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

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

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

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

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

the bottom line

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

Censorship and Libel at USC

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

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

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

Friday, 23-10-2009 PM

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

c) Discrimination based on religion or belief.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

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

O11.5 ... -6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

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

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

Genocide Hadith Revisited Again

Censorship and Libel at USC

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

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

What incitement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4310:

Narrated AbuHurayrah:

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

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