Obama used it in the health care bill. Now isn't this interesting? It was used in the health care law.
Every day there's another revelation of what Obama and his fellow Democrats are doing to our country. Dhimmitude -- I had never heard the word until now. Type it into Google and start reading. Pretty interesting. It's on page 107 of the healthcare bill.
I looked this up on Google and yep, it exists. It is a REAL word.
Amish , scientologists, christian scientists and Muslims are exempt ...ARE EXEMPT ...from the requirements of the health care bill. I think I could become Amish a whole lot easier than muslim. Word of the Day: Dhimmitude Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam. Obama Care allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States. Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking", and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.
How convenient. So I, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets,
including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize muslims. Period. This is Dhimmitude. Dhimmitude serves two purposes: It enriches t
he muslim masters AND serves to drive conversions to Islam. In this case, the incentive to convert to Islam will be taken up by those in the inner-cities as well as the godless Generation X, Y, and Z types who have no moral anchor. If you don't believe in Christ to begin with, it is no problem whatsoever to sell Him for 30 pieces of silver. "Sure, I'll be a muslim if it means free health insurance and no taxes. Where do I sign, bro?" I recommend sending this post to your contacts. This is desperately important and people need to know about it -- quickly! To check it out on Snopes click here: Health Insurance Exemptions: http://www.snopes.com/polit...dical/exemptions.asp
IP: Logged
11:29 AM
PFF
System Bot
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
(5) EXEMPTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.—In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemption certificate under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information: (A) In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual’s status as a member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian, or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe. (B) In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the lack of affordable coverage or the individual’s status as a taxpayer with household income less than 100 percent of the poverty line, the information described in paragraphs (3) and (4), as applicable
[This message has been edited by 1988holleyformula (edited 12-05-2010).]
IP: Logged
12:02 PM
Tony Kania Member
Posts: 20794 From: The Inland Northwest Registered: Dec 2008
A lot of smoke and mirrors, but is it true that muslims are exempt? Rather than start an argument that I know nothing about, does anyone know if this is true?
The fact is that the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (PPACA) legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama does not include language which specifically exempts members of any particular religion from health insurance requirements (nor does it use the word "dhimmitude"). The bill contains a general "religious conscience" provision which establishes guidelines under which religious groups which have established conscientious objections to certain forms of insurance may seek exemption from health insurance requirements: RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION — Such term shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.
Ok, maybe that word wasn't specifically used but there is language in the bill that exempts certain religions.
Ok, maybe that word wasn't specifically used but there is language in the bill that exempts certain religions.
And that's really all I was looking for, I don't mean to come off rude, but sometimes you gotta think for yourself before taking chain letters for gospel. (and then passing said information to a scrutinious forum)
I for one completely disagree with the entire bill, I don't have to single out certain passages of it to make it look bad.
IP: Logged
12:14 PM
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
having been involved in the health care system in the last couple of years, it is my opinion that we desperately need health care reform. i personally have seen fraud and incompetence in the system. it is also my opinion that the current system does not actually constitute a reform of the system, as it does nothing to control costs or encourage efficiency. further, i suspect it is unconstitutional in its requirement that individuals participate in a defined segment of private enterprise, with criminal penalties for non-participation. maybe one of our legal-type guys would care to comment?
And that's really all I was looking for, I don't mean to come off rude, but sometimes you gotta think for yourself before taking chain letters for gospel. (and then passing said information to a scrutinious forum)
I for one completely disagree with the entire bill, I don't have to single out certain passages of it to make it look bad.
I agree, my bad. sorry
IP: Logged
02:00 PM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
further, i suspect it is unconstitutional in its requirement that individuals participate in a defined segment of private enterprise, with criminal penalties for non-participation. maybe one of our legal-type guys would care to comment?
I felt the same way about manitory car insurance. And seatbelt laws, helmet laws, and making a certain type of cooking oil illegal to use becouse it is fattening and could cause heart desease, but allowing cigarettes to continue to be used.
I felt the same way about manitory car insurance. And seatbelt laws, helmet laws, and making a certain type of cooking oil illegal to use becouse it is fattening and could cause heart desease, but allowing cigarettes to continue to be used.
I really do want to apologize for posting that before thoroughly reading snopes. I did read snopes,but I speed read it fast and did not catch the important part. I was so shocked by the email that I wanted to share it with all of you. I received it from a trusted friend and figured that he read it, I did point out the fact that it wasn't true to him also. I really felt like a fool for posting it here after I went back and reread Snopes and other articles.
IP: Logged
09:19 PM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
I really do want to apologize for posting that before thoroughly reading snopes. I did read snopes,but I speed read it fast and did not catch the important part. I was so shocked by the email that I wanted to share it with all of you. I received it from a trusted friend and figured that he read it, I did point out the fact that it wasn't true to him also. I really felt like a fool for posting it here after I went back and reread Snopes and other articles.
Thanks for 'Refudiating' that. ( ) Honesty is greatly admired in some quarters.
IP: Logged
10:19 PM
Dec 6th, 2010
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
this looks like one of those emails circulating around. as we see, there's nothing unusual about not checking and verifying, especially if it's something we want to believe. we *all* do it.
what really interests me is that the person who originally created this included a link which casts doubt on their message. were they aware of it at the time? were they expecting us to see "snopes", assume it must be true and not click the link? were they hoping we'd gloss thru the snopes article and take the message they wanted us to?
why do they do things like this? do they think we are stupid? and who is "they"?
i'm no conspiracy theorist. no, really!. i dont believe the illuminati or the masons or the bilderbergers or aliens or whathaveyous are trying to enslave us. but there are people out there who want to influence the way we think, and they're willing to lie to us. WTF?
[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 12-06-2010).]
this looks like one of those emails circulating around. as we see, there's nothing unusual about not checking and verifying, especially if it's something we want to believe. we *all* do it.
what really interests me is that the person who originally created this included a link which casts doubt on their message. were they aware of it at the time? were they expecting us to see "snopes", assume it must be true and not click the link? were they hoping we'd gloss thru the snopes article and take the message they wanted us to?
why do they do things like this? do they think we are stupid? and who is "they"?
No, "they" think we're LAZY, too lazy to do our own research into a subject and thereby take any posted statement or televised comment at face value. In many cases, unfortunately, that's an valid assumption.
Like Reagan said (and rightly so as far as certain segments of the Internet are concerned) "Trust but VERIFY." Or even more appropriately, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
edit: Come to think of it, "they" probably think we're stupid as well.
[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 12-06-2010).]
IP: Logged
09:47 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
We just finished posting about PayPal's submission to Islamist pressure by demsnding conservative blogger Pamela Geller remove the PayPal buttons at her site because they consider her blog a "hate site." Now we learn that YouTube has removed most versions of Latma's viral hit parody song We Con the World.
Caroline Glick explains:
As Israel went offline for the Jewish sabbath, YouTube removed most versions of Latma's hit parody song We Con the World. If you try to access the song on YouTube you receive the notification:
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Warner/ Chappell Music, Inc.
Copyright experts we advised with before posting the song told us in no uncertain terms that we were within our rights to use the song because we did so in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine. The Fair Use Doctrine, copied and pasted below from the US Copyright Office stipulates that it is legal and permissible to use copyrighted material under the fair use doctrine for purposes of parody.
Copyright attorneys also warned us that given our clearly lawful use of the song We are the World, if anyone wished to silence our voices, they wouldn't target us. Instead they would target YouTube. It is YouTube's standard practice to remove any material that they receive even the flimsiest threat for because the company wishes to avoid all litigation.
At the same time, this is not YouTube's first move to silence Israeli voices. During Operation Cast Lead, the IDF Spokesman's Unit established a YouTube channel and began posting combat footage on its channel to bypass the anti-Israel media and go directly to news consumers. Shortly after the IDF channel began making waves, YouTube - which is owned by Google - removed IDF videos from the website. After the move evoked a storm of protest, YouTube restored them but flagged the videos in the same manner it flags pornography. People trying to access the videos received a screen saying, "This video or group may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community. To view this video or group please verify that you are 18 or older by singing in and signing up."
Here's a link to the write-up of the YouTube move.
If YouTube didn't already have a track record for censoring pro-Israel material, I would say that despite the obviously frivolous and unsubstantiated nature of the copyright claim against We Con the World, the company was simply erring on the side of caution.
The fact that more than 3 million people have already seen the video and that it has been written up in major newspapers and featured on major television networks around the world since we first posted it last Thursday night however causes me to fear that something else is going on here.
Despite these obstacles, we at Latma have no intention of crying Uncle. By tomorrow, we will repost our song on blogs throughout the world. If you already downloaded the song, please post it on your website. If not, I will post a non-youtube version on my site tomorrow with instructions from my webmaster about how to download it.
Moreover, stay tuned for our next video next Thursday night.
Read more here ...
In a demonstration that it's futilite to attempt to silence people in today's open-source world, Ed Morrissey In a demonstration that it's futilite to attempt to silence people in today's open-source world, Ed Morrissey has uploaded the video to his Eyeblast account. It can be viewed here: http://www.eyeblast.tv/publ...er.aspx?v=XdaGaGkU4z As Ed notes in his post, hopefully Eyeblast might prove a little more stalwart than YouTube when it comes to supporting the rights of content producers. Although the video still exists in at least one place at YouTube (at least for the moment), his posting allows us to still see the video just in case YouTube sniffs it out.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 12-06-2010).]
I felt the same way about manitory car insurance. And seatbelt laws, helmet laws, and making a certain type of cooking oil illegal to use becouse it is fattening and could cause heart desease, but allowing cigarettes to continue to be used.
1. The car insurance is liability--meaning it protects the other person--not you.
2. None of the other items you mentioned include a law saying you have to purchase a product, for your own protection, with stipulation that you will be fined if you do not engage in said commerce.
Let the spin begin.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 12-06-2010).]
)
