Home » United Nations » Barack Obama And The Free Speech Folks

Pictured are three "Friends of Obama" enforcers of free speech on loan from the United Nations. Following the UN Durbin conference on destroying racist Zionism and keeping women barefoot and pregnant, President Barack Hussein Obama invited the Organization of Islamic Cooperation ("OIC") to the White House to discuss implementation of the UN's resolution condemning religious intolerance.

It was vitally important that he do so. With growing Islamophobia in America, including the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Muslims for their religious beliefs in Rhode Island and the mass deportation of Muslims from Iowa, it has become a priority item with the Obama administration. Obama is barely holding the fort against the forces of evil in America. He has pleaded with Americans to reject voter ID since it discriminates against blacks, the poor, the lame, the meek, the mentally-defective, the young, and, oh yes, Muslims.

So what could be wrong with the administration's invite to the OIC? To start with, the organization hardly represents the pinnacle of free speech and religious tolerance. It is certainly not the only world religious organization. Its fifty-seven members don't represent even a majority of the United Nations membership. He invited the group to his palace because there are so many hurt feelings in the Muslim world over intolerance toward Islam. No other religion has ever even been spoken ill of, while Islam suffers daily from the brickbats of bigots and those who question the religion of peace.

The second reason for inviting the OIC is that Islamic rights at the UN are slipping away. For years they have been able to get resolutions passed against defamation of Islam, then defamation of religions, and then vilification of religions. As you can see, a conspiracy of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists has slowly but surely been chipping away at Islam's status as sole sufferer.

The OIC couldn't even get "defamation of religions" passed as it was blocked by those religious oppressors at the Sixteenth Session of the UN Human Rights Commission back in March. They fared no better at the current Durban Conference. That might seem like a victory for the other side, but it ain't over 'til it's over. The OIC has informed Obama that they intend to reintroduce a specific resolution against defamation of religions as soon as feasible.

For now, they've settled for a less specific freedom of speech resolution, though as recently as August the Islamic News Agency (an arm of the OIC) said that the meeting at the White House would be about implementing the religious aspects of Resolution 16-18. That resolution purports to criminalize incitement of "imminent violence based on religions or belief." That sounds very similar to our very own "clear and present danger" test. But then the wording gets muddier in 16-20, sounding more like the plethora of European-style "hate statutes" that are also being enacted in the U.S. "We hereby condemn any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

"Any advocacy." That wouldn't survive a Constitutional test in the United States. The expression is "vague and overbroad." What is advocacy? With the wording of this part of the resolution, criticism is easily elevated to the level of incitement. "I don't like the violent portions of the Koran" becomes "I don't like Muslims," becomes "Let's go out and kill Muslims." Even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It is a long-established precedent that even advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence is protected speech unless the threat is real and has a reasonable chance of being carried out immediately. This is why we can't censor communist drivel.

16-20 was just too much even for the American negotiators. The government, led by Obama and Hillary Clinton signed onto the resolution, but added a reservation to any attempt to enforce the provision relating to "advocacy." In a written statement that sounds a lot like "but we're only fooling," the US government clarified its position for the White House gathering: "The US will work with the UN and OIC in urging states (nations) to take effective measures as set forth in Resolution 16, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents." In other words, every nation should quash any advocacy or harsh language as it relates to religion (read: Islam).

What the OIC and the UN are doing with the assistance of The One is to bring in through the back door what it couldn't bring through the front. In fact, Hillary Clinton's State Department says the administration's cooperation is based on the need to denounce and criminalize offensive speech. That's even broader than "defamation of religions." Her department also says it is dedicated to upholding the God-given right to free expression. I don't know what logic classes they have at Yale, but I don't see any way those two concepts can be reconciled.

Of all the religious and/or political organizations he could have chosen to invite to the White House, Obama invited the representatives of nations which call any criticism of Islam blasphemy, punishable by sanctions up to death by beheading. Nations which almost casually murder Christians and Jews while burning down churches and synagogues. Nations which consider apostasy a capital offense. Nations whose populations have massive rallies declaring "free speech is the enemy of Islam." Nations whose people declare "all infidels who defame Islam must die."

Somehow I don't think that group is going to come up with any good contributions to freedom of speech, religion, or expression. But since that's an American First Amendment issue, and since Obama has never read the Constitution, it's understandable why he would invite the OIC. As for Resolution 16, all that has been done is scramble and soften the words of prior resolutions without making any substantive changes. Same crap, different package.
Barack Obama And The Free Speech Folks
Category :
Pictured are three "Friends of Obama" enforcers of free speech on loan from the United Nations. Following the UN Durbin conference on destroying racist Zionism and keeping women barefoot and pregnant, President Barack Hussein Obama invited the Organization of Islamic Cooperation ("OIC") to the White House to discuss implementation of the UN's resolution condemning religious intolerance.

It was vitally important that he do so. With growing Islamophobia in America, including the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Muslims for their religious beliefs in Rhode Island and the mass deportation of Muslims from Iowa, it has become a priority item with the Obama administration. Obama is barely holding the fort against the forces of evil in America. He has pleaded with Americans to reject voter ID since it discriminates against blacks, the poor, the lame, the meek, the mentally-defective, the young, and, oh yes, Muslims.

So what could be wrong with the administration's invite to the OIC? To start with, the organization hardly represents the pinnacle of free speech and religious tolerance. It is certainly not the only world religious organization. Its fifty-seven members don't represent even a majority of the United Nations membership. He invited the group to his palace because there are so many hurt feelings in the Muslim world over intolerance toward Islam. No other religion has ever even been spoken ill of, while Islam suffers daily from the brickbats of bigots and those who question the religion of peace.

The second reason for inviting the OIC is that Islamic rights at the UN are slipping away. For years they have been able to get resolutions passed against defamation of Islam, then defamation of religions, and then vilification of religions. As you can see, a conspiracy of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists has slowly but surely been chipping away at Islam's status as sole sufferer.

The OIC couldn't even get "defamation of religions" passed as it was blocked by those religious oppressors at the Sixteenth Session of the UN Human Rights Commission back in March. They fared no better at the current Durban Conference. That might seem like a victory for the other side, but it ain't over 'til it's over. The OIC has informed Obama that they intend to reintroduce a specific resolution against defamation of religions as soon as feasible.

For now, they've settled for a less specific freedom of speech resolution, though as recently as August the Islamic News Agency (an arm of the OIC) said that the meeting at the White House would be about implementing the religious aspects of Resolution 16-18. That resolution purports to criminalize incitement of "imminent violence based on religions or belief." That sounds very similar to our very own "clear and present danger" test. But then the wording gets muddier in 16-20, sounding more like the plethora of European-style "hate statutes" that are also being enacted in the U.S. "We hereby condemn any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

"Any advocacy." That wouldn't survive a Constitutional test in the United States. The expression is "vague and overbroad." What is advocacy? With the wording of this part of the resolution, criticism is easily elevated to the level of incitement. "I don't like the violent portions of the Koran" becomes "I don't like Muslims," becomes "Let's go out and kill Muslims." Even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It is a long-established precedent that even advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence is protected speech unless the threat is real and has a reasonable chance of being carried out immediately. This is why we can't censor communist drivel.

16-20 was just too much even for the American negotiators. The government, led by Obama and Hillary Clinton signed onto the resolution, but added a reservation to any attempt to enforce the provision relating to "advocacy." In a written statement that sounds a lot like "but we're only fooling," the US government clarified its position for the White House gathering: "The US will work with the UN and OIC in urging states (nations) to take effective measures as set forth in Resolution 16, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents." In other words, every nation should quash any advocacy or harsh language as it relates to religion (read: Islam).

What the OIC and the UN are doing with the assistance of The One is to bring in through the back door what it couldn't bring through the front. In fact, Hillary Clinton's State Department says the administration's cooperation is based on the need to denounce and criminalize offensive speech. That's even broader than "defamation of religions." Her department also says it is dedicated to upholding the God-given right to free expression. I don't know what logic classes they have at Yale, but I don't see any way those two concepts can be reconciled.

Of all the religious and/or political organizations he could have chosen to invite to the White House, Obama invited the representatives of nations which call any criticism of Islam blasphemy, punishable by sanctions up to death by beheading. Nations which almost casually murder Christians and Jews while burning down churches and synagogues. Nations which consider apostasy a capital offense. Nations whose populations have massive rallies declaring "free speech is the enemy of Islam." Nations whose people declare "all infidels who defame Islam must die."

Somehow I don't think that group is going to come up with any good contributions to freedom of speech, religion, or expression. But since that's an American First Amendment issue, and since Obama has never read the Constitution, it's understandable why he would invite the OIC. As for Resolution 16, all that has been done is scramble and soften the words of prior resolutions without making any substantive changes. Same crap, different package.
"This Best Selling Tends to SELL OUT VERY FAST! If this is a MUST HAVE product, be sure to Order Now to avoid disappointment!"

Best Beyblade Ever - Austerity

Best Beyblade Ever Amazon Product, Find and Compare Prices Online.
Pictured are three "Friends of Obama" enforcers of free speech on loan from the United Nations. Following the UN Durbin conference on destroying racist Zionism and keeping women barefoot and pregnant, President Barack Hussein Obama invited the Organization of Islamic Cooperation ("OIC") to the White House to discuss implementation of the UN's resolution condemning religious intolerance.

It was vitally important that he do so. With growing Islamophobia in America, including the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Muslims for their religious beliefs in Rhode Island and the mass deportation of Muslims from Iowa, it has become a priority item with the Obama administration. Obama is barely holding the fort against the forces of evil in America. He has pleaded with Americans to reject voter ID since it discriminates against blacks, the poor, the lame, the meek, the mentally-defective, the young, and, oh yes, Muslims.

So what could be wrong with the administration's invite to the OIC? To start with, the organization hardly represents the pinnacle of free speech and religious tolerance. It is certainly not the only world religious organization. Its fifty-seven members don't represent even a majority of the United Nations membership. He invited the group to his palace because there are so many hurt feelings in the Muslim world over intolerance toward Islam. No other religion has ever even been spoken ill of, while Islam suffers daily from the brickbats of bigots and those who question the religion of peace.

The second reason for inviting the OIC is that Islamic rights at the UN are slipping away. For years they have been able to get resolutions passed against defamation of Islam, then defamation of religions, and then vilification of religions. As you can see, a conspiracy of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists has slowly but surely been chipping away at Islam's status as sole sufferer.

The OIC couldn't even get "defamation of religions" passed as it was blocked by those religious oppressors at the Sixteenth Session of the UN Human Rights Commission back in March. They fared no better at the current Durban Conference. That might seem like a victory for the other side, but it ain't over 'til it's over. The OIC has informed Obama that they intend to reintroduce a specific resolution against defamation of religions as soon as feasible.

For now, they've settled for a less specific freedom of speech resolution, though as recently as August the Islamic News Agency (an arm of the OIC) said that the meeting at the White House would be about implementing the religious aspects of Resolution 16-18. That resolution purports to criminalize incitement of "imminent violence based on religions or belief." That sounds very similar to our very own "clear and present danger" test. But then the wording gets muddier in 16-20, sounding more like the plethora of European-style "hate statutes" that are also being enacted in the U.S. "We hereby condemn any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

"Any advocacy." That wouldn't survive a Constitutional test in the United States. The expression is "vague and overbroad." What is advocacy? With the wording of this part of the resolution, criticism is easily elevated to the level of incitement. "I don't like the violent portions of the Koran" becomes "I don't like Muslims," becomes "Let's go out and kill Muslims." Even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It is a long-established precedent that even advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence is protected speech unless the threat is real and has a reasonable chance of being carried out immediately. This is why we can't censor communist drivel.

16-20 was just too much even for the American negotiators. The government, led by Obama and Hillary Clinton signed onto the resolution, but added a reservation to any attempt to enforce the provision relating to "advocacy." In a written statement that sounds a lot like "but we're only fooling," the US government clarified its position for the White House gathering: "The US will work with the UN and OIC in urging states (nations) to take effective measures as set forth in Resolution 16, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents." In other words, every nation should quash any advocacy or harsh language as it relates to religion (read: Islam).

What the OIC and the UN are doing with the assistance of The One is to bring in through the back door what it couldn't bring through the front. In fact, Hillary Clinton's State Department says the administration's cooperation is based on the need to denounce and criminalize offensive speech. That's even broader than "defamation of religions." Her department also says it is dedicated to upholding the God-given right to free expression. I don't know what logic classes they have at Yale, but I don't see any way those two concepts can be reconciled.

Of all the religious and/or political organizations he could have chosen to invite to the White House, Obama invited the representatives of nations which call any criticism of Islam blasphemy, punishable by sanctions up to death by beheading. Nations which almost casually murder Christians and Jews while burning down churches and synagogues. Nations which consider apostasy a capital offense. Nations whose populations have massive rallies declaring "free speech is the enemy of Islam." Nations whose people declare "all infidels who defame Islam must die."

Somehow I don't think that group is going to come up with any good contributions to freedom of speech, religion, or expression. But since that's an American First Amendment issue, and since Obama has never read the Constitution, it's understandable why he would invite the OIC. As for Resolution 16, all that has been done is scramble and soften the words of prior resolutions without making any substantive changes. Same crap, different package.

0 comments


Post a Comment