I Am A Proud Member of Vets For Freedom

For up to date progress in the War In Iraq, please visit Vets For Freedom, an organization I am proud to be a member in good standing of.

Veteran's Suicide Hot Line Number!

1-800-273-TALK (8255) Call this number if you need help!!

A Vast Collection Of Buzzings At Memeorandum

If you wish to catch a buzz without the usual after affects, CLICK TO MEMEORANDUM. (It will not disturb the current page) That will be all. We now return to regular programming.

This Blog Is Moving

Greetings. After this weekend, this Take Our Country Back Blog will be moving to the new web site. Too many conservatives are getting zapped by the intolerant dweebs of the Obama Goons and seeing that this editing platform is a free site, Blogger can do pretty much what it feels like doing. Hence, I now have a paid site and will be migrating the last 1400+ posts shortly.

So, one day, you just may click this page somewhere and it will show up as "private". It has been fun but the intolerant Czarbie Goon Squads are brain dead idiots. They can come play at the new site which I OWN outright.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

UJVSS Targets Anti-Islam Sentiments

The Martlett.ca, The University of Victoria's Independent Newspaper published an article "titled UVSS Letter targets anti-Islam sentiments", dated March 01/2009, under the byline of Kailey Willetts.

The article discusses a letter from the UVic Students' Society to the Equity and Human Rights Office. It quotes the letter as saying that the anti-Islamic materials posted by Lorenzo Bouchard "promote discrimination and hate toward Muslims".

The article does not explain how a cartoon depicting the IDF protecting a baby contrasted with Hamas using a baby as a shield promotes discrimination and hate. Neither does it explain how Mr. Bouchard's petition to the World Court promotes discrimination and hate.

The posting of the cartoon & petition is described as dreating "such a hostile and hateful environment which student, staff and faculty should not be subjected to".

Another quote:"It goes against the policies and it goes against our university culture as well. We want to have those tough discussions and tough talks, but it also nreets to be in a way that is respectful and in a way that won't prevent others from being heard, and we feel that this material does."

How do the cartoon and petition prevent anyone from being heard? Did Lorenzo remove any other postings? Did he muzzle anyone? Only Lorenzo's speech is being squelched in this case.

A request was made that anyone finding potentially hateful material on campus present it to Campus Security. I wonder how many Korans will be turned in?.
Most likely, enjunctions to fight Jews & Christians until we are subjugated and extorted don't threaten or offend anyone under University standards of hate speech.

The article reports that a Human Rights forum called "Equity and Speech--Walking the Walk and Talking the Talk" will be held Tuesday, March 10 in Room C122 of the David Strong Building from 4:30 to 5 p.m. I hope that some of our Canadian readers will see fit to join in that discussion and tell us about their experiences there.

A Martlet article dated Feb. 6 describes the one discovery and removal of the cartoon and launches into a hateful anti-Israeli screed.

War on Civilization

Google alerted me to this article at Islam World :

The war on terror equals a war on Islam!

The article is attributed to Tom Fowler, founder of the Conservative Constitutionalist Party.

There is no war on Islam, there is a war, initiated by Islam, against all non-Muslims. This war flows directly from Allah's Jihad imperatives recorded in Surahs Al-Anfal & At-Taubah, which are reflected in Umdat as-Salik O9.8 & O9.9.

These two paragraphs precede the conclusion of the article.
In America we must start by banning Islam and outlawing Muslim schools and the Quran. Then we must deport or imprison those who teach and/or practice Islam. Drastic? Absolutely, but there is no other way. This is not a freedom of religion issue. It is a survival issue. If this makes me a bigot then so be it. I believe it makes me a realist. I think deep down you all know that what I say is true, but you are too afraid of being labeled a bigot to admit it. But from where I stand, the security and preservation of America is much more important than what someone thinks of me.

Does the banning of Islam run counter to the constitution? Certainly. That is why we need a constitutional amendment which would specifically ban Islam within the borders of America.

I must take issue with a few points.

  • This is not a freedom of religion issue.
In part it is, but primarily a right to life issue. This is how freedom of religion is involved: If Muslims have a 'right' to practice Islam here then we have no freedom of religion neither do we have a right to life or property.
Only Allah has the right to be worshiped.

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.
If you worship any other than Allah in any other manner or form than Moe did, then you are a rebel against Allah, to be punished, humiliated, tormented and gathered into Hell.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah."...
Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims until we become Muslims. Allah declared open season on us. Have you not read 9:29?
9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).
Muslims are obligated to make war upon us, to mount a minimum of one military expedition in every year. Failing to do so when it is possible is sinful. But of course, I'm a liar. Yeah, wrong! Umdat as-Salik, the hand book of Shari'ah:

O9.1: The Obligatory Character of Jihad

Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

"He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,"

and Allah Most High having said:

"Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95).

If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year.

  • Does the banning of Islam run counter to the constitution? Certainly. That is why we need a constitutional amendment which would specifically ban Islam within the borders of America.
We need to amend the Constitution to acknowledge the fact that Islam is a war cult, not a legitimate religion, and, as such, not covered by the umbrella of first amendment protection. If you doubt that, then read What's Wrong With Islam/Muslims? If any doubt remains, then consider the fatal fact of Islam's mercenary mission, which is detailed in Know Thine Enemy: Religion of Peace?? .

Pedestrian Infidel has the proposed amendment 28. Much of the information contained in this blog post is summarized and documented in the Outlaw Islam! Petition. Please read it, copy it, click through to sign it, and paste it into an email to your family, friends & associates exhorting them to sign and forward it. Canadian citizens should sign and promote the Ban Islam petition to Stephen Harper. Everyone should endorse & promote the petition to the World Court. If not us, who? If not now, when?



Friday, March 6, 2009

Open Letter to the U.S. Senate

Dear Senators:

Bloggers who write about critical public issues invest a great deal of time and effort in the hope of effectively sharing vital information with our fellow citizens and elected officials.

It is frustrating to discover that the fruits of our labor is being passed over with a cursory glance. For example:

1
6th March 2009 17:40:51
0 seconds
Firefox 3.0
WinXP
unknown

0
Washington, District Of Columbia, United States
U.s. Senate Sergeant At Arms (156.33.54.37)
snooper.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/un-resolutions-revisited-defamation-of-religion/
snooper.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/un-resolutions-revisited-defamation-of-religion/
No referring link


Some Senator or staffer looked and left, apparently without checking any of the dozen links to vital information contained in that post.
That post is one of the most visited posts on the blog. Because it is outdated, I have updated it with links to more recent posts.

The General Assembly "Combating Defamation of Religions" resolutions are only one facet of Islam's campaign to criminalize criticism of Islam. The Human Rights Council has passed similar resolutions, and similar text is included in the Durban II draft document. All of those resolutions share common fallacies & hypocrisy which I expose and document in these blog posts.

The same conflict continues on another parallel front: "Inter-religious Dialog". You will find posts about that battle front as well as the UNHRC & Durban II in this list of related posts which I urge you to read.
In the interest of public education, I will reproduce parts of Book O of Undat as-Salik, which will demonstrate exactly what Islam seeks to accomplish: imposition of its blasphemy laws upon the entire world.

Note the penalty for apostasy:

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.

Emphasis added to make the most important list items stand out: these are acts which will get you decapitated under the rule stated above.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

(O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

-1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as ``Allah is the third of three,'' or ``I am Allah''-unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

-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;

-8- to mockingly say, ``I don't know what faith is'';

-9- to reply to someone who says, ``There is no power or strength save through Allah''; ``Your saying `There's no power or strength, etc,' won't save you from hunger'';

-10- for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, ``This is through the decree of Allah,'' to reply, ``I act without the decree of Allah'';

-11- to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also ``kafir'');

-12- when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, ``La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah'' (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) ), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;

-13- to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

-15- to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala' al-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), 423-24). )

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

The following list applies primarily to Kuffar who have been conquered and submitted to a "treaty of protection" as hinted at in 9:29.

Chapter O11.0: Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl Al-Dhimma)

O11.1

A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:

-1- Jews;

-2- Christians;

-3- Zoroastrians;

-4- Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;

-5- and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

O11.2

Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol worshippers (dis: o9.9 (n:) ), or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book.

(A: Something that could have been a Book refers to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book. As for the psuedoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as the Sikhs, Baha' is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4). )

O11.3

Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

(a) follow the rules of Islam (A: those mentioned below (o11.5) and those involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts, enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);

(b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya).

O11.4: The Non-Muslim Poll Tax

The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.

It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.

O11.5

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

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

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

-3- are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";

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

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

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

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

O11.6

They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

O11.7

A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

O11.8

It is obligatory for the caliph (def: o25) to protect those of them who are in Muslim lands just as he would Muslims, and to seek the release of those of them who are captured.

O11.9

If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: o11.11) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

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:

-1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her;

-2- conceals spies of hostile forces;

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-4- kills a Muslim;

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

This is a link to the resolution passed 12/18/08 http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/7201.doc.

19. Calls upon all States to exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights and humanitarian law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and protected, and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction;

Durban II: (A/CONF.211/PC/WG.2/CRP.2)

NEW PARA: Calls on States to prohibit by law and adopt necessary policy measures to combat [in accordance with norms of international law] the dissemination of all ideas based on racial superiority or hatred and incitement to hatred; (Racist crimes, hate crimes, urban violence)

152. Calls on States to combat impunity for acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, [and to grant appropriate redress for victims] [by securing access to justice, by granting [and maximizing] [maximum] [fair] [just and adequate] [appropriate] redress for victims];

159. Urges States to take effective measures to address contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and to take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols;

160. Calls on States to develop, and where appropriate to incorporate, permissible limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression into national legislation;
Will you accept Dhimmitude and allow these tyrranical edicts to be imposed upon us by the U.N. and its agencies, abandoning our first amendment rights, or will you rise up and raise Hell?

U.S. Citizens reading this post are urged to include a link to it in an email to their Representative & Senators by copying and pasting this html code into the email form at http://www.congress.org .

Open Letter to the U.S. Senate.

More or Fewer Parties Ain't the Solution

In response to:

Do we Really Need Political Parties?

March 3, 2009 by Jonathan Simeone

If there were no political parties Congressional elections would tend to be much more local, because there would be no national parties to pump millions into local races. This change would go a long way to make running for Congress more about ideas and qualifications and less about wealth.

There won't be "no parties" because the Constitution guarantees the right of free association; to peaceably assemble to petition for redress of grievances. The Republican & Democrat parties are not creatures of the state, nor do they have a state ordained monopoly. They garner the most activist support and money, so they are most able to field candidates and win elections. If no parties existed, their function would probably be assumed by other organizations: unions & the Chamber of Commerce, for example.

If there were no political parties the influence of the wealthy over our nation’s politics would be greatly diminished, because they would not be able to buy off entire parties simply by writing a few checks. Instead, they would have to make direct contact with every politician they wished to influence. Obviously, a more daunting proposition.
In that case, they would operate through section 527 organizations as Soros does already.

If there were no political parties Congressional committee assignments would not be handed out based on ridiculous criterion like party loyalty and seniority. The houses of Congress would individually meet and have to vote as whole groups—rather than parties as it is done now—to choose their body’s leadership and give out committee assignments. As an extra benefit this would do away with the designations of majority and minority; thus, creating a much better climate for compromise.
Differences of appearance, not function. Most of those elected would be incumbents who would maintain their previous associations with like minded colleagues.

If there were no political parties the American public would need to be more involved in the electoral process. No longer could they simply show up on Election Day and pull a lever for the party they have always supported.
Most would vote on the basis of name recognition, the rest would vote based on what the preacher in their church or their union boss directed them to do. Very few would take the effort required to study issues & candidates more extensively than they do now.

If there were no political parties the influence of special interests would be greatly reduced. This has much to do with money, but I thought it was deserving of a special mention because of how important it is.
In the abscence of parties, the influence of special interest groups would be intensified and expanded; they would take over many of the functions now performed by the parties.

If there were no political parties we would be done with stupid polls that tell us how Republicans and Democrats view different issues. After all, the only thing that matters is how Americans view the issues that are impacting our nation.
Polls are a means of metrication and manipulation. In the abscence of parties, they would be sponsored by special interest groups and individual campagins instead of by parties. The news media would also continue to commission voter opinion surveys.

In closing, I strongly believe that our system of political parties, more than anything else, is responsible for the corruption that plagues our system and the polarization that makes getting anything done very difficult. If we want to make sure that the politicians start considering what we want we need to eliminate as many of the barriers that exist between us and them as we can. And while eliminating the party system will not solve all of our political problems it’s a good start in that direction.
Corruption is primarily a function of greed acting upon opportunity. The larger the government budget, the more graft there will be. The founders had ample reason for creating a limited federal government. When the Constitution was largely abandoned, opportunities for graft & corruption vastly increased.

"Getting things done" is supposed to be difficult. The system of checks and balances was designed to slow the process so that the press and public could inspect and evaluate the process and the product. The Founders did not want mob rule, nor did they want important decisions to be made on the spur of the moment without debate & careful reflection on the consequences.

Eliminating barriers between pols & voters is best done by keeping government local: the greatest knowledge, familiarity & interaction occurs in the school district, township, city & county; less at the state level and much less at the Congressional district level.

What you want probably is not best for the nation's long term welfare; after all, you wanted Obama, which does not testify well to mature judgment and a deep knowledge base. The founders wisely avoided the mob rule attendant to direct democracy by creating a representative republic with limited government powers.

Parties ain't the source of the problem. Excessive concentration on perceived self interest, ignorance of the system, ignorance of economics and insufficient attention to crucial details are major contributors to the problem. The European multi-party / prime minister system leads to unstable, divided short term administrations. The results of excessively fine divisions are most clearly displayed in Israel & Lebanon.

The reforms we need are in expectations, attitudes, knowledge, information & logic skills. The most important reforms are restoration of the Constitution and the voter qualification examination, in that order.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Why Free Speech & Why Not

I received an email titled "Properly Understanding The Times - Part 2" from Act! for America. If you haven't joined yet, you can read the article by clicking the title above.

In the article, Guy Rodgers points out the risk inherent in tolerating relatively minor impositions against liberty. Islam's demand for censorship though national & international imposition of its blasphemy law is one such imposition which threatens our freedom of expression. He illustrates his point with mention of an Austrian M.P. recently prosecuted & convicted of "hate speech" and the pending prosecution of Geert Wilders, Dutch M.P. He shows us that the issue is not novel, with a censorship anecdote more than 200 years old.

Rodgers follows up by reproducing Andrew Bostom's article: "Wilders' Defense of Free Speech". Dr. Bostom goes into some detail concerning the accuracy of Wilders' citation of the Qur'an.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference is pressing for censorship in the U.N. and its append ant bodies. Recent resolutions by the General Assembly & Human Rights Council demand global imposition of Islam's blasphemy laws. That demand is echoed in the Durban II Draft Document.

What consequences would ensue from criminalizing criticism of Nazism before and during the Second World War or Communism at the peak of the Cold War? Accurately identifying and characterizing our enemy is vitally necessary to preparing and executing defense against aggression.

In a representative republic, the electors need to be free to hold open and honest discussion of all facets of current officials, aspirants to high office and their legislative programs. The Democrat Party seeks, through re-imposition of the 'fairness doctrine', 'ownership diversity' and 'community advisory boards' to intimidate broadcasters so that Conservative talk radio hosts will be silenced.

In an article entitled "Why Freedom of Speech?" Baron Bodissey reminds me of a statement by President Barack Hussein Obama in his first international television interview.

Quoted, from msnbc out of context, emphasis added.

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.

The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.
The highlighted expression indicates to this writer that President Obama is in sympathy with the OIC campaign of censorship. It raises severe doubts concerning his supposed withdrawal from the preparations for the U.N. Racism Conference because objections to proposed censorship were cited as one reason for pulling out. The remainder of the excerpt would give the impression that Islam is, as President George W. Bush described it, a 'religion of peace'. In actual fact, it is a war cult. For documented proof of that fatal fact, download and read Know Thine Enemy.chm.

By reading the U.N. resolutions linked above, you can discover how the O.I.C. couches its demands in terms of 'respect' for sanctities and association of Islam with terrorism & violence. By reading the appropriate sections of Shari'ah, you can discover the law they intend to impose. These quotes are from Umdat as-Salik, Book O. [Enter the reference letter & numbers in the search engine in the frame surrounding the text image to locate the text for further exploration. ]
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;

Those are acts of apostasy, punishable by death, prescribed in this statement.

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.

Dhimmis, conquered Jews,Christians & Zoroastrians submitted under a 'treaty of protection' suffer a similar imposition.

Chapter O11.0: Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl Al-Dhimma)

O11.5

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

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

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

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:

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

O11.11

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 (o9.14).

O9.14

When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: 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 enormity of that has not sunk in, re-read the portions I emphasized until it does. A dhimmi may be killed for criticizing Islam. Like it or not, that is Islamic law, which the O.I.C & President Obama seek to impose upon us. Respect is given where respect is due; not to a war cult. If you don't understand that Islam is a war cult, read O9.1 through O10.3.