State Department official attends OIC meeting on banning "defamation of Islam," OIC scrubs website to remove mention of U.S. official's attendance

I'd actually look at it the other way and comment that it is a worthwhile thing to have a State Department official in attendance for something like this, as such lunacy can affect American interests abroad. It's important to keep up with such things first hand, rather than relying on second hand accounts and whatnot -- particularly as, defying any good sense or logic, American foreign policy continues to be ensnared and entangled in the affairs of Islamic supremacist rat hole countries. If that were not the case, then there wouldn't be any good reason for the official to be there.

“the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,”

Muslim clerics have probably something to hide about the prophet of Islam. Something that was suddenly unveiled by this "obscure" YouTube video.

http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2012/10/innocence-of-muslims-dissected.html

Think Sharia-based restrictions on free speech can't happen here? Just look at Britain's politically motivated imprisonment of Tommy Robinson of the EDL. That's too close for comfort.

I suppose you could call this cover up 'Defamationgate', but maybe 'Defagate' is better 'cos something smells.

Clowns!

NEW REGULATION : You'll be told what we want to tell you and when we want it told.

This Chicago Clique, we have for an administration, will see to it that both freedoms of speech and press will be cleared through yet another appointed government Czar.

Someone like Susan Rice or perhaps, Bernadine Dorn

I been watching the Muslim in chief on al Jizzeera, in Burma.

He said a lot of things about the so called 'Rohingya', the muslim invaders from Bangladesh who seem to be of great concern to him.

None of that was reported on CNN (or Fox)

Check it yourself. Perhaps you get lucky. But the Burma visit was not just a photo-op with Aung Sang Su Kiye.

Obama cares. For Muslims.

In Burma, Obama pressurises Buddhists to give citizenship to ‘Rohingya’ Muslims

http://sheikyermami.com/2012/11/19/in-burma-obama-pressurises-buddhists-to-give-citizenship-to-rohingya-muslims/

Does the majority of America approve anti-Muslim deformation?

I meant anti-Islam.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: America is so dependent on OPEC imports that it will bend over and grease up, every time. Reagan did this, when he backed the Mujahedin, at the Saudi's urging. Bush Number One did this with the first Gulf War. Dubya did this when he deposed those pesky Ba'athists from Iraq. And the Obama Administration is doing the same thing.

The economies of the U.S. and the rest of the West cannot withstand an oil price shock, at this point. OPEC (which also includes anti-Israeli U.S. oil supplier Venezuela) WILL leverage oil supplies in any broader regional conflagration involving Israel. The Western economies were more robust in 1973, and countries like Egypt were weaker, and had secular governments. And Turkey was Kemalist, there was no Iranian theocracy etc. These things all have major implications for Israel's security.

So Anne Caspar attending is not on it's face of concern- I would like to see the minutes, an account of what was said in this meeting. I want to KNOW this woman stood up and said NO USA will not ever sign on to blasphemy laws ala sharia. However I am quite sure she is an OBAMA gal like Hillary C. and Rice- instead giving encouragement and assurances that Islam will not be criticized in USA or anywhere else as long as they have the power of office.

Oh how far we have fallen, how dumb are the people who re-elected these traitors? How can we get rid of them when our fellow countrymen are such willing stooges? such dhimmified dupes?

just come an arrest me now you IslamoNazi lovers- I got a web history of blaspheming Mohammed and Islam a mile long and wide

I don't especially fear the enactment of laws prohibing any kind of political speech, hate speech included, in the US. There's a pretty long line of US Supt Ct cases interpreting the 1st amendment to the constitution that would virtually be impossible to reverse and I don't see any constitutional changes on the horizon. Generally speaking, prior restraints on speech (with the exception of specific court gag orders and speech in commercial settings) are invalid. Governmental limitations and restrictions are very carefully circumscribed - just ask any on RS's smart legal team who have won the right to use government run commercial space to publish the "savage' ads.

Moreover, speech may not be penalized even after it is uttered unless it falls into the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" category. That does not preclude civil penalties for slander.

Contrary to RS's projection that it would be the dhimmi, leftard judges who would reverse the freedom of speech, historically the judges who have been strictest in enforcing the 1st amendment are considered to be the most "liberal", i.e., Hugo Black, William Douglas and others from the Earl Warren era.

Other countries do not enjoy such broad freedom of speech privileges. Witness the Geert Wilders prosecution in the Netherlands. I'm pretty sure holocaust denial is a crime in Germany. Ditto France. Blasphemy laws exist in numerous Islamic nations. On the heels of the Innocence of Muhammad fiasco Erdogan has also come out in favor of blasphemy laws. Aside from a dimunition of foreign aid (a tool which is becoming less relevant as the US teeters on a fiscal cliff) the US and its western liberal democratic allies can do little to stop the existence of such repressive laws in Muslim dominated countries. Besides, it might seem just a little hypocritical as hate laws do exist even in western democracies.

I do not think RS is justified condemning US attendance at an OIC meeting as the thin edge of the wedge. There are less sinister explanations. It's advisable for the US government to keep abreast of OIC developments for obvious reasons which do not necessarily portend any change in US law. But, hey, why pass up an opportunity to criticize Obama by insinuating he favors curtailing our right to freedom of speech.

In my opinion the greatest obstacle to wider public acceptance of RS's message re pernicious Islamic jihad is his foray into domestic politics together with a quick trigger finger to ridicule anyone who fails to condemn Islam. I know this is sacrireligious to many JW regulars (I am one), but RS's value as a scholar on Islam is undermined by his obsessive bashing of the current administration and all other governments that fail to condemn Islam as forcefully as he believes they should. It's just not politic nor is it geared to garner support of those willing to learn about the tyranny of Islam and sharia. RS, you are a witty and well-intentioned guy and you write so well. I just think you have tunnel vision when it comes to geopolitics. Everything is seen through the prism of Islam when that is just one element (albeit an important one) of political analysis.
An example is the tautalogical way a leftist is defined. Here, by definition, a leftist is anyone who doesn't vehemently condemn Islam. Ergo, anyone who doesn't condemn Islam, irrespective of all other political beliefs, is lampooned as a leftist dhimmi. It's nonsensical. It's not an accurate use of language and it's not helping to build momentum to counter jihad.

Obama wants to make the US a MEMBER of the OIC.

(We should NOT have a representative there. Spies maybe -- have to keep an eye on the SOB's -- but not an official rep.)

Obama has decided that the Mohammedan resurgence is the next big thing in the world and he wants America to be their best friend.

I can't think of anything else that explains his choices as neatly as that.

Why he thinks that is a separate matter, in which I am somewhat less interested.