your Congressman, Senators and the President in one easy step.
Amendment's free exercise clause and proscribed by law.
to support the demand for proscription of Islam.
tweet, email and embed this petition and its supporting document.
be an American, send the petition to your MP and MEP.
Counter Jihad: Outlaw Islam and its Texts!
the fatal facts of Islam. That task is hopeless!
where they can obtain a clue.
, where they can obtain a clue.
creation of a series of blog posts which are cataloged below.
questions proceed the embedded video Innocence of Muslims.
which is followed by the text of the contumacious demand.
terrorism. Last but not least is the embedded video.
section features the embedded video.
using artwork and narrative from Sira is also embedded.
concludes with a George Washington quote.
Nations Response to Innocence of Muslims: Treason Against Humanity!
to the statement is followed by an outline of its salient points.
statements illegal. Links include the Qur'an & hadith.
include the video but it has Qur'an and hadith quotes.
of Muslims: True or False; You Be The Judge!
of Muslims Update: Muslim Brotherhood Spews Snake Feces!
imposition of Islamic blasphemy law.
Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him).
world security by misusing freedom of expression.
widening rift to enable the comity of nations to be one again.
creator of the video are incitement.
'Terrorists' & 'extremists' are believers.
suffered genocide, enslavement and dispossession.
toward an upgrade in Allah's Celestial Bordello for any act of terrorism.
has a clue for you.
production. Our government should do it but will not.
absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.
Moe's mission & motivation: Islam's Mercenary Mission.
person respect a predatory way of life whose "original religion" is Jihad?
Christ, depicts him as inferior to its Profit and reveres him as a genocidal warlord who will complete their genocide of the Jews?
the six year old daughter of his bosom buddy, raped a prisoner of war and commissioned the murders of his critics?
defamation. "Innocence of Muslims" depicts Moe as a megalomaniac.
wide as our best weapon in the "war on terrorism". Defeating Islam requires breaking their faith.
government should be doing it, not bitterly bitching about it!
Bare Naked Islam Is Back!!
Last Saturday, Bare Naked Islam's server was hacked by unknown AssWholes. BNI is in the process of migrating to a new server, please be patient and try to load the site every day until it is resurrected.
For nostalgia lovers: http://www.barenakedislam.blogspot.com/ still worked the last time I tried it. Sure, its old and cold, but good for refreshing your memories.
In the mean time, you might as well sign up for new post notifications from this blog, explore the recent posts and make a few comments. Thank you for visiting!
Bare Naked Islam, the video rich blog about current events related to Islam, taken down by Word Press after badgering by CAIR, is back, on its own, previously registered domain.
bookmark it and sign up for email notification of new posts.
Tyrants & dictators have long sought to squelch critics; the Stamp Act and attempts to limit access to printing presses played a role in causing the ar of Revolution which resulted in American independence.
George Washington said something of vital importance about free speech, we must ever bear his wise words in mind.
When attackers threaten, we must be free to identify & accurately describe the source of the threat and warn our fellows to fend off approaching danger. Islam arrogantly demands that the alarm be silenced so as to facilitate conquest. Moe set the pattern, by commissioning the murder of poets & singers who criticized and mocked him.
Bare Naked Islam, which had more than 100,000 page views per month at WordPress, is one of the premier watchdogs, loudly sounding the alarm. It will not be silenced.
Having presented a link to the article, I will post only a few paragraphs that bear directly on the issue. Links in the quotes are original, the highlighting is mine.
In the first paragraph, the author suggests that "incitement to imminent violence" – an act that the resolution recommends be criminalized – could mean anything. This is a harmful misconception that serves as a crux of the opposition to this resolution.
The author doesn't directly dispute a quote from a recent Human Rights First blog on Myth vs. Reality on US Engagement with Islamic States that "the only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to 'imminent violence,' which is in accordance with US law." Yet at the same time the author states that opponents of the resolution "rightly find [this measure] distressing." How could one be distressed by a provision that recommends the criminalization of only those instances of incitement that are considered criminal under the U.S. Constitution, the highest standard of free speech in the world?
As the UN documents are fond of saying, read "inter alia". HRC RES 16/18 is based on UN standards, not Constitutional standards. "Incitement to imminent violence" means what they want it to mean, not what we want it to mean. Islam practices Orwellian double speak.
Through her examples, the author seems to indicate that speech could be considered "incitement to imminent violence" simply because an individual or group of individuals react violently to it. This is an incorrect understanding of the legal concept of "incitement" as it is used in U.S. law, the standard on which this part of the resolution was based.
Where in the resolution does it explicitly define the meaning of incitement? Nowhere!! The definition is found elsewhere, in the expressions of the Secretary General of the OIC and the Secretary General of the United Nations.
In the first page of Ishanoglu's address to the HRC, we discover something important: his definition of incitement to violence includes announcing intent to burn the Koran.
The new session of Council is also coincident with regrettable events that are deliberately meant to defame religions as well incite hatred, xenophobia, discrimination and violence against religions, in particular, Islam. The increasing incidents of violence and discrimination on the basis of religion must not be ignored. We hope that this and other related issues remain an important priority in the work of the Council.
The most recent and unfortunate in the series of such events was the announcement pertaining to Burn a Koran Day.
On the next page, Ishanoglu lists campaigns that incite hatred, including Burn a Koran Day, and informs us that they threaten global peace & security. In the short form: they incite violence.
to peace, security 'and stability in the regional as well as the global context.
Lets clarify the issue of "clear and present danger to peace"; in essence: violence, by breaking down the conjunctive clause.
Now that it is clear that discrimination is equated with incitement, lets zero in on that last clause: other discriminatory measures: what, exactly, does this category include? To find out, we turn to the most recent annual Islamophobia Report.
the outcome, would contribute to a climate of fear and distrust towards the Muslim community.
world, by President Obama's speech in Cairo in June 2009, may not be discounted.
Lets gild the lilly by bringing in two more important sources which confirm the obvious, from the initial meeting of the Istanbul Process .
According to our HRC Ambassador, Burn the Qur'an Day was abominable intolerance. According to Pakistan's Ambassador, the OIC will not compromise on anything against the Qur'an or Moe.
Now it is time to go right to the top, to obtain the working definition of incitement to violence from the Secretary General of the United Nations.
According to Ban, the short documentary by Geert Wilders, combining verses from the Qur'an & hadith with sermons from Friday prayers and images of the ensuing violence, is incitement to violence. In reality, Fitna exposes incitement, it does not constitute incitement. Having examined the operative definition of incitement, lets take a look at the Islamic law behind the whole operation.
What Moe preached is law, what he practiced is exemplary, together, his preaching and practice form the basis of Islamic law. Moe had critics murdered. Because of that exemplary conduct, the penalty for criticizing Islam is death.
give him peace), or Islam.
with prisoners of war (09.14).
money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.
The OIC seeks to prevent & punish every negative utterance about Islam. Their current tactic is to conflate criticism with incitement, proscribing the latter.
The fourth Islamophobia Report hints at the next step.
the extremist philosophy behind the outrageous act.
extremism" that the international community had been consistent in condemning.
For those too stupid or indolent to connect the dots: if the resolution had been implemented a year ago, Pastors Jones & Sapp would be persecuted criminally & sued civil court for the "consequences" of their trial and execution of the Qur'an. Holding them responsible for the acts of a Muslim rabble roused by kutbah at Jumah Salat is not just, nor is it rational. Jones & Sapp did not incite anyone to violence. Asian Imams did.
It becomes obvious that the plan is to compel self-censorship through legal intimidation. It is equally obvious that Human Rights first is so heavily invested in the Istanbul Process that they are blinded to objective factual reality.
Thanks and a tip of the hat to Gates of Vienna for leading me to this nifty resource. Those of us who only know English won't get much out of the dialog from the reading of the expert testimony.
From the transcript, it is clear that Prof. Jansen carefully laid out evidence from Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence. He delved into the science of abrogation, which probably had the audience bored stiff.
The video clip, with a run time of 14:29 may bore you to tears but when the camera leaves the bench and scans the defense and prosecution tables, we can observe facial expressions and body language.
At 4:35, it is clear that Jansen is having difficulty hearing the reading of his testimony.
At 6:21 we get our first good look at the prosecution table and the spectators behind them.
At 9:06, we get another good look at the prosecution table. Note the body language and expressions. Those are not happy campers. They are trying not to show it, but they have a weak hand and they know it. The cards of evidence are turning against their game.
At 11:14, it becomes clear that the defense attorney is starting to lose his composure, poker face fatigue must be setting in. At 11:39 he turns away from the camera.
Everybody seems tired bored, or frustrated. Observe the body language as they go on break about 13:21. The prosecution team is last to leave, and not stepping lively.
Another post from Gates of Vienna has the first clue. The complainants are concerned that the prosecution undercharged Wilders. They want the charge elevated to inciting violence, citing an alleged quote from 2007: "a struggle going on and we must defend ourselves." Yeah, right, that is incitement to violence. The absurdity of the accusation accentuates the arrogance of Islam. Jihad is waged with the tongue, pen, heart and purse as well as the sword. Likewise defense. The prosecutor turned them down.
I have added extra emphasis to a critical clause in the last sentence of the following quotation. Please concentrate on that and the other parts I have emphasized.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal readers who posted online their views about a federal criminal tax trial are the target of a sweeping federal grand jury subpoena asking for information so that authorities may identify who they are and where they live. The Review-Journal plans to file later this week a motion to quash the subpoena, and the American Civil Liberties Union has posted its own online solicitation asking those who posted whether they would like the ACLU to legally represent them…This past week the grand jury subpoena, which is separate from the ongoing trial but was signed by one of the prosecutors involved in the tax trial, was the topic of discussion between the trial judge and attorneys, revealing for the first time a possible motive for the subpoena. The newspaper's subpoena does not explain why the US attorney's office wants to know who commented on the case, but prosecutors told federal Judge David Ezra that they issued it out of concern for jurors' safety, because some comments hinted at acts of violence. Las Vegas business owner Robert Kahre and others face federal tax fraud charges for paying contractors with gold and silver US coins based on the precious metal value of the coins but using the much lower face value of the coins for tax purposes. As of 9pm Monday, 173 comments were listed below the May 26 Review-Journal article about the trial. Many comments deal with the trial and its principal players. Others were posted after the subpoena arrived…Mitchell said the paper is resisting the sweeping nature of the subpoena, noting that anonymous speech is "a fundamental and historic part of this country," citing the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers that argued for passage and against passage of the nation's Constitution as an example. All were written under pseudonyms. He said the paper would consider cooperating if specific crimes or real threats were presented…Many used the newspaper Web site to say the US government has turned socialist, the nation's monetary system encourages deficit spending and guarantees inflation, or the Internal Revenue Service has to be reformed or abolished. In addition to requesting the names of people who posted, the subpoena also tells the newspaper to supply the writers' gender, birth date, physical address, telephone number, Internet service provider, IP address, credit card numbers and more.
Assuming that one or more comentators made expressed or implied threats, does that justify casting a broad net for all commentators on the subject? What is the relevance of credit card numbers, and why would the newspaper have them? Perhaps those who posted comments are subscribers and paid by credit card, but I can tell you without reservation that I will not supply that number to sign up to post comments.
In my opinion, seeking identifying information for anyone who did not make threats of violence is overstepping the bounds of justice and casts a negative reflection on the prosecutor involved. Persecutor may be a better title for that officer of the court. This case is an early wake up call alerting us to be watchful lest our liberties be lost.