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.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Geert Wilders & Free Speech on Trial

Vlad Tepes published a video clip from the trial of Geert  Wilders.  Run time is only 4:41,  but the dialogue is fact paced, and the sub titles flash by rapidly.  On first viewing, I am not certain of the attitude of the  chairman of the bench.  It seems to be antagonistic, but there may be a subtext of  delving deeper into the issues.  It could also be some kind of perverse attack, like taunting a bull in the ring.  I need to replay the video.


    I discover on review that I misinterpreted the Chairman's opening comments. I thought he was closing the court to the audience for the duration of Geert's remarks, instead, he was directing them to let the Court depart first for security reasons.

    What is the big deal about debate?  Does the court desire to  engage Wilders in debate on the details of Islamic doctrine & practices to which he objects and which he exposed?  

    Why does Wilders declare that he has said all he has to say on the subject?   He stands by  his statements, but seems unwilling to give a detailed defense of them.  Have the judges, prosecution or defense considered the documentation I published?  Does the court expect the defense to prove every point?  Would they allow him to speak freely if he tried to offer proof?  

    It appears as though Wilders is wary of being entrapped; provoked to say something outrageous that the prosecution could seize upon to convict him.


Thursday, October 7, 2010

Rush is Wrong about Faisal Shahzad & Islamic Enmity

Rush Limbaugh read from Shahzad's statement on his radio show, and posted this transcript.  Here is the most significant quote from his Wednesday 10/6/10  broadcast.


We chalk up their behavior to our own analysis when we deny what they say to our own peril.  They're not poor.  They're not wandering aimless.  They have not had their futures taken away by the evil United States.  It's not even our support for Israel.  They say that, and I'm sure it irritates 'em, but it's our very existence as a free nation with freedom of religion that irritates 'em, that makes us a target, pure and simple.  It's who we are.  And there's nobody who can persuade them to leave us alone by virtue of his own countenance, his own background, his own history, his own words, his own speeches.  We could have a president even worse than Obama who does nothing but openly criticize and run down and apologize this country each and every day.  Still wouldn't matter.  The fact that we exist is what makes us the enemy.  [Emphasis added.]

    Islamic hatred of America is not a function of our system, our freedom, our foreign policy or our existence.  It is a function of  not being Muslim and rejecting Islam.  The religious component of Islam is a fraudulent blend of  plagiarized & distorted scriptures, apocryphal texts  and ancient paganism.  Because it is an impious fraud, it can not stand up to comparison or criticism.  Islam can only respond with arrogance and violence. It must therefore eliminate all rivals.  Islam can not tolerate the existence of a superior & more successful culture.

    Christians, Jews, Sabeans & Zoroastrians must be converted or subjugated as dhimmis; humbled, humiliated and extorted.   Atheists & pagans must be converted or killed.  Muslims are commanded to march against them and offer three alternatives:
  • Embrace Islam.
    • Join the jihad and share in the spoils. 
    • Remain in place and receive nothing.
  • Live as humiliated, subjugated & extorted dhimmis under Islamic domination ("People of the book" only.)
  • Die. 
    Islamic law, best expressed in the Shafi'ite manual of Fiqh: Umdat as-Salik,  is based on what Moe said and did; the Qur'an & Sunnah.  Military expeditions against kuffar are a religious obligation binding upon Muslims in every year. If that is too ambiguous for you, I have a quote from Al-Shafi'i that will settle the matter.  "The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

    Islamic law also tells us what the caliph does in the regular course of business. [Emphasis and link added.]
o9.8 The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),
That is based on Surah At-Taubah 29 which commands waging war against Jews & Christians. Follow the link and scroll down to the second footnote. It quotes the genocide hadith and remarks on the imposition of jizya.  The jihad imperative is so clear and obvious that it is not amplified in the footnote.

    Abdullah Yusuf Ali, in his footnote, concentrates on jizya.  Mohammad Asad, a convert from Judaism, tries to  deceive us with a variation on the Shi'ite assertion of  general conditionality, asserting that all jihad is defensive, never aggressive. Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi explains two grounds for attacking Jews & Christians and spends the next four paragraphs explaining jizya.
.   
    Tafsir Al-Jalalayn  is fairly terse,  adding some details.  Tafsir Ibn Abbas gives nothing more than translation. Ibn Kathir's Tafsir is the most loquacious, giving us this gem of explicit explanation. "This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination." [Emphasis added.]

    The Profiteer is quoted  in a statement which confirms the jihad imperatives and conveys super important information.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have." [Emphasis added.]

Review what we learned from that saying:
  • Moe was ordered to fight us until we become Muslims.. 
  • Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims.
  • We have no rights. 
    Because Moe was ordered to fight us, all Muslims are ordered to fight us.  Moe is their role model, whom they are commanded to emulate. Unfortunately, that has consequences in the real world.  When America won the war of revolution and became independent, her shipping lost the protection previously afforded by the Royal Navy.  The Barbary Pirates attacked our shipping and extorted tribute, which nearly bankrupted the new nation.  Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked by what right  they attacked us.  The answer is relevant to the present case.

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Geert Wilders Trial: Refresher Course

The purpose of this blog post is to remind readers of the background information essential to comprehending the resumption of the trial of Geert Wilders.

    This quote is from an English translation of the summons which lists the accusations against  Geert Wilders.  The summons is 24 pages long, detailing many statements.


The aforementioned summoned person is charged with the fact that
1.
he, on one or more dates in or about the period from 8 August 2007 up to and including 27 March 2008, in The Hague and/or Amsterdam and/or (elsewhere in) the Netherlands, on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion, by (each time) intentionally in
- De Volkskrant and/or
- on the internet on the website www.liveleak.com (in the film Fitna)
placing (having placed) and/or showing (having showed) and/or having heard one or more texts and/or images and/or footage and/or audio fragments with the following content:
(De Volkskrant of 8 August 2007, ‘Enough is enough: prohibit the Quran’)
„A moderate Islam does not exist. It does not exist because there is no distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam. There is Islam and that is it. And Islam means the Quran and nothing but the Quran. And the Quran is the Mein Kampf of a religion that intends to eliminate others and that refers to those others – non-Muslims – as unfaithful dogs, inferior beings. Read the Quran, this Mein Kampf, again. In whatever version, you will see that all the evil that the sons of Allah commit to us and themselves originates from this book (Oriana Fallaci, The Force of Reason, post-script, page 305, February 2006).‟...

2.
he, on one or more dates in or about the period from 7 October 2006 up to and including 27 March 2008, in The Hague and/or Amsterdam and/or (elsewhere in) the Netherlands, on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, incited to hatred of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion, by (each time) in
- De Volkskrant and/or
- De Pers and/or
- Dagblad De Limburger-Limburgs Dagblad and/or
on the internet
- on the website www.geenstijl.nl and/or www.pvv.nl and/or
- on the website of Radio Nederland Wereldomroep and/or the Wereldomroep and/or
- on the website www.liveleak.com (in the film Fitna)

 [Emphasis added.]

    Notice the prominent mention of Fitna, the publication of which is the basic issue, condemned by many government leaders, the OIC, and the Secretary General of the United Nations.  The summons goes on to describe the images in the video and list statements made therein.

    The first charge is intentionally offending Muslims.  The statute, cited on the last page of the summons,  makes the issue cut and dried.

Article 137c Dutch Penal Code
  • o 1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in an way insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.
  • o 2. If the offence is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.

 Article 137d Dutch Penal Code
  • o 1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or in an image, incites hatred against or discrimination of people or violent behaviour against person or property of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their gender or hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.
  • o 2. If the offence is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.

    Truth is not a defense in the statute.  How shall the defendant establish proof of his intent?  The law, as written, criminalizes truthful speech on the grounds of perceived insult & inciting hatred, discrimination or violence.

    Geert Wilders is an elected member of the Dutch Parliament, in that position, he is entitled to discuss public policy.  Islamization is a legitimate subject for public discourse; it is taking place in Europe.

    Fitna can be viewed in its entirety by clicking this link. It is divided into two parts on Youtube.  I will embed the two parts here so that you can view them.
You will see a few verses from the Qur'an  and an English translation .  You will hear an Arabic recitation and see graphic depictions of the practical application of the verses. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37w-aXGk8M0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwwsnAr3rY8

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.”
    Who expressed hatred in that video?  Who incited violence in that video?    The Qur'an, not Geert Wilders  is the source of hate and incitement.  Wilders exposed hate & incitement, he did not perform it.

    My earlier blog posts relevant to the trial are linked in the list below.

Monday, October 4, 2010

OIC Withdraws Draft Res. Condemning Qur'an Burning

Pakistan suddenly withdrew the OIC's Draft Resolution  Condemning a Call to 'Burn a Qur'an Day'. Beyond the usual boiler plate references, the draft had five main points.


  • Condemnation of
    • 'Burn a Koran Day'
    • advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
      • hatred
      • discrimination
      • hostility
      • violence
  • Calls
    • upon international community to stand against such events which
      • undermine peaceful coexistence
      • create an environment conducive to violence; reprisal
    • upon all states to condemn & oppose advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
      • hatred
      • discrimination
      • hostility
      • violence
  • Urges the international community to support all international and regional initiatives to promote cross-cultural and interfaith harmony.
    In lieu of the draft resolution, the Council President issued a Presidential statement expressing the consensus of the council.

Statement on behalf of the Human Rights Council
SIHUASAK PHUANKETKEOW, President of the Council, said in view of the growing number of instances of religious intolerance such as discrimination, conflating a religion with terrorism, or desecrating or destroying holy books, religious sites or shrines, he had been empowered by the agreement of all Council members to make the following statement on behalf of the Human Rights Council:
“The Council condemns recent instances of religious intolerance, prejudice and related discrimination and violence, which continued to occur in all parts of the world. The international community should stand united against all forms of religious intolerance and should engage in practical steps to end such intolerance. The Council encourages efforts to establish collaborative networks to build mutual understanding and promote dialogue. The Council stresses that these efforts should be taken to protect individuals of all religions and beliefs in a non-discriminatory way, and should apply to promote understanding among them. The Council also recognises that open, constructive and respectful debate, as well as interfaith dialogue, could have a positive effect. The Council reiterates the call by the United Nations Secretary-General on the necessity for the voices of moderation to be heard and mutual respect to prevail.”
That breaks down to:
  • Condemns:
    • instances of
      • religious intolerance
      • prejudice
      • related:
        • discrimination
        • violence
  • Unite against & take practical steps to end : 
    • religious intolerance
  • Encourages
    • efforts to
      • establish collaboration to build
        • mutual understanding
        • dialogue
  • Stresses that it should be done to
    • protect individuals of all religions
    • promote understanding
  • Recognizes Secy. General's call for moderation & mutual respect.

    The major differences I spot are the Presidential statement's lack of direct reference to 'Burn a Koran Day' & advocacy of hatred  and the addition of  condemnation of  intolerance.

    The draft had plenty of support; the E.U. had condemned the event, so it is probable that the draft would have won a unanimous ballot. Why was it withdrawn at the last moment, without debate and a vote?

    Why does the Presidential statement omit mention of the event which inspired the resolution & its substitute?   If they seek to prevent future incidents of Qur'an burning, they should be open about it, and specify the  act which offends them.   Why does the statement omit condemnation of advocacy of religious hatred?
   
    Terry Jones  abandoned his project, but Muslims continued to riot. They burned churches, Bibles and flags.  Could it be that the Human Rigths Council was caught in a dilemma between condemning Muslim rioters or demonstrating their bias?

    Did the statement omit advocacy of religious hatred because the Qur'an is full of it?

    The Secretary General of the OIC welcomed the  statement and  used the occasion to push the OIC agenda.

The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference Prof Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu welcomed the adoption of a statement regarding condemnation of recent instances of religious intolerance, prejudice and related discrimination and violence, which continued to occur in all parts of the world. The consensual statement was read out, on Council’s behalf, by its President towards the end of the 15th Session in Geneva. ...more

...The Secretary General emphasized that the statement was particularly timely in view of the growing number of instances of religious intolerance such as discrimination, conflating religion with terrorism, desecrating or destroying holy books and religious sites or shrines. The Secretary General particularly welcomed the call by the Council - being the human rights conscience of the world— upon the international community to stand against all forms of religious intolerance and engage in practical steps to end such intolerance. ...

...He urged the international community to build upon the momentum generated by the consensual statement at the Council, in joining hands with the OIC towards evolving a normative approach to deal with growing instances of religious intolerance that continued to pose a clear and present danger to international community’s efforts and desire for global peace, security and stability.


Lets  examine the elements added by Ihsanoglu.
  • conflating religion with terrorism
  • desecrating or destroying holy books
    • religious sites or shrines
  • normative approach
  • clear and present danger to... global peace, security and stability.
    "Conflating Islam with terrorism" is standard boiler plate from the combating defamation resolutions.  It appears that I am the only one pointing out the fact that Allah & Moe established the nexus nearly 1400 years ago.  Allah said that he would cast terror, in 3:151 and 8:12. He said that he cast terror and described the results in 33:26 and 59:2. Moe said that he was made victorious by terror in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220. In more modern times, Brig. S.K. Malik exposed the strategic use of terror in "The Qur'anic Concept of War"[A training manual for Pakistan's army.].

The Quranic strategy comes into play from the preparation stage, and aims at imposing a direct decision upon the enemy.  Other things remaining the same, our preparation for war is the true index of our performance during war. We must aim at creating a wholesome respect for our Cause and our will and determination to attain it, in the minds of the enemies, well before facing them on the field of battle. So spirited, zealous, complete and thorough should be our preparation for war that we should enter upon the ‘war of muscles' having already won the ‘war of will'. Only a strategy that aims at striking tenor into the hearts of the enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results and turn Liddell Hart‘s dream into a reality....

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.
[Emphasis added.]

    If the Arabic Qur'an might be holy (which I deny, it is unholy), the translations which were to be burned and those which were torn  and burned were English translations, not considered sacred to Islam.   The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shreds bibles and crucifixes carried into the Kingdom.  Will the Human Rights Council and the OIC condemn their policy?

    When the PLO invaded & occupied the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, they defecated on the Altar and performed istijia with pages torn from the Bible.  Did the Human Rights Commission or the OIC condemn their acts of desecration?

    "Normative approach" is a code phrase for legislation.  The OIC is behind the HRC's Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary International Standards, whose mission is to use a protocol to insert the defamation resolutions into ICERD  so as to give them the force of law.  This issue is flying below the radar, very few people know about it, and those who know ain't telling. Nobody is doing anything effective to stop the travesty of justice.  But I will share what I know with you.
    "Clear and present danger to... global peace, security and stability". Did the Motoons incite Danes to riot, burn Mosques and kill Muslims?  Who rioted, burned embassies and killed people?  Did clear and present danger arise from the Motoons?  

    Did International Burn a Qur'an Day" incite Americans to riot, burn property & kill people?  What incited riots other than rabid kutbah in the Mosques of Pakistan, Afghanistan & Indonesia and incendiary news coverage?

    How can there be religious tolerance when Islam is intolerant and intolerable?  Has no one read the Qur'an?  3:85 says that no religion but Islam will be tolerated. 9:33 says that Islam must be made dominant.  Ibn Kathir's Tafsir has some instructive titles and topics each of which contains relevant ayat & ahadith.
    Discrimination?  Yeah, right. Islamic law says that kuffar can not testify in court.

Legal testimony is only acceptable from a witness who:
(a) is free;
(b) is fully legally responsible (mukallaf, def: c8.1) (O: as testimony is not accepted from a child or insane person, even when the child's testimony regards injuries among children that occurred at play);
(c) is able to speak;
(d) it mentally awake;
(e) is religious (O: meaning upright (o24.4) (A: and Muslim), for Allah Most High says,
"Let those of rectitude among you testify" (Koran 65:2),
and unbelief is the vilest form of corruption, as goes without saying); [Emphasis added.]

But wait, there's more!  Under Islamic law, the blood money for killing a kaffir is significantly discounted.

(A: For the rulings below, one multiplies the fraction named by the indemnity appropriate to the death or injury's type of intentionality and other relevant circumstances that determine the amount of a male Muslim's indemnity (def: o4.2-6 and o4.13). )
The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.
The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim. [Emphasis added.]
    Don't hand me a turd and say its sausage, I know the difference. Islam is not tolerable and I will not tolerate it.  Islam is not respectable and I will not respect it.