Friday, December 16, 2011

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.

37 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

So, the most intolerant group in the world right now, Muslims, are running scared because a few people don't "like" them?

Well, fortunately, the dirty little secret of Islam is that they aren't reproducing themselves. With the beat down of women and the frequent honor killings as well as the official executions of women who aren't sufficiently cowed by their mullahs, the women aren't replacing their people.

Also, I figured out the reason why the Gay/Lesbian groups aren't complaining about a religion that regularly kills non-heterosexual people....the men have to turn to themselves or goats to get relief. They figure that these Muslims are their closeted blood brothers. :-))

StanH said...

Barry embracing Islamo-goons, hmmm…what does it mean? One could fill in the blank with all kinds of speculation. His meeting with the OIC in the White House is not surprising one little bit. Though he may not be a devout Muslim, he certainly identifies, if not embraces many of their perversions. It to me is one of the many gnawing hypocrisies of our man-child president. It’s getting time to fix the mistake of ’08! …and go forth and sin no more.

Individualist said...

Democrats are such open and tolerant people that is why they are always trying to "criminalize offenseive speech"..........

Wait.....

Something is not making sense here....

Tennessee Jed said...

Blame America First, and the U.N. is the perfect vehicle.

BevfromNYC said...

So is the first test case going to be against Loew's? They pulled their advertising from the newest reality show "All American Muslim" about typical good and kind moderate Muslim families in Detroit.

Remember when Katie Couric said they needed a television show like "the Cosby Show" only about Muslims. I guess this is it.

tryanmax said...

LawHawk, I think you're having trouble unraveling the convoluted liberal logic because one piece is missing: liberals adore intelligence.

So, liberals uphold the right of intelligent free expression. And, obviously, if your speech is offensive, it can't be intelligent. No intelligent person would offend another person. So they're not really working to criminalize free speech, they are trying to outlaw stupidity.

As it pertains to Islam, well, you'd really be stupid to offend someone who would cut off your head for it, so the only intelligent thing to do is agree with everything he says...no matter how stupid it is. You can't argue with cold steel.

See? That was easy!

ArmChairGeneral said...

Open Minded - Adj: someone who takes whatever the progressives thinks is the most politically correct tactful approach possible without differing from the progressive sheep.

Individualist said...

In response to Arm Chair General the Occupy Atlanta protestors had this to say...

"Baaaaaa!!!, Bleet Bleet, Baaaa!!"

rlaWTX said...

my fb quote of the day:
"The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves. Those who believe we can have no business leading the nation. I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose. We have come together here because the American people deserve better from those to whom they entrust our nation's highest offices, and we stand united in our resolve to do something about it." --Ronald Reagan

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Who ever said that fanatics comprehend irony? LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: His Islamic sympathies are very clear. What I'm trying to figure out is how he thinks that gets him votes. I don't believe that he has any religious faith whatsoever, which leaves only political calculation and his lifelong need to bond with his father. I just can't figure out how that calculation includes kowtowing to Islamic autocrats and repressive regimes for the sake of votes. Unless I'm way off base, that loses him votes.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: You're on target. In the name of tolerance, they really want only freedom to wage Islamic jihad, and tolerance toward other religions is nothing more than a sham.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: And when Obama gets himself elected Secretary-General of the UN, he won't have to do any more dances around his anti-Americanism. Instead of apologies to tyrants for "American arrogance," he can just identify completely with them and go on the direct attack.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Loew's has insulted Islam. They must die.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: I never thought of it that way. I sit corrected (and stupid). LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: Agreed. Henceforth, we will seek tryanmax's counsel whenever the issue is stupid intolerance of Islam.

LawHawkRFD said...

ACG: Someone once said that being open-minded is a good thing as long as you're not so open-minded that everything spills out on the floor.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: Is that Greek?

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: But where's the nuance? LOL

tryanmax said...

To liberals, nuance is a mark of intelligence, therefore Reagan was stupid.

There's nothing more nuanced than a sabre at your throat.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: You're much better at leftspeak than most. The MSM constantly tell us how subtle and nuanced Barack Obama is, but something that makes perfect sense (like Reagan's comments) just can't be subtle, nuanced or correct.

I'd love to see how nuanced Obama and/or the MSM would be when they have a scimitar shoved up their nether regions.

tryanmax said...

I've probably expended more energy than is appropriate trying to unravel LeftThink. I believe in the maxim, "Know thy enemy." Playing devil's advocate is something of a sport to me.

Individualist said...

Lawhawk

Η συζήτηση προβάτων

No that was doublespeak, here I have put it into actual Greek. does not matter it wont be udnerstood either way

tryanmax said...

This is going to sound like a setup for a joke, but it's not.

Did you hear about the Rabbi who claims Tim Tebow winning the Super Bowl could incite Christians to burn Mosques?

No? Well, here is the story.

The Blaze has also reported this.

Of course the original site, Jewish Week, has scrubbed the story.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I saw this in my email. Has it been deleted?

Have you heard about the New sport called "Twistation"? It features Twisted newspeak logic! Order now, and you can get all of Obama's speeches!

We have operators standing by!

1-800-ALA-AKBR

*stolen from tryanmax on Dec 2011
**developed by tryanmax on Dec 2011
***patented and copyright by Salim and Sons on Dec 16, 2011

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: We can always use a leftspeak translator.

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: It's all Greek to me. We need you and tryanmax to keep translating for us.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: I heard the capsulized version on Fox yesterday, but it's much better reading the unedited garbage.

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: Much to their chagrin, I think the story is going viral. I've seen it in several different spots. That Google cache can come in handy.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I gotta admit that at times, Gingrich's free-association begins to sound like it came out of a verbal Cuisinart.

BevfromNYC said...

So when was the last time a Christian burned down a mosque? Anyone? Anyone?

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Quit confusing us with the facts.

tryanmax said...

Bev, I was about to burn down a mosque the other day, but then I got caught up responding to articles on Commentarama.

Individualist said...

tyranmax

I know these Commetarama articles are so good we never have time for a good Mosque burning anymore....

LawHawkRFD said...

tryanmax: Can we use that in our testimonials?

LawHawkRFD said...

Indi: You're giving me a swelled head. LOL

Ben said...

What is your source for: "the need to denounce and criminalize offensive speech" ? I can only find it here.

This petition will send emails to your Representative & Senators demanding a swift & permanent halt to the Istanbul Process.

http://www.petition2congress.com/5741/preserve-first-amendment-from-attack-by-oic/

Post a Comment