Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

New International Qur’an Petition

Raymond Ibrahim explained how the blasphemy law Islam is demanding
would outlaw Islam
. His logical and factual foundation is sound,
but Islam is a one way street.  Islam is in egregious and flagrant
violation of existing human rights covenants and nobody is doing
anything to enforce them.  We must rise up as one demanding

The original on Petition Site expired.  The new
version is at Petition2Congress which lets you email the petition to
your Congressman, Senators and the President in one easy step.

The petition  calls for Islam to be stripped of
its false mantle of religion, cast out of the umbra of  the First
Amendment’s free exercise clause and proscribed by law.

For the sake of brevity, this version is limited to
a short declaration and a list of  urls containing vital evidence
cited in the declaration.   A 30kb pdf file, embedded below
through Scribid, contains the  text of the original petition
including quotes from and links to the Qur’an, hadith, Shari’ah and
three international human rights covenants which provide ample evidence
to support the demand for proscription of Islam.

If you love life, liberty & prosperity and want to live in peace
and security without the threat and reality of terrorism, sign, share,
tweet, email and embed this petition and its supporting document.
it go viral! Urge Congress to take action.  If not us, who? If not
when?      If you do not have the good fortune to
be an American, send the petition to your MP and MEP.

Read and sign the petition here:

Read the supporting documentation here:

Qur’an Petition

September 30, 2012 Posted by | Double Standards, free speech, Islam, petition for redress of grievance, Petitions, Political Correctness | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Counter Jihad: Outlaw Islam and its Texts!


Every time Muslims and their dhimmis bitterly bitch about exposing
Allah as an impotent, demonic idol  and Moe as a false prophet,
barbarian, lecher, child molester and profiteer, we need to slap them
down with the fatal facts of Islam from its own canon of scripture,
tradition, exegesis, jurisprudence and biography.   Muslims
and their dhimis demand censorship because it is impossible to refute
the fatal facts of Islam.  That task is hopeless!

Demands for  imposition of Islamic blasphemy
laws must be met with contumacious contradiction: demands that Islam be
stripped of its false mantle of religion and outlawed, its slaves
emancipated and its institutions closed forever.  The Qur’an and
hadith are in flagrant violation of international human rights
covenants which outlaw racist supremacism, incitement to hatred,
violence & genocide.

    If defamation of Allah and Moe is to be outlawed,
then how about defamation of Jesus Christ? The G’d’d Qur’an denies
Christ’s patrimony, deity, crucifixion, death & resurrection
and  hadith depicts him as a genocidal warlord who will lead
Muslims in the final genocide of the Jews.  I disrespectfully
direct doubters, dissenters & deniers to:
where they can obtain a clue.

If incitement to violence is to be  outlawed,
then consider Surahs Al-Anfal & At-Taubah of the G’d’d Qur’an and
the books of Jihad & Expedition of the various collections of
hadith. Consider also Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter
9.  By your own standards, Islam must be outlawed!  I
disrespectfully direct doubters, dissenters & deniers to :
, where they can obtain a clue.

The video: Innocence of Muslims
and the Islamic and  political reactions to it have spurred the
creation of a series of blog posts which are cataloged below.

of Muslims Update: OIC Demands Blasphemy Law

This post reproduces and dissects, concept by
concept, the OIC’s contumacious demand for international imposition of
Islamic blasphemy law which I presume was delivered by Zamir Akram,
Pakistan’s U.N. Ambassador.  A brief commentary and four critical
questions proceed the embedded video Innocence of Muslims.
which is followed by the text of the contumacious demand.

Crucial concepts in the screed are represented by H1
headers followed by flaming hot commentary laced with links to Islam’s
canon.  Quotes include selections from the Qur’an & Sahih
Bukhari, the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson and George

The sections dealing with respect & tolerance
and peace & security in the final paragraphs push extra

@ UN: Spew of Feces

This post provides a link to the statement of
Egypt’s President Morsi, presents some crucial quotes and tears them
apart with H1 headers leading to the flames.  Quotes include
George Washington Reliance of the Traveller and Hedaya with several
links to the Qur’an and ahadith documenting the nexus between Islam and
terrorism.  Last but not least is the embedded video.

@ UN: Spew of Feces

This post provides a link to Indonesia’s statement
and quotes the most important paragraphs.  Like the other posts in
this Spew of Feces series, it uses H1 headers to contain crucial
concepts and tears them apart with links to Islam’s canon.  One
section features the embedded video.

@ UN: Spew of Feces

Pakistan’s statement is nine pages long. I extracted
the important turds, represented them with H1 headers and tore them
apart with links to the Islam’s canon and The Qur’anic Concept of
of Muslims
is embedded twice due to a software glitch and
careless editing. The first installment of another, more academic video
using artwork and narrative from Sira is also embedded.

@ UN Spew of Feces

Unlike the other posts in this series, this one does
not contain the video. Obamination’s treachery & hypocrisy are
documented with a full transcript of his spew of feces, with selected
turds ensconced in H1 headers and refuted with reference to Islam’s

of Muslims Update: High Commissioner for Human Rights

The statement is short, but tightly packed with
turds, which are extracted to H1 headers and flushed with citations to
Islam’s canon.  Video of the statement is included along with Innocence of Muslims
and a new Pat
Condell video
which makes things explicitly clear. The post
concludes with a George Washington quote.

Nations Response to Innocence of Muslims: Treason Against Humanity!

Though he is out of office, the President of the 66th
gets the same treatment as the other traitors to the human race. A link
to the statement is followed by an outline of its salient points.
The video is embedded, and quotes from Montesqieu, J.Q. Adams and
Churchill are included.  Islamic blasphemy laws would make those
statements illegal.  Links include the Qur’an & hadith.

of Muslims Update: White House Press Secy

That spew of feces gets the same treatment as the
others, though it is mercifully shorter.  The video is embedded,


Short and bitter, this screed gets the same
treatment including the video.

of Muslims Update:Clinton’s Crap

The bitch makes my ears itch, so I did not watch the
video, I read and reproduced the transcript.  This post does not
include the video but it has Qur’an and hadith quotes.

of Muslims: True or False; You Be The Judge!

Readers asked, so I answered. The conceptual content
of the video is essentially true.  I back that conclusion up with
copious quotes from Islam’s canon including Ishaq, Tabari & Ibn
Sa’d’s sira.   This post is long and detailed, with links to
available source documents possible.

of Muslims Update: Muslim Brotherhood Spews Snake Feces!

The entire spew of turd is reproduced and dissected
with H1 headers and quotes from Islam’s canon with the video embedded
at the end of the post.

September 29, 2012 Posted by | free speech, Islam, Political Correctness | , , , , | Leave a comment

Zardari @ UN: Spew of Feces

Since the screed is in the form of a nine page pdf file, and I am unable to maintain
its original format through OCR, I have provided a link and will
reproduce only the choice turds I decide to refute.  I am chiefly
interested in the demand of Pakistan and the OIC for international
imposition of Islamic blasphemy law.

Bismilla hirrahmaan

Allah’s spokesman

Like Iran’s President, Zardari is an arrogant AssWhole
who imagines himself on the caliph’s throne.  We know where he is
coming from.

Before I take up my speech, I want to
express the strongest condemnation for the acts of

incitement of hate against the faith of billions of Muslims of the
world and our beloved prophet,

Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him).

Although we can never condone violence, the
International community must not become silent

observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of
the world and endanger

world security by misusing freedom of expression.

Pakistan moves the United Nations to immediately
address this alarming concern and bridge the

widening rift to enable the comity of nations to be one again.

acts of incitement

Uttering and publishing Innocence of Muslims
is not an act of incitement.  Uttering and publishing Fitna is not an
act of incitement. Uttering and publishing The Prophet of Doom
is not an act of incitement.  Trying and burning the Koran and an
effigy of Moe is not an act of incitement.  Kutbah at Jumah Salat
that include chants of Allahu Akbar & Jihad! Jihad! Jihad! are

Allah’s Imperatives, threat & promise are incitement.  Islamic law is
incitement: Reliance of the Traveller O9.8-14Hedaya 2:9:1:140. Placards reading “Behead Those
Who Insult the Prophet!” are
incitement.  Fatwa offering rewards for assassinating  the
creator of the video are incitement.

Contumacious demands for imposition of Islamic blasphemy law
incite us to redouble our efforts to expose the damnable doctrines of
Islam and warn our fellow citizens of impending danger to our lives and

Terrorism and extremism have destroyed
human lives, tom social fabric, and devastated the


Terrorism and extremism

Malignant malarkey!!! “Its Islam, stupid!”
‘Terrorists’ &  ‘extremists’ are believers.
Believers are only those who fight in Allah’s cause, which is global
conquest, killing others and being killed.  Believers are defined
in the context of Surah Al-Anfal 1-6, 9:111 and 49:15.  Muslims are commanded to obey Allah,
who commanded them to wage perpetual war against Pagans and People of the Book. Muslims are commanded to deal
harshly with defeated victims so as to strike
into the hearts of those to be attacked next. Muslims are
commanded to maximize their military power so as to terrify
their enemies. Allah declared that he would cast terror and did cast terror, so that a Jewish settlement
suffered genocide, enslavement and dispossession.

Moe bragged that he was made victorious by fear cast by Allah and by terror.  Muslims are commanded to emulate Moe and promised extra credit
toward an upgrade in Allah’s Celestial Bordello for any act of terrorism.

During the regime of Zia Ul-Haq, Brig. S.K. Malik
wrote a strategy manual for the Pakistani Army.  That little book
has a clue for you.

This paragraph comes from the bottom of page 59. [Emphasis added.]

Terror struck into the hearts of the
enemies is not only

a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into

the opponent’s heart is
obtained, hardly anything is left to be

achieved. It is the
point where the means and the end meet

and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon

the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him.

There is one necessary prerequisite for instilling terror: the
destruction of our faith. Islam’s strong faith shields Muslims from
being terrorized. This paragraph comes from page 60. [Emphasis added.]

Terror cannot be struck into the hearts
of an army by merely

cutting its lines of communication or depriving it of its routes

of withdrawal. It is basically related to the strength or weakness

of the human soul. It can
be instilled only if the opponent’s

Faith is destroyed.
Psychological dislocation is temporary;

spiritual dislocation is permanent.
Psychological dislocation can be

produced by a physical act but this does not hold good of the

spiritual dislocation. To
instill terror into the hearts of the enemy, 

it is essential. in the
ultimate analysis, to dislocate his Faith
. An

invincible Faith is immune to terror. A weak Faith offers inroads

to terror. The Faith
conferred upon us by the Holy Qur’an has

the inherent strength to
ward off terror from us and to enable

us to strike terror into
the enemy.
Whatever the form or type of

strategy directed against the enemy, it must, in order to be effective,

be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy. A strategy

that fails to attain this condition suffers from inherent drawbacks

and weaknesses; and should be reviewed and modified. This rule

is fully applicable to nuclear as well as conventional wars. It is

equally true of the strategy of nuclear deterrence in fashion

today. To be credible and effective, the strategy of deterrence

must be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy.


Ending Jihad & Terrorism

The worthy goal of genuine peace and security can
only be attained by eliminating Islam from the face of the earth. That
requires destroying their faith: inducing mass apostasy among the Ummah
by exposing them to the fatal facts of Islam including the character
and actions of Allah & Moe. Innocence of Muslims
points the way, but is incapable and insufficient.A few literate
Muslims are searching the web with inquiries about the truth of the
video. They want to know if it accurately reflects Moe and the war cult
he founded.  Some of them are making a discovery through my blog
post on that subject.  Unfortunately, the majority of the Ummah
can not read.  Video is the most effective way to reach
them.  Amateurish productions will not cut the mustard.  A
full length feature documentary is required. Scripts have been
prepared, but nobody has the SISU required to under take the
production.  Our government should do it but will not.

The video:

To verify the validity of the content of the video above, visit:

There is at least one narrative based on Martin Ling’s Sira.  I
suspect that this is one of them.  The English narration is
accompanied by classic artwork.  I listened to enough to know that
it is accurate.   There is more detail about assassination of
critics than I expected.

September 27, 2012 Posted by | free speech, Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , | 1 Comment

Innocence of Muslims Update: Obamination

Since our founding, the United States
has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts
to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is
absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.
None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these
brutal acts.


respects all faiths

Respect is given where respect is due.  Do we
respect the Mafia?  Then why should we respect Islam, which began
as an Arab crime syndicate?  I direct doubters, dissenters &
deniers to another blog post which details with full documentation
Moe’s mission & motivation: Islam’s Mercenary Mission.

Is a belief system whose deity demands “great slaughter” as its Profit’s price of
admission to Paradise worthy of respect?  Does any sane
person respect a predatory way of life whose “original religion” is Jihad?

Does any believing Christian respect a faith that
denies the deity, crucifixion, death & resurrection of Jesus
Christ, depicts him as inferior to its Profit and reveres him as a genocidal warlord who will complete their genocide of the Jews?

denigrate beliefs

How is it possible to blacken that which is already
black?  What pious person who believes in the Almighty Creator
would follow a “Prophet” who, after the commencement of his ministry, married
the six year old daughter
of his bosom buddy, raped a prisoner of war and commissioned the murders of his critics?

In Shari’ah,
slander is anything the listener does not like.  In our legal
system, truth is an absolute defense against slander and
defamation.  “Innocence of Muslims” depicts Moe as a megalomaniac.
Was he a megalomaniac, or does the video defame him? To discover the
answer, turn to this appendix of quotes in The Prophet of Doom and read
relevant quotes from Ishaq, Tabari, the Qur’an & Sahih Bukhari:

The video depicts Moe as a lustful lecher; is it
true or does it defame him?
The video depicts Moe as a warmonger; is it true or does it defame

The video depicts Moe as insane or demon possessed;
is it true or does it defame him?

The video depicts Moe as suicidal; was he suicidal or does it defame

The video depicts Moe as faking the Qur’an; did he
fake it or does it defame him?  Why don’t you consult his child
bride for the real answer? Her answer is in Sahih Bukhari 3.30.311. ” I feel that your Lord
hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”

Watch the trailer; the casting, acting and
production values leave something to be desired, but the content is
accurate.  I have provided links to the Noble Qur’an, Sahih
Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, Tafsir Ibn Kathir and The
Prophet of Doom
  so that you can determine the truth for

In a just and rational world, documenting the
absolute evil of Islam’s founder and the continuing war crime he
founded would not be left up to amateurs, it would be done by our
government, to the highest professional standards and distributed world
wide as our best weapon in the “war on terrorism”.  Defeating Islam requires breaking their faith.
Exposing their profit and demon is the first step in that process. Our
government should be doing it, not bitterly bitching about it!

September 13, 2012 Posted by | free speech, Islam, Islam Distorted?, Political Correctness | , , , | Leave a comment

Bare Naked Islam Is Back!!

Update 03/01/12:

Last Saturday, Bare Naked Islam’s server was hacked by unknown AssWholes.  BNI is in the process of migrating to a new server, please be patient and try to load the site every day until it is resurrected.

For nostalgia lovers: still worked the last time I tried it.  Sure, its old and cold, but good for refreshing your memories.


In the mean time, you might as well sign up for new post notifications from this blog, explore the recent posts and make a few comments.  Thank you for visiting!


Bare Naked Islam, the video rich blog about current events related to Islam, taken down by Word Press after badgering by CAIR, is back, on its own, previously registered domain.

At present, there is a redirect from the old WordPress domain, but that might not last forever, so visitors should go to
bookmark it and sign up for email notification of new posts.

Tyrants & dictators have long sought to squelch critics; the Stamp Act and attempts to limit access to printing presses played a role in causing the ar of Revolution which resulted in American independence.

George Washington said something of vital importance about free speech, we must ever bear his wise words in mind.

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

When attackers threaten, we must be free to identify & accurately describe the source of the threat and warn our fellows to fend off approaching danger.  Islam arrogantly demands that the alarm be silenced so as to facilitate conquest. Moe set the pattern, by commissioning the murder of poets & singers who criticized and mocked him.

Bare Naked Islam, which had more than 100,000 page views per month at WordPress, is one of the premier watchdogs, loudly sounding the alarm. It will not be silenced.

January 27, 2012 Posted by | CAIR, free speech, Islam | , , , | 3 Comments

Human Rights First: Wrong about Abigail Esman’s Assessment of HRC 16/18

Having presented a link to the article, I will post only a few paragraphs that bear directly on the issue. Links in the quotes are original, the highlighting is mine.

In the first paragraph, the author suggests that “incitement to imminent violence” – an act that the resolution recommends be criminalized – could mean anything. This is a harmful misconception that serves as a crux of the opposition to this resolution.

The author doesn’t directly dispute a quote from a recent Human Rights First blog on Myth vs. Reality on US Engagement with Islamic States that “the only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to ‘imminent violence,’ which is in accordance with US law.” Yet at the same time the author states that opponents of the resolution “rightly find [this measure] distressing.” How could one be distressed by a provision that recommends the criminalization of only those instances of incitement that are considered criminal under the U.S. Constitution, the highest standard of free speech in the world?

As the UN documents are fond of saying, read “inter alia”. HRC RES 16/18 is based on UN standards, not Constitutional standards.  “Incitement to imminent violence” means what they want it to mean, not what we want it to mean. Islam practices Orwellian double speak.

Through her examples, the author seems to indicate that speech could be considered “incitement to imminent violence” simply because an individual or group of individuals react violently to it. This is an incorrect understanding of the legal concept of “incitement” as it is used in U.S. law, the standard on which this part of the resolution was based.

Where in the resolution does it explicitly define the meaning of incitement?  Nowhere!!  The definition is found elsewhere, in the expressions of the Secretary General of the OIC and the Secretary General of the United Nations.

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 violence, and urges States to take effective measures, as set forth
in the present resolution, consistent with their obligations under international human rights
law, to address and combat such incidents;

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;

5. Notes the speech given by Secretary-General of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference 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:
(f) Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on
religion or belief; []

In the first page of Ishanoglu’s address to the HRC, we discover something important: his definition of incitement to violence includes announcing intent to burn the Koran.

     The new session of Council is also coincident with regrettable events that are deliberately meant to defame religions as well incite hatred, xenophobia, discrimination and violence against religions, in particular, Islam.  The increasing incidents of violence and discrimination on the basis of religion must not be ignored.  We hope  that this and other related issues remain an important priority in the work of  the Council.

The most recent and unfortunate in the series of  such events was the announcement pertaining to Burn a Koran Day.

On the next page, Ishanoglu lists campaigns that incite hatred,  including Burn a Koran Day, and informs us that they threaten global peace & security.  In the short form:  they incite violence.

In this regard all xenophobic campaigns of fear mongering and discriminatory
measures – both in policy md practice – which restrict, prohibit or discriminate against of any
religion such as ban on the construction of minarets, organization of events that incite hatred
like Burn a Koran Day, and other discriminatory measures must be strongly condemned by
the international community. A recurrence of such events substantiate OIC’s call for a
normative approach to deal with this menace that continues to pose a clear ‘and present danger
to peace, security ‘and stability in the regional as well as the global context.

Lets clarify the issue of “clear and present danger to peace”; in essence: violence, by breaking down the conjunctive clause.

  • Incitement to violence:
    • fear mongering
    • discriminatory
    • ban minarets
    • incite hatred
    • Burn a koran Day
  • other discriminatory measures

Now that it is clear that discrimination is equated with incitement, lets zero in on that last clause: other discriminatory measures: what, exactly, does this category include?  To find out, we turn to the most recent annual Islamophobia Report.

Other instances of Islamophobia in the US recorded in the report include the agenda of the Tea
Party Movement, which openly advocated hatred against Muslims, the proposed “ban on Sharia”
which succeeded within the State of Oklahoma, and the congressional hearings on the
“radicalization of the American Muslim Community” initiated by Rep. Peter King, Chairman of
the US House Committee on Homeland Security. The hearings launched a debate built on
prejudiced and biased premises that Muslims were potential terrorists who, in his opinion,
ostensibly refused to cooperate with the Nation’s “war on terror”. Such a debate, regardless of
the outcome, would contribute to a climate of fear and distrust towards the Muslim community.

The United States of America – a country long admired for its embracement of diversity –
recorded the highest intensity of hostility and prejudice towards Muslims during the period
under review. The infamous “Burn A Quran Day” by a hitherto non-entity Florida Pastor Terry
Jones and his subsequent actions at hate mongering, the Congressional hearings by the
Chairman of the US House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security on the
“radicalization of American Muslims” in Washington DC on March 11, 2011 and his statement
that “We (the US) are under siege by Muslim terrorists”1 along with other anti Muslim events,
were ominous signs of Islamophobia taking roots in the USA. The fact that such incidents cast a
shadow on the US image of tolerance frustrating the optimism generated, throughout the Muslim
world, by President Obama’s speech in Cairo in June 2009, may not be discounted.
  • Tea Party Platform
  • Qur’an burning
  • Radicalization Hearings

Lets gild the lilly by bringing in two more important sources which confirm the obvious, from the initial meeting of the Istanbul Process .

OIC Journal June-August ’11
Ambassador Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, US Representative to the Human Rights Council,

In response to OIC Journal query on defining what would
constitute incitement to hate, she clarified that in the US there
is a single case where freedom of expression can be restricted
or prohibited by the State, and that is when “incitement to
eminent violence”.

In this context, she pointed out that the President, the
Secretary of State and several public officials went out on a
limb to publically condemn ‘Burn the Quran Day’ to show
that such abominable acts are not accepted. “When you have
the President, the Secretary of State and public figures jointly
condemning that, it will be more effective than throwing
that pastor in jail. I believe the same is true for the hateful
cartoons (of the Prophet). We should all be joining together
in conveying our disgust with such intolerance.”

Ambassador Zamir Akram, Permanent Representative
of Pakistan on behalf of the OIC at the HRC, told the OIC
Journal that both sides – the OIC countries and the western
countries – made important concessions to each other to
reach a compromise on the resolution. What is important for
the OIC point of view is that it would not compromise on
three things: anything against the Quran, anything against the
Prophet (PBUH), and anything against Muslim community
in terms of discrimination.

According to our HRC Ambassador, Burn the Qur’an Day was abominable intolerance.   According to Pakistan’s Ambassador, the OIC will not compromise on anything against the Qur’an or Moe.

Now it is time to go right to the top, to obtain the working definition of incitement to violence from  the Secretary General of the United Nations.

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.”

According to Ban, the short documentary by Geert Wilders, combining verses from the Qur’an & hadith with sermons from Friday prayers and images of the ensuing violence, is incitement to violence.  In reality, Fitna exposes incitement, it does not constitute incitement.  Having examined the operative definition of incitement, lets take a look at the Islamic law behind the whole operation.

What Moe preached is law, what he practiced is exemplary, together, his preaching and practice form the basis of Islamic law.  Moe had critics murdered.  Because of that exemplary conduct, the penalty for criticizing Islam is death.

  • 08.1 When a person who has reached puberty
    and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he
    deserves to be killed.
  • 08.7 (0: Among the things that entail apostasy
    from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

    • (4) to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah
      bless him and give him peace);
    • (5) to deny the existence of Allah, His beginningless
      eternality, His endless eternaIity, or to
      deny any of His attributes which the consensus of
      Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: vI);
    • (6) to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His
      command, His interdiction, His promise, or His
    • (7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything
      which by scholarly consensus (def: b7)
    • (15) to hold that any of Allah’s messengers
      or prophets are liars, or to deny their bcing sent;
      (n: ‘Ala’ ai-Din ‘Abidin adds the following:
    • (16) to revile the religion of Islam;
      (17) to believe that things in themselves or
      by their own nature have any causal influence
      independent of the will of Allah;
    • (18) to deny the existence of angels or jinn
      (def: w22), or the heavens;
    • (19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the
      Sacred Law;
      (20) or to deny that Allah intended the
      Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him
      peace) to be the religion followed by the entire
      world (dis: w4.3–4) (al-Hadiyya al-‘Ala’iyya (y4),
  • 011. IO 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 suhjects 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

    • (5) or mentions something impermissible
      about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and
      give him peace), or Islam.
  • 011.11 When a subject’s agreement with the state
    has been viOlated, the caliph chooses between the
    four alternatives mentioned above in connection
    with prisoners of war (09.14).
  • O9.14  When an adult male is taken captive, the
    caliph (def: 025) considers the interests (0: of
    Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the
    prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying
    anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for
    money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
    If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (0: before
    the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives)
    then he may not be killed, and one of the other
    three alternatives is chosen.

The OIC seeks to prevent & punish every negative utterance about Islam. Their current tactic is to conflate criticism with incitement, proscribing the latter.
The fourth Islamophobia Report hints at the next step.

The restraint was short lived and on 20 March 2011 the controversial Florida Pastor Terry
Jones oversaw24 the burning of a copy of the Koran, carried out by Pastor Wayne Sapp, in his
small church. The incident was presented as a trial of the book in which the Koran was found
“guilty” and “executed”. The event was open to the public. Fewer than 30 people attended but
widespread media coverage attracted by the event somewhat served the nefarious designs and
the extremist philosophy behind the outrageous act.

After the unfortunate incident, the OIC Secretary General issued a statement expressing his deep
disappointment, and warned against unforeseen and volatile consequences of such outrageous
and irresponsible acts that could hurt the deep seated religious sentiments of over 1.5 billion
Muslims around the world. He characterized the unfortunate incident as “the worst example of
extremism” that the international community had been consistent in condemning.

Approaches like applying the ‘test of consequences’ were useful and would have to be
explored/refined further in an objective fashion towards evolving a consensus with
regard to effectively addressing the matter; and

 As regards the issue of freedom of opinion and expression, the OIC could with the views
of Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and expression with regard to making “very
few exceptions” but the contours of such exceptions would have to be identified. OIC
believed that unfortunate and outrageous episodes like the caricatures and the burning of
holy Quran merited the grant of such exceptions;

For those too stupid or indolent to connect the dots: if the resolution had been implemented a year ago, Pastors Jones & Sapp would be  persecuted criminally & sued civil court for the “consequences” of their trial and execution of the Qur’an.  Holding them responsible for the acts of a Muslim rabble roused by kutbah at Jumah Salat is not just, nor is it rational.  Jones & Sapp did not incite anyone to violence. Asian Imams did.

It becomes obvious that the plan is to compel self-censorship through legal intimidation.  It is equally obvious that Human Rights first is so heavily invested in the Istanbul Process that they are blinded to objective factual reality.

January 11, 2012 Posted by | free speech, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , | 2 Comments

No Compulsion in Religion & Defamation from MPAC

MPAC takes a legalistic & libertarian tack against blasphemy laws, asserting that the Qur’an supports open debate, not compulsion.  Lets look a little deeper, below the surface of a few crucial citations.  [Links added to quotes.]

Let there be no compulsion in religion, the truth stands out clear from error… (2:256)

 Say: O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that
which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye
worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine (109:1-6)

He was not permitted to force people to believe. (17:53-54; 88:21-22)

If the Prophet was commanded directly by God to just advise and persuade, who are we as ordinary
human beings to claim a higher mantle of authority and impose our beliefs on others?

2:256 Tafsir Ibn Kathir  mentions relation to the Ansar, whose children were among the Banu an-Nadir who were exiled from Medina. Unfortunately, Ibn Kathir leaves the story open ended, I suspect that there was an editing error somewhere along the way.  Other tafsirs complete the story and add more details.

Certain women among the Ansar, whose sons died in infancy would swear to raise one who lived as a Jew.  Evidently they farmed their surviving sons out to wet nurses among the Banu an-Nadir.   When Moe drove the Banu an-nadir from their fortifified settlements [59:2, The End that Bani An-Nadir suffered] some of the Answar offspring opted to remain among the exiled Jews. Their mothers ran complaining to Moe, who revealed 2:256 to fit the occasion.  The story finds its fullest explication in these tafsirs:

Mufti Shafi Usmani brings in a related argument not raised by the others in this context: the relationship between non compulsion and jihad, holding that the two are not in conflict.

Keeping this verse in view, some people raise objections. They say
this verse tells us that there is no compulsion in faith, although the
teaching of jihad and qital (fighting) in Islam appears contrary to this
Looking at this a little carefully, we can find out that the objection
is not valid, since the teaching of jihad and qital in Islam is not to
coerce people into accepting Faith. Had it been so, why would there be
Islamic injunctions of jizyah to provide an umbrella of security for
kuffar (disbelievers) which protects their life, property and honour? […]

It is for this reason that Allah Almighty has ordained that the
fasad created by these people should be removed by jihiid and qitl. So,
killing such people is like the killing of serpents, scorpions and their
harmful likes.

Usmani asserts that jihad is for the purpose of eradicating people who cause fitna, not about compelling them to convert to Islam. Note that he claims that jijya provides security for kuffar, protecting their life and property.  From whom does jizya protect them?  I have three clues for you, and will allow you to draw your own conclusion.

  • These people have been informed of the orders about Jiziya. If you desire that there should be peace and security in the world, obey Allah and His Prophet. Thereafter none in Arabia and Ajam (Iran) shall dare cast an evil eye on you. But the rights of Allah and His Prophet can at no time be waived.

    If you do not accept these terms and set them aside, I do not need your presents and gifts. In that case, I shall have to wage war (to establish peace and security). Its result would be that the big ones shall be killed in war and the commoners shall be taken prisoners. [Letter to the rulers of Aqaba]

  • […]And whoever says: None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ saves his wealth and his life from me[…] [Sahih Bukhari 9.92.388]
  • Capitation tax is to be imposed  upon  Kitabees, because  this is mentioned in the Koran: and it is in the same manner to be imposed upon Majoosees, as the prophet imposed capitation-tax upon Majoosees.– Capitation-tax is also to be imposed upon the idolaters of ajim (Persia) this is contrary to the opinion of Shafii, for he argues that destruction is incurred by all infidels; but the legality of abstaining from it, in sconsideration of a capitation-tax, with respect to Kitabees, is known from the word of the Koran, and with respect  to Majoosees, from the traditions; any others, therefore,  than those, (namely idolaters,) remain subject to the original penalty, which is destruction. [Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter VIII, Page 212]

In the matter of Surah Al-Kaafiroon, Tafsir Ibn Kathir informs us that the surah was revealed about Kafirs who challenged Moe to swap religions for a year. Rather than a statement of tolerance, it is a statement of rejection and immunity from their shirk.  [He commanded His Messenger to disavow himself from their religion completely]   Tafsir al-tustari informs us that Surah 109 was abrogated by 9:5; Tafsir al-Jalalayn & Tafsir Ibn Abbas cuncurr, citing   the “command to wage war” and “verses of fighting” respectively.

Surah Al-Kaafiroon  was # 18 in seqeuence of revelation , Surah Al-Baqarah was # 87, both are abrogated by conflicting  ayat in Surah At-Taubah which was next to last in revelation.

Does Surah Al-Isra’ 53-54 forbid compulsion?  Perhaps we should examine the context.

17:53. And say to My slaves (i.e. the true believers of Islâmic Monotheism) that they should (only) say those words that are the best. (Because) Shaitân (Satan) verily, sows disagreements among them. Surely, Shaitân (Satan) is to man a plain enemy.

17:54. Your Lord knows you best, if He will, He will have mercy on you, or if He will, He will punish you. And We have not sent you (O Muhammad ) as a guardian over them.

17:55. And your Lord knows best all who are in the heavens and the earth. And indeed, We have preferred some of the Prophets above others, and to Dawûd (David) We gave the Zabûr (Psalms).

17:56. Say (O Muhammad ): “Call unto those besides Him whom you pretend [to be gods like angels, Iesâ (Jesus), ‘Uzair (Ezra), etc.]. They have neither the power to remove the adversity from you nor even to shift it from you to another person.”

17:57. Those whom they call upon [like ‘Iesa (Jesus) ­ son of Maryam (Mary), ‘Uzair (Ezra), angel, etc.] desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allâh), as to which of them should be the nearest and they [‘Iesa (Jesus), ‘Uzair (Ezra), angels, etc.] hope for His Mercy and fear His Torment. Verily, the Torment of your Lord is something to be afraid of!

17:58. And there is not a town (population) but We shall destroy it before the Day of Resurrection, or punish it with a severe torment. That is written in the Book (of our Decrees)

I do not see mention of compulsion or toleration in that context, but I do see a threat of destruction, before the day of judgment. Perhaps you can find something of interest in Ibn Kathir tafsir of 17:53.

Surah Surah Al-Ghaashiyah 21-22  looks swell until we examine the context. Of course, Muslims, who accuse us of “cherry picking” are prone to engage in selectivity.

88:21. So remind them (O Muhammad ()), you are only a one who reminds.

88:22. You are not a dictator over them.

88:23. Save the one who turns away and disbelieves

88:24. Then Allâh will punish him with the greatest punishment.

Moe is only one who reminds, not a dictator; then comes the exception clause, which MPAC did not cite for us.  Allah will punish the disbelievers.  Of course, punishment is not coercion.  Of course, Ibn Kathir had something to say about that. [The Messenger is only charged with delivering the Message]

(You are not a Musaytir over them.) Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and others said, “You are not a dictator over them.” This means that you cannot create faith in their hearts. Ibn Zayd said, “You are not the one who can force them to have faith.” Imam Ahmad recorded from Jabir that the Messenger of Allah said,
(I have been commanded to fight the people until they say La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped except Allah). So if they say that, they have safeguarded their blood and wealth from me – except for what is rightfully due from it – and their reckoning is with Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.)” Then he recited, (So remind them – you are only one who reminds. You are not a dictator over them -) This is how Muslim recorded this Hadith in his Book of Faith, and At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa’i also recorded it in their Sunans in the Books of Tafsir. This Hadith can be found in both of the Two Sahihs.

you are not a taskmaster over them (a variant reading [for musaytir] has musaytir, that is to say, [not one who has been] given authority over them) – this was [revealed] before the command to struggle [against the disbelievers]. [Tafsir al-Jalalayn]

Moe can’t make us believe, but he has been commanded to wage war upon us until we recite Shahada.  That is a clue for the clueless.    Surah Al-Anfal & Surah At-Taubah contain the jihad imperatives refered to above. Because they were among the last to be revealed, they abrogate earlier verses whith which they are in conflict. [2:106 & 16:101 establish the rule of abrogation.] The jihad imperatives are  commands to fight idolaters until only Allah is worshiped and people of the book until they are subjugated & extorted.

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.

Those imperatives are codified in Shari’ah, best exemplified by Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9.8 & 9.9. No compulsion?  Fighting Arabian pagans until they become Muslim is not compulsion.

O9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi’ (y21), 6.48-49) ).

I am not arguing with MPAC about the negative impliciations of the “defamation of religions” meme. The points raised fy Freedom House and other critics are valid, based on solid facts and logic.  I simply pointed out their practice of kitman: deception by obfuscation.   But this subject is raised in the context of two resolutions passed this year by the Human Rights Council and General Assembly.

The name has changed; the language has changed, but the meme has not changed. The OIC & UN have not abandoned “combating defamation of Islam”.

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

¶5(f) on page 5 of Draft resolution XVII,  “Adopting measures to criminalize” is a code phrase for legislation. They are demanding passage & enforcement to establish criminal punishment for publications such as Fitna, the Motoons and this blog post. Remember, Ban Ki-Moon defined the terms for us.

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.”

The resolutions demand passage and enforcement of legislation to criminalize criticmsm of Islam.  Another resolution, flying below the radar, passed the GA by concensus, without a vote.  ¶10, on page 3 of Draft resolution XVIII,  emphasizes that Islam must not be equated with terrorism   Equation with terrorism fits the defamation meme, and it has not been dropped or abandoned by the UN, it lives on in a concurrent resolution.

Also emphasizes that no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this
may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion
or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned;

The obvious was confirmed by our own Department of State last summer when they met the OIC at Istanbul to discuss implementation of the resolution.  This quote from the Secretary of State requires a little decoding. for the meaning of “intolerance” Refer back to the quote from Ban Ki-moon. [Following quotes from OIC Journal.]

“Together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits
religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we
are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight
intolerance wherever it occurs.

Our Ambassador to the HRC piled on.

A positive aspect of Resolution 16 /18 is that it did not
pit the principle of freedom of religion against freedom of
expression, said Ambassador Donahoe, rather it combined
them. “We believe that through free expression we are better
able to combat intolerance.”

In response to OIC Journal query on defining what would
constitute incitement to hate, she clarified that in the US there
is a single case where freedom of expression can be restricted
or prohibited by the State, and that is when “incitement to
eminent violence”.

In this context, she pointed out that the President, the
Secretary of State and several public officials went out on a
limb to publically condemn ‘Burn the Quran Day’ to show
that such abominable acts are not accepted. “When you have
the President, the Secretary of State and public figures jointly
condemning that, it will be more effective than throwing
that pastor in jail. I believe the same is true for the hateful
cartoons (of the Prophet). We should all be joining together
in conveying our disgust with such intolerance.”

“Intolerance” and “incitement to violence” mean: International Burn the Qur’an Day and the Motoons, just as Ban mischaracterized Fitna.

Allah had something to say about blasphemy.

3:78. And verily, among them is a party who distort the Book with their tongues (as they read), so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book, and they say: “This is from Allâh,” but it is not from Allâh; and they speak a lie against Allâh while they know it.

7:37. Who is more unjust than one who invents a lie against Allâh or rejects His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.)? For such their appointed portion (good things of this worldly life and their period of stay therein) will reach them from the Book (of Decrees) until, when Our Messengers (the angel of death and his assistants) come to them to take their souls, they (the angels) will say: “Where are those whom you used to invoke and worship besides Allâh,” they will reply, “They have vanished and deserted us.” And they will bear witness against themselves, that they were disbelievers.

6:93. And who can be more unjust than he who invents a lie against Allâh, or says: “I have received inspiration,” whereas he is not inspired in anything; and who says, “I will reveal the like of what Allâh has revealed.” And if you could but see when the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers, etc.) are in the agonies of death, while the angels are stretching forth their hands (saying): “Deliver your souls! This day you shall be recompensed with the torment of degradation because of what you used to utter against Allâh other than the truth. And you used to reject His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) with disrespect! ”

10:17. So who does more wrong than he who forges a lie against Allâh or denies His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.)? Surely, the Mujrimûn (criminals, sinners, disbelievers and polytheists) will never be successful!

Moe’s reaction to criticism is instructive: he had them murdered. I direct doubters & dissenters to List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad.

 Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:

It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka’b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka’b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka’b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage? He said: What do you want? He said: Pledge me your women. He said: You are the most handsome of the Arabs; should we pledge our women to you? He said: Pledge me your children. He said: The son of one of us may abuse us saying that he was pledged for two wasqs of dates, but we can pledge you (cur) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad b. Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu ‘Abs b. Jabr and Abbad b. Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them. Sufyan says that all the narrators except ‘Amr have stated that his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad b. Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na’ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him.

Killing critics of Islam is not just sunnah, it is Islamic law. I invite doubters & dissenters to examine the relevant passages of  reliance of the Traveller, the Shafi’ite manual of fiqh, to verify the fatal fact. A conquered Jew or Christian, remaining in Dar al-Islam as a Dhimmi, who “mentions something impermissible” about Islam, reverts to the status of a prisoner of war who may be killed.

  • Apostasay: penalty: O8.1
  • definition: O8.7
  • application to Dhimmis O11.10
  • penalty applied to Dhimmis: O9.14

December 26, 2011 Posted by | free speech, Islam, Jihad, Political Correctness, Qur'an, United Nations | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tide May Turn in Wilders Trial

Thanks and a tip of the hat to Gates of Vienna for  leading me to this nifty resource.  Those of  us who only know English won’t get much out of the  dialog from the  reading of the expert testimony.

From the  transcript, it is clear that Prof. Jansen  carefully laid out  evidence from Islam’s canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence.  He delved into the  science of abrogation, which probably had the audience bored stiff.

The video clip, with a run time of 14:29 may bore you to tears but  when the camera  leaves the bench and scans the defense and prosecution tables, we can observe facial expressions and body language.

At 4:35, it is clear that Jansen  is having difficulty hearing the reading of his testimony.

At 6:21 we get our first good look at the prosecution table and the spectators behind them.

At 9:06, we get another good look at the prosecution table. Note the body language and expressions. Those are not happy campers.  They are trying not to show it, but they have a weak hand and they know it.  The cards of evidence are turning against their game.

At 11:14, it becomes clear that the defense attorney is starting to lose his composure, poker face fatigue must be setting in.  At 11:39 he turns away from the camera.

Everybody  seems tired  bored, or frustrated. Observe the body language as they  go on break about 13:21.  The prosecution team is last to leave, and not stepping lively.

Another  post from Gates of Vienna has the first clue.  The complainants are concerned that the prosecution undercharged Wilders.  They want the charge elevated to inciting violence, citing an alleged quote from  2007: “a struggle going on and we must defend ourselves.”  Yeah, right, that is incitement to violence.  The absurdity of the accusation  accentuates the arrogance of Islam.  Jihad is waged with the tongue, pen, heart and purse as well as the sword.  Likewise defense.  The prosecutor turned them down.

October 10, 2010 Posted by | free speech, Political Correctness | , | Leave a comment

Subpoena Threatens liberty & Privacy of Comment Posters

I have added  extra emphasis to a critical clause in the last sentence of the following quotation.  Please concentrate on that and the other  parts I have emphasized.

Newspaper Resists Subpoena for Names of Readers Who Posted Views
Joan Whitely, The Las Vegas Review-Journal
The Las Vegas Review-Journal readers who posted online their views about a federal criminal tax trial are the target of a sweeping federal grand jury subpoena asking for information so that authorities may identify who they are and where they live. The Review-Journal plans to file later this week a motion to quash the subpoena, and the American Civil Liberties Union has posted its own online solicitation asking those who posted whether they would like the ACLU to legally represent them…This past week the grand jury subpoena, which is separate from the ongoing trial but was signed by one of the prosecutors involved in the tax trial, was the topic of discussion between the trial judge and attorneys, revealing for the first time a possible motive for the subpoena. The newspaper’s subpoena does not explain why the US attorney’s office wants to know who commented on the case, but prosecutors told federal Judge David Ezra that they issued it out of concern for jurors’ safety, because some comments hinted at acts of violence. Las Vegas business owner Robert Kahre and others face federal tax fraud charges for paying contractors with gold and silver US coins based on the precious metal value of the coins but using the much lower face value of the coins for tax purposes. As of 9pm Monday, 173 comments were listed below the May 26 Review-Journal article about the trial. Many comments deal with the trial and its principal players. Others were posted after the subpoena arrived…Mitchell said the paper is resisting the sweeping nature of the subpoena, noting that anonymous speech is “a fundamental and historic part of this country,” citing the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers that argued for passage and against passage of the nation’s Constitution as an example. All were written under pseudonyms. He said the paper would consider cooperating if specific crimes or real threats were presented…Many used the newspaper Web site to say the US government has turned socialist, the nation’s monetary system encourages deficit spending and guarantees inflation, or the Internal Revenue Service has to be reformed or abolished. In addition to requesting the names of people who posted, the subpoena also tells the newspaper to supply the writers’ gender, birth date, physical address, telephone number, Internet service provider, IP address, credit card numbers and more.

Assuming that one or more comentators made expressed or implied threats, does that justify casting a broad net for all commentators on the subject? What is the relevance of credit card numbers, and why would the newspaper have them? Perhaps those who posted comments are subscribers and paid by credit card, but I can tell you without reservation that I will not supply that number to sign up to post comments.

In my opinion, seeking identifying information for anyone who did not make threats of violence is overstepping the bounds of justice  and casts a negative reflection on the prosecutor involved. Persecutor may be a better title for that officer of the court.  This case is an early wake up call alerting us to be watchful lest our liberties be lost.

June 20, 2009 Posted by | free speech | | 1 Comment

The Latest Czar to Regulate Far More than Cars


May 29, 2009 The Latest Czar to Regulate Far More than Cars

A long-forecast and dreaded announcement came this morning from the head of the “Change” Administration himself.
The astonishing sequence of end-runs, by the “Change” Adminisitration – around traditional and critical structures which preserve the U.S. Constitution- and its balance of powers – seems about to take its greatest toll to date. The protections provided
by the 3 American branches of government have continued to erode via Obama’s unprecedented installation of “Czars” – i,e, politically hand-picked individuals who are given enormous powers over free enterprise – and whom report directly to the Chief Excutive himself. This newly invented system for expanding Executive branch authority, among its other dangers, eliminates the need for Congressional approval or involvement with these power-packed new authority figures. It also short circuits Capitol
Hill oversight of the activities which they undertake.
Obama has made public today his plan to take control of the Internet – directly from the White House – on behalf of preserving”cyber-security.” This strategy to expand his authority to encroach further on Americans right to privacy – with warrantless supervision of online activity – has been in the works since the Inauguration. The timing of its current announcement holds notable coincidence to the Chief Executive’s recent decline in public opinion polls (along with the downhill slide of popularity among his key Congressional leadership (Pelosi, Reid and Dodd.)
Former Democratic activists who worked against Obama’s nomination are among those most aware of the alarm bells this currentmove to suppress opposition sets off. His online primary campaign, which generated maximum impact via use of high tech applications-is recalled by many for its brutality and vicious conduct against web opponents in 2008. Several reported personal threats while many more indicated repeated disruption of their blogs and large-scale attacks on their forums. Throughout the campaign season, an online army of campaign-paid web thugs were hired for these intrusions, as reported and verified by FOX News. Intimidation, verbal threats, gutter language and even obscene images were the order of the day.
Those in the know, then are acutely aware, then, that the “threats to security” listed by this Head of State in his televised speech today ironically coincide with tactics similar to some his own campaign used to get elected. An Obama small-dollar-on-line donor even reported receiving a phone call on his unlisted cell phone to remind him of a “Meet Up” in his own neighborhood – this despite the fact that the donor had not supplied the campaign with either his cell number nor his physical address! At least one Nigerian husband and wife both confessed last year to using their executive positions with international tech corporations to obtain personal records of U.S. citizens for use in harassment by the “Change” campaign.
In the meantime, while specifics of the new leader’s rationale remain to be seen, it’s already foreshadowed they will be as far-reaching as possible. Obama’s sweeping statements about the urgent need to protect everything from banking records, to online purchases to information exchange. Rumors have indicated that the NSA is also disturbed that this new report-to-President only position would also circumvent this agency’s normal role in cyber-watching. Further evidence of the long-term planning of this eradication of online privacy plan lies in the fact that Senators Rockfeller and Snowe introduced a bill in Congress on April 1st to give the White House these cyber-space powers.
One could ask: How does the rest of Congress feel about turning over their responsibility and authority to the Executive Branch?Also, if the right to online privacy is allowed follow the path of warrantless phone wire-tapping what does Big Brother have in mind
next? And lest we wonder who might be put on the Cyber Czar’s Watch List, just remember the recent Homeland Security Warningthat “right wing extremists” (ie any citizens identified as”Change administration opponents) are now a grave threat. Even a child could connect quickly connect the dots between that recent DHS Alert and the press conference on cyber-security threats today! it’s not hard to guage whose “security” seems to feel most threatened. The only question that remains is how much more terror – against free enterprise and freedom of speech – will We the People permit the “Change” Administration to undertake?!
For quick valuable information on other current events, come to Wake Up America Movement at:

May 29, 2009 Posted by | free speech, Political Correctness | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: