Does the Istanbul Process have something to do with Benghazi?

images (60)By William Federer:

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

Obama quotes Alinsky in speech to young Israelis


rulesby
 AARON KLEIN:

JERUSALEM – In his address in Jerusalem today, President Obama channeled Saul Alinsky, citing the radical community organizer’s defining mantra as he urged young Israelis to “create change” to nudge their leadership to act.

Obama told a crowd of college students at Jerusalem’s main convention center that Israel “has the wisdom to see the world as it is, but also the courage to see the world as it should be.”

One of Alinsky’s major themes was working with the world as it “is” to turn it into the world as “it should be.”

In his defining work, “Rules for Radicals,” which he dedicated to “the first rebel,” Lucifer, Alinsky used those words to lay out his main agenda. He asserted radical change must be brought about by working within a system instead of attacking it from the outside.

“It is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system,” wrote Alinsky.

Obama related his Alinsky quote to a suggestion that “peace” begins with the people and not just the leadership – a statement some may relate to community organizing.

He further suggested Israelis do an end-run around the country’s leadership and “create the change that you want to see.”

************************

Horowitz writes in his 2009 pamphlet “Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution. The Alinsky Model”: “The strategy of working within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it was what ’60s radicals called ‘boring from within.’ … Like termites, they set about to eat away at the foundations of the building in expectation that one day they could cause it to collapse.”

Read more at WND

 

Video: Stephen Coughlin exposes the Saul Alinsky underpinnings of Interfaith Outreach

Robert Spencer interviews Stephen Coughlin on the subversive nature of the Interfaith Movement which is making use of Saul Alinsky tactics.

“One of the things Alinsky’s goal was to do is to take terms, sacred terms, sacred ideas, patriotic and religious, and redefine them without telling people …”

 

577106_406984566035385_1091298055_nStephen Coughlin is a senior fellow at the Center For Security Policy. An attorney, decorated intelligence officer and noted specialist on Islamic law, ideology and related strategic information programs, Mr. Coughlin integrates experience in international law, intelligence, strategic communications and high-level project management in both the national defense and private sectors to develop unique perspectives, assessments and training packages relating to the intersection of national security and law. Often cited as the Pentagon’s leading expert on Islamic law, Coughlin is in demand as a lecturer at leading Defense training institutions, including the Naval War College, Marine Corps HQ-Quantico, and at Staff, Command and Division levels, as well as for the FBI and other agencies and private sector groups.  A Major in the United States Army (res.), assigned to USCENTCOM, with a military intelligence specialty, Coughlin has served in a strategic communications role in CENTCOM-Doha. U.S. assignments have included attachment to the Pentagon’s National Military Joint Intelligence Center, the National Security Council’s Interagency Perception Management Threat Panel, and culminating in his assignment to the intelligence staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Coughlin’s private sector career has focused on international law, competitive intelligence and the development and provision of open source, classified and proprietary commercial data and information products and programs at leading publishing houses such as Lexis-Nexis/Reed Elsevier and West Group/WestLaw.

Loving the Enemy

UNited in HateBy Janice Fiamengo 

Proclaiming himself a conciliator and a moderate with a vision of Americans “stand[ing] with each other” and “paying their fair share,” President Barack Obama is in fact one of the most partisan presidents ever to occupy the White House. Fine-sounding words notwithstanding, he is a leftist ideologue and no-holds-barred political fighter whose practice has consistently been to demonize the American equivalents of the hated kulaks (farmers) and petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners) persecuted in the Soviet Union. Obama’s enemies include those “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as well as the presumably benighted bigots who fail to realize that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” With his anti-American, neo-Marxist outlook shaped by mentors and heroes such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Jeremiah Wright, Obama is naturally inclined to be suspicious of freedom and to feel sympathy for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Reflex affinities such as Obama’s have a long, bloody history, and anyone wishing to understand the threat posed by the Obama administration to the fabric of America is well advised to place its policies and rhetoric in a comprehensive historical perspective. How is it that an educated person can be attracted to totalitarian ideologies and predisposed to reject the freedoms of the western world? This was, arguably, the central question of the twentieth century, and it has assumed a renewed urgency since 9/11, a time when leftists have applauded terror attacks on the United States and claimed that America’s enemies are in fact righteous victims. What is one to make of their seemingly sophisticated arguments justifying atrocity? Can such people really believe, to cite only a few examples, that the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by a longing for social justice? That the Palestinian leadership is committed to peace with Israel? That people are better off in Cuba, with the highest per capita imprisonment rate in the world, than in the United States?

Jamie Glazov responds to such questions in United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror (2009), a brilliant investigation that not only extensively documents leftists’ support for brutal regimes, but also diagnoses their worldview as a psycho-social syndrome of pathological dimensions. Leftist hatred, Glazov demonstrates, has less to do with specific political programs or economic systems than with a deep-rooted disenchantment with democratic freedoms and a corresponding “negative identification” with violence.

The objective evidence for leftists’ love of tyrants is substantial, and Glazov presents it convincingly with a blend of facts, anecdotes, and analysis. We learn, for example, about the massive effort on the part of western Communists to repress, distort, and recast the horrors of Stalinist Russia, including the purges that killed millions and the forced famine in the Ukraine that brought the peasantry to its knees. New York Times reporter Walter Duranty turned the reality of Ukrainian starvation into a cheerful tale of abundance, lying so aggressively in favor of Stalin’s policies that when the Manchester Guardian‘s Malcolm Muggeridge tried to report the truth-that peasant were dying en masse-he was mocked and derided, ultimately losing his job.

When leftists turned their attention to other bloody Communist regimes in Cuba, North Vietnam, China, and Nicaragua, many high-profile members of the western intelligentsia were eager to travel there to report on the miraculous gains that had supposedly been achieved. Susan Sontag wrote of Castro’s Cuba with fanatical admiration, denying the dictator’s atrocities and downplaying limitations on freedom, even going so far as to claim that “No Cuban writer has been or is in jail,” and that “the great majority of Cubans feel vastly freer today than they ever did before the revolution.” Making his pilgrimage to Hanoi in 1970, Noam Chomsky accepted as gospel all the nonsense his North Vietnamese hosts told him about the regime, as did Gunter Grass after a tour of a model Nicaraguan prison, which led him to enthuse that there was no room in the new regime for revenge-this in a country that had executed 8,000 political enemies and jailed 20,000 in the first three years of the revolution. (Hollywood’s Oliver Stone, with his glorification of Stalin and denunciation of the U.S. as “an Orwellian state,” is a current exemplar of this suicidal distemper.)

After the collapse of Communism, it has been déjà vu all over again with radical Islam. Immediately following the terrorist assault of 9/11, a jubilant chorus of university professors and progressives across North America refused to express horror for the attacks; instead, they blamed America, with Ward Churchill calling those who had died “little Eichmanns” and Nation columnist Katha Pollitt lecturing patriots who wanted to fly an American flag that it stood for “jingoism and vengeance and war.” Hundreds of so-called anti-war demonstrations were organized almost immediately to express solidarity with the Taliban regime that had harbored the attackers and to paint the United States as a warmonger. Since then, droves of leftist lawyers have worked to obtain release for the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay and to strike down legislation intended to help the United States guard itself against future attacks. Even when Islamists testify in court that their terror quests are inspired by Koranic injunctions to kill infidels, leftists insist that they are (justly) resisting American oppression. Western feminists routinely defend Islamic misogyny-wife beating, honor killing, genital mutilation, the burqa-and will not admit that women live better lives in the western democracies. And leftist gays march in anti-Israel rallies, joining with Muslim queer-bashers to denounce the only country in the Middle East where homosexuals can live securely.

Read more at American Thinker

 

Terrorist? Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

By Matthew Vadum:

FBI agents aren’t allowed to treat individuals associated with terrorist groups as potential threats to the nation, according to a startling, newly discovered FBI directive.

The fact that a terrorism suspect is associated with a terrorist group means nothing, according to the FBI document, “Guiding Principles: Touchstone Document on Training.” The “touchstone” document, dated March of this year, is available online but hasn’t been reported on by major media outlets.

Federal Bureau of Investigation agents are to be instructed that “mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s),” the touchstone document states.

This is a bizarre kind of procedural fairness as viewed in a funhouse mirror, applying something akin to a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard to an FBI investigation. Such an evidentiary threshold may be appropriate for a criminal trial, but it sets the bar far too high for mere investigations. This new rule no doubt provides aid and comfort to the much-investigated phony civil rights group known as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

After first handcuffing FBI agents investigating terrorism, the touchstone document also invokes the gods of political correctness by making FBI agents afraid of being called “racist” – even though almost all Islamic terrorism suspects come from the same part of the world.

“Training must emphasize that no investigative or intelligence collection activity may be based solely on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religious affiliation,” the touchstone document reads. “Specifically, training must focus on behavioral indicators that have a potential nexus to terrorist or criminal activity, while making clear that religious expression, protest activity, and the espousing of political or ideological beliefs are constitutionally protected activities that must not be equated with terrorism or criminality absent other indicia of such offenses.”

The touchstone document is examined in The Project, a film about the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan for America that is airing this week. (The movie was produced by The Blaze’s documentary unit. Part I of The Project premieres Wednesday at 8 p.m. Eastern, followed by Part II the next evening at the same time. Dish subscribers may watch it on channel 212.)

One of the movie’s arguments is that Americans’ civil rights and political correctness are weapons of infiltration used by our Islamofascist enemies. This happens to be consistent with Saul Alinsky’s fourth rule of “power tactics”: “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.” In other words, Islamists are using Americans’ goodness, their sense of fair play, including an aversion to being accused of racial stereotyping, against America.

Read more at Front Page