STEPHEN COUGHLIN MOMENT: 13 HOURS – SECRET SOLDIERS OF BENGHAZI

hgThis special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Stephen Coughlin Moment with Stephen Coughlin, the co-founder of UnconstrainedAnalytics.org and the author of the new book, Catastrophic Failure.

Stephen discussed 13 Hours – Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, focusing on a few crucial things not covered in the film.

And make sure to watch The Stephen Coughlin Moment: The “Countering Violent Extremism” Deception, in which Stephen unveiled how the CVE narrative was fostered by the Muslim Brotherhood -– and how it negates countering terror.

US Criminalizing Free Speech?

Gatestone Institute, by Judith Bergman, January 5, 2016:

  • Is this House Resolution a prelude? Has Attorney General Lynch seen the potential for someone lifting her “mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric”? And what is “anti-Muslim rhetoric” exactly? Criticizing Islam? Debating Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Who decides the definition of “hate speech” against Muslims?
  • Of all 1,149 anti-religious hate crimes reported in the United States in 2014, only 16.1% were directed against Muslims, according to the FBI. By contrast, over half of all anti-religious hate crimes were directed against Jews – 56.8%.
  • Why this lopsided, discriminatory House Resolution in favor of a religious group that statistically needs it the least?
  • Are the Attorney General and the eighty-two House Democrats out to destroy the First Amendment and introduce censorship? A House Resolution could be reintroduced later as binding legislation.

Eighty-two leading Democrats have cosponsored a House Resolution (H.Res. 569) “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States”.

The Resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives by Democrat Donald S. Beyer (Virginia) on December 17, 2015 — a mere 15 days after Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook gunned down 14 innocent Americans and wounded 23 in an ISIS-inspired terror attack at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California.

The House Resolution states, “the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim,” and the House of Representatives “expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes.”

What victims? Of all 1,149 anti-religious hate crimes reported in the United States in 2014, only 16.1% were directed against Muslims, according to the FBI. By contrast, over half of all anti-religious hate crimes were directed against Jews – 56.8%. The fewest, 8.6% of anti-religious hate crimes, were directed against Christians (Protestants and Catholics).

The Resolution goes on to denounce “…in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim.”

The House Resolution singles out Muslims in the United States as an especially vulnerable religious group that needs special protection to the extent that the Resolution “urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes.”

The reason for the introduction of this House Resolution at this point in time makes more sense if seen in conjunction with statements made by Attorney General Loretta Lynch on December 3, at a dinner celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Muslim Advocates — an organization that, according to its own website, has “powerful connections in Congress and the White House” and ensures that, “the concerns of American Muslims are heard by leaders at the highest levels of government.” Muslim Advocates goes on to say, “As a watchdog of justice, we use the courts to bring to task those who threaten the rights of American Muslims.”

At the dinner, Attorney General Lynch stated that she is concerned about an

“incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric… The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence. Now obviously, this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric — or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much — when we see that we will take action.”

Is this House Resolution a prelude to the Attorney General taking that action? Has she seen the potential for someone lifting her “mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric”? And what is “anti-Muslim rhetoric” exactly? Criticizing Islam? Debating Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Who decides the definition of what is considered hate speech against Muslims?

Are the Attorney General and the eighty-two House Democrats out to destroy the First Amendment and introduce censorship?

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch (left) said on December 3, “[W]hen we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric… when we see that we will take action.”

A House Resolution could be reintroduced later as binding legislation. Americans should be deeply concerned about this. The part of the House Resolution that should most concern Americans is the urging of “local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes.”

What is a hate crime in this context? The law already prohibits violence and threats of violence, and law enforcement authorities are supposed to prosecute those — intimidation, destruction, damage, vandalism, simple and aggravated assault. However, as this resolution includes “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric” in its title, Americans should worry that it is those that the House Resolution is really alluding to, when it urges law enforcement authorities to prevent and prosecute hate crimes.

Why would the House of Representatives find it necessary to make such redundant statements, if not in order to redefine the concept of a hate crime?

Notably, no similar House Resolution has appeared condemning the much higher percentage of hate crimes against Jews — over three times as many as against Muslims. As long as the House is going down the road of condemning hate crimes, why does it not even mention once the much more widespread hate crimes that American Jews are experiencing? Why does it not mention the hate crimes against Christians, which after all are only 7.5% percent fewer than those against Muslims? Why this lopsided, discriminatory House Resolution in favor of a religious group that statistically needs it the least?

The House Resolution is unsettlingly similar to the UN Human Rights Commission’s Resolution 16/18, which is an attempt to establish Islamic “blasphemy laws,” making criticism of religion a criminal offense. The UNHRC Resolution would apply internationally (non-binding as of yet, except, presumably, for the countries that want it to be binding), and infractions would be punishable by law. In some Islamic countries, at the moment, the punishment is death — a sentence often handed down in trials that use questionable jurisprudence. Last year alone, a Saudi court sentenced a blogger, Raif Badawi to 1,000 lashes (“lashed very severely,” the court order read) and ten years in jail. Outside of any courts, in 2015 alone, in Bangladesh, four secular bloggers on four separate occasions were hacked to death by people who apparently did not agree with what they said.

The UNHRC Resolution, originally known as “Defamation of Islam,” was changed in later versions — it would seem for broader marketability — to “Defamation of Religions.”

Long sought by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation, UNHRC Resolution 16/18 was co-sponsored by the United States, along with Pakistan. During a series of closed-door meetings over at least three years, it was spearheaded by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“At the invitation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” begins the document of the US Mission in Geneva, “representatives of 26 governments and four international organizations met in Washington, D.C. on December 12-14, 2011 to discuss the implementation of United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution (UNHRC) 16/18 on ‘Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief.'”

UNHRC Resolution 16/18, also known as the “Istanbul Process” (where the original meeting on the topic took place), is an Orwellian document that claims to protect freedom of religion, while attempting to criminalize internationally anything that might be considered “incitement to violence.” The late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat used to tell his people, “I don’t have to tell you what to do. You know what to do.” Each word could be in Pat the Bunny. Would Arafat’s statement be considered incitement to violence?

UNHRC Resolution 16/18 was passed on March 24, 2011, without a vote.

According to the journalist Abigail Esman, writing in Forbes:

Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence… [T]his latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval – despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.”

In answer to a reproof — from the U.S Department of State, no less — Esman wrote, “By agreeing to criminalize ‘incitement to violence’ and to use all means at its disposal to prevent and to punish such actions, the US has – however unwittingly – enabled the OIC to use the measure against us – and other members of the free world.”

Many extremist Muslims, however, seem to have no problem criticizing other religions, as well as other Muslims. Some “criticize” Christians, as we have witnessed, by slitting their throats, or by burning or drowning them alive. Many extremist Muslims also seem to have no problem criticizing Jews – starting with calling them descendants of apes and pigs (Surah 5. Al-Maida, Ayah 60). Some Muslims write that all Jews should be killed:

the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

One therefore cannot help wondering — and one should wonder – to what extent H.Res. 569 is the “nose of the camel under the tent.”

As of now, H.Res. 569 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Americans had better hope that the House Committee will see it for what it is: An attempt to destroy the First Amendment, shield Islam from criticism, and bring “Death to Free Speech.”

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

Gaffney: Shariah-Compliant Twitter

Arabic-Twitter-Getty-640x480Breitbart, by Frank  Gaffney, Jan. 3, 2016:

Twitter seems to think 2016 is 1984. It has welcomed in the New Year with a change in the rules governing all of its accounts that is reminiscent of Orwellian thought-control. Or at least that practiced by another, non-fictional totalitarian system: the Islamic supremacist program known as shariah.

Shariah’s adherents demand that no offense be given to them, their religion, deity or prophet. Now, all other things being equal, they are close to ensuring that none will be forthcoming in 140 characters.

If successful, contemporary Islamists will have achieved a major step towards a goal they have been pursuing through other means for nearly two decades: the worldwide prohibition of “defamation of religions” – read, Islam. In particular, since 2005, their proto-Caliphate – the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – has been working through the United Nations on a ten-year plan to impose this restraint concerning freedom of expression on the rest of us.

In 2011, with the active support of the Obama administration, this gambit produced UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. It basically gives the imprimatur of international law to Shariah’s demand that speech, books, videos and now Tweets that “defame” Muslims or their faith be prohibited.

In July of that year, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton implicated herself personally in this affront to our First Amendment guarantee of free expression. She launched with the OIC and the European Union the so-called “Istanbul Process,” a tripartite effort to accommodate the Islamic supremacists’ demands that Western nations conform to Resolution 16/18 by adopting domestic strictures against offense-giving to Muslims. 

On that occasion, Mrs. Clinton famously declared her willingness “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 message could not have been more clear to jihadists around the world: The United States was submitting to shariah blasphemy norms.

According to shariah, the proper response is to redouble the effort to make the infidel “feel subdued.” That means, worse behavior from the Islamists, not better.

Now, it seems that one of the greatest enablers of the global jihad, Saudi billionaire Alwaleed bin Talal, is seeing his substantial stake in Twitter stock translate into another breakthrough for Islamic supremacy: The suppression of Tweets that, according to the company’s new rule, involve “hate speech or advocacy against an individual, organization or protected group based on race, ethnicity, national origin, color, religion, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status or other protected status.”

To be sure Twitter is a private sector enterprise. It is, therefore, free to deny its services to those whose content it finds objectionable. At least, as long as it doesn’t try to deny service to approved “haters” like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). This organization has deviated wildly from its early history as an effective advocate for civil liberties. Today, its invective-laced advocacy against individuals or organization who are supposed to enjoy “protected status” under our Constitution, namely that of citizens free to express themselves, can only be described as hate speech. Yet, the SPLC is embraced and even cited by the Obama administration and others among the leftists and Islamists who make up the “Red-Green axis” now feverishly working to silence any who they, as Hillary Clinton put it, “abhor.” (For more on this unlikely alliance, see Jim Simpson’s The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.)

What is particularly concerning is that the new Twitter rule sounds a lot like what is coming out of the Obama administration these days. See, for example, the Justice Department’s “Guidance for Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Regarding the Use Of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, National Origin, Religion, Sexual Orientation, Or Gender Identity.”

Speaking of the Justice Department, Americans who are inclined not to worry about losing the ability to Tweet their concerns about jihadism, shariah and anything else that might offend Muslims should bear in mind that Attorney General Loretta Lynch has put us all on notice that considerably worse may be in store for our First Amendment rights. Last month she told a Muslim Brotherhood-tied organization, Muslim Advocates: “Now, obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone…lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric…When we see that, we will take action.”

With Hillary Clinton’s prominent role in promoting restriction of free expression, and what appears to be accelerating momentum in the direction of ensuring conformity with shariah blasphemy restrictions, this would seem to be a good time for Republican presidential candidates – and the rest of us – to be expressing our adamant objections. If Twitter gets away with keeping us from doing it in 140 characters, we better make sure we do it otherwise, while we still can.

Islam v. Free Speech: Twitter Surrenders

twitter 1National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Jan. 4, 2016:

My weekend column profiled Bosch Fawstin, the intrepid cartoonist who won last spring’s “Draw Muhammad” contest that was attacked by two ISIS-inspired jihadists in Garland, Texas. (The terrorists were killed in a shootout with police.) Fawstin compellingly argues that the best way to fight a repulsive conquest ideology such as Islamic supremacism is to expose it. That means an unstinting reliance on our constitutional right to free expression.

Apparently, Twitter has opted to join the campaign to crack down on free expression. And one is left to wonder whether the big Saudi bucks that have come its way are a factor in Twitter’s decision-making.

As I recount in the column, the top agenda item of Islamic supremacists has long been the imposition of sharia blasphemy standards on the West. This campaign is not waged exclusively or even primarily by violent jihadists. Instead, its leading proponents are the Muslim Brotherhood’s network of Islamist activist groups in the West and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (a 57-government bloc of, mainly, majority-Muslim countries).

The West should be fighting these anti-Western Islamic supremacists in defense of our core principles. Instead, the Obama administration — particularly the president and his former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton — has colluded with them. So have other left-leaning governments and institutions that are naturally hostile to free speech and open debate. One prominent result, which I discussed in the column as well as in Islam and Free Speech, is U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. This blatantly unconstitutional provision, co-sponsored by Obama, Clinton, and OIC members, calls on all nations to ban speech that could promote mere hostility to Islam. Essentially, this is a codification of sharia, which prohibits all expression that subjects Islam to critical examination.

RELATED Just Asking About Islam and Terrorism

Twitter has announced new regulations on content communicated via its social-networking service. They are prohibitions on speech similar in effect to Resolution 16/18. As usual, this is shrewdly done under the guise of suppressing “hate” speech. In fact, the regulations cast a much wider net that potentially calls for the suppression of political and educational speech.

Twitter’s policy, called “Hate content, sensitive topics, and violence,” is here. The policy states that it applies to “Twitter Ads,” but goes on to explain that these “paid advertising products” include all “Tweets,” as well as “trends and accounts.”

The policy is then spelled out in question-and-answer form. Here is the relevant part (the italics are mine):

What’s the policy?

Twitter prohibits the promotion of hate content, sensitive topics, and violence globally.

ACM: Note from the get-go: We are not just talking about the incitement of violence here. Twitter is laying the groundwork to regulate discussions of any topics it deems “sensitive.”

What products or services are subject to this policy?

This policy applies, but is not limited, to:

Hate speech or advocacy against an individual, organization or protected group based on race, ethnicity, national origin, color, religion, disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status or other protected status.

ACM: Note that this prohibition expressly goes beyond “hate speech” (which itself is an absurdly subjective term), additionally banning “advocacy against” people or groups based on, among other things, “religion” (as well as “other protected status” — who knows what that means?).

In essence, it is not different from Resolution 16/18’s prohibition of speech that could “incite” mere “hostility” to religion — i.e., anything that could cast Islam in a bad light, regardless of whether it is truthful. If they try to tell you this is just about banning insulting cartoons and patently derogatory statements, don’t buy it. This is about permitting only speech that conforms to the government’s official, smiley-face version of Islam.

Twitter’s list of speech categories to which its suppression policy applies continues:

Violence or threats of violence against people or animals

Glorification of self-harm or related content

Organizations or individuals associated with promoting hate, criminal, or terrorist-related content

ACM: Again, note that Twitter distinguishes “hate” from “terrorist-related content” and seeks to ban both. Remember, it is not just terrorists who engage in “terrorist-related” speech; it is also those of us who write about terrorism and what motivates terrorism. As announced, the policy makes no distinction between ISIS and, say, your humble correspondent.

Before concluding with a ban on “Offensive, vulgar, abusive or obscene content,” the policy also bans “Inflammatory content which is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction or cause harm.” This prohibition continues a dangerous trend: codification of the “heckler’s veto” or the law of the jungle. To the contrary, the First Amendment emphatically rejects the notion that speech obviously not intended to incite violence (indeed, often intended to expose savagery) should be banned simply because uncivilized people might react to it with violence, threats, and other perilous, intimidating behavior.

RELATED: Yes, Islamic Extremism Is Islamic, But That’s Just the Beginning of the Debate

Twitter elaborates that its suppression policy does not apply to “News and information that calls attention to hate, sensitive topics, or violence, but does not advocate for it.” So does that exemption include commentary on “news and information”? Apparently not. In the next sentence, Twitter provides a separate exemption for “commentary” that is much more narrow: The prohibition does not apply to “commentary about products, services, companies, or brands, including potentially negative commentary.”

The patent implication is that if “commentary” “calls attention to hate, sensitive topics, or violence,” Twitter reserves the right to ban it even if the commentary “does not advocate” hatred, violence, or other offenses to someone’s delicate sensibilities.

Is it a coincidence that Twitter is pushing the anti-speech agenda in the same direction as the OIC? Consider this: One of the prime movers in the campaign to impose Islamic blasphemy standards and other aspects of sharia law on the West is Saudi Arabia. In 2011, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal — a prominent member of the Saudi royal family with a prodigious record of buying up and influencing Western media and educational institutions — ponied up $300 million to purchase Twitter stock. By the end of 2015, bin Talal had doubled his investment in Twitter: His stake now has a market value of approximately $1 billion, good enough for a 5 percent share.

The sharia justice system that bin Talal’s family enforces is currently drawing attention due to its mass executions, which include putting to death a prominent Shiite activist, drawing the wrath of rival Iran (another prominent OIC country that imposes sharia law and executes dissenters). For present purposes, though, our focus is blasphemy. The Saudis strictly enforce sharia blasphemy strictures that the OIC — wittingly aided by Obama and Clinton — would thrust on the rest of the world. It is a commonplace for Saudi blasphemy prosecutions to be based on social-media postings on Twitter, Facebook, and the like.

RELATED: Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth — the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate

By spreading his fortune around, tens of millions at a clip, Prince bin Talal attracts many admirers in the Western commentariat. He is thus depicted as the tolerant, progressive face of Saudi moderation. The image masks the ugly reality of the royal family and its sharia enforcement. For a more realistic take, and to grasp the perilous specter of Islamic-supremacist influence over Western free-speech standards, here is something worth perusing: last year’s Saudi court ruling that upheld the blasphemy conviction of human-rights activist Raif Badawi. He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment and a thousand lashes for writing such social-media posts as: “The combination of the sword and the Quran are more dangerous than a nuclear bomb.”

After explaining that “liberalism is parting away from religion according to the Western definition of it,” the court held that Badawi had shown

disparagement of the one who made the Quran and the Sunnah as a guiding light and a law that equates the ruler and the ruled. And based on these thoughts that spread doubt in the fundamentals of the religion and its values, [Badawi] violate[d] the five essentials which sharia came to protect, and spread sedition and conflict among the people in society.

Hence, according to Act 23 of the basic law of governance, which says: “the government protects the Islamic doctrine, applies the laws of the Sharia, and promotes virtue and prevents vice”; and according to Act 11 of the same law, “the Saudi people live based on the tenacity of its individuals to the rope of Allah, and cooperate on righteousness, piety and interdependence among each other, and never be separated” . . .

The statements he confessed to writing . . . contain overall the perverted liberal thought and a call to embrace it and to reject the way of people of goodness and righteousness. It is a call to liberation from the duties of religion and its values, and to disrespect its [tenets].

The convict’s acts are condemned and considered a crime according to sharia and according to our government [law] combatting cybercrime, which says, “any person who commits the following cybercrimes is to be sentenced to serve a maximum of 5 years in prison [and fined:]. . . . Forming whatever affects public order and religious values, and public manners and the privacy of personal life via composing, sending or publishing the compromising material on the cyber web or any other electronic device.”

Yes, what could be better for Twitter than Saudi money and all the progressive enlightenment that comes with it?

We must hasten to add that Twitter is a private service. It is not bound by the First Amendment. Unlike the government, it is permitted to suppress speech disseminated through its own system. But that system has millions of users (including me, and most National Review writers). The new Twitter policy is clearly an effort to shape the public’s understanding of what is and is not tolerable speech. The question is: Is Twitter influential enough to have that effect . . . or will its obnoxious policy prompt protests by users that induce Twitter to rethink its course?

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

HR 569: CAIR’s Standard Operating Procedure

monumentGates of Vienna, by Frontinus, Dec. 30, 2015:

Your American readers who aren’t aware of HR569 probably should be, and your European and Canadian readers may be interested to learn just how successful the Muslim Brotherhood has been in its penetration of the U.S. government, and how close we are to seeing the full implementation of U.N. Resolution 16/18 in this country.

flagusaikhwanThis resolution won’t pass, of course, but that isn’t what’s significant about of it. What’s important is the process that is now underway in Washington D.C., of which HR 569 is just a small part.

First, take a look at the text of HR 569:

Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.

Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation’s founding principles;

Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;

Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;
(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;
(4) recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;
(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and
(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

Once again, this will not pass. However, the fact that 82 Democrats have co-sponsored it will be used to validate the Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, etc. etc.) claim that hate crimes have increased (and of course they haven’t for Muslims, although they may have increased against Jews in America, who are historically identified in FBI statistics as victimized in hate crimes five to ten times more frequently than Muslims in America).

flagusaummahThis is the usual modus operandi used by the Ikhwan, and it’s a consistent systems approach. (As indeed is the entire jihad-dawa approach to supremacism a systems approach. I recommend Jasser Auda’s text Maqasid Al-Shariah as Philosophy of Islamic Law: A Systems Approach — it’s light on the jihad doctrine, but gets to the broader implications of Shariah as a closed system with open-ended ambitions.)

This House Resolution follows the usual Standard Operating Procedure, now so predictable I’m surprised there isn’t an ISO standard for it internationally: Any terrorist incident is followed by MB claims (some fabricated, some undocumented, some exaggerated) of increased hate crimes followed by efforts to externally validate those claims, as in this House Resolution. There follow efforts to censor 1) any speech that associates the terrorist incident with Islam, and 2) any criticism of the jihad-dawa system, its activist organizations, or its dhimmi supporters.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Easy to diagram or flowchart.

So it won’t pass, but it’s still useful to the Muslim Brotherhood to validate their claims among their own constituency, as well as to the media and the Low Information Voters, or those who just respond to any kind of “virtue-signaling”. And it’s useful to the 82 co-sponsoring Democrats, and the Democratic National Committee as a whole, to claim that all Republicans who did not co-sponsor are therefore, by definition:

  • racist;
  • Islamophobic;
  • bigoted;
  • engaged in hate speech, by the sin of omission of not cosponsoring; and
  • engaged in incitement to hate crimes, by the implied sin of hate speech resulting from the sin of omission of not co-sponsoring.

It’s also worth noting that there are 188 Democrats in the House of Representatives, and 246 Republicans. So unless this gets a lot of new co-sponsors in 2016, a counter-argument against the DNC on this Resolution would be that it has met with overwhelming bi-partisan opposition from the majority of Democrats (106) and all Republicans in the House.

I think it both strategically and tactically effective not just to criticize the efforts of adversaries, but to point out when they’re losing dramatically, rather than to magnify their actual loss into the appearance of a victory. Of course, 2016 could bring new co-sponsors and then a bigger battle will be on.

But yes, it is a successful effort for the target audiences at which it is aimed, including the foreign funders for CAIR, ISNA etc., all of whom will be tickled pink that this bill has 82 co-sponsors. As will the OIC, who might have helped a bit in drafting the Resolution.

However, I think the American public as a whole isn’t very sympathetic.

Islamic Timelines Fueling Jihad

boom-timeline-bicubicGates of Vienna,  December 9, 2015,  by Sonia Bailley:

Summary: With the convergence of two Islamic timelines (al Qaeda, OIC) to destroy the West culminating THIS month (the OIC’s timeline ending Dec. 9th), along with the Muslim Brotherhood’s engagement in violent jihad, as opposed to the softer jihad of dawah (inviting non-believers to Islam, meant only as a preparatory phase to violent jihad), Westerners, as predicted by Major Stephen Coughlin, are in for the biggest shock of their lives in the dark times ahead, beginning this week, especially now that the caliphate has been re-established.

These two Islamic timelines, in addition to two Muslim Brotherhood documents — all of which were ignored by Western leaders — are mobilizing jihadists worldwide. The Muslim Brotherhood’s primary mission of dawah, which shakes the identity and faith of Westerners, making them more vulnerable to Islamic conversion and submission, has reached its goal and is ready to be superseded by the next jihad phase, that being all-out war, or violent jihad. All Islamic groups are working together to wage violent jihad on the West. Their intention to do so began ever since the first caliphate was abolished in 1924.

All-out war with the West has begun. With the culmination of two Islamic timelines imposing Islamic law or Sharia worldwide converging this month, in fact one this week, things are bound to get worse. More deadly terror attacks are expected worldwide as a result of this, as forecasted by Major Stephen Coughlin, a former U.S. army intelligence officer and Pentagon expert on Islamic law of jihad. The timelines are building momentum in parallel, with one plan using violent jihad to destroy the West, and the other using soft jihad to destroy Western civil liberties through the use of Sharia-compliant UN resolutions and hate speech codes to curtail any discussion or analysis of Islam.

Al Qaeda’s 20-year plan to violently impose Sharia on the West in stages is just entering Phase Six (2016-2020) of “Total Confrontation”. This timeline, hatched well before 1996, was known to the West for ten years.

The other death-to-the-West Islamic timeline implemented ten years ago by a highly powerful and influential organization — the world’s second largest intergovernmental organization (next to the United Nations) and largest Islamic organization — is also building momentum in a less violent but parallel way.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the largest voting bloc at the UN (comprising the world’s 57 Islamic states) proposed a Ten-Year Programme of Action (at a two-day summit in Mecca concluding on Dec.9th) to internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam or so-called Islamophobia, culminates this week (December 8th and 9th).

Criminalizing Islamophobia[1] was the OIC’s major initiative since 1999, at which time it began pushing for a blasphemy-against-Islam UN resolution. That resolution finally passed in 2011 as UN Resolution 16/18 — the underpadding of which is to establish a global Islamic hegemony or caliphate that subjugates the entire world to Sharia. UN Resolution 16/18 and the hate-speech laws that it gave rise to simply facilitate the Islamization of the West.

Both timelines are influencing, guiding, and mobilizing jihadists worldwide to launch attacks that are gaining momentum throughout the West. All-out war has begun with more and more Islamic terrorist attacks launching worldwide, including now in the U.S.

Coughlin attributes the recent escalation in worldwide Islamic terrorist attacks to the convergence of these two Islamic timelines culminating in December, and to the collaboration of leftists with Islamic organizations that include the Muslim Brotherhood[2], which was listed as a terrorist group in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Why has the media neglected to raise the alert and publish these Islamic timelines, known for over ten years, as front-page bold headlines in every major newspaper? Al Qaeda’s timeline is hell-bent on waging violent jihad on the West. The OIC’s timeline to criminalize speech deemed offensive to a Muslim, even when that criticism speaks the truth about Islam, is already underway in some European countries as hate speech laws that abridge our right to free speech and expression. Deadlines are quickly approaching, while Islamic terror attacks are escalating worldwide.

In all likelihood, the OIC-backed-and-boosted UN Resolution 16/18 will become law not only in Canada, beginning with Quebec as Bill 59[3] (which would criminalize websites offensive to Islam with fines of up to $20,000) — but in the U.S. as well, in light of Attorney General Loretta Lynch vowing just one day after the San Bernardino Islamic terrorist attack that she will prosecute anyone using “anti-Muslim rhetoric” — although she didn’t mention anything about prosecuting anyone using genocidal or jihadi rhetoric against non-believers.

What applies to one religion should equally apply to all, but it doesn’t. Drawing a cartoon of Mohammed warrants a death sentence, whereas a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI made out of 17,000 colored condoms (Eggs Benedict), a photograph of Christ on the crucifix in a glass of the artist’s urine (Piss Christ), and a painting of the Virgin Mary made of elephant dung and clippings of porno magazines (Black Madonna) all warrant center stage at the Museum of Modern Art. The same rules do not apply for Muslims whose religion is always protected from discussion, analysis, or criticism.[4]

Lynch’s promise conforms to UN Resolution 16/18, which, if it becomes international law, would enforce Sharia against Islamic blasphemy. This will be in accordance with those laws enforced by Mohammed 1,400 years ago that condemned to hell or called for the killing of his dissenters and insulters.

Any form of expression that reflects badly on Islam, or that is offensive or insulting to a Muslim, even if that criticism constitutes the truth, is in violation of Islamic law, and is considered a criminal offense in Islam. Those forms of informative expression might include the mere mention or criticism of jihad and its cruel and barbaric torture methods, the rape and enslavement of Christian and Yazidi women, the persecution of religious minorities, gays, and apostates, to name a few, and the motivating ideology behind all these horrific acts.

None of these topics are up for discussion or analysis, as they are considered blasphemous and shed a negative light on Islam — despite the fact that they were all committed in the name of Islam, described in the history of Islamic conquest, and mandated by Islamic doctrine. Mentioning Mohammed’s marriage to a six-year old girl, or female genital mutilation considered praiseworthy and recommended in Islam, is also considered offensive and not to be discussed.

Discussing the truth about Islam is diametrically opposed to Islam. It would enable its enemies to defeat it, as well as lure away potential converts to Islam. Islam obligates every Muslim to invite non-Muslims to the true path of Islam (dawah) through interfaith dialogue or bridge-building. According to Sayyid Qutb, the revered Muslim Brotherhood theorist and founding father of modern jihad, the bridge does not allow for people on both sides of the bridge to mix, but rather only for the non-believers to come over to Islam,

The aim of Dawah, as Coughlin points out in his new book, Catastrophic Failure — Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, is “to destroy our faith in God, our government, our legal system, our leadership, and our society” while strengthening the belief in Islam, so that we become defeated in mind and vulnerable to Islamic conversion and submission.

That is the primary mission of the Muslim Brotherhood, since the dissolution of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924 by Turkey’s first president, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Founded four years later in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood spent decades writing about reviving the Islamic faith through dawah, particularly for America.

America was viewed by the Muslim brotherhood as a powerful country devoid of human values, and therefore susceptible to dawah that would shape and direct this great country towards Sharia. Practising dawah enables the Muslim brotherhood to “destroy Western civilization from within”, as reflected in its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the group in North America.

The sole purpose of dawah is preparing for jihad. Jihad will never end until the entire world shuns its false religious practices, accepts the one true religion of Islam, and unites under a global caliphate governed by Sharia. After all, “it is the nature of Islam to dominate and not be dominated, and Islam must impose its laws on all nations and extend its power to the entire planet,” according to the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna.

Coughlin often refers to a key Pakistani book that analyzes the Koran’s warfighting doctrine of jihad, The Quranic Concept of War (1976) by Brigadier General S. K. Malik of the Pakistani Army. Malik writes that when the non-believer becomes demoralized as his faith and identity are being destroyed, yet still refuses to convert or submit, then it becomes time to unleash the next phase of all-out kinetic jihad. It is this violent phase that instills terror into the non-believer’s heart. It is al Qaeda and other jihadist groups launching violent terrorist attacks on the West.

It should be emphasized that Malik’s radical views on the Koran’s warfighting doctrine of jihad were endorsed as national policy in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — a country that implements the death penalty for those who insult Islam. It was Pakistan that introduced the first anti-Islam UN draft resolution in 1999. It was Pakistan that co-sponsored the Sharia-compliant UN Resolution 16/18 with none other than the U.S. Under the Obama administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the U.S. helped usher in a resolution that violates the very foundation of who we are as a nation, the First Amendment, the right to free speech and expression.

UN Resolution 16/18 also violates Article VI of the Constitution, which, as Coughlin writes, “states the supremacy of the Constitution and its laws, while Sharia states the same about its own laws.” Sharia is incompatible with the Constitutional rule of law or form of government in the U.S.; they cannot co-exist, as Islamic law dictates that man-made laws cannot be passed if they contradict the undisputed rules of Islam. In most of the Muslim world, Sharia is the law of the land. Coughlin writes that Sharia subordinates national security interests and undermines the Article VI requirement to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies.

Discovered in 2004, the Explanatory Memo, which describes how to take over North America, has been collecting dust in U.S. national security agencies for over ten years. The same can be said for the Muslim Brotherhood’s worldwide twelve-point strategy for Islamic policy, better known as The Project, which was written in 1982 and discovered shortly after 9/11. Both revealing documents, which direct Muslim Brothers to infiltrate and undermine the government and all U.S. institutions (which has already been done), have been relegated to nothingness, as have the death-to-the-West timelines of al Qaeda and the OIC, rather than be taken seriously as major threats to Western civilization, and dealt with accordingly.

Muslim Brotherhood groups, as well as other Islamic groups, such as the OIC and al Qaeda (an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and forerunner to ISIS), have been patiently planning for decades to restore the caliphate. It was finally re-established last year, as per Phase Five(2013-2015) of al Qaeda’s timeline.

Despite the fact that most Muslim Brotherhood organizations appear moderate, they are becoming more confrontational and violent against the West at the urgings of al Qaeda, who feel that the time is ripe to leave the non-violent preparatory phase of dawah and wage a more violent jihad.

Coughlin writes that it was the Muslim Brotherhood, at the urging of al Qaeda, who brought on the 2011 collapse of Arab regimes (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen). The purpose was not to promote Western freedom, as people were made to believe, but rather to do the very opposite by replacing these Westernized regimes with more Sharia-compliant ones. The events were naively portrayed by the media as the Arab Spring. That marked Phase Four (2010-2013) of al Qaeda’s timeline, and was right on schedule.

The call to violent jihad has become even stronger with the re-emergence of the caliphate, which, under Sharia, legally obligates Muslim to wage offensive jihad in non-Muslim lands through the authorization of the caliph (ruler of the caliphate). Offensive jihad first appeared in 632 AD when the first caliphate appeared, resulting in the eventual conquest by Islamic armies of Southwest Asia, North Africa, and Spain.

Today, nearly a quarter of U.S. Muslims believe that violent jihad is justified in establishing Sharia and is a legitimate response to those who insult Islam, and 51% agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” (according to a June poll of 600 Muslims living in the U.S.).

9/11 was referred to as “The Awakening” in Phase One (2000-2003) of Al Qaeda’s timeline, which was hatched well over 20 years ago. And events are playing out exactly as planned by Al Qaeda, despite Coughlin’s warnings to senior Pentagon officials and Congress members to name the enemy as he names himself in order to understand and defeat him. “What matters is that we understand the enemy’s doctrines, and not whether he is correct about them.”

Coughlin taught that we must identify the enemy (jihadist or Islamic terrorist) according to his fighting doctrine (Islamic law of jihad) that he himself says he is following, fighting for, and implementing. For that reason, the Pentagon dismissed Coughlin in 2008. Three years later, at the request of 57 Muslim groups, hundreds of documents and presentations from military training and counter-terrorism material critical to the national security of the U.S. were discarded for being offensive to Islam or Islamophobic, that is, containing references to Islam or jihad. Those documents were reviewed and tossed away by those same groups.

The U.S. military and law enforcement are no longer capable of defining the enemy, as their course material no longer teaches the truth about Islam and jihad. The fact of the matter is that Islamophobia prohibits any reference to Islam or jihad, not because it is offensive, but because it is informative: because it exposes the truth about the enemies and their fighting doctrine — information that would help us win the war against them.

With the help of leftists who blame Islamic terrorism on everything but Islam, including climate change, Muslim Brotherhood groups in North America are — besides infiltrating the Obama regime, including all its national security and intelligence agencies — progressively destroying the identity and soul of non-believers by slowly instituting Sharia standards to make Islam supreme: revising school history books in accordance with Islam, forcing people to eat or purchase only unlabelled halal products, allowing Muslim students to skip music or mixed-gender gym classes, removing Christian symbols considered offensive to Muslims, closing down major streets for Islamic prayer, and now imposing hate-speech laws to censor and criminalize any discussion or criticism of Islam.

None of this would be possible without the aid of leftist organizations doing the leg work for Muslim Brotherhood groups. There is cause for great concern when one such organization, the highly influential Arab Sp — the world’s largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization that helps shape the course of international relations and security policies — cooperates with the OIC by refusing to call the Islamic State Islamic.

The OSCE — as well as President Obama himself, along with other world leaders — believes that doing so wrongly links Islam with terrorism, despite the facts that Islamic State is what ISIS names itself and its state, and that ISIS clearly credits its acts to Allah.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and the OIC are working cooperatively with and in parallel to one another, fueling the jihadist frenzy worldwide, Coughlin recently asserted on Canada’s CFRA radio. The Muslim Brotherhood’s efforts are synchronized with those of al Qaeda’s and the OIC’s to ultimately re-establish the supremacy of Islam and gradually enforce Sharia worldwide through a more violent jihad.

The OIC continues going to great lengths to take the Islam out of the Islamic State. After proclaiming last year that the Islamic State has no connection with Islam, OIC Secretary General Iyad Ameen Madani has recently upped the ante by announcing at a UN General Assembly the establishment of a Messaging Center to counter “extremist discourse and propaganda”, meaning, any discussion critical of Islam.

Equally important, Coughlin adds, is the active alliance of hard-left groups with al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, heightened by the possibility of a nuclear armed caliphate. He warns that this is just the beginning.

As the holiday season approaches, numerous large-scale attacks in major Western cities will take place. With the final anniversaries of the two Islamic timelines quickly approaching, with one culminating this week, our submissive, politically correct and culturally sensitive politicians are still doing absolutely nothing. The clock is ticking…

Notes:

1. It is interesting to note is that Islamophobia is a term coined and promoted by a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate (International Institute for Islamic Thought, IIIT) back in the early 1990s to render the West impotent to defeat the enemy.
2. Some of the Muslim Brotherhood’s offshoots (al Qaeda, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad) have been declared foreign terrorist groups by the U.S. and Canada, while other offshoots, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that deals with social justice and civil rights, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) were among the unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history in 2008: the Holy Land Foundation, the U.S.’s largest Islamic charity in Texas funneling millions of dollars to Hamas and other jihadist organizations.
3. Rest assured that the architect of Quebec’s Bill 59, Jacques Frémont, Emeritus University Law professor at the University of Montreal, will soon bring his Sharia-compliant blasphemy laws to Ottawa where he was recently named next president of the University of Ottawa. Frémont is also president of the Quebec Human Rights Commission, which will soon initiate hate-speech lawsuits against those who express anything deemed offensive to a Muslim (decided upon by the tribunals). It is of interest to note that Frémont is also the former director of a George Soros-funded progressive-leftist group called Open Society Foundations.
4. Is it any wonder why there are no UN resolutions to criminalize speech when it comes to advocating jihad against non-Muslims? To criminalize Muslims who deliver virulent mosque sermons that criticize and condemn to death Jews and Christians, portrayed as sons of apes and pigs, as mandated in Islamic doctrine? To criminalize Muslims who kill, torture, and terrorize non-Muslims worldwide to the point of genocide, such as the Yazidis and Christians in the Middle East, as well as other Muslims who are not considered Muslim enough by the perpetrators? To outlaw the Muslim slave and sex slave trade industry that continue to this day in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Mauritania, and in other countries where Islam has become more prevalent, as mandated by the Koran that specifically allows taking slaves as war booty from non-Muslims? Regardless, UN Resolution 16/18 is a hot item on the UN Resolution menu, as far as UN Resolutions go, with defamation of Islam being the prime concern amongst voters.

Video: Deborah Weiss on the OIC and Freedom of Speech

oic-erasing-freedom-of-speech-edited-1Deborah Weiss speaking at an ACT! for Canada event in Montreal on Nov. 17,  2015:

Part One:

Part Two:

  • Quebec Bill 59 to combat hate speech
  • Criminal prosecutions for denigrating Islam in Europe
  • The state of free speech in America – political correctness and self-censorship
  • Influence of Muslim Brotherhood front groups on National Security and public policy
  • CAIR’s Lawfare against media spokespersons and Hollywood

Part Three:

  • Obama administration’s censoring of National Security and Counterterrorism Training materials
  • The terrorist attacks on Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard , Theo van Gogh, Charlie Hebdo, Pamela Geller’s draw Muhammad contest in Garland Texas
  • Definition of terrorism
  • Multiculturalism
  • Upholding Judeo-Christian values

Q&A:

Deborah Weiss is the author of the Center for Security’s recently published monograph, “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech” (Civilization Jihad Reader Series) (Volume 3) She is also a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network” and the primary writer and researcher for “Council on American Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation.” You can find more of her articles and speeches at her website www.vigilancenow.org

 

Killing Over Cartoons Is Totally Rational, Says John Kerry

2015-11-17T141640Z_1_LYNXNPEBAG0S2_RTROPTP_3_FRANCE-SHOOTIN-KERRYTown Hall, by Adam Turner,  Nov 23, 2015:

“There’s something different about what happened [in the November 13, 2015 Paris terror attacks] from [the January 7, 2015 terror attack targeting the French magazine] Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.”

Secretary of State John Kerry, November 17, 2015

Secretary of State John Kerry opened his mouth again, and as usual, inserted his foot (with a Kinsley gaffe).

But we should be thankful that Secretary Kerry is his usual foolish, undisciplined, and talkative self. Because it, once again, exposes what Kerry, and his boss, President Obama, really think about the right to free speech in the United States, if that speech focuses on Islam, Islamism, radical Islam, and related topics, including terrorism, terror fundraising, sharia, female genital mutilation in the Muslim world, and other issues relating to Islam. (Islam et al.)

Simply put, they do not like it.

Without a doubt, we know this to be true. Let’s not forget, President Obama hasdemanded, from the podium of the United Nations itself, that “(t)he future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” President Obama’s words (probably) inspired Secretary Kerry’s predecessor, Obama first term Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – who is also the likely 2016 Democratic nominee for U.S. President – to illustrate the methods the Administration planned to follow:

So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and 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.

From this statement, it is clear that the Obama Administration is willing to utilize two of the three prongs of the strategy often used by opponents of free speech regarding Islam et al. The tripartite strategy to punish and silence all speech opponents disapprove of includes: 1) violence, or the threat of violence; 2) lawfare; and/or 3) political correctness pressure, e.g., smearing reputations by alleging “racism,” “Islamophobia,” or other epithets. In this situation, lawfare is specifically defined as malicious lawsuits, or other legal actions, in American courts, designed to punish and silence those who engage in public discourse about Islam et al, which are often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, and undertaken as a means to intimidate, demoralize, and bankrupt defendants.

Obviously, violence is not a strategy that any U.S. Administration would follow. However, as shown by the Terry Jones affair (see below), this does not mean that the Obama Administration is unwilling to cite the threat of violence as a reason to object to the free speech of Americans regarding Islam et al.

Over the past seven years, the Obama Administration has followed through with its rhetoric by engaging in a number of disturbing anti-free speech actions:

· In 2011, at a summit meeting between Secretary of State Clinton and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Secretary General, the U.S. committed to the “Istanbul Process” to implement the United Nations resolution 16/18, which calls for the domestic and international criminalization of language that defames religions, most especially Islam. The OIC is a bloc of 56 Muslim countries plus “Palestine.” The Administration has participated in subsequent meetings of the Istanbul Process, but little information has been released about these meetings.

· The Obama Administration named an Islamist, Salam al-Marayati, its official representative to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) premier conference on human rights. At the OSCE, Al-Marayati took part in the “intense lobbying campaign by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim countries that are aggressively pressuring Western countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.”

· A U.S. Attorney appointed by President Obama, Bill Killian, of the Eastern District of Tennessee, has been quoted by the Tullahoma News suggesting that some inflammatory material on Islam might run afoul of federal civil rights laws. This is not legally correct, but seems to reflect Secretary Clinton’s earlier statement.

· The Obama Administration was responsible for the imprisonment of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the American Coptic filmmaker who was responsible for the film clip that President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and others initially and incorrectly blamed for inciting the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Nakoula was prosecuted and imprisoned by the federal authorities under suspicious circumstances that should lead an objective observer to believe that he was being punished for producing his anti-Islam clip.

· Also in response to Nakoula film clip, Obama administration officials admitted that they “asked YouTube to review the video and determine whether it violates the site’s terms of service.”

· The most comprehensive campaign against such speech was waged by the Obama Administration against a little known American gadfly named Terry Jones. Jones has burned, or threatened to burn, a Koran, numerous times. His threats prompted President Obama, then Secretary of State Clinton, then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and then General David Petraeus, among others, to all plead with him to cease and desist. Jones has also been plagued by legal punishments and restrictions, although these are largely as a result of the actions of local, and not federal, authorities.

For the next year and a half, we can expect this Administration to continue its campaign against such free speech. Unfortunately, by a margin of 41% to 37%, Americans support criminalizing “hate speech,” and even more disturbingly, in the subset of Democrats, a 51% majority approve of criminalizing “hate speech,” with only 26% opposed. So President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Hillary Clinton well represent their political party.

It used to be that all Americans were united in the belief that speech was sacred, and that religion – any religion – should not be able to restrict the speech rights of Americans. No longer. John Kerry’s statement clearly demonstrates that many Americans, including the Administration he represents, believe differently now. This is not good news. How long will the other half of America be willing to stand up for their right to free speech?

It is hard to defend your speech rights, when you know that others are willing to sue, pressure, or even kill you for doing so. Not everyone is a Molly Norris.

Adam Turner serves as general counsel to the Endowment for Middle East Truth. He is a former counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, where he focused on national security.

Video: Stephen Coughlin unveils the dreadful lessons of ISIS’s Paris massacre

tg (1)

We should expect to see large scale acts of terrorism culminating at the end of the year – Coughlin

JAMIE GLAZOV PRODUCTIONS, Nov. 25, 2015:

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Stephen Coughlin, the co-founder of UnconstrainedAnalytics.org and the author of the new book, Catastrophic Failure.

He came on the show to discuss The Dreadful Lessons of ISIS’s Paris Massacre, shedding troubling light on Jihadists’ dire warning to America.

[See also Stephen on the Glazov Gang special: How “Rules of Engagement” Get U.S. Soldiers Killed.]

Also see:

How France Became an Inviting Target of the Jihad

paratk2

PJ Media, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Nov. 14, 2015:

Earlier this year, following the Charlie Hebdo massacre and related terrorist attacks in and around Paris, I wrote Islam and Free Speech, a Broadside” that is part of the series published by Encounter Books. The following is an excerpt.

How did we get to this historical anomaly in France where, as the estimable scholar Daniel Pipes observes, “a majority population accepts the customs and even the criminality of a poorer and weaker community”? It is the result of a conquest ideology taking the measure of a civilization that no longer values its heritage, no longer regards itself as worthy of defense.

France’s population of 66 million is now approximately 10 percent Islamic. Estimates are sketchy because, in a vestige of its vanishing secularist tradition, France does not collect census data about religious affiliation. Still, between 6 and 7 million Muslims are reasonably believed to be resident in the country (Pew put the total at 4.7 million back in 2010 – other analysts peg it higher today). To many in France, the number seems higher, due to both the outsize influence of Islamist activists on the political class and the dense Muslim communities in and around Paris – approximating 15 percent of the local population. An online poll conducted by Ipsos Mosi in 2014 found that the average French citizenbelieves Muslims make up about a third of the country’s population.

As night follows day, when Muslim populations surge, so does support for jihadism and the sharia supremacist ideology that catalyzes it. The reason is plain to see, even if Western elites remain willfully blind to it: For a not insignificant percentage of the growing Muslim millions in Europe, infiltration – by both mass immigration and the establishment of swelling Islamic enclaves – is a purposeful strategy of conquest, sometimes referred to as “voluntary apartheid.”

One of its leading advocates is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi. A Qatar-based Egyptian octogenarian, Qaradawi is a Muslim Brotherhood icon. He is a copiously published scholar graduated from Cairo’s al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium, and thus oversees both the International Union of Muslim Scholars and the European Council for Fatwa and Research. Thanks to his pioneering of the highly trafficked IslamOnline website and, especially, to his hugely popular al-Jazeera television program, Sharia and Life, he has become the world’s most influential sharia jurist.

Qaradawi is the sharia backbone of the violent jihad to exterminate Israel – a tiny country surrounded by hundreds of millions of hostile Muslims. The sheikh also vows that Islam will “conquer” both Europe and America, but acknowledges that this conquest will require a strategy more suited to a determined minority that knows it cannot win by force of arms. The key, he asserts, is dawa, the Muslim equivalent of proselytism. In radical Islam, it is hyper-aggressive, pushing on every cultural cylinder, pressuring every institution, and exploiting the atmosphere of intimidation created by jihadist terror to blur the lines between legal advocacy and extortion.

In France, dawa presses against laïcité, the credo of secularism through the strict separation of religion and the state. Qaradawi is quite clear that “secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” He is equally adamant that Muslims, who are bound to live in accordance with the strictures of sharia, must reject a secular framework because “acceptance of secularism means abandonment of sharia, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions.” Thus, he elaborates, “The call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of sharia is downright apostasy.”

This nexus between free speech and Western democracy is worth pausing over. Notice that, in focusing on the incompatibility between Islamic law and democracy’s secular, pluralist underpinnings, Qaradawi draws the inevitable conclusion that democracy equals apostasy. The term apostasy is not invoked idly in radical Islam. As explained in Reliance of the Traveller, a classic sharia manual endorsed by al-Azhar scholars, the renunciation of Islam is a death penalty offense.

Free speech does not exist in a vacuum. It is the plinth of freedom’s fortress. It is the ineliminable imperative if there is to be the robust exchange of knowledge and ideas, the rule of reason, freedom of conscience, equality before the law, property rights, and equality of opportunity. That is why it must be extinguished if there is to be what Qaradawi calls a “place of religion” – meaning his religion. For all its arrogance and triumphalist claims, radical Islam must suppress speech because it cannot compete in a free market of conscience.

To sustain their movement, therefore, Islamist leaders must separate Muslims from secular society. In the West, this means forming Islamic enclaves in which sharia gradually takes root as the de facto and, eventually, the de jure law – enabling Muslims to resist the challenge of critical thinking under the guise avoiding the near occasion of apostasy. Over time, dominion is established over swaths of not only physical territory but legal privilege. Qaradawi puts the matter succinctly:

Were we to convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically — without imposing our views or inflicting harm upon them, we would have traversed an immense barrier in our quest for an Islamic state.

The key to the conquest strategy is to coerce the West into accepting a Muslim right to resist assimilation, to regard sharia as superseding Western law and custom when the two conflict. For precisely this reason, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – a bloc of 56 Muslim countries (plus the Palestinian Authority) – has decreed that “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated.” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Islamist president of Turkey who has systematically dismantled that country’s secular, pro-Western system, similarly pronounces that pressuring Muslims to assimilate in the West “is a crime against humanity.”

Free expression is the gateway to assimilation. Consequently, radical Islam cannot tolerate it.

As a result, France is now rife with Zones Urbaines Sensibiles – “sensitive urban areas.” The government officially lists some 751 of them: Islamic enclaves in the banlieues, often referred to as “no go zones” because the indigenous populations discourage the presence of non-Muslims who do not conform to Islamic standards of dress and social interaction, and of public officials – police, fire-fighters, emergency medical teams, and building inspectors – who are seen as symbols of the state’s effort to exercise sovereignty in areas Muslims seek to possess adversely.

Some of these zones inevitably evolve into hotbeds of jihadist activity. As the Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern notes, there has been no shortage of Internet traffic suggesting, for example, “the killing of France’s ambassadors, just as the manly Libyan fighters killed the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi.” In a low-intensity jihadist thrum stretching back several years, the torching of automobiles has become a commonplace – as many as 40,000 cars burned annually. Perhaps most alarmingly, over a thousand French Muslims, more than from any other Western country, are estimated to have traveled to Syria to fight for ISIS – meaning many will return to the country as trained, battle-hardened jihadists. Beyond the direct ISIS participants, moreover, the Washington Post has reported that a recent poll found 16 percent of French citizens expressing some degree of support for ISIS – an organization whose rule over the vast territory it has seized is best known for decapitations, rapine, the execution of homosexuals, mass graves, and the enslavement of non-Muslim communities.

Once one grasps the voluntary apartheid strategy, it becomes obvious why radical Islam’s inroads in France, and elsewhere in Europe, seamlessly translate into demands for the enforcement of sharia’s curbs on speech and artistic expression. What is not so obvious is just how profound a challenge to the West this constitutes.

Stephen Coughlin, author of Catastrophic Failure, analyzes how interfaith dialogues blind Americans of sharia danger

3673405460 (1)

E-BOOK RELEASE: “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere

Center for Security Policy, Nov. 13, 2015:

STEPHEN COUGHLIN, Author of “Catastrophic Failure: The Blindfolding of America in the Face of Jihad”:

  • How the Muslim Brotherhood hides behind inter-faith dialogues
  • Implications of the Countering Violent Extremism movement
  • Muslim Brotherhood’s hand in developing the CVE narrative
  • Whitewashing in US hate speech laws
  • How designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization changes the CVE narrative
  • Civilization jihad and death by one’s own hand
  • Supporting Egyptian leader el-Sisi against radical Islam

podcast 2

 

National Post View: Quebec hate speech bill would re-establish bureaucratic despotism

Tory MP Brian Storseth says Section 13 of the federal human rights code, which deals with Internet hate speech, “suppresses the basic right to freedom of speech in our society.”

Tory MP Brian Storseth says Section 13 of the federal human rights code, which deals with Internet hate speech, “suppresses the basic right to freedom of speech in our society.”

National Post View, Aug. 15, 2015:

In mid-June, when Quebecers’ thoughts were more attuned to summer plans than politics, Premier Philippe Couillard introduced two new bills in the National Assembly. One was long anticipated and non-controversial (in Quebec). The other was a bit of a bombshell.

The first, Bill 62, would shore up “religious neutrality” in Quebec. Its principal provision, the proscription of face coverings in the public sector, is largely pointless but relatively mild, as curtailments on religious freedom go, compared to the broader ban on religious garb the Parti Québécois had contemplated.

Bill 59, on which consultations are to start next week, is far more worrisome. Bill 59 assigns new powers to the Quebec Human Rights Commission (QHRC) to combat hate speech, as well as a variety of other provisions meant to protect against extremism, by censoring speech that promotes “fear of the other.” Ominously, the bill would allow the QHRC to pursue websites that in its estimation describe and denounce Islamism.

The bill takes its inspiration from recommendations made public by the QHRC in November 2014. Jacques Frémont, the commission’s president, explained that he planned to use the requested powers to sue those critical of certain ideas, “people who would write against … the Islamic religion … on a website or on a Facebook page.”

Frémont is an unabashed legal activist, who sees the QHRC’s mandate as “provoking a social change” and “making the law.” (“You will make the law with difficult cases, risky cases,” he said at a March conference at the Université de Montréal.) In support of such stringent censorship he cites resolutions adopted by UN bodies. But the only UN body pressing for this measure is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an Islamist consortium that equates criticism of Islam with hate speech. The OIC’s member nations have nothing to teach any democratic society in the way of “inclusion,” “openness” and “living together,” all justifications for Bill 59 made by Premier Couillard.

Bill 59 is a danger to democracy and should not pass.

The details of Bill 59 are chilling. Article 6 would “give the QHRC the power to initiate legal proceedings before the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal without having to wait for complaints from the public.” Article 3 allows members of an identifiable group as well as people outside the group to make complaints triggering suits for hate speech before the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal.

If this has a déjà vu quality to it, it should. Bill 59 would pave the same well-travelled road to suppression of speech and opinion that led, via the similar Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, to the infamous pursuit of journalists Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant by Muslim activists determined to stifle normative expressions of opinion. The public’s disgust at such bureaucratic despotism happily led to its repeal at the federal level.

On its face, Bill 59 would seem to be an exercise in futility. The Internet is not a provincial domain. Legal precedence, including a Supreme Court judgment in this area that overturned a previous QRHC victory at the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal (Latif v. Bombardier), confirms the Internet falls under federal jurisdiction.

But we should not underestimate Frémont and his censorship-happy team. Frémont is one of Canada’s top constitutionalists, and if anyone can find a Quebec-exception loophole in what seems to be settled law, it will be him.

We must fervently hope this will not be the case. As a June editorial in Montreal’s The Suburban put it, “leaving decisions on issues of freedom to bureaucrats suggests two levels of citizenship on fundamental rights. One level for all of us, another for state agents who can limit our rights.” We concur. Bill 59 is a danger to democracy and should not pass.

***

Jacques Frémont, the QHRC president, 2014 interview:

Also see:

National Security Expert Slams Hillary’s ‘Assault’ On Free Speech

Hillary Clinton (D-NY) places her hand over her heart during the National Anthem at the 30th annual Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa, in this September 16, 2007 file photo. (REUTERS/Joshua Lott/Files)

Hillary Clinton (D-NY) places her hand over her heart during the National Anthem at the 30th annual Harkin Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa, in this September 16, 2007 file photo. (REUTERS/Joshua Lott/Files)

Daily Caller, by Rachel Stoltzfoos, July 18, 2015:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton put her willingness to defend the Constitution in serious doubt when she promised Islamic countries the United States government would intimidate Americans who violate their free speech code, national security expert Stephen Coughlin told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

As Secretary of State, Clinton promised an international Islamic organization in 2011 that the United States government would “use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to intimidate Americans who improperly criticize Islam or Muhammad.

“An official of the United States, in an official communiqué, went to a foreign land to commit to a foreign leader that the United States Government would engage in the extra-legal practice of intimidating American citizens in the exercise of what is otherwise their protected free speech rights under the First Amendment,” Coughlin told TheDCNF.

Coughlin discusses the move in his recently published book, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad,” and told TheDCNF it casts a pall on her record as secretary of state.

“If her willingness to sell out Americans First Amendment rights to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation by categorizing as ‘hate speech’ anything that is deemed offensive to Islam is any indication, she may be the least qualified candidate to support and defend the Constitution,” he said.

Coughlin’s an attorney, decorated intelligence officer and expert on Islamic law and terrorism who consulted the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff for about a decade following 9/11, before the Muslim Brotherhood allegedly convinced the White House to ban him and “outlaw” his briefings.

He cites Clinton’s 2011 visit to Turkey and her cooperation with the OIC in his book as one example of how muslim ideologists wield influence in the “highest reaches” of the U.S. government.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

The OIC is the second-largest intergovernmental organization after the U.N., consisting of 57 states that identify as “the collective voice of the Muslim world.”

After she helped the OIC secure passage of U.N. resolution 16/18, “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief,” Clinton promised the U.S. would take what steps it could to curb speech critical of Islam.

“And together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs,” she said in an address following the resolution’s passage.

“We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy,” she added. “So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel they have the support to do what we abhor.”

The resolution condemns “any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media.”

Coughlin argues in his book it’s part of a deliberate OIC-led effort to bring the U.S. and other countries in line with Muslim speech standards, first by condemning and eventually criminalizing unwanted speech such as depictions of Muhammad.

“Over the last few years, major left wing and Islamists organizations have been working diligently to reframe free speech in an oppositional narrative that distinguishes sanctioned speech, designated free speech, from hate speech in a long term campaign to brand nonconforming speech as hate speech that is at first to be ridiculed and then criminalized,” he told TheDCNF.

***

ICYMI:

BOOK RELEASE: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech

BOOK RELEASE: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech

4157972612HOW TEAM OBAMA HELPS THE ORGANIZATION OF ISLAMIC COOPERATION WAGE JIHAD ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Washington, D.C.: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest Islamic organization in the world – comprised of 56 UN Member states plus the Palestinian Authority — has long been trying to silence, and ultimately criminalize, all criticism of Islam, specifically targeting America and the West. What has largely gone unremarked is the help the OIC has received from the Obama administration to this end.

Deborah Weiss, attorney, author and expert on Islamist efforts to stifle free speech reveals in a new monograph published by the Center for Security Policy Press how the OIC is working through UN resolutions, multilateral conferences and other international vehicles to advance its agenda. The goal of these efforts, according to the OIC’s 10-year program of action, which was launched in 2005, is to combat so-called “Islamophobia” and “defamation of religions”. In practice, this means banning any discussion of Islamic supremacism and its many manifestations including: jihadist terrorism, persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.

Upon the publication of her monograph entitled, The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech, Ms. Weiss remarked:

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is the largest and most powerful voting bloc in the United Nations and yet most Americans have never heard of it. Of particular concern is the OIC’s ten-year program which amounts to an international effort to suppress freedom of expression under the guise of protecting Islam from so-called “defamation.” This initiative, however, is in the service of OIC’s long-term mission: the world-wide implementation of Shariah, a legal-political-judicial-religious doctrine which favors Muslims over non-Muslims, men over women, and denies basic human rights and freedoms.

Ms. Weiss’ monograph documents how the Obama Administration has collaborated with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in ways that, whether intentional or unwitting, have advanced the OIC’s supremacist agenda. As it happens, recently released State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch through court-enforced Freedom of Information Act requests underscore the extent of Team Obama’s collusion with the OIC.

Specifically, these emails offer insights into how, in September 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the White House worked with the OIC to fabricate a narrative that falsely blamed an online video “Innocence of Muslims” for the violent uprising at the U.S. special mission compound and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the documents reveal that the Obama administration immediately went into damage-limitation mode, with a well-coordinated effort to scapegoat the video as the cause of the attack. Rashad Hussain, President Obama’s envoy to the OIC, reached out to the Organization’s leadership urging it to condemn the “anti-Islamic film” and “its related violence” and to respond in a way that is “consistent with Islamic principles.”

The OIC readily obliged, issuing a statement accusing the video of “incitement” – though nothing in the video called for violence against Muslims – and claiming that it “hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims” and “demonstrated serious repercussions of abuse of freedom of expression”.

The effect was to reinforce the OIC’s goal to protect Islam from “defamation” instead of supporting the US Constitutional principle of free expression.

In her monograph, Ms. Weiss elucidates examples of the escalating assault on freedom of expression that the OIC has launched against the West and their implications. She describes the critical role freedom of speech plays in preserving religious freedom, human rights and national security efforts. As she correctly points out, “If you look around the world, you will see that freedom is the exception, not the rule.”

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, observed that:

Deborah Weiss’ important new book is a clarion call to Americans and their federal representatives to end all cooperation with the Islamic supremacists of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, including cessation of participation in the anti-free speech “Istanbul Process” launched by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State. Citizens and policy-makers alike should, instead, commit themselves vigorously and unapologetically to freedom of expression – including to its employment as an indispensable weapon in the execution of a comprehensive strategy to defeat the Global Jihad Movement.”

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present Ms. Weiss’s monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech by Deborah Weiss, Esq. is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com at:

http://www.amazon.com/Organization-Islamic-Cooperations-Speech-Civilization/dp/1511960590/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-1&qid=1435949110.

Or download the pdf: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/OIC_Free_Speech_Jihad.pdf

Leftist and Islamic Policymakers Outlaw the Truth

Truth-is-the-new-hate-speechAmerican Thinker, by Sonia Bailley, July 4, 2015:

No need to worry, the recent Ramadan triple slaughter fest in Tunisia, France and Kuwait has nothing to do with Islam.  There is no linkage between Islam and terrorism, and the word Islamic need not be used to describe the terrorists because their murderous and barbaric ideology has nothing to do with Islam.  Islam is, after all, a religion of peace that is being hijacked, perverted and distorted by only a small percentage of savage extremists.

Welcome to the false narrative that Western leaders, mainstream media outlets, and academic elites are enforcing on civil society to help shape the public’s perception of Islam so that it is always presented in a positive light.  Any form of expression that reflects badly on Islam is in violation of Islamic law, which forbids any criticism of Islam, even what that criticism expresses the truth.  Stories that are reported according to this narrative need not have anything to do with factual accuracy or truth.  Both the 2009 Fort Hood massacre in Texas and the beheading in Vaughan Foods in Oklahoma last September were reported as workplace violence and not Islamic terrorism.

With the aid of leftist and Islamic policymakers shaping the course of international relations and security policies, that false narrative is finding its way into international policy to destroy the West’s hard-won, cherished core values.  Realities and facts that might tarnish Islam’s name are deemed hate speech and becoming lost through censorship. The 57-state Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which is the world’s largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization that happens to be rooted in communism, and the 57-state Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is the most influential and largest Muslim organization in the world pushing to criminalize any criticism of Islam, are two such policymakers who are influencing world leaders and the news media.

Most Western world leaders are bleating the same empty platitudes about the recent Ramadan terrorist attacks in Tunisia, France and Kuwait, carefully avoiding the word “Islam.”  UK Prime Minister David Cameron explained to the media that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the terrorists who “do these things…do it in the name of a twisted and perverted ideology.” When asked if it’s right to say that the recent Ramadan attacks have nothing to do with Islam, UK Home Secretary Theresa May responded to BBC’s Andrew Marr in the positive, “that it has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a peaceful religion,” and that the terror attacks are “about a perversion of Islam.”

Instead of issuing travel warnings not to vacation in Islamic countries especially during Ramadan, the Islamic “sacred” month of feasting — a month rife with bloodshed and battle since Islam’s inception, when armed raids on Meccan trade caravans and bloody battles were waged by Mohammed and his followers (including the 1973 Yom Kippur War on the 10th of Ramadan), not to mention the ISIS Ramadan message that jihad is 10 times more obligatory during Ramadan, and that those who die will be rewarded by Allah ten times more than during the rest of the year — Western leaders like Cameron continue to nourish the official politically correct narrative of Islam being a religion of peace not linked to terrorism.

The twisted and perverted ideology to which both Cameron and May refer, pervades pages and pages of the Koran and other Islamic doctrine, inspiring jihadists and religious Muslims to “do these things,” including operating child sex slave grooming gangs throughout Europe, especially in the UK, to rape, pimp, torture and sometimes kill non-Muslim underage schoolgirls.  The Koran itself contains over 100 verses  promoting violence against non-Muslims who, to this very day, remain victims of the verse.

What lies at the heart of Islam is an antipathy towards non-Muslims, as well as a deeply-entrenched duty and commandment from Allah to wage Jihad and eventually subjugate non-Muslims worldwide to Islamic rule in the name of Allah.  Massive street prayer is one form of subjugation conducted only to intimidate and Islamize Western society, to remind non-Muslims who’s really in control. Similarly, forcing non-Muslims in their own countries, in the UK for example, to eat halal slaughtered meat — an utterly inhumane and barbaric Islamic practice, not to mention a multi-billion dollar industry controlled by Muslim Brotherhood organizations that fund jihad worldwide — when only a mere 5% of the UK population is Muslim, and when the Koran specifically exempts its followers from eating halal if it’s not available, is another way to subjugate non-Muslims.

People are becoming sitting duck targets for Islamic terrorists in Western countries and abroad because of the little-known but powerful world policymakers like the OSCE and OIC who influence world leaders to kowtow to Islamic interests.  Western leaders fail to convey an accurate picture and understanding of what is really going on in the world because it might reflect badly on Islam, and they don’t want to appear “Islamophobic” for fear of more terrorist attacks.  By failing to report the truth, they are denying citizens the opportunity to take appropriate action that could save their lives when faced with something that could be considered a threat, such as a beach vacation in an Islamic country over Ramadan.

The dead European tourists in Tunisia might still be here today had there been an undistorted flow of information to warn them that warfare and killing in the name of Islam are encouraged during the month of Ramadan.  Furthermore, people might choose to avoid Islamic countries at all times if they were aware that these countries rely upon the most non-liberal draconian and barbaric Islamic or sharia-based corporal punishments imaginable.

The anti-blasphemy narrative pushed by the highly influential but little-known OIC, ehich speaks on behalf of over 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, not only silences any expression considered to be offensive and insulting to Islam, but punishes the offenders, as Mohammed did to his dissenters and insulters.  They were either condemned to hell or killed.  Because Muslims consider Mohammed as the ideal model for mankind to follow, many Islamic countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, have also made blasphemy subject to the death penalty with their anti-blasphemy laws.

It is this anti-blasphemy law that the OIC is striving to legally enforce on the world in order to curtail speech and expression when it comes to Islam — not so much for religious compliance as for the global subjugation of non-Muslims to Islam.  Since 2005, the OIC has been pushing relentlessly for a UN blasphemy resolution (Resolution 16/18 passed in 2011) to silence so-called Islamophobia — a term deliberately coined and marketed in the 1990s by the International Institute of Islamic Thought, one of the thousands of Muslim Brotherhood front groups worldwide, to drive public discourse and policy.  However, the OIC’s top priority is to globally criminalize any criticism of Islam, and is working with the Muslim Brotherhood to accomplish this. Ten years later, in 2015, telling the truth about Islam has become a crime in some European countries.

The highly influential yet little-known OSCE that is rooted in communism, is supposed to protect and promote civil liberties.  Instead, it is negotiating them away by capitulating to the OIC narrative of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal from the 1990s is to destroy Western civilization from within.  Its goal of global domination is to be accomplished not through violence, at least not yet, but rather through the slow infiltration of Western government, military, judicial and academic institutions.

So far, there has been practically no opposition from  any Western administration in power, only cooperation from world leaders, government officials, and leftist policymakers.  In fact, the cooperation from Western leaders with OSCE and OIC policymakers has been so great, that the U.S. co-sponsored Resolution 16/18 with Pakistan, and helped usher it through in 2011, despite this resolution being a direct assault on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

At an OSCE May session in Vienna (on how the media can help prevent violent radicalization that leads to terrorism), OSCE panelist Leila Ghandi, producer and TV show host on the most popular Moroccan TV channel (2MTV) that is over 60% government-owned, maintained that the truth or facts about “a community” can sometimes constitute hate speech when those facts are offensive and therefore should not be said.  The panelist’s words echo those of the new OIC Secretary General, Iyad Amin Madani, who tweeted earlier this year following the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris, that “freedom of speech must not become a hate speech and must not offend others.”  In other words, truth about Islam is designated as hate speech.

Furthermore, OSCE panelist Victor Khroul, correspondent for Rossiya Segodnya, a Russian state-owned international news agency, questions why the mainstream media throughout the world still refer to the “self-proclaimed self-established state in the Middle East” as the Islamic State. His words echo those of Madani, who proclaimed last year that the Islamic State has no connection with Islam.  Khroul claims it’s a mistake for these people to be called Muslim and their state Islamic, which only “confuses the audience with this correlation with Islam.”  He maintains that it’s still possible “to find other words to describe this so-called state and its activity,” discounting the facts that Islamic State is what ISIS named itself and its state, and that ISIS clearly credits its motivation to Islam and its acts to Allah. The name Islamic State does not have to be rectified because it accurately reflects reality, defines the organization in question, and is therefore a correct term that would sit well in the world of Confucius and his doctrine on rectifying names.

Major Stephen Coughlin, an attorney, former U.S. Army intelligence officer, and the Pentagon’s leading expert on Islamic law and jihad (until he was dismissed in 2008 for linking Islam with terrorism with his Red Pill Briefings), stresses the urgency of defining the enemy as he defines himself:  “you cannot target what you will not define…if I can’t use the concepts of Jihad that Al-Qaeda say they rely on, then I can’t understand what they are going to do.”

Author of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, Coughlin attended the OSCE May session and responded to the OSCE jargon as follows:

“Once you decide that facts on the ground as they present themselves, can be considered hate speech, this is no longer about truth…you are subordinating facts that the public has a right to know when they formulate their decisions, and replacing them with narratives to keep them from coming to the understanding of events that can be articulated and verified.  That can never be considered hate speech. We’re not talking about speech at all. We’re talking about brazen disinformation.”

Rather than disseminate vital information to the public that can save lives, Western world leaders are betraying their citizens by submitting to the OSCE and OIC narrative of outlawing any criticism of Islam and rendering truth illegal.  Reassuring citizens that Islam is a religion of peace merely renders them incapacitated from exercising sound judgment, crippling their ability to make the right decision in the face of potential harm.

While global institutions and national security policies are being shaped, and compromised, by highly influential but ill-known world organizations such as the OSCE and OIC, it’s critical that citizens get to know who those policymakers really are, and become more engaged in public affairs and the political process in order to arrest the Islamization process of the West…before it’s too late to reverse.

***

For more on how the OIC is working to criminalize criticism of islam see:

There is a new addition to the Center for Security Policy’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series which has not been announced yet but is available at Amazon:

41nU8jwQhkL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_