When fascism comes to America, it will be waving a "Co-Exist" bumper sticker and telling you to "be nice."
Which is more disturbing: the notion that the administration is overrun with gullible idealists lost in politically correct fantasies, or that they know exactly what they are doing? Either way, the outcome threatens to be disastrous.
While the Organization Formerly Known as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, long committed to crushing free speech, suffered a setback in achieving an international ban on "religious defamation" (or defamation for me, but not for thee) in March, the Obama administration has gone in hook, line, and sinker for the OIC's game.
Hillary Clinton announced her intentions to coordinate a meeting on religious "defamation" and "stereotyping" in July. At a meeting she co-chaired with the OIC's secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC, US, and EU agreed to "take concrete steps" to combat "intolerance" and "negative stereotyping." The measure is supposedly taken in the name of all religions, but would be used as a club by the OIC with which to beat other nations into submission against criticism of Islam. But Clinton also said in mid-July that she believes the US and OIC can come to an agreement on "tolerance."
The White House is now gearing up for the next round. Even if the OIC does not get exactly what it wants just yet, it will have moved the ball down the field toward the goal line by having its agenda dignified with a response other than "No. We're on to you, and we refuse to play along." "Obama Administration Welcoming Islamic Group to Washington for Discussion on ‘Tolerance’," by Patrick Goodenough for CNSNews, December 9:
(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration says a meeting in Washington next week seeks to make progress in combating religious intolerance, but critics say the U.S. is pandering to an ideological agenda aimed at restricting speech critical of Islam.
Yes.
According to the State Department the aim is to find ways to combat religious hate without compromising freedom of expression. Detractors are skeptical that this can be done, and they suspect that free speech will end up the loser.
Yes.
Among those criticizing the event are GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, the Traditional Values Coalition, and scholars at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom.
The State Department-hosted meeting is the latest step in a process stemming from a resolution on “combating intolerance based on religion,” adopted by consensus at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) last March.
The move marked the first time in more than a decade that the U.N.’s top human rights body did not pass an annual “defamation of religion” resolution, sponsored by the bloc of Islamic states, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
Many rights advocacy groups regard the OIC campaign as an attempt to outlaw valid discussion of Islamic teachings – to extend to democratic societies the type of blasphemy provisions enforced in some Islamic states.
The new resolution, known as “resolution 16/18,” called on countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization” based on religion, without seeking to criminalize speech – except in cases of “incitement to imminent violence.”
The administration characterized it as a significant breakthrough: “[T]he Council took an important step away from the deeply problematic concept of defamation of religion by adopting a constructive new resolution that promotes tolerance for all religious beliefs, promotes education and dialogue and is consistent with U.S. laws and universal values.”
Some human rights and religious freedom advocacy groups opposed to the “religious defamation” drive also praised the development.
Others were skeptical, noting that the OIC had watched its defamation resolutions receive less and less support each year and may view resolution 16/18 as an alternative route towards achieving the same end.
OIC leaders themselves did not help to allay these suspicions, stressing that the Islamic bloc had not abandoned its agenda of “protecting” Islam and insisting that the “religious defamation” campaign was not dead.
On the sidelines of a first meeting held to advance resolution 16/18, in Istanbul last July, Pakistan’s U.N. ambassador Zamir Akram said that the OIC would not compromise on three things – anything said or done against the Qur’an, anything said or done against Mohammed, and discrimination against the Muslim community. (Akram represents a government overseeing some of the Islamic world’s most controversial blasphemy laws, where “blaspheming” the Qur’an or Mohammed carries the death penalty.)
At that Istanbul meeting, co-chairs Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu issued a statement urging countries “to take effective measures, as set forth in Resolution 16/18, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat intolerance, discrimination, and violence based on religion or belief.”
Next week’s gathering in Washington is a follow-up to the one in Istanbul, and it aims at “implementation.”
From the OIC’s viewpoint, resolution 16/18 is clearly part of the defamation campaign: “Washington plans to host a meeting on resolution opposing defamation of religions,” the OIC’s official news agency reported last August.
Ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom Suzan Johnson Cook says the meeting will bring together international organizations, including the OIC, European Union, Arab League and African Union, as well as law enforcement and justice officials representing some 30 foreign governments.
The meeting will “discuss best practices for two of the recommended actions from resolution 16/18: engagement with members of minority religious communities and enforcement of laws that prohibit acts of discrimination on the basis of religion or belief,” she said.
The State Department would afterwards submit a report on “best practices identified during these sessions” to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and for public distribution....
The Obama Administration is still just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Talk bad about Mohammed and Islam - bad.
Murder innocents good!
Slavery? Rape? Murder? Savagery? Pedophilia? Huh?
Solving a nonexistent problem . . . one decapitation at a time.
Thanks, Hilary!
WE ARE AT WAR!
"in Istanbul last July, Pakistan’s U.N. ambassador Zamir Akram said that the OIC would not compromise on three things – anything said or done against the Qur’an, anything said or done against Mohammed, and discrimination against the Muslim community. (Akram represents a government overseeing some of the Islamic world’s most controversial blasphemy laws, where “blaspheming” the Qur’an or Mohammed carries the death penalty.)"
This law will be in direct conflict with the First amendment - The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, abridging the freedom of speech,
The abridging the freedom of speech is of great interest. What is not allowed, as I understood - please correct me, when some speakers intend to arouse their listeners to take constructive steps to alter the political landscape - the political landscape will change if we implement the UN OIC 16/18 resolution in the US.
How many American and other western politicians have been intimidated, subverted, blackmailed or just simply bought by the petrodollar funded OIC?
According to the State Department the aim is to find ways to combat religious hate without compromising freedom of expression.
Sounds like a syllabus at a prestige parchment puppy mill seat of higher learning. Gather the forces to conduct a deep and serious inquiry into how the ridiculous can be made to work.
Never mind the First Amendment. That would be too obvious, too easy, and not counterintuitive enough for an alumnus of Yale Law Tool, much less a geniusy former editor of the exalted and most august Harvard Law Review.
Of course we need to discuss religious intolerance with representatives of Islamic countries. We want to ask them to stop burning down churches and raping and killing Christians, don't we?
Well, that is what the Obama administration is concerned about, isn't it?
But Clinton also said in mid-July that she believes the US and OIC can come to an agreement on "tolerance."
She then added that it's entirely possible that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, unicorns roaming the hills, several men in the moon and that one day everyone will accept her view that the Earth is, indeed, as flat as a pancake.
The woman is terminally crazy! Clown!
"in Istanbul last July, Pakistan’s U.N. ambassador Zamir Akram said that the OIC would not compromise on three things – anything said or done against the Qur’an, anything said or done against Mohammed, and discrimination against the Muslim community.
He's shown us Islam's vulnerable spots. We need to...
(1) Demonstrate how the Koran is the Mein Kampf of its time. It's a half-digested pig's breakfast of plagiarized ideas vomited up from the putrid innards of a murderous megalomaniac.
(2) Ridicule Mohammed whenever the opportunity arises.
(3) Make being a Muslim into a social, financial and career liability in the West. Muslim politicians and their enablers must become unelectable.
These themes are developed here: http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-to-destroy-islam-non-violently.html
Are they going to discuss Saudi Textbooks, spread all over the West, spewing islamic venom? Are they going to discuss Saudi preachers, preaching in mosques all over the West, spewing islamic venom? The same venom found 1:1 in the Unholy Loo'ran? Not? I thought so.
"religious defamation"
Islams defamation comes direct from the Qur'an
& ahadith Sahih
5:38 "(thiefs) cut off his or her hands"
Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261
"...Then he (Pedo Muh. 65:4) ordered for nails
which were heated and passed over their eyes"
http://schnellmann.org/islam-ends-free-speech.html
0:50 ... the difference between
free speech & hate speech
is dictated by politically correctness and fear of Islam
Sean - Don't need to go after three. It is a matter of time when the Moslums will be enlightened that Quran is not a book from the God, if we keep on working at it. The rest of the two things will take care of themselves. For that reason, we should never ever except to not ridicule Quaran, otherwise the World is doomed the way we live it. I cannot afford to accept the OIC's agenda for the sake of our future generations' freedom. I will not accept Islamic directives to follow Quran. I really hope Gingrich means what he is saying. He is one of the few that has the balls. I can't wait for Obama's term to be over. They have brought on themselves unacceptable disaster by tangoing with Islamists.
Hiliary knows the agenda of the MoSlums. Why do we need to have a discussion about that? We need to tell them in clear terms that their agenda is unacceptable to the free thinking world. They should go home and update it, till it is acceptable, e.g. they had to agree there will be no prohibitions for people of any faith (I hate to use the term non-MoSlums because the term sounds pro-MoSlum!) to travel anywhere in Saudie Arabia. For instance, the people should be allowed to carry Bible. There is a lot that can be prepared to throw a whole bunch of human rights issues they discard on to their face.
Robert - I am also guilty of using the term non-MoSlum, which implies that something is 'non' about those do not follow the Islamic directions. Do the other JWs have the same view? I prefer to call us simply "people" or the free world.
I would gladly agree to outlaw "anything said or done against the Qur’an, anything said or done against Mohammed" if the same laws prevented "anything said or done against the New Testament, anything said or done against Jesus or Paul".
Imagine if Muslims were jailed for suggesting that Paul was wrong. Fair is fair.
I have always had kind of a problem with the way the term "tolerance" is used. As far as I'm concerned, tolerating something is putting up with something that you don't agree with, or accepting a situation, as long as it does you no harm. How far can a body "tolerate" a treatment that has the potential to cause death; like chemotherapy? Isn't there a limit as to how much tolerance we are capable of?
In order for tolerance to work in the religious and socio- political environment; it has to be reciprocal. I will tolerate your beliefs, point of views, political and social inclinations; as long as I have the SAME degree of tolerance from your end.
This can't be a one sided relationship as the proponents of Islam demand.
Cloaking this discussions under the convenient cover of "religious freedom", means we don't recognize we are smack in the middle of the most important socio-economic-religious-ideological war the world has ever seen. I shudder just to think how a world under the total domination of Islam would be like. I almost want to throw up.
This God forsaken planet would become a complete waste land; if places like Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen are any example of what's to come. My daughters deserve way better than this. It really pains me that our own secretary of state (a woman)has become a willing participant in this charade.
I came across this gem of a quote about the paradox of tolerance. It encapsulates precisely the great danger that accepting resolution 16/18 means to modern western societies.
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
- Sir Karl Popper
(1) Demonstrate how the Koran is the Mein Kampf of its time.
Dunno if you know this, you probably do, but mappings between Mein Kampf and the Holy Ko-Ran have been done. The mappings are authoritative in that you can independently verify the connections made from the texts of both books. The mappings are extraordinary, and puts to rest the question on what Adolph was doing during his year in the pokey.
The interesting thing to me is that these mappings have never really been presented to the Infidel public. Given how strongly Adolph still resonates in the West, one would think that this would've been done long ago.
But, in fairness, that the news entertainment industry follows a strict See No Evil policy on Moslems, and running an ad campaign to publicize the mappings would be terribly expensive. Soros, Gates and Buffet have shown no interest in such a project. If such an ad campaign could be funded, it likely would then been rejected for broadcast by the outlets, but that would be great PR unto itself.
If Only We'd Connect The Dots, That Would Dry Up The Rots.
I've got a mapping, an embarrassing puerile picture of fey lapdog foot lapping,
Lo! Between the toes of unconnected things, giant waves of our toejams sapping!
Man this tastes bad, like footstink through open pores of freemen slowly dying,
The Past is Prologue, but already we've forgotten Hitler and Stalin... I'm crying.
- the Holy Prophet APF
engagement with members of minority religious communities .....
As usual, presented as an axiom is the assumption that the majority is responsible for any and all problems.
I have said it before and I will say it again: I did not vote for the O (it's Hakka for "child", and I think we have one in the White House), and probably won't vote for him unless the GOP fields a combination of child molester, thief, and cannibal before I'd vote for him (and even in that situation, I'd probably find some conservative third party to vote for).
However, his administration is manfully playing the diplomatic game, and maybe this kind of event shows that it is slowly waking up to the brute, ugly fact that the evil white, Western colonialist isn't the only historical actor and source for the pains, crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind. I dare to hope (perhaps against hope) that there may be a glimmering of awareness that the good opinions that count are not limited to those of the two American coasts and the social democratic elements in Western Europe and Canada.
This may well be an example of how our administration has awakened to the fact that for good or evil [and I think it's largely for evil], Islam is a force on our planet. We are in no position to fight a whole Islamic world from Mauretania to Mindanao, the Kama to the Comoros, and Nigeria to Ningxia. Hence, I'm not completely opposed to a political/diplomatic dialogue with it.
I did not vote for the O... and probably won't vote for him unless the GOP fields a combination of...
Gee I'm sorry to hear you're willing to consider Prez Barack Hussein, Kepha. Me, I follow politics and economics fairly closely, it's kinda my hobby. So I'm informed, just like you. But my plan is to not vote at all, and to instead stay home laying on the couch scratching my Infidel balls. It's starting to shape up like a Barack Hussein squeaker against Mitt, the son of a famous RINO.
I say fuggit let's go all the way, a second Barack Hussein term would bring things to a head in several areas, such as full socialist takeover thru Cap & Trade and immigration reform, which would overnight make 20 million new socialist voters. Sending the Constitution to its Final Destination, the ash heap of history, is another priority of this geniusy former editor of the august and revered Harvard Law Review, so the animosity to the rule of law and freedom are there. On the political economy, Barack Hussein's plan is to so laden the population with debt, like a walllpaper hanger from Mombasa, to whip out the glue and get us all papered up with bonds so that the elites running the gubmint and their Crony Capitalism buds over at Wall St. - along with their cohorts the the news entertainment industry - will at long last finally hold us under complete rule for good. What we're faced with in this election is a socialist takeover that will fully realize Marx's theory of historicity.
As for the Moslems, a second term Barack Hussein will have a simple job in the Holy Land: continue to fully represent the interests of the Moslems there. Things'll be trickier in the Persian Gulf, where Barack Hussein's understandable pro-Sunni leanings will make dealing with Iran tough. If he protects his Sunni brothers, Barack Hussein could be put in the position of letting Israel defend itself.
I say let him have a second term. Let's have it out, bring on Andy Stern's socialist shocktroops. Let's get it on. Let's finally finalize some finality on this crap, which has been going on for decades now. Let's decide about Moslems, about socialism, about globalism, about racism, about sexism, about fake science environmentalism, let's have it out once and for all.
With Mitt, it'd just be more deference and delay until the things get finally get finalized.
Let's Re-elect Barack Hussein, Get It The Hell Over With
Lotsa promises, so much potential seen in Assitant Professor Barack Hussein,
He touched every button, great presentation, his critics dismissed with disdain.
But there were no critics, not really, one could either wallow or mutely tip-toe,
Around something for nothing, packaged such that the costs we couldn't know.
One thing that immediately caught my attention, was the opener of this illuminating article:
"When fascism comes to America, it will be waving a "Co-Exist" bumper sticker and telling you to "be nice.".."
How about: when fascism flows from the US (not America), it will be clad in the uniform progressivist newspeak, sponsored by the cult of Diversity(TM).
And BTW, when fascism comes to the US, genuine patriotic Americans will compare it to its US counterpart and recognize the sobering fact that it was already there to begin with (Google: Progressive era), as Ronald Reagan so rightly observed when he noticed that:
"Fascism was really the basis of the New Deal"
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag
We need bumper stickers that say things like:
"NICE just means pleasant"
"Believe what you want but obey the Constitution and Bill of Rights while in the U.S."
"Reject Obama's Sharia-compliant socialism"
The oath of Congress, Left and Right, is to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights"