enforce that Islamic law against us.  According to Shari’ah, as codified in Reliance of the Traveller, a dhimmi may be killed for several listed offenses including reviling Islam.

O11.10 …-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam

What is impermissible?   The list of acts entailing apostasy includes these items.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

Among other things, dhimmis are forbidden to recite scripture aloud and display crosses.

O11.5 … -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;

The Ad Hoc Committee is expected to meet in March.  We need to send a clear message  of rejection to the United States Department of State.  This is not an issue amenable to compromise.  Our right of free expression must not be abridged!   When the protocol is published, we must rise up as one with a loud voice and disrespectfully demand that the President not sign it and the Senate not ratify it.

In the meantime, lovers of liberty  have another way to make a clear statement of disrespect and contempt for Islam and demanding effective protection from its evil intentions. The International Qur’an Petition puts the most important evidence before the World Court and prays for injunctive relief. Please sign it and exhort everyone you can hope to influence to sign it and share it with their friends. We must not allow the lamp of liberty to be extinguished forever.

January 18, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Respect for Religious Differences?


The impetus for the present diatribe came from this article publiched by the U.S. Mission tyo the UN in Geneva.
Promoting Respect for Religious Differences By  Suzanne Nossel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of International Organization Affairs.

Our government is engaged in subtle, highly polished dissembling.  In order to point out the clever lies, I have reproduced excerpts from the article in block quote format, with Helvetica or Arial type face, interspersed with my commentary.  I have added bold font emphasis to make the lies easier to spot.

Take a close look at the title of the article,  in bold blue text above. Do you spot the lie?  The article is about a counter proposal offered as a substitute for the OIC’s campaign to outlaw criticism of Islam. It is not about respecting differences, it is about respecting Islam.  When the differences between Christianity and Islam are considered, the differences  are so stark that respect is impossible.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, sent to save sinners through acceptance of God’s grace. We believe that he was crucified, died and was resurrected.  Muslims believe that Isa, their name for Jesus, was fully human, Allah’s slave, not God’s son, was not crucified, neither died nor resurrected  and will return as a genocidal warlord who will lead the Muslim army in its final conquest, exterminating the Jews.  How in Hell can any sentient person exepct us to respect that blasphemy?   The details, for those who don’t know, are documented in  The Defamation of Jesus Christ.

Over the last decade, we have witnessed a campaign to attempt to counter religious hatred through bans on speech under the rubric of prohibitions on the “defamation of religions.” This effort has taken root in a series of resolutions at the U.N.’s General Assembly in New York and its Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Far from attempting to counter religious hatred, the OIC, as the representative of Islam in the absence of a Caliphate, is acting out religious hatred by attempting to impose Islam’s blasphemy law upon the entire world through the agency of the United Nations.  Religious hatred is not the issue. Defamation is not the issue. Proscribing defamation by law would not reduce hatred in any case, it would only cause it to fester.  Take a close look at Islamic law, quoted from Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.

  • O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
    • -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
    • -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
    • -6- to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
    • -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;
    • -16- to revile the religion of Islam;
    • -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;
  • O11.10  The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
    • -3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;
    • -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

The penalty for apostasy is death.

  • O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
  • O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

The code in O11.10 refers to the treaty of protection afforded to conquered Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians who, as an alternative to conversion to Islam, make annual payments of tribute and exist under conditions of humiliation & subjection.  When a dhimmi violates those rules, the caliph can kill him at will.

Islam’s  Hellbent determination to impose its blasphemy law on us is not about defamation, it is about supremacism. Islam claims to have a monopoly on  divine truth, all else is false.  They are attempting to impose through “international law” what they can not yet impose by force of arms.

Some U.N. member states supportive of these resolutions are banding together to try to impose a global ban on offensive speech in the form of a binding instrument under international law.

Any criticism of Allah, Moe & their doctrines & practices is offensive to Islam. The prime examples they cite are the Motoons and Fitna:. Although the most famous of the cartoons depicts an explosive device, which Moe never had in his possession, he was, by his own admission, a terrorist.

The irony of this effort is that the concept of “defamation of religion” has been used to crack down on religious minorities that espouse beliefs deemed by the State to defame a national or majority-supported religion. Moreover, many of the countries that support the defamation of religion apply the concept to protect one religion only, and are — within their own countries — accepting of hostile language and acts that target minority faiths.

Irony? No, that is the intended result, not a misapplication.  Defamation of Islam is a shibboleth created for political purposes, not a real and substantive issue.

These contradictions demonstrate that the drive to impose a global ban on offensive speech will not protect members of all religions on an equal basis, as U.N. resolutions and international legal norms must do. Nor will they address the specific and legitimate concerns about the treatment and mistreatment of Muslim minorities globally. Concerns about the treatment of Muslim minorities warrant concerted action on the international stage, but through steps and measures that actually work, rather than bans on free speech.

Equality of application would not make Islam’s blasphemy laws acceptable.  If you shield Judiasm, Christianity and other religions from criticism along with Islam, you still make it impossible to accurately identify and characterize the implaccable foe who has declared and is prosecuting war against us.  Had Hitler declared Mein Kampf to be divine revelation and National Socialism to be a religion, we would not have been able to use those propaganda posters in WW2 under the proposed regime.  The intent is, that in George Washington’s words: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”[http://www.georgewashingtonsociety.org/Mission.html]

What legitimate concerns?  We have laws against assault & harassment.  It is not Muslims who are being murdered, raped, tortured and burned out of their homes, businesses and churches in Egypt,.Indonesia & Pakistan.

It is not mythical assaults and murders they seek to prevent, it is revelation & recognition of the truth about Islam: that it is a war cult which seeks to destroy western civilization and plunge the world into theocratic tyranny.  Measures to promote that objective are undesirable, whether or not they are effective.

The United States has worked strenuously to oppose defamation-based approaches on the basis that they are inconsistent with fundamental freedoms of speech and expressions, including the values endorsed by U.N. member states through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The United States has given lip service to the concept of freedom of expression, but, in October of ’09, the State Department co-sponsored the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution, which substitutes “negative stereotyping” for “defamation”, a distinction without a difference.

As an alternative to the efforts that would ban speech in order to prohibit “defamation of religion,” we are proposing to achieve the goal of promoting religious pluralism and acceptance of religious difference through the kinds of steps that we have seen be effective in our own country and across the globe: enactment and enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination; bans on hate crimes; education, training and dialogue to promote religious tolerance.

Get a clue.

  • 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.
  • 9:30. And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

Islam’s scripture says that we are going to Hell and curses us in addition to declaring perpetual war against us. Religious pluralism?  Acceptance?? In your dreams!!  Why would anyone desire to promote tolerance of a “religion” which sanctifies and mandates genocidal conquest & terrorism?   Tolerance must be reciprocal; Islam is not tolerant. The two ayat quoted above prove this fact without any room for doubt.

Islam is a predator; We are prey.  For the sake of safety, we must be allowed to truthfully discuss Islam.  The Ad Hoc Committee will meet again in March.. We do not know how long it will take them to produce their protocol to ICERD, but I have no doubt that, barring a miracle, President Obama or his successor will sign it and the Senate will ratify it.

January 14, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , | Leave a comment

Vote Scam Alert!!


American Thinker
What the Dems Know: Universal Voter Registration By James Simpson

One quote in that extremely significant article brings the matter to a critical head.

In January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration. What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overridden by a federal mandate. The feds will tell the states: ‘take everyone on every list of welfare that you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver’s license holders and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be … John Fund

Do you remember the ACORN voter registration scandals of ’08?  The Democrats appear to be prepared to take it to a whole new level.  Motor Voter was bad enough, this proposal will facilitate far more multiple voting and other frauds.  If they can pack the voter registration roll with phantoms, they can use those registrations to stuff ballot boxes with impunity.

There are too many uninformed morons voting as it is.  Why make it easy for more of them to dilute the votes of intelligent, educated and informed voters?  The proposal is part of the Democrat Party’s plan to convert our representative republic into a tyranny.  We must mobilize to derail it!  Visit http://www.congress.org/
and send a strongly worded email to your Representative & Senators. Tell them that their vote for universal voter registration will guarantee your vote against them in the next election cycle.

January 13, 2010 Posted by | Politics | , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: