• Religion Of Peace

  • Archives

  • Elisabeth was found guilty of hate speech crimes for speaking the truth about Islam. Click to donate to her legal defense fund

  • Categories

  • Meta

  • This blogsite / website is not the official website of ACT! for America, Inc. This blogsite / website is independently owned and operated by that ACT! for America chapter named on this site. The statements, positions, opinions and views expressed in this website, whether written, audible, or video, are those of the individuals and organizations making them and and do not necessarily represent the positions, views, and opinions of ACT! for America, Inc., its directors, officers, or agents. The sole official website of ACT! for America, Inc. is www.actforamerica.org
  • Statements, views, positions and opinions expressed in articles, columns, commentaries and blog posts, whether written, audible, or video, which are not the original work of the ACT! for America chapter that owns and operates this website / blogsite, and is named on this website / blogsite are not necessarily the views, positions, and opinions of the ACT! for America chapter that owns and operates this website / blogsite
  • Advertisements

Stephen Coughlin Moment: 13 Hours – Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.

Advertisements

Does the Istanbul Process have something to do with Benghazi?

by William Federer

Are there places in the world where these types of laws [to limit free speech] have already been implemented, and by what process?

In 2005, there were Muslim riots in Europe after a Dutch cartoon was published. The European Union quickly mandated religious-hate-speech codes which prohibit insulting Islam.

Riots, and the process of inciting them, has been a political tactic dating as far back as Rome’s Mark Anthony; or the French Revolution’s Robespierre; or Chicago Labor’s 1886 Haymarket Riot; or Bill Ayers’ Chicago Days of Rage.

Stalin said: “Crisis alone permitted the authorities to demand and obtain total submission and all necessary sacrifices from its citizens.”
…In the vein of “Fast and Furious,” if there could, just by chance, be a spontaneous riot incited that could be blamed on someone insulting Islam, then there would be the justification for a hurried rush for Americans to give up their free speech rights.The State Department’s prompt actions the day after the attack seemingly added credence to this.

…Another voice calling for the effective implementation of the Istanbul Process was Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor. Brzezinski was instrumental in arming fundamentalist Muslims in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union.
…President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Jay Carney went on for weeks trying to convince the world that the Benghazi killings were the result of a video and called for limits on free speech insulting Islam.

Al Jazeera English reported on Sept. 20, 2012 that the State Department even bought $70,000 worth of airtime in Pakistan with which to blame the video. The commercials were broadcast on “Love your Prophet” Friday.

Whether Obama and Clinton were simply acting as politicians trying to deflect the blame for the Benghazi killings or whether they were using the Alinsky tactics to implement the Istanbul Process and U.N. Resolution 16/18, only continued scrutiny of congressional hearings and media focus can shed some light.

Either way, their immediate response was to “never waste a good crisis” in achieving political ends.

Hillary Lets the Jihadist Cat Out of the Bag

By Robert Spencer

After four years of pretending there is no jihad against the free world, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blurted out the truth during her testimony on the Benghazi jihad massacre Wednesday: “We now face a spreading jihadist threat,” she said, adding: “We have to recognize this is a global movement.”

We do? Yet the Obama administration has for years steadfastly and repeatedly denied both that there was a jihadist threat at all and that it was a global movement. So far has the Obama administration been from acknowledging that there was a jihad threat that less than two months into Obama’s first term, on March 16, 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano noted proudly that in her first testimony to Congress, “I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

Even “terrorism,” absent a modifier, was a politically correct euphemism for jihad violence that demonstrated an unwillingness to examine the beliefs of the jihadists, for to have done so would have led straight into Islam. Those who described those dedicated to destroying the United States simply as “terrorists” generally did not want to admit that Islam had anything to do with that war. George W. Bush had started this ball rolling when he proclaimed Islam a “religion of peace” shortly after 9/11; however, Bush officials could and did explore the Islamic texts and teachings that illuminated jihadist motives and goals. Under Obama, it became official U.S. policy not to do so.

On May 13, 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee, where he was questioned repeatedly by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) about whether the Fort Hood jihad mass murders, the attempted jihad car bombing in Times Square, and the Christmas underwear jihad bomber over Detroit could be attributed to “radical Islam.” Holder repeatedly refused to agree to this, going only so far as to say: “There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious.”

Noted Smith: “I don’t know why the administration has such difficulty acknowledging the obvious, which is that radical Islam might have incited these individuals. If you can’t name the enemy, then you’re going to have a hard time trying to respond to them.”….

More

Foolish Appeasing Imbeciles

Are these two dhimmi clowns really the best this country has to offer ?

(h/t/ Breitbart.com)

Allah is pleased.

November is coming. Vote.

Obama vs. the First Amendment

by Andrew C. McCarthy

…In 2009, the Obama State Department ceremoniously joined with Muslim governments to propose a United Nations resolution that, as legal commentator Stuart Taylor observed, was “all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.” Titled “Freedom of Opinion and Expression” — a name only an Alinskyite or a Muslim Brotherhood tactician could love — the resolution was the latest salvo in a years-long campaign by the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference (now renamed the “Organization of Islamic Cooperation”). The OIC’s explicit goal is to coerce the West into adopting sharia, particularly its “defamation” standards.

Sharia severely penalizes any insult to Islam or its prophet, no matter how slight. Death is a common punishment. And although navel-gazing apologists blubber about how “moderate Islamist” governments will surely ameliorate enforcement of this monstrous law, the world well knows that the “Muslim street” usually takes matters into its own hands — with encouragement from their influential sheikhs and imams.

In its obsession with propitiating Islamic supremacists, the Obama administration has endorsed this license to mutilate. In the United States, the First Amendment prohibits sharia restrictions on speech about religion. As any Catholic or Jew can tell you, everyone’s belief system is subject to critical discussion. One would think that would apply doubly to Islam. After all, many Muslims accurately cite scripture as a justification for violence; and classical Islam recognizes no separation between spiritual and secular life — its ambition, through sharia, is to control matters (economic, political, military, social, hygienic, etc.) that go far beyond what is understood and insulated as “religious belief” in the West. If it is now “blasphemy” to assert that it is obscene to impose capital punishment on homosexuals and apostates, to take just two of the many examples of sharia oppression, then we might as well hang an “Out of Business” sign on our Constitution.

The Obama administration, however, did not leave it at the 2009 resolution. It has continued to work with the OIC on subordinating the First Amendment to sharia’s defamation standards — even hosting last year’s annual conference, a “High Level Meeting on Combatting Religious Intolerance.” That paragon of speech sensitivity, Secretary of State Hillary “We Came, We Saw, He Died” Clinton, hailed as a breakthrough a purported compromise that would have criminalized only speech that incited violence based on religious hostility. But it was a smokescreen: Speech that intentionally solicits violence, regardless of the speaker’s motivation, is already criminal and has always been exempted from First Amendment protection. There is no need for more law about that.

The sharia countries were happy with the compromise, though, because it also would have made unlawful speech that incites mere “discrimination” and “hostility” toward religion. Secretary Clinton’s feint was that this passed constitutional muster because such speech would not be made criminally unlawful. Yet the First Amendment says “make no law,” not “make no criminal law,” restricting speech. The First Amendment permits us to criticize in a way that may provoke hostility — it would be unconstitutional to suppress that regardless of whether the law purporting to do so was civil, as opposed to criminal.

But let’s put the legal hair-splitting aside. Knowing her legal position was unsound, and that traditional forms of law could not constitutionally be used to suppress critical examination of religion, Secretary Clinton further explained the administration’s commitment “to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” The government is our servant, not our master — besides enforcing valid laws, it has no business using its coercive power to play social engineer. More to the present point, however, the administration was effectively saying it is perfectly appropriate to employ extra-legal forms of intimidation to suppress speech that “we abhor.”

That is precisely what the Egyptian mob was about to do when the U.S. embassy issued its statement. The Obama administration’s position? The president endorses extortionate “peer pressure” and “shaming,” but condemns constitutionally protected speech. That’s exactly the message the embassy’s statement conveyed.

Mind you, what is playing out in Egypt — as well as Libya, Yemen, and Tunisia — is a charade. It has nothing to do with the dopey movie. There is as much or more agitation to release the Blind Sheikh — which the Obama administration has also encouraged by its embrace of Islamists, including the Blind Sheikh’s terrorist organization. The latest round of marauding is about power.

Islamic supremacists see themselves in a civilizational war with us. When we submit on a major point, we grow weaker and they grow stronger. They win a big round in the jihad. President Obama’s anti-constitutional policy — the one he lacked the courage to stand by when, shall we say, the “chickens came home to roost” — has made speech suppression low-hanging fruit. The Islamists are going for it.

In a situation that called for a president who would actually defend the Constitution, Mitt Romney rose to the occasion. The administration’s performance was, as he asserted, “disgraceful.” Further, Romney admonished,

America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We’ll defend also our constitutional rights of speech, and assembly, and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our constitution, because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.

Can you imagine the current incumbent, the guy sworn to defend the Constitution, ever saying such a thing — or, better, saying it and actually meaning it? Me neither. It will be remembered as the moment the race for president finally became about the real job of a president. It will be remembered as the moment Romney won.

More

Michelle Bachmann at Values Voters Summit

Excerpt:

Another factor in understanding this administration’s policy of appeasement is its relationship with an organization you may not have heard of before, one of the largest, most powerful organizations in the world, and you should know its name.  It’s called the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, OIC.  And so far, it’s gone virtually unnoticed.

Who are they?  The OIC is the second-largest intergovernmental organization in the world after the United Nations.  The OIC declaims they have authority to represent all Muslims, even those who live in non-Muslim countries, like the United States.  In 2005, this very influential Islamic organization published a 10-year plan of action, in 2005, to implement Shariah-based speech code requirements worldwide.  Listen very carefully to what I’m telling you right now.  It explains this week.

They had a 10-year plan of action to implement their Shariah-based, Islamic-based speech code requirements worldwide.  But don’t take my word for it.  They published this plan on their website in English so no one would miss their intent.  They intend to internationally criminalize all communication or any communication or speech that’s deemed by them to be insulting to Islam, even in countries like the United States.  That, my friends, explains the story of this week – Islamic-enforced speech codes.  No one, not Muslims, not non-Muslims, not Americans, are allowed to speak anything Islamists see as insulting to their religion.  They intend to force us to kiss our freedom of speech and religion goodbye, and that’s why we’re being forewarned today.

Unbelievably, last December they succeeded, with both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s help, because they pushed through the United Nations the passage of U.N. Resolution 1618, which called upon all countries to enact laws preventing derogatory references to Islam – a clear violation of our First Amendment freedom of speech.  And even before that, in October, last October, many prominent Islamic organizations wrote a letter to the White House, where they urged our White House to do a complete purge of any federal materials from references to the ideology of Islam, to ensure that all trainers in our U.S. military, our FBI and other U.S. security agencies be retrained so they would be brainwashed in political correctness toward Islam.  That’s enforced Islamic speech codes here in the United States, and all done with the help of our president and secretary of state.  It took only days for the Obama administration to reply to this demand letter from the Islamists, promising to set up a task force with these same organizations to immediately begin this unprecedented purge of our counterterrorism training in every federal agency across the board.  It’s breathtaking – never been done before.

But when members of Congress, myself included, started to ask questions about the identities of who these people were who were leading this purge in our government and what it was they were purging from our training materials, the Obama administration told us the information was closed; it was classified; we couldn’t know who was behind this.  I’m here to say, my friends, that we’re now today very late in the game.  We’re quickly losing our sense of who we are as a nation, and we’re losing our ability to identify our radical Islamist enemy.  The time has come to stand unashamedly this week for our freedom and our values and draw an unmistakable red line for our enemies across the world.

Listen to the whole speech (19 min)

Read the whole speech 

Huma Abedin’s Muslim Minority Affairs: Not Just a Journal

By Andrew C. McCarthy

“Assimilation is a crime against humanity.” So said Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Islamic supremacist who is both prime minister of Turkey and a close chum of President Obama.

The assertion ought to be infamous. But this is, after all, Islam we are talking about — meaning, we are nottalking about it.

You won’t read it in the American media, nor will you hear it from our bipartisan Beltway profiles in courage. Both the Obama Left and the Republican establishment are deeply invested in the fantasy that Erdogan, like Islam itself, is our moderate ally — ironic, given that Erdogan himself is profoundly offended at the very suggestion that there is such a thing as “moderate Islam.” Yup, what you have been told is the plinth on which American Middle East policy rests, which is, according to Erdogan, not only a house-of-cards but:

 … an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam, and that’s it.

The prime minister is an excitable sort. Waxing metaphoric about his aggressive, ascendant ideology, he has also observed:

The mosques are our barracks, the minarets our bayonets, the cupolas our helmets, and the faithful our soldiers.

But he is inspired to new heights of fury by the admonition that Muslims living in Europe and North America should assimilate into Western societies. He first called that suggestion a “crime against humanity” in 2008, speaking to a throng of Turkish immigrants in Cologne. It was the obligation of Muslims, he elaborated, to cling to the tenets and culture of Islam. Yes, Muslims in places like Germany must integrate, in the sense of becoming politically active, of pressuring Western societies to give Islam a wide berth. But Muslims should never assimilate – they should use that wide berth to establish Islam’s authority.

Two years later, given an opportunity to recant during a joint press conference with Chancellor Angela Merkel, Erdogan doubled down:

Assimilation … [is] the permutation of the values of humans. … [It puts] pressure on individuals to leave aside their customs and traditions, and such a behavior happens to be a crime against humanity.

The message could not have been clearer: Muslims are in the West to change the West, not to be changed by it….

 

….The other method of staving off assimilation is the construction of an Islamist infrastructure in the West. This enables Muslims to create enclaves — in the physical community, on campus, and in major social institutions, including government — in which sharia is honored as basic law and Muslims are given safe haven to refrain from pressures to assimilate.

In the United States, the foundation of this infrastructure is the Muslim Students Association, which has hundreds of chapters on campuses across the United States and Canada. (There are many chapters of the MSA in our local Houston area universities and high schools. –ed.)

Interestingly, in the late mid-to-late-nineties, while she was an intern at the Clinton White House and an assistant editor at JMMA, Ms. Abedin was a member of the executive board of the MSA at George Washington University, heading its “Social Committee.” That MSA chapter has an intriguing history. In 2001, its spiritual guide was … Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda operative who was then ministering to some of the eventual 9/11 suicide-hijackers. Awlaki himself had led the MSA chapter at Colorado State University in the early nineties. As Patrick Poole has demonstrated, Awlaki is far from the only jihadist to hone his supremacist ideology in the MSA’s friendly confines. In the eighties, Wael Jalaidan ran the MSA at the University of Arizona. He would soon go on to help Osama bin Laden found al-Qaeda; he also partnered with the Abedins’ patron, Abdullah Omar Naseef, to establish the Rabita Trust — formally designated as a terrorist organization under U.S. law due to its funding of al-Qaeda.

The MSA gave birth to the Islamic Society of North America. The two organizations consider themselves as one, and ISNA is now the largest, most consequential Islamist organization in the United States — a go-to consultant for the Obama administration, despite its having been a key cog in the Brotherhood’s Hamas financing network, as the Justice Department proved in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism prosecution. ISNA’s business side is the North American Islamic Trust, another Holy Land Foundation co-conspirator and the vehicle by which the Saudis and the Brotherhood buy real estate and establish hundreds of mosques and Islamic centers throughout the U.S. These groups are fortified by the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Brotherhood think-tank whose express mission is the “Islamization of knowledge” — developing an epistemological framework by which Muslims can fit current events and world history into an Islamic supremacist narrative. The infrastructure’s public face is organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), which combine public relations spin with sharia policy activism.

This is not a random proliferation of fraternities, the sort of cultural solidarity exhibition routinely seen throughout the American melting pot. The Saudi-constructed, Brotherhood-conducted Islamist infrastructure in the West is on a mission — the “Muslim Minority Affairs” mission. It seeks to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists, who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West. Its goal is incrementally to infiltrate sharia principles in our law, our institutions, and our public policy. That means the mission takes direct aim at our liberties, particularly free expression, which enables examination and negative criticism of Islamist ideology. It takes aim at our alliance with Israel, because Jews are regarded as enemies and all of “Palestine” as Islamic territory. And it takes aim at our economic system, because sharia regards capitalism as a bane of human existence — there is a reason why the Brotherhood’s American operatives make common cause with the Left on everything from socialized medicine to finance regulation to gun control to surveillance law.

The media and the Obama Left will continue ridiculing the notion of Brotherhood influence on our government and attacking the five conservative House members who have raised concerns. The Republican establishment will lay cravenly low and pray that the controversy blows over — except for the stray useful idiot who calculates that there’s good press to be had in parroting the Democrats’ “McCarthyism” canard. Nevertheless, to perceive no correlation between the Islamists’ fervid anti-assimilation program and the United States government’s stunning accommodation of the Brotherhood and its agenda is to be willfully blind.

Read it all

%d bloggers like this: