Received this from a Friend.   Wake up America...
    Dhimmitude

The word "Dhimmitude" is found in the new health care bill;
 so what does it mean?

Thought this was interesting and worth passing on.

Obama used it in the health care bill.
 Now isn't this interesting?
 It is also included in the health care law.

Dhimmitude -- I had never heard the word until now. I typed it into Google and started 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.

Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad (Holy War).


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.

ObamaCare 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 receivable, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan (the Muslim) will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health insurance needs paid for by the de facto government insurance.

Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. This is Dhimmitude.

I recommend sending this on to your contacts.
 American citizens need to know about it.

snopes.com:
 Health Insurance Exemptions
 Apr 13, 2010 ... Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations
 .. The ObamaCare bill is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia ...
www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptionsasp



Keep this going. Every non-Muslim in the United
 States of America needs to know about it.

Dhimmitude?

Why, that's what all of us "Islamophile" trads apparently aspire to for our gross crime of acknowledging the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan as a greater threat to Christendom than the Mohammedans (whose very presence in the west is due to immigration laws crafted by that selfsame ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan).

At least, that's what The Knight Vigilant says. Repeatedly. And he must be right because, after all, he's sufficiently wise, prudent and judicious to have publicly condemned Pope St. Pius X as a liturgical innovator no better than Paul VI.

Your own link to snopes says this article is untrue, why did you post it?

I hope you will answer Marsha's question, Director.

I also found this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/30/chain-email/dhimmitude-page-107-health-care-law-exempts-muslim/

Says the word "Dhimmitude" is on page 107 of the health care law and means "Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance."
— Chain email on Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 in a chain email
'Dhimmitude' on page 107 of the health care law exempts Muslims, claims chain email

By Angie Drobnic Holan on Thursday, May 30th, 2013 at 5:40 p.m.

Have you ever heard of "Dhimmitude"? A chain email claims "dhimmitude" is on page 107 of the health care law, and it means Muslims will be exempt from the health care law.

We don’t want to keep you in suspense, so we’ll tell it to you straight: The word "dhimmitude" is not in the health care law.

We know this because of our previous reporting on the law, and also because we did a full-text search on both the main law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) and a companion law (the Health Care and Reconciliation Act). It’s not in either one.

What is "Dhimmitude"? Well, here’s what the email claims:

Dhimmitude -- I had never heard the word until now. I typed it into Google and started reading. Pretty interesting. It's on page 107 of the health care bill. I looked this up on Google and yep, it exists. It is a REAL word.

Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad (Holy War). 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.

ObamaCare 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 receivable, 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 insurance needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. This is Dhimmitude.

I recommend sending this on to your contacts. American citizens need to know about it.

We turned to a reputable reference book, The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. It does not contain the word "Dhimmitude," but it does include the word "dhimmi."

The dictionary says that dhimmi is a historical term used to describe a "non-Muslim under protection of Muslim law," which could include Jєωs, Christians or Hindus. Adult male dhimmis were required to pay taxes and follow regulations on dress, occupation and residence. In return, dhimmis received "security of life and property, defense against enemies, communal self-government, and freedom of religion practice." The dictionary notes that dhimmi status has lost relevance in the present day because of the rise of nation-states and modern legal codes.

Some call "‘dhimmitude" the condition of non-Muslims being subject to Muslim rule, but the word seems to be a recent coinage of academics and commentators.

We won’t dwell at length on the concept of dhimmis or of dhimmitude, since neither word is part of the health care law.

The email goes on to claim that the health law specifically exempts Muslims. But that’s not the case either.

The health care law has a general exception for religious conscience (see page 128). But it does not mention any particular religion, denomination or sect. During the debate over the law’s creation, the people most often mentioned as wanting an exemption were adherents of Christian Science, a faith that prefers prayer to conventional medical treatment.

Our fellow fact-checkers over at Factcheck.org dug even deeper into the question of religious exemptions. They looked at religious groups that have filed for religious conscience objections over Social Security’s payroll taxes; the health care law defines the criteria for religious conscience exemptions in a similar way. Using a Freedom of Information Act request, Factcheck.org found in 2010 that no Muslim groups have requested religious conscience exemptions for payroll taxes.

Moreover, Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told Factcheck.org that he had never heard of Muslims having religious objections to health insurance. "I have health insurance. We give health insurance to our employees. Every Muslim group I know of does the same thing," he said.

Finally, we’ll note that the email claims Christians who don’t want insurance will face "crippling IRS liens" or "face hard prison time." This is also plain wrong. Members of Congress did not want the penalties for going without insurance to be too strict, so the law specifically states that people who fail to pay the penalty "shall not not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty" nor may government officials "file notice of lien with respect to any property" (page 131).

In fact, this email is wrong on just about everything: The word "dhimmitude" is not in the law. Muslims are not specifically exempted. And if anyone is exempted, it’s a small number of Christian groups.

For promoting absurd notions and wild fabrication, we have three words: Pants on Fire!

My point was that when you start tinkering with tradition you undermine it, and you open the door to more tinkering. Vatican II couldn't have happened without Pius X's innovations, which couldn't have happened without the expansion of Papal power at Vatican I. It's a slippery slope. To deny this in the light of what has happened in the Church over the past five decades is the height of foolishness.

Funny you should say "slippery slope". That's exactly the fallacy of your argumentation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

...in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.


To take your argument to its logical conclusion (reductio ad absurdam), one could posit that the Pope could make no changes whatsoever, whether to discipline or to the clarification and definition of doctrine.

The point is that you could have (10) popes like St. Pius X IN A ROW and still never end up with a Vatican II. That's because one doesn't necessarily flow from the other.

"In retrospect" you can connect any dots you wish -- but that's not the point.

Vatican II happened because the Modernists were more zealous than the conservatives -- which is always the case throughout history. Revolutionaries always have more fire in their belly and zeal than those who wish to maintain the status quo. That's a sad fact of imperfect, fallen human nature.

Vatican II happened because the Freemasons were conspiring for decades to undermine the Church. Ever read the Alta Vendita? They were working towards that goal REGARDLESS of what any one pope does (or doesn't do). You make it sound like St. Pius X opened the floodgates of change, and if he hadn't modified certain things we NEVER would have had a Vatican II. Not so.

As a matter of fact, you totally miss the big picture in this case. St. Pius X, by his encyclical Pascendi and his persecution of the Modernists, drove them underground and delayed the (inevitable?) chastisement that was Vatican II by a good 50 years. So he didn't accelerate the inevitable -- he delayed it.

There. There's your "big picture" philosophizing that you seem to want/need so badly. But don't blame St. Pius X for Vatican II, even indirectly.