Supreme Court Sends Citizenship Appeal to an Anthrax Lab

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Who is this man?

U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington D.C.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices

As expected, President-elect Barack Obama and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) let yesterday's Supreme Court deadline to respond to Philip Berg's Writ of Certiorari slip by unanswered, but it appears even at the Supreme Court, a deadline is not really a deadline as the Court allows two additional days for "mail service."

Associate Justice David Souter denied an emergency appeal for the Court to halt the Electoral College's tabulation of votes to officially declare Barack Obama the President, until proof of his eligibility is affirmed. While Souter denied the appeal, he did set the above mentioned requirement for a response from Obama and the DNC.

Attorney Philip Berg, this morning, filed an emergency injunction with the Court to bar Obama from taking the oath of office of the Presidency. Jeff at America's Right interprets Berg's motion as follows:

From what I could gather, the emergency motion for immediate injunction contains two main parts -- in filing the motion, Berg is looking for the Court

(1) to prohibit the certification of electors by the governors of each individual state in order to stay the Electoral College from casting votes for Obama on December 15, and

(2) to stay the official counting of any votes for Obama by Vice President Dick Cheney, the House of Representatives and United States Senate on January 6, 2009, pending any decision on his appeal.

Berg is quoted as saying that he is one-thousand percent certain that Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. Obama and the DNC are not "obligated" to file an answer, and Berg says that he "believes that the lack of response could be rooted less in procedure and more in audacity..." "The feeling may be that, if they respond, they could hold themselves out for perjury later on when we're successful."

As November 4th neared, a few of us were desperately attempting to get this information to the public. Surely, we thought (bloggers) this was an important and valid issue. After all, the Supreme Court ordered Obama to provide proof of his U.S. birth. How many times has that happened? But the MSM wouldn't touch it. I thought the media, including cable television, viewed this as too ludicrous to even consider, but as time passed, credible reasons to believe that Obama could not provide proof of his U.S. birth, began piling up. Someone, for some reason, was able to keep this out of the MSM.

Here are other actions at work at the Supreme Court:

Donofrio v. Wells will be heard by the full Court with Justice Clarence Thomas chairing the Conference on December 5th. The purpose of the Conference is to consider granting Certiorari, which allows further review of the original lawsuit.

If 4 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative to Leo’s [Donofrio] case, there will be an oral argument and further briefing. If 5 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative, they could grant a stay of the Electoral College vote.

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz "has been officially tendered to the Supreme Court..." All things get weirder when it concerns Barack Obama. Wrotnowski, allegedly, was told by the Court that his emergency stay renewal was referred to an ANTHRAX CONTAINMENT FACILITY! A reader left this information on a Maggie's Notebook post, and it appears that is exactly what Wrotnowski is saying he was told in a telephone conversation (read more below).

Hunter v. Obama sent to the Supreme Court

For detailed information and commentary read the terrific work by The Right Side of Life which also reports this intriguing information:

There is also a rumor that the full Court may be seriously considering staying the Electoral College vote until after Barack Obama’s eligibility can be confirmed (the following excerpt from Bob Vernon of Honest American News (Plains Radio Network):

Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court. She informed me that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008. [emphasis mine]

We now know that the renewed request to halt the election was not denied and is actively being considered at the Supreme Court.

The We the People Foundation placed a full page in the Chicago Tribune, running on December 1st and 3rd:

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8.

A First Amendment Petition to any official of the Government for Redress of a violation of the Constitution is substantially different from the garden-variety political petitions frequently received by government officials. This Petition demands it be given the highest priority for an expedited review and official Response by Mr. Obama.

As a formal "Notice of a Constitutional Violation," the Petition naturally includes the People's inherent Right to an official Response. As a time-sensitive, election related Petition involving the Office of the President, failure to Respond as requested would constitute an egregious breach of the public trust and confirm the certainty of a Constitutional crisis.

Dr. Orly Taitz reports numerous phone calls to the SC demanding to know why Cort Wrotnowski's Petition for Stay of Elections was delayed by 7 days because it was sent to an anthrax lab:

Mr. Wrotnowski is a law abiding citizen, a business owner, was never in trouble with the law. Why was his petition delayed by a week via sending it to the Anthrax lab. No response was received, no name of the clerk was given. These clerks are sabotaging anti Obama cases to put a foreigner in the White House, this is bordering on aiding and abetting treason.

Dr. Taitz is asking for our help:

Please write to all 9 judges, let them know what is going on, demand to join all 5 cases currently in the Supreme Court, you can send them a copy of our Keyes v Bowen petition for Writ of Mandate as a supporting document. Currently I am working on filing a second case, representing another group of candidates, party officials, Certified Electors and Registered voters and I am assisting other attorneys all around the country, that are preparing similar actions and trying to match voters and electors in different states with attorneys that can represent them.

Here's contact information (if you have previous written, please continue to do so):

The Honorable Associate Justice
Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First St. N. E.
Washington DC 20543

Put docket # on Envelope 08-A407

Ask him UPHOLD our Constitution with Full Disclosure as the only Constitutionally viable answer.

Also, send identical requests to the remaining Justices: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Antonin G. Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Samuel A. Alito, Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer

Read more about Dr. Taitz's attempts to hold Barack Obama accountable.

America, this is no small thing.

Sphere: Related Content

Bury Alien Amnesty!

Now that we know Majority Leader Reid intends to ram through Alien Amnesty, the time has come to bury the issue once and for all. Sweet, gentle emails, faxes & phone calls stopped it twice, but like a vampire, it keeps coming back from the dead.

Lets bury it so deep they can never dig it up again. http://www.congress.org provides a means of sending emails to the President, your Representative & Senators with a single, simple form.

In the box labeled My Elected Officials, enter your zip code. Under the heading Write Your Elected Officials, click the Federal link. Select Immigration as the issue and compose your message. In the body of your message, tell them that the bottom line is on a web page and give them a link to http://snooper.wordpress.com/no-amnesty/#Loud.

Their editor does not have a provision for entering links. Use html. Copy and paste this into your message:

Loud & Clear.

In Letters to Leaders, that comes through like this: Loud & Clear. Near the bottom of the form there is an option button, cleared by default, labeled Letters to Leaders. Select that option so that everyone can see your message.

When the recipients click the link, they will see a big, bold unmistakably clear message of outraged rejection; a four word profane execration followed by exclamation points. The clincher follows the exclamation points.

My vote depends on your vote. Be careful when voting and make no mistakes.

Sphere: Related Content

MAMA

The following was received by email from the Coalition to Stop Shariah. It relates to a doll you have probably heard about; which says "Islam is the light.". Is the doll programmed to implant a positive suggestion about Islam in the minds of little girls too young to understand the full implications of Moe's Murder Cult? Either way, the doll's repertoire could be an unpleasant surprise for many. What would happen if a doll made a negative statement about Islam?

If you seek more information or wish to take action, you will find helpful links in the body of the email which follows.

For those who are unfamaliar with Shariah, it is Islamic law distilled from Allah's Word and Moe's Sunnah. It finds its clearest expression in Reliance of the Traveller, 1200 + page hand book of Shafi'i school rulings.

Sharia regulates nearly all facets of human life, including post defecation hygiene [E9], marriage [M], divorce [N] and alcohol [O16.0]. [Use Scribid's search tool to find the Book & Chapter.]

The email mentions the invitation to embrace Islam. It does not tell you that the invitation is a necessary prelude to military attack, stated in [O9.8] based on Moe's explicit order in Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4294: "Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ". Once you have rejected the 'invitation', a demand for tribute may be made and you may be attacked.

For more information:

labelthatdoll@gmail.com

www.labelthatdoll.com

We're writing to ask for your help with a local citizen's campaign this December. Our goal is to convince stores to stop selling a Mattel talking doll that says "Islam is the light," a way of inviting someone to join Islam - also know as "Da'wa." We have started this campaign in Virginia and Maryland, and we need your help to take it nationwide.

The controversial toy is called the "Little Mommy Real Loving Baby Cuddle & Coo" doll, manufactured by Mattel-Fisher Price. We've put up a website - http://www.labelthatdoll.com - to provide resources for parents to download an information packet to give to store managers. As parents, we've already started asking store managers to remove the dolls from the store shelves, or to put labels on the dolls stating "Notice: this doll says 'Islam is the light,' an invitation to your child to join Islam."

THE "ISLAM IS THE LIGHT" DOLL IS STILL ON THE SHELVES

You may have heard about this controversy in the media. It received a lot of print and TV media attention in October and earlier in November. Yet - hard as it is to believe - most stores are still carrying the doll on their shelves for the holiday shopping season. The doll has no warning label letting parents know that it clearly says "Islam is the light." In fact, we found one store in Virginia where the dolls had the audio disabled AND the front packaging panel (where the name is displayed) ripped off, which made it harder for parents to know that this was the controversial doll. A few newer dolls are being distributed without the sound file, but most still say "Islam is the light."

Bottom line - parents are still buying the doll RIGHT NOW, taking it home, and may not realize what the doll says until Christmas morning when their child unwraps the package and the doll tells her that "Islam is the light."

MATTEL DENIES EVERYTHING

You'd think Mattel would have recalled the doll after parents complained, after some retailers pulled it in response to parent complaints, and after about twenty Youtube videos went up spontaneously from parents and local TV news stations showing that the doll was really saying "Islam is the light." But no. Mattel denies everything.

Mattel has flatly denied that the doll audio files say "Islam is the light," and has stated that parents are hearing the phrase "Islam is the light" because of "power of suggestion." Mattel even put up their "version" of the doll's audio file on their investors and media webpage, although an actual recording of the doll's audio appears to be VERY different (see the "audio research" link at www.labelthatdoll.com ).

JOIN OUR CAMPAIGN TO NOTIFY STORE MANAGERS AND PARENTS

We decided enough is enough - store managers need to get the doll off the shelves, or at least label the packaging for each doll so parents know what they are buying their kids for Christmas. We've sent a formal complaint to the Federal Trade Commission, and we've put together information packets you can take to store managers to inform them about the doll (including a sheet of 30 labels they can put on the doll packaging). At www.labelthatdoll.com , we have created a "case" reporting system for each store: just email us basic info about the store you visited and the store manager's response, and we'll put it up so everyone can track the progress in that case. You can see how we've started to do this at the "Cases" link at www.labelthatdoll.com .

If you can visit just one store - just one - you can make a difference.

This campaign is also a way to educate our communities about the threat of the Islamic legal and political doctrine of Shariah. Shariah is particularly discriminatory and violent towards Muslim and non-Muslim girls and women. This unadvertised use of a doll - without any notice to parents in the doll's packaging - to advocate Islam to children is particularly offensive and inappropriate, given the very real risks to girls under Shariah.

Please visit the campaign website at www.labelthatdoll.com . If you have questions or suggestions, contact us at labelthatdoll@gmail.com . And please print out the information packet, take it to a store manager at Target, Kmart, Walmart and other stores selling toys (store locators are at the website), and politely but firmly request that they remove the doll or use the labels. And if they don't remove it right away, contact us with info on your visit and we'll post their case at the website.

The Marines have a good saying: "We do well that which we know will be inspected." We need to let store managers know that parents across America, this holiday season, are inspecting them for their responsiveness to community concerns about the "Islam is the Light" doll.

Thanks for any assistance you can provide, and Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah!

Regards,

Catherine Martin, Chapter leader, ACT for America, Northern Virginia Chapter

Jeffrey Imm, Anti-Jihad League of America

John Cosgrove, Chapter leader, United American Committee, Virginia Chapter
Christine Brim, Coalition to Stop Shariah
Denise Lee, parent

Sphere: Related Content

AIDS: Overblown Global Crisis?

Cross posted from Monkey in the Middle

Today is World AIDS Day. The day the whole world is suppose to remember that there is an pandemic happening through out the world. Right now, about 40 million people in the world are living with HIV infection or AIDS. This estimate includes 37 million adults and 2.5 million children. In the United States alone, more than 1 million people are living with HIV. A large number, but there are other diseases that infect more people and take more lives each year.

As World AIDS Day is marked on Monday, some experts are growing more outspoken in complaining that AIDS is eating up funding at the expense of more pressing health needs.

They argue that the world has entered a post-AIDS era in which the disease's spread has largely been curbed in much of the world, Africa excepted.

In Africa some nations are almost 100% infected. Uganda is one of these. And those infected are not able to receive the necessary medical treatment needed for long term survival. Drugs that can slow the infection rate down, or prevent secondary infections from occurring are not being given to those most needy. Some of this is due to the cost of the drugs, other is the bureaucracy in many of the developing world.

Roger England of Health Systems Workshop, a think tank based in the Caribbean island of Grenada, goes further. He argues that UNAIDS, the U.N. agency leading the fight against the disease, has outlived its purpose and should be disbanded.

"The global HIV industry is too big and out of control. We have created a monster with too many vested interests and reputations at stake, ... too many relatively well paid HIV staff in affected countries, and too many rock stars with AIDS support as a fashion accessory," he wrote in the British Medical Journal in May.

Just like every other UN Agency it seems. This is nothing new. Just another bit of wasteful money mostly donated by American Taxpayers.

Paul de Lay, a director at UNAIDS, disagrees. It's valid to question AIDS' place in the world's priorities, he says, but insists the turnaround is very recent and it would be wrong to think the epidemic is under control.

"We have an epidemic that has caused between 55 million and 60 million infections," de Lay said. "To suddenly pull the rug out from underneath that would be disastrous."

The estimate of 55 to 60 million people is a bit high. It is more like 35 to 40 million people, many of which would not have been infected if the men of their nations would wear a condom. But that would mean that they aren't masculine enough. It would demean their manhood to wear one. So they don't, they visit prostitutes who are infected, they become infected and then infect their wives. Nice gift honey but I wanted a new washing machine!

U.N. officials roughly estimate that about 33 million people worldwide have HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Scientists say infections peaked in the late 1990s and are unlikely to spark big epidemics beyond Africa.

In developed countries, AIDS drugs have turned the once-fatal disease into a manageable illness.

And the rate of infection is also down. The highest risk groups today are drug users and teenagers. I guess teens don't believe in safe sex either.

England argues that closing UNAIDS would free up its $200 million annual budget for other health problems such as pneumonia, which kills more children every year than AIDS, malaria and measles combined.

"By putting more money into AIDS, we are implicitly saying it's OK for more kids to die of pneumonia," England said.

Measles can be prevented by inoculations. They are low cost and do work. Pneumonia kills millions each year, but we keep hearing there isn't any money to help these people.

His comments touch on the bigger complaint: that AIDS hogs money and may damage other health programs.

By 2006, AIDS funding accounted for 80 percent of all American aid for health and population issues, according to the Global Health Council.

In Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda and elsewhere, donations for HIV projects routinely outstrip the entire national health budgets.

In a 2006 report, Rwandan officials noted a "gross misallocation of resources" in health: $47 million went to HIV, $18 million went to malaria, the country's biggest killer, and $1 million went to childhood illnesses.

It is time that these nations get to use the donated funds where they need it the most. If malaria is killing more people each year, then they should use the funds there. It is the logical approach to a health crisis that these nations are facing.

AIDS advocates say their projects do more than curb the virus; their efforts strengthen other health programs by providing basic health services.

But across Africa, about 1.5 million doctors and nurses are still needed, and hospitals regularly run out of basic medicines.

Experts working on other health problems struggle to attract money and attention when competing with AIDS.

What good is basic medical services when there are no medicines to treat the basics? In Africa there is a shortage of doctors, nurses, medical technicians, and medicines. There is no shortage of suffering though.

"Diarrhea kills five times as many kids as AIDS," said John Oldfield, executive vice president of Water Advocates, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that promotes clean water and sanitation.

"Everybody talks about AIDS at cocktail parties," Oldfield said. "But nobody wants to hear about diarrhea," he said.

Full Story

I'm sorry Mr. Oldfield, but there is no way you are going to ever get anyone to talk about diarrhea at a cocktail party. At a frat house party, maybe. But the average person doesn't even like to think about diarrhea.

AIDS is a glamor disease. Scores of the A-List celebrities just have to come out and say something about AIDS every year. If you don't, then your career is ruined. But Roger England is correct. The world is spending too many resources on one illness and neglecting other serious problems. It is time that the individual nations involved in this have a bigger say on where donated monies should be spent. Yes AIDS patients should receive the medicines that will help them survive many years, but money should be spent to prevent treatable illnesses like measles, to help patients with malaria, and even start providing the basic health care that would prevent all these illnesses.

And on this World AIDS Day, I think that my tax money would be spent in a better way.

Sphere: Related Content

UN Renews Censorship Demand

I am informed by a press release from UN Watch that a UN Committee adopted the Defamation of Religions Resolution by a vote of 85:50 with 42 abstentions. A plenary vote is expected later this month. At the time of this writing, the link to the resolution does not work. The link provided in my previous post on this subject also fails.

UN Watch counts as a gain the shift of 23 votes from support to abstention compared to last year’s vote. Big deal. I would consider it a gain if they had voted against the resolution. Abstention displays a lack of conviction and courage, two characteristics vital to the survival of western civilization. Without courage and conviction, our cause is lost and the lamp of liberty will be extinguished.

My most recent post on this subject, Stop Sharia!!!, includes links to previous posts related to this subject and extensive quotes from relevant Islamic law.

The following statement from the resolution was pointed out in the UN Watch press release:

Also expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly
associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

To which feces I respond:

• Is there any deception more egregious than this? No intelligent & sane person who has read the Qur’an & hadith can be fooled by such lies. Terrorism is sanctified by 3:151, mandated by 8:12 and exemplified by 33:26. Muhammad bragged about being made victorious with terror.
• How in Hell can anyone read the Qur’an’s imperatives to genocidal conquest and claim that Islam is not associated with rights violations?
• How in Hell can anyone read the Qur’an’s imperative to cast terror and claim that Islam is not associated with terrorism?
• How in Hell can anyone read Moe’s bragging about being made victorious with terror and claim that Islam is not associated with terrorism?
• How in Hell can anyone have knowledge of Reliance of the Traveller Book O, Chapter 11, Paragraph 5 and claim that Islam does not violate human rights?

Ignore the flowery rhetoric and examine exactly what Islam seeks to impose upon us through national & international law as revealed by Reliance of the Traveller.

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.)

Examine the Islamic law as it applies to Dhimmis (that’s us after we are conquered by Muslims). Pay close attention to the clauses I have emphasized.

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.

Exactly what part of O11.10.5 do you not comprehend? Please expose your full ignorance in the comment section; I will try to help you to understand what they are attempting to impose upon us.

Any negative statement about Allah, his Messenger, his commands or their activities carries the death penalty. Am I a liar? Am I in error? Read the bold red text in the Shariah quotes again, then read the following quote.

O8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

The resolution uses broad, amorphous terms without narrow, predefined common meanings, conflating opposition to Islam with racism.

Urges States to take action to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or
religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;

Emphasizes that everyone has the right to hold opinions without
interference and the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of these
rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject
to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights
or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public
health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs;

Expresses its deep concern about the negative stereotyping of religions
and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief
still in evidence in the world;

In a previous post: You’ve Been Mooned! I revealed the real intention behind that ambiguity. The Secretary General made remarks condemning FITNA, a short video created by Geert Wilders. Fitna quotes the Qur’an and displays the relationship between its commands, rabble rousing kutbah and riots & terrorism. It is neither false, distorted nor out of context. In FITNA: Supporting Documentation, I listed the ayat cited by Wilders in a speech to the Dutch Parliament, linking each ayat to source and providing tafsir links for many of them. Some but not all of those ayat are cited in the video.

Observe now what Ban Ki-moon said 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 only hate speech or incitement to violence contained in FITNA is in the Qur’an and kutbah quoted along with it. Wilders neither expresses hate nor incites violence. The right of free expression is very much at stake:

• Muslim organizations & regimes attempted to suppress the video.
• The Dutch government attempted to suppress the video.
• The Kingdom of Jordan charged Wilders with blasphemy and is demanding his arrest and rendition for trial.

According to Reuters, Ban described FITNA as ”offensively anti-Islamic”. Now we know the true standard: that laid down in Reliance of the Traveller. Quoting the Qur’an and Jumah Sermons is ”offensively anti-Islamic”. The same standard would outlaw my blog posts.

• Related petitions:

  • Outlaw Islam!
  • Quit the U.N.!

• Related blog posts:

  • U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext & Context (analysis of influential documents & previous resolutions.)
  • United Nations Ban Criticism of Islam (’07 resolution)
  • More UNHRC AssWholliness (March ‘08 UNHRC resolution)
  • You’ve Been Mooned! (Extremely offensive remarks by the Secy. Genl.)
  • Tolerance (This and the remaining links are to posts in a blog dedicated to exposing lies told by two OIC Ambassadors. Their lies were influential in shaping previous resolutions.)
  • Violence is Alien to Islam
  • Extremism is Integral to Islam
  • Terrorists Don’t Speak for Islam
  • 9/11 Violated Islamic Law
  • Islam Forbids Violence
  • Spread by the Sword

Sphere: Related Content