Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience in Brussels in 2009, “Never waste a good crisis.”
In the weeks leading up to the Benghazi attacks, Clinton inexplicably removed defense personnel and denied Ambassador Christopher Steven’s repeated requests for security.
Six hours into the Benghazi attack, President Obama called Hillary, as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney admitted on Feb. 20, 2012 to CNSNews.com.
At some point, an unidentified person in authority gave a stand-down order that no help would be sent to Ambassador Stevens.
Why did Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama act in the way they did?
Was it ineptness, or something else? If the latter, can a motive be established?
A possible motive could be the Istanbul Process.
In 2012, Hillary Clinton co-chaired a meeting with 57 Muslim countries in Istanbul, Turkey.
The closed-door meeting was for the purpose of devising a process to implement U.N. Resolution 16/18, which would prohibit speech insulting Islam.
Championed by the Obama administration, Resolution 16/18 claims to seek a balance between freedom of religion and freedom of expression by “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”
Forbes’ Abigail R. Esman wrote on Dec. 30, 2011:
Proposed … in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. constitutional guarantees of free speech.
The resolution, though, is disingenuous in that it is the initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is made up of Muslim countries that do not allow equal freedom of speech or religion to non-Muslims living within their borders.
The resolution limits free speech viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves “defamation of religion” — specifically, speech which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence,” with Islam itself being the religion most known for allowing itself to be incited to “violence.”
This resolution will limit the free speech of non-Muslims, which is the Sharia law restriction placed on conquered peoples, called “dhimmi.” Resolution 16/18, for those who dare admit it, would effectively establish global Sharia law.
In fact, in the OIC countries, the very act of proclaiming that Jesus is the son of God or that Israel is the Jewish homeland would be enough to incite violence.
At the close of the Istanbul meeting in 2012, Secretary Clinton called for “formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred.” OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu commended the Obama administration. “I particularly appreciate the kind personal interest of Secretary Clinton and the role played by the U.S. towards the consensual adoption of the resolution,” he said.
Are there places in the world where these types of laws have already been implemented, and by what process?
In 2005, there were Muslim riots in Europe after a Dutch cartoon was published. The European Union quickly mandated religious-hate-speech codes which prohibit insulting Islam.
Riots, and the process of inciting them, has been a political tactic dating as far back as Rome’s Mark Anthony; or the French Revolution’s Robespierre; or Chicago Labor’s 1886 Haymarket Riot; or Bill Ayers’ Chicago Days of Rage.
Stalin said: “Crisis alone permitted the authorities to demand and obtain total submission and all necessary sacrifices from its citizens.”
Someone who codified this process was Saul Alinsky.
In 1969, Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis at Wellesley College was titled “There Is Only the Fight — An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”
President Obama taught Alinsky’s tactics while a Chicago community organizer.
What did Saul Alinsky write in Rules for Radicals?
“The organizer’s first job is to create the issues or problems.”
“An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.”
“The organizer must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community.”
“Fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression.”
“He must search out controversy and issues rather than avoid them … for unless there is controversy the people are not concerned enough to act.”
In other words, Alinsky’s tactics are designed to incite people.
Could those tactics have been applied to implement the Istanbul Process?
In the vein of “Fast and Furious,” if there could, just by chance, be a spontaneous riot incited that could be blamed on someone insulting Islam, then there would be the justification for a hurried rush for Americans to give up their free speech rights.
Read more at Daily Caller