THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS A CORNER STONE OF OUR DEMOCRACY. WE MUST BE FREE TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM OR ANYTHING. IN FACT FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO TELL THE TRUTH BECAUSE THEN WE WOULD HAVE ENDLESS LAWSUITS AS TO WHAT IS THE TRUTH. FREEDOM OF SPEECH ALLOWS YOU TO SPEAK YOUR MIND. IF WE TRIED TO OUTLAW WHAT IS NOT TRUE, WE WOULD BE INTO CENSORSHIP. ALSO A NO-NO. TED BELMAN
By Clare M. Lopez, FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS
When President Obama delivered his much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University in June 2009, the free world trembled while the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) gushed with praise and begged for a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The OIC is the largest head of state organization in the world after the United Nations (UN) itself and comprises 56 Muslim countries plus the Palestinians. It claims to be the “collective voice of the Muslim world,” i.e., the ummah, and speaks on its behalf in effect as the seat of the next Islamic Caliphate. In 1990, the OIC membership adopted the “Cairo Declaration ,” which officially exempted all Muslim countries from compliance with the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights and replaced it with Islamic law (shariah).
One of the fundamental laws of Islam deals with “slander ,” which is defined in shariah as saying “anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike.” At the OIC’s Third Extraordinary Session, held in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in December 2005, the organization adopted a “Ten-Year Programme of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century.” A key agenda item of that meeting was “the need to counter Islamophobia” by seeking to have the UN “…adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.” The word “Islamophobia” is a completely invented word, coined by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) front group. OIC adoption of the term reflects the close operational relationship between the OIC and the Ikhwan.
Six years later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to host OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Washington, DC in mid-December 2011 to discuss how the United States can implement the OIC agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. Cloaked in the sanctimonious language of “Resolution 16/18,” that was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011, the WDC three-day experts meeting is billed as a working session to discuss legal mechanisms to combat religious discrimination (but the only religion the Human Rights Council has ever mentioned in any previous resolution is Islam). The UN Human Rights Council, which includes such bastions of human rights as China, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, introduced Resolution 16/18 to the UN General Assembly (UNGA), where it was passed in March 2011.
The Resolution was presented to the UNGA by Pakistan (where women get the death penalty for being raped and “blasphemy” against Islam is punished by death). Ostensibly about “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and…incitement to violence against persons based on religion or belief,” the only partnership mentioned in the text is the one with the OIC. The U.S., whose official envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, helped write Obama’s Cairo speech, actively collaborated in the drafting of Resolution 16/18.
Now, the OIC’s Ihsanoglu will come to Washington, DC, the capital of one of the only countries in the world with a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and a judicial system that consistently defends it, with a publicized agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam. His agenda, and, apparently that of his host, the U.S. Department of State, seek to bring the U.S. into full compliance with Islamic law on slander, as noted above.
Events in the nation’s capital seemed timed to ensure Ihsanoglu a warm welcome. The Center for American Progress (CAP), a think tank aligned with the Democratic Party and Obama White House, published “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America” in August 2011. Disturbingly specific in naming individuals associated with speaking truth about the doctrinal foundations of Islamic terrorism, the report is a blatant assault on the First Amendment and free speech in America—at least as far as Islam is concerned.
The Justice Department soon got on board the “Islamophobia” bandwagon. In the wake of the cancellation of a number of scheduled official training sessions at national security agencies by deeply knowledgeable scholars of Islamic doctrine, law, and scriptures, such as Stephen Coughlin, Steven Emerson, William Gawthrop, John Guandolo, and Robert Spencer, Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed at an 11 October 2011 press conference that the Obama administration was pulling back for review all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities in order to eliminate all references to Islam that Muslim Brotherhood groups have found offensive.
No doubt much encouraged by national capitulation at such a level, Salam Al-Marayati, the president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), an Islamic organization that shares the jihadist agenda and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, wrote an op-ed piece that was published in the Los Angeles Times on 19 October 2011. In his piece, Al-Marayati openly threatened the FBI with “collapse of a critical partnership with the Muslim American community.” Later that same day, the Justice Department convened a meeting with Muslim shariah advocates at George Washington University in WDC, chaired by its civil rights division chief, Tom Perez. Dwight C. Holton , the U.S. Attorney in Oregon who was also present, announced that, after speaking with Attorney General Eric Holder, he wanted “to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”
A phobia is an irrational fear. It is not irrational to give warning of an ideology resolutely committed to eradication of free belief, expression, speech, and even thought. It is suicidal for a free society willingly to collaborate with those, like the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC, which are determined to destroy Western civilization from within—and have told us so, repeatedly, consistently, and publicly. Further, collaboration in such an anti-freedom campaign represents abrogation of the professional oath of office of every federal official who has sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Silencing those who would warn of impending catastrophe only ensures victory to the enemy and loss of our most rare and precious inheritance: the American love of liberty.
Family Security Matters Contributor Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), serving domestically and abroad for 20 years in a variety of assignments. Now a private consultant, Lopez is a Sr. Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and Vice President of the Intelligence Summit. She is also a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund.
That’s a very good point. I wonder whether people will realize the significance of the issue this proposed law creates. Will it scare the voters into a greater vigilance when they go to the voting booth. After 9/11 someone said to me that the good side of the attack at the time (and it was a serious and probably accurate statement) was that basically the cat was out of the bag and that as costly and tragic 9/11 was had the Islamic volcano remained more dormant the result could have been much worse later on. This, though subtler, is just another warning.
The best thing about proposing a law against criticizing Islam is that it clearly
tells people the kind of country we will have if Islam or Islamic legislators or judges ever get control of the country.
When Iran allies with Egypt and Syria and the Shiites in Saudi Arabia wrest control from the Shieks, the Kings of the North will be in place. Gird your loins boys and girls.
Careful there Laura, you might get visited by the S.S. like my son did. He pointed out to the BSU on his campus, a private business college in CA. that the BSU’s origins are with the Black Panthers, who want a violent revolution to take down the USA and the Constitution, an as such they are seditious. He was acused of Racial Slander and expelled and they attempted to hurt his VA benefits.
When it was disclosed he did two tours in Iraq their kangaroo court would not reinstate his student position. Turns out a Royal Saudi Prince attends this school and his father has made many generous donations and the Foriegn Minister of Saud Family is now the Dean’s Assistant in Academic Affairs, as such he pointed my son’s Facebook page that said the same thing you said, to Homeland Defense and we were visited by the Secret Service. Be very careful this School is now Converting to teaching Sharia Finance as it’s Business Credo.
I know. I thought it was highly ironic that they may have to turn around and actually DEFEND people’s freedom of speech against the hate-mongers and not the other way around as I remember it in Skokie, Illinois in the 70’s when the neo-Nazis fought for their freedom of speech and right to march in Skokie, a heavily Jewish neighborhood and the ACLU defended them. If they outlawed anti-KU Klux Klan and neo-Nazi criticism would the ACLU defend THAT freedom of speech. It would be the ultimate hypocrisy if they didn’t take a stand here
I can tell you that the aclu is no good and evil, the aclu is a bunch of thugs.
Just a question:
How could criticism of baby raping,inbred,little boy molesting, rape victim stoning, wife beating, homosexual hanging, goat molesting, female mutilating, hate mongering, preachers of death, non-assimilating muslims possibly considered a crime when everyone knows how loving and caring the religion of islam is ?
“musloid” is an illness, and just like syphilis should be spelled with the lower case first letter.
I just looked it up, and you are right.
I am very happy that I was mistaken on this. I thought it was just dismissed, in fact he was found not guilty.
A great victory for the freedom of speech in Holland.
WE REALY DONT HAVE A FREEDOM OF SPEACH NOW YOURE ONLY FREE IF YOU AGREE WITH THOSE THUGS
Free enterprise is what built this nation and made it the freest, most prosperous civilization in human history. And indeed there should be a Jew in the White House rather than a muslim. If Jews really were running America, we would be fiscally sound. Your sarcasm would be appreciated amongst the spoiled, occupied brats.
Too-dah-loo!
libel and slander are special cases which I didn’t bother to distinguish.
I would like to know where the ACLU stands on this issue. That would be interesting to me.
NOT “thrown out of court.”
That would have meant there was no trial
— and therefore no verdict.
There WAS a trial, and a verdict.
Wilders was acquitted.
Rather than saying it was “thrown out of court,” it is correct to say
it was DEFEATED in court.
And I also say I agree with Laura totally and can tell you this there will be millions of Americans that will still speak out and critisize islam even if they criminalize speaking against islam and pass laws making it a crime to speak against islam, millions of Americans will fight it and speak against islam
Ted, you are right about the freedom of speech.
However this does not include certain lies.
For example it is not legal and should not be legal for someone to frivolously accuse you of some crime which you have not committed.
If they did, you can sue them for slander.
However with Islam it is different, they consider it “slander” if some Muslim feels offended by our truthful statements about Islam.
Geert Wilders’ courtcase in Amsterdam was an example of this.
All his expert witnesses confirmed that whatever he said about Islam was true.
Among things he said was that Koran was more antisemitic than Main Kampf because a bigger percentage of it was devoted to denigrated Jews.
Likewise the expert witnesses confirmed other accusations such as Islam being the ideology of violent conquest etc.
The transcripts from the court case are worth reading.
In any case, the case eventually was thrown out of the court, and Geert was not found guilty. The freedom of speech was victorious in Holland. At least for a while.
I to refuse to obey muslim laws I only obey the US Constitution and that gives me the right to speak against islam period.
We have a musloid in the White House. We put a muslim in the White House BEFORE a Jew and the media helped put him there. An ignorant marxist musloid like Barack Obama made it to the White House before a brilliant, free market purist like Peter Schiff. There is no justice in the world.
My keyboard is now covered in Lemonade.
Think how long ago CAIR said that (2003 or before) and how far their agenda has advanced. The Muslims tell the truth that they are killers but the NWO/Catholic agenda of Ecumenism says one must have peace when peace with murderers is impossible. Too many have believed the propaganda.
then there will be a LOT of people being charged with slander here in this country. I follow the laws of the US, including the FREE SPEECH given to me by the US Constitution. I refuse to follow muslim law, when muslims refuse to follow US law and do whatever they want in the name of their ‘religion’. Their ‘religion’ is not religion – it is a manifesto for political and ideological results suiting only muslims and trampling on everyone who is not muslim.
Yes I know what Musloids are but has the American administration gone absolutely insane?
Enjoy indeed, Shy Guy. I’m glad I’ve gotten to know you. It’s been nice. Shalom shalom.
By WHOM? There aren’t even any chickens left in the henhouse — just foxes.
Enjoy while you can
These federal officials should be removed from office and tried for treason.
If we had real leaders, they would be telling the OIC what they can do with their demands.