The Anti-Free Speech Mayor

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

City Journal, by Benjamin Weingarten, October 6, 2016:

New York mayor Bill de Blasio is focused like a laser on the important things: namely, ensuring that open and honest discussion about Islam is chilled. At the end of September, the de Blasio administration and the NYC Commission on Human Rights announced a campaign to combat “hateful speech [that] has made Muslim residents the target of misguided attacks and threats, especially in the aftermath of terrorist incidents.”

De Blasio’s office hasn’t quantified the scourge of hateful rhetoric toward Muslims in New York City, likely because it is unquantifiable. The best argument the mayor can make for his new initiative is that “reports of attacks and threats against Muslims have surged nationally,” this despite the FBI’s most recent hate-crime figures showing once again that a disproportionate percentage of all hate crimes were driven by anti-Jewish bias, by 57 percent to 16 percent versus anti-Islamic bias.

To make the claim that conditions are particularly hostile for Muslims in New York, the mayor offers that the Commission on Human Rights has “increased investigations into discrimination based on race, national origin, and religion in New York City by more than 60 percent over the last two years.” Presumably, the city would have shown a specific increase in actual bias crimes against New York Muslims if the data actually backed its narrative.

De Blasio’s new program explicitly calls for countering “negative rhetoric,” which means that it is speech that his office seeks to police. Nowhere does de Blasio explain where he gets the right as mayor to use taxpayer dollars to challenge speech he doesn’t like and that his office can’t even quantify. Further, how is it within the purview of an elected official to promote a particular religious group in the first place? The press-release language is drafted nicely to say that the mayor’s office is promoting “respect, understanding, and support” for the city’s Muslim communities, rather than Islam itself. But the mayor’s office is partnering with the Islamic Center at NYU on a new “cultural competency initiative” called “Understanding Islam.” The purpose? “[T]o help City employees and public and private employers citywide better understand the Islamic faith and to dispel common myths.” One can imagine the howls about separation of church and state that a city initiative to help employees better understand the Catholic or Jewish faiths would provoke.

Equally disturbing is de Blasio’s meeting of the minds with London mayor Sadiq Khan, who has ties to several Islamic supremacists, and has supported policies consistent with Sharia law. In mid-September, de Blasio and Khan spoke with Muslim leaders and community members about how New York and other cities “can better address Islamophobia and prevent hate crimes and other acts of discrimination.” Preventing crime is a laudable goal. Policing “Islamophobia,” however, means, in effect, enforcing Islamic law—with its radically different understanding of intellectual freedom—over and above our First Amendment rights.

There’s precedent for de Blasio’s actions. For over a decade, the 57-member Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) has been promoting a plan of actionfor “combating Islamophobia,” including “call[ing] upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.” In 2011, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton gave the U.S. imprimatur to the OIC-drafted UN Human Rights Coalition (HRC) Resolution 16/18 consistent with this agenda, which calls for, “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”

Wittingly or unwittingly, New York is enforcing a plan that conforms with the stated aims of the foremost supranational Islamic political body, consistent with Sharia speech-code standards and to the detriment of free-speech rights. Earlier this year, the NYPD purged valuable resources produced by its intelligence division that forthrightly described the Islamic supremacist ideology. Now, the de Blasio administration is committing to combat free speech, publicly support Islam, and educate New Yorkers on the religion’s purportedly true meaning. We’re in the best of hands.

Hillary Clinton officially on record as supporting the implementation of sharia over the Constitution

Understanding the Threat, by John  Guandolo, October 6, 2016:

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the largest voting bloc in the United Nations (UN), and is comprised of all Islamic States on the planet – 56 states plus Palestine which they consider an equal.

57 states.  Ring any bells?

The OIC is considered the “Collective Voice of the Muslim World.”

In 1993, the OIC officially served the Cairo Declaration to the UN.  It was approved by the Heads of State and Kings of the Islamic nations in the world.

The Cairo Declaration begins with:

“Recognizing the importance of issuing a Document on Human Rights in Islam that will serve as a guide for Member states in all aspects of life.”

The Cairo Declaration ends with:

ARTICLE 24:  All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

ARTICLE 25:  The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

At the Head of State and King level, the entire Muslim world under the OIC legally told the world that “Human Rights” in the Muslim world is defined by sharia (Islamic law).  Meaning:  killing those who leave Islam, homosexuals, and those who fail to convert or submit to Islam is all a part of the Islamic understanding of “human rights.”

The OIC “Ten Year Programme of Action” (2005) calls for governments of the world to Combat Islamophobia, which is hammer to implement the Islamic law of Slander (“To say anything about a Muslim he would dislike”).  Slander in Islam is a capital crime.

Specifically, paragraph VII “Combating Islamophobia” sub paragraph (3) reads:

“Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.” (emphasis added)

UN Resolution 1618, approved in March 2011, is a non-binding resolution which calls on governments to outlaw all speech that “constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” toward religion, on the rationale that such speech could provoke “religious hatred” in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution and Federal Code.

Who advocated on behalf of the OIC for silencing “Islamophobia?”  Mrs. Clinton.

Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary General of the OIC Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu

Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary General of the OIC Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu

On July 15, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking to the OIC in Istanbul, Turkey stated:  “I want to applaud the Organization of Islamic Conference and the European Union for helping pass Resolution 1618 at the Human Rights Council…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.”

In December 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the “Istanbul Process” a major initiative and partnered with the OIC to directly support UN Resolution 1618.

Hillary Clinton is, therefore, officially on record as supporting the implementation of sharia (Islamic Law) over the Constitution and U.S. Federal Code, and silencing all those who speak up about the dangers of Islam and sharia.

EMISCO and the Ongoing Push Against “Islamophobia” by the OSCE

emisco-isis

Gates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey Sept. 26, 2016:

The following report was written by the Counterjihad Collective after several members attended an EMISCO side event today at the OSCE/HDIM conference in Warsaw.

bulentsenayThe forum was structured so that the closing statements, given by Bülent Şenay, were delivered after the question-and-answer period to ensure a final word. The panel seemed defensive, with panel members making strident statements about various political parties, labeling them as “racist” and “Islamophobic”. Building on narratives emphasized in 2014, their efforts were aimed at escalating the Islamophobia rhetoric in the guise of racism and gender, with all of the women appearing in head coverings, amid a constant reference to the wearing of headscarves. Also of note was a peculiar omission: the materials associated with side event did not provide the names of the briefers.

Because EMISCO and the Turkish complement were force to acknowledge that the term “Islamophobia” lacks a definition, this question was presented again in this forum. The other question concerned the definition of “new form of racism not based on skin color” and “manifestations of racism” as well. The panel did not answer the question on racism. Quraishy answered that Islamophobia was not about reasonable disagreements. In his closing remarks, however, Bülent Şenay became visibly agitated, went off his prepared notes (he said) and forcefully declared that our asking the question was both Islamophobic and ridiculous because “we all know what it means” and hence “I won’t define it.” He went on to insist, however, that “we must define Islamophobia as a crime.” Of course, defining Islamophobia is an issue because criminalizing an activity that lacks a definition is a serious civil rights and verges on the criminalization of thought.

Professor Bülent Şenay speaks under color of some authority, which makes his observations something more than just the comments of a professor. The professor sits on the OSCE Human Rights Advisory Council, is a founding member of the Governing Board of EMISCO, and was the Diplomatic Counsel¬or for Religious and Cultural Affairs at the Turkish Embassy in The Hague from 2008 to 2012. In September 2013, Professor Şenay oversaw the drafting of a declaration that defined Islamophobia as “a groundless fear and intolerance of Islam and Muslims” that is “detrimental to international peace” such that there “should be recogni¬tion of Islamophobia as a hate crime and Islamophobic attitudes as human rights violations.” The declaration was written for the “International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media” in Istanbul, which was co-sponsored by Turkey’s Directorate General of Press and Information and the OIC. At the conference, Turkish President Erdoğan stated that “Islamophobia” is a “kind of racism” that is “a crime against humanity.” In 2014, Şenay felt comfortable chiding the Western audience by saying, “if I were to present a particular favor, this would be the title, ‘A New Cultural ISIS — International Strong Ignorance Syndrome’” as he presented his briefing with the title, “Is¬lamophobia in the 21st Century: International Strong IgnoranceSyndrome in Europe (ISIS).” In doing so, Şenay was suggesting that the extremism was in the reactions of the West, not in the acts of ISIS.

***

Stephen Coughlin at OSCE today by Vlad Tepes

Some may remember Stephen Coughlin’s intervention at a 2015 OSCE meeting where they openly admitted that hate speech should be a criminal matter and that the truth can indeed be hate speech.

Stephen went back to the OSCE “Human Development Implementation Meeting” today and spoke again to this committee, who seem bound and determined to use the language of cultural-Marxism to turn free societies into totalitarian Marxist and communist ones.

***

Clare Lopez on Islamic antisemitism at the OSCE – Turkish response follows by Vlad Tepes

This is Clare Lopez’s presentation at the OSCE, the European body that seeks to criminalize criticism of Islam as hate speech, today in Warsaw.

According to those watching the conference via live stream, this odd set of remarks by the Turkish delegate was a response to Clare’s presentation, as well as the rest of the interventions by Center for Security Policy personnel.

***

Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff OSCE Human Dimension Implementation meeting Warsaw 2106

***

Tundra Tabloids:

At the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe in Warsaw Poland, Atheists Ireland spokesman denounces the term “Islamofauxbia” as a fraudulent term.

***

Vlad Tepesblog:

Dave Petties OSCE presentation September 27 2016

***

Vlad Tepesblog:

Stephen Coughlin OSCE Sept 27

Think Tank Report Merges Racism With Criticism of Islam To Achieve ‘Islamophobia Crisis’ Numbers

BBC-Demos-3-640x480Breitbart, by Liam Deacon, Aug. 19, 2016:

The BBC has seized upon a report by a left-wing think tank, which openly conflates criticism of Islam with racism, to claim “islamophobia” on social media has “peaked” and imply more censorship is needed.

Demos, whose Chief Executive is Claudia Wood, who joined the think tank from Tony Blair’s strategy unit, developed a method of supposedly automatically identifying Tweets that are “hateful, derogatory, and anti-Islamic”.

They claimed that over 5,000 “Islamophobic” tweets are sent every day and that the number “peaked” after a number of Islamist terror attacks rocked Europe this July.

“Over July, we identified 215,247 Tweets, sent in English and from around the world… On average, this is 289 per hour, or 6,943 per day”, the report claims.

“Islamophobic tweets ‘peaked in July’”, claimed a BBC article and extended segment on the BBC News Channel, after they were given “exclusive access” the report which they published alongside a series of emotive and subjective interviews with “offended” and aggrieved British Muslims.

These “possibly socially problematic and damaging” online utterances were said to “contain one of a number of specified keywords”.

However, the National Secular Society (NSS) labelled the report “an accidental case-study in why we should all stop using the meaningless and sinister word ‘Islamophobia’”, and identified some serious methodological flaws.

Benjamin Jones, the communications officer of the NSS, explained in a blog post:

“In their report Demos selects some tweets it included in the study, which they presumably think are good examples of their methodology in action. A tweet stating “Morocco deletes a whole section of the Koran from school curriculum as it’s full of jihad incitement and violence The Religion of peace” is treated the same way as a tweet saying “I fucking hate pakis” in their methodology.

“One of these tweets criticises an idea. The other is racist. One describes and mocks a belief system, the other (verbally) attacks people. Demos’ methodology treats both of these tweets in the same way.

“I have read (an English translation of) the Koran. Saying it contains violence (it does) is in no way comparable to using racist language.

“This is an appalling conflation, which creates a false moral equivalence between racism and criticising a set of ideas.

“Another tweet Demos offer as an example reads: “Priest killed in #Normandy today by a Radical Islamic Terrorist yet Hillary says that Islam is peaceful! 1274 attacks this year=peaceful? Ok.”

“Is asserting that Islam doesn’t seem to be conducive to peace really ‘Islamophobic’? The BBC apes Demos’ dangerous line, referring not to anti-Muslim, but explicitly to “anti-Islamic” tweets as ‘Islamophobic’.

“… Wanting to jail homosexuals might also be “socially problematic”, but pointing out that half of British Muslims do want to criminalise homosexuality and most think it is immoral would have me labelled an ‘Islamophobe’ under Demos’ methodology.”

The report’s authors claim that “we believe it is important that the principle of internet freedom should be maintained… However, racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic and misogynistic abuse can curtail freedom…”

In the methodology section of their paper, they write that “An Islamophobic expression was defined as the illegitimate and prejudicial dislike of Muslims because of their faith”, but conceded that, “Islamophobia can take on a very large number of different forms, and its identification, especially within Twitter research, was often challenging.”

“Ultimately, this research comes down to the judgement of the researchers involved”, they add.

Screen-Shot-2016-08-19-at-13.56.03

According to NSS, Demos clearly failed to successfully identify bigotry, and by conflating it with legitimate criticism Islam and Islamism, they and the BBC have damaged people’s ability to speak freely on the subject.

An example of this conflation came within the BBC’s own report, when a man interrupted one of the Muslim interviewees to say that “there is no sharia law here” and “we’re losing our freedom of speech”.

The man was immediately castigated by the Muslim interviewee, and the BBC ran a second article titled: “BBC Islamophobia discussion interrupted by Islamophobia”, implying that stating Sharia law isn’t part of UK law is itself Islamophobic.

Convictions for crimes under Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003, a law increasingly used to prosecute “internet trolls”, have increased ten-fold in a decade.

Earlier this week, the office of London’s first Muslim mayor announced they had secured millions of pounds to fund a police “online hate crime hub” to work in “partnership with social media providers” to criminalise “trolls” who “target… individuals and communities.”

And in May this year, the EU announced that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft had “committed” to working more closely with them and national governments and “their law enforcement agencies” to help “criminalise” perceived “illegal hate speech” online.

Also see:

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.

Hillary Clinton is a great defender of religious freedom … for Islamic Supremacists

STR | AP Photo

STR | AP Photo

Apparently for Hillary Clinton, religious liberty means freedom for Islamic supremacists to spread their rule while subjugating the infidel.

Conservative Review, by Benjamin Weingarten, Aug. 13, 2016:

Did you know that Hillary Clinton is a staunch advocate for religious liberty?

She says so herself in an op-ed in Utah’s Deseret News:

I’ve been fighting to defend religious freedom for years. As secretary of state, I made it a cornerstone of our foreign policy to protect the rights of religious minorities around the world — from Coptic Christians in Egypt to Buddhists in Tibet

We stood up for these oppressed communities because Americans know that democracy ceases to exist when a leader or ruling faction can impose a particular faith on everyone else.

Clinton’s claim of support for Coptic Christians in Egypt here is particularly rich — did she protect the Copts from Islamic-based persecution before or after supporting the ouster of Hosni Mubarak and replacement by jihadi-supporting Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi?

Indeed, the results of the Obama administration foreign policy overseen by then-Secretary of State Clinton can only be characterized as a complete and utter failure when it comes to defending religious freedom with respect to the Islamic world.

From Iran to Iraq to Egypt to Libya to Syria — in every instance under the Obama administration — we have seen Islamic supremacists, regardless of whether they were Sunni or Shia, emboldened and empowered, leaving minorities from Kurds to Yazidis to Copts disenfranchised and facing violence. The Jewish State of Israel — the minority state in the Middle East — is left facing threats now from not just from Hamas and Iran-backed Hezbollah, but ISIS and a greatly strengthened Iran itself.

Secretary Clinton says democracy will not exist when one faction can impose its faith on all, but the Islamic supremacist groups that took power under her watch and/or were armed by the U.S. government — often displacing relatively secular authoritarians — subscribe to a Sharia law that requires religious minorities to convert to Islam, live as third-class citizens, or face the sword.

Clinton’s record on religious liberty, when it comes to the Middle East, can be best represented by 21 Egyptian Christians in orange jump suits kneeling on the shores of Libya with knives to their throat wielded by their ISIS captors.

Meanwhile, freedom of speech is a prerequisite to freedom of religion. Here, Mrs. Clinton’s record is even more woeful, as she has gone out of her way to seek to criminalize speech deemed critical of Islam.

Set aside for a second Clinton’s outrageous promise to bring justice to the families of those slain in Benghazi by arresting a filmmaker who made a video about Muhammad that the Obama administration knew from Day One had nothing to do with the jihadist savagery of September 11, 2012.

Secretary Clinton championed U.N. Human Rights Commission Resolution 16/18, which was backed by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). As I have noted elsewhere, Resolution 16/18

calls for “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”

Retired Maj. Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon’s [former] leading adviser on Islamic law as it relates to national security, makes a compelling case in his book “Catastrophic Failure” that the resolution is actually a Shariah-based Trojan Horse meant to stifle all criticism of Islam.

Coughlin writes that the Islamic Conference, through the resolution, seeks to criminalize incitement to violence by imposing a “legal standard designed to facilitate the “shut up before I hit you again” standard associated with the battered wife syndrome.”

He convincingly argues that the Islamic Conference desires that

…[T]he United Nations, the European Union, the United States and all other non-Muslim countries pass laws criminalizing Islamophobia. This is a direct extraterritorial demand that non-Muslim jurisdictions submit to Islamic law and implement shariah-based punishment over time. In other words, the OIC is set on making it an enforceable crime for non-Muslim people anywhere in the world—including the United States—to say anything about Islam that Islam does not permit.

For the cherry on top, while supporting Islamic supremacist movements in the Middle East, and seeking to muzzle Americans when it comes to criticism of Islamic supremacist ideology, Secretary Clinton argues that resettling Syrian refugees in America further represents her devotion to religious liberty.

She writes:

Instead of giving into demagoguery, [Utah] Gov. Gary Herbert is setting a compassionate example and welcoming Syrian refugees fleeing religious persecution and terrorism. Once they’ve gone through a rigorous screening process, he is opening your state’s doors to some of the most vulnerable people in the world.

This policy might be good and well save for the fact that ISIS has told us they intend to infiltrate such refugee populations, and use our compassion and belief in religious liberty against us to carry out such a Trojan Horse operation; and of course, Clinton-enabling FBI Director James Comey himself has said we cannot sufficiently vet such refugees.

Again, the Islamic supremacists whether violent or peaceful that are likely to embed themselves among such refugee populations do not share Mrs. Clinton’s supposed belief in religious liberty, but rather seek to force all non-Muslims submit to their theo-political Islamic supremacist ideology. This is the antithesis of the democracy that Hillary Clinton purports to champion.

Apparently for Hillary Clinton, religious liberty means freedom for Islamic supremacists to spread their rule while subjugating the infidel.

And don’t even get her started on abortion.

Ben Weingarten is Founder & CEO of ChangeUp Media LLC, a media consulting and publication services firm. A graduate of Columbia University, he regularly contributes to publications such as City Journal, The Federalist, Newsmax and PJ Media on national security/defense, economics and politics. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter. 

Also see:

Video: Robert Spencer explains the “Islamophobia” scam

olJihad  Watch, by Robert Spencer, April 11, 2016:

Here is the first part of my new video series, The Basics of Islam, an introduction to many of the most important aspects of the struggle against the global jihad. This one is about “Islamophobia” and the Islamic jihad against the freedom of speech.

White House Censors French President’s Mention of “Islamist Terrorism”

Obama-WH-Censors-Islamist-TerrorismCounter Jihad, by Clare Lopez, April 1, 2016:

French President Francois Hollande is in Washington, D.C. this week for the Nuclear Security Summit and met with President Barack Obama and his top aides at the White House yesterday.

Naturally, the discussion turned to recent jihad atrocities in Paris and Brussels, as well as the ongoing chaos in the Middle East. Unexpectedly, however, when President Hollande spoke of “Islamist terrorism” and its roots “in Syria and in Iraq,” both the official White House transcript and the video of his remarks were ham-handedly censored before release to the public.

Europe has been hit more, given that it is also the target of the terrorists and ISIS. We’ve seen it in Paris last year, as well as in Brussels. And together with President Obama, we worked on coordinating further our commitments, our organizations, our services when it comes to fighting against these terrorists. We are also making sure that between Europe and the United States there can be a very high level coordination.

But we’re also well aware that the roots of terrorism, Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq. We therefore have to act both in Syria and in Iraq, and this is what we’re doing within the framework of the coalition. And we note that Daesh is losing ground thanks to the strikes we’ve been able to launch with the coalition. We are continuing to support Iraq. This is also a decision we have taken, supporting the Iraqi government and making sure that they can claim back their entire territory, including Mosul.

Apparently, for the Obama White House, Even such euphemistic language as “Islamist terrorism” was too much. This is a president, after all, who cannot bring himself even to utter the words “Islam” and “terrorism” in the same sentence.

Under his tenure, the entire U.S. government, in fact, has been purged of all references in official language or training curriculum to the central role that the Islamic canon, including the life of Muhammad, plays in inspiring modern day jihadis, whether the Shi’ite Iranian regime and Hizballah, or the Sunni Riyadh royals, al-Qa’eda, Boko Haram, HAMAS, Hizballah, Islamic State or Taliban.

Self-censorship in service to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)’s agenda to criminalize criticism of Islam whether via the UN Commission on Human Rights and Resolution 16/18 or through the OIC’s Istanbul Process so cherished by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is submission to Islamic Law on slander and surrender of the First Amendment right to free speech no matter how it’s couched.

Instead of deploying an evidence-based approach to identifying the enemy threat doctrine of sharia in order to formulate and execute an effective national security strategy to defeat the Islamic forces that promote it, the Obama administration has chosen instead to embrace the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood both domestically and abroad, steadfastly prioritize the advancement of Islam worldwide over U.S. national security interests and those of our allies, and refuse to condemn the savage depredations committed by Islamic terrorists for what they are: jihad in the name of Allah.

New leadership in the White House and across all levels of U.S. national security cannot arrive soon enough to dispense with the misguided “Countering Violent Extremism” policy, end all plans to establish a CVE Task Force or Office at the Cabinet level or at the WH, shed reliance on Muslim Brotherhood advisors and appointees, and replace it all with a determined commitment to defend the U.S. Constitution against the jihadist ideology of shariah.

***

DOJ to ‘Promote Religious Freedom’ in Schools by Assailing Islamophobia

r1065289_12520708

Truth Revolt, by Tiffany Gabbay, March, 2016:

Under the guise of ensuring that civil rights and religious freedom are upheld across the nation’s schools, the U.S. Justice Department has revealed a plan to clamp down on religious  discrimination, namely so-called Islamophobia. CNS News reports:

The new enforcement effort announced on Tuesday will “expand” DOJ’s ability to investigate and prosecute complaints; lead community outreach; and develop guidance for federal prosecutors.

Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said one goal of the new initiative is to promote religious pluralism and create safe, supportive and inclusive schools for all children.

Following acts of terrorism, including 9-11 and San Bernardino, “too many Muslim Americans and those perceived as Muslim suffer a backlash of violence and discrimination,” Gupta said. “We see criminal threats against mosques; harassment in schools; and even reports of violence targeting Muslim Americans, people of Arab or South Asian descent, and people perceived to be members of these groups.”

Gupta said the new initiative, dubbed “Combating Religious Discrimination,” will help DOJ fight the backlash against Muslim students and students perceived as Muslim. The initiative also will “benefit children of every background and every religion,” she added.

“Our schools must remain the places where our children feel safe and supported. The places where they confront differences by building bridges of understanding. And the places where they learn that America guarantees freedom, justice and opportunity for all people — regardless of what you look like, where you come from or which religion you observe.”

Gupta stated that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has already has sued schools for engaging in alleged religious discrimination:

In part because of our efforts, today, Christian students in Bakersfield City, California, can observe Ash Wednesday without fearing an unexcused absence. Muslim students in Lewisville, Texas, can pray together during lunch. Jewish students in Pine Bush, New York, can walk the halls, ride the bus and sit in class without enduring anti-Semitic bullying and intimidation. Arabic-speaking EL students in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, can learn from qualified teachers. And Sikh students in DeKalb County, Georgia, can wear a turban to school without facing harassment.

Gupta said that roundtables are to be held at various locations across the nation to focus on “religion-based hate crimes.”

***

U.S Dept.Of Justice Interfering In Public Schools by Cathy Hinners:

Criminalizing free speech is about to happen. Well, only if it is construed as anti-Muslim, or anti-Islam. The Department of  Justice is moving swiftly by implementing a new enforcement effort that will follow up any investigations with possible prosecutions for what they say has been backlash to Muslims since 9/11, particularly Muslim Students in public schools.

vanita-guptayDepartment of Justice Civil Rights division head Vanita Gupta states the new crackdown  “Combating Religious Discrimination,” will focus on fighting the harassment and acts of violence towards Muslim children, or children “perceived” to be Muslim while attending school.

Gupta further states “Our schools must remain the places where our children feel safe and supported. The places where they confront differences by building bridges of understanding. And the places where they learn that America guarantees freedom, justice and opportunity for all people — regardless of what you look like, where you come from or which religion you observe.”   Read entire speech here :( https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/head-civil-rights-division-vanita-gupta-delivers-remarks-interagency-roundtable-religious

No, school is where children learn, not “build bridges”, unless you are a Muslim whose religious duty is to perform dawa. (Proselytizing Islam) This “effort” isn’t about protecting children of all faiths, this is about forcing Islam to be taught in schools, which has suffered set backs due to parents across the country demanding Islam be taught the same way other religions, specifically Christianity are taught.

Not only is Islam disproportionately represented in textbooks, it is inappropriately instructed, including children repeating the Islamic profession of faith, the Shahada. There is no historical value of children narrating the prayer that is recited when one converts to Islam. Most parents have stated they do not reject students from learning about Islam, but it must be historically accurate, which it is not.

The Department of Justice is way over the line. If Muslims want their children to be immersed in their religion and culture, send them to an Islamic school. But that isn’t the issue at all. The truth is, Islamists want to end free speech. It is Sharia law in action.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton along with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) drafted what they called a “Defamation of Religion Law”, (Un resolution 16/18)  known in countries such as Pakistan as a blasphemy law. Committing blasphemy is punishable by death.

While it may not be as drastic in the West, the mere thought the United States Department of Justice is enacting measures that will lead to possible prosecution for “Islamophobia” is perilous. Enjoy your freedoms, they are coming to an end quickly.

Also see:

WATCH: Geert Wilders speaks in Brussels: Threats to his life, resisting Islam and the establishment

Geert_Wilders_image

The Rebel, by Victor Laszlow, March 06, 2016:

On Friday March 4, 2016 Geert Wilders spoke at an event in Brussels at the invitation of Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest, i.e. the Flemish separatist party)

Geert Wilders is one of the few politicians brave enough to speak clear and obvious truths about what is happening to Europe and lead a fight-back against it. This is one of the best speeches he has given to date in which he discusses the current round of criminal prosecutions against him, and compare the charges against him to what other politicians say about him, for which they never seem to be arrested, despite the implicit death threats they sometimes contain.

Denmark Criminalizes Free Speech – Selectively

Gatestone Institute, by Judith Bergman, February 19, 2016:

  • According to the court decision, pointing out the totalitarian and cruel aspects of Islam itself is now a criminal offense, considered “insulting and demeaning” to Muslims in Denmark and therefore constituting “racism.” In effect, this means that the court is conflating what might possibly constitute blasphemy with racism.
  • Conversely, when a Danish imam called Jews “the offspring of apes and pigs,” he was officially reported to the police for breaching § 266b, but no legal charges were ever filed against him.
  • In Denmark, apparently, it is a crime to criticize Islam and “Islamists,” but calling Jews the “offspring of apes and pigs” and inciting their murder in a packed mosque (and calling non-Muslims in general “animals”) can be done with impunity.

Last week, a Danish district court ruled that what a Danish citizen had written on Facebook in November 2013 violated the Danish criminal code.

In response to a debate about the local activities of a radical Islamic organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which works for the re-establishment of the Islamic caliphate, he wrote: “The ideology of Islam is as loathsome, disgusting, oppressive and as misanthropic as Nazism. The massive immigration of Islamists into Denmark is the most devastating thing to happen to Danish society in recent history.”

According to § 266b of Denmark’s criminal code, it is prohibited and punishable by fine or prison publicly to threaten, insult or demean a group of persons because of their race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.

The man was fined 1600 Danish kroner (approximately $240), which makes it unlikely that he will be allowed to appeal the sentence: the fine is so small that an appeal to the Higher Court requires special permission.

The Danish district court found that the man’s statements about Islam were “generalizing statements” that were “insulting and demeaning towards adherents of Islam.”

The district court reached this conclusion despite the defendant’s testimony, according to which he specifically wrote “the ideology of Islam” in order to make a distinction between the religion of Islam and the ideology of Islam. The defendant explained that, “‘Islamist’ is a normal term for extremist groups, who commit crimes against humanity and do the most terrible things, whereas Islam is a peaceful religion.”

The district court decided to disregard “the defendant’s explanation that a distinction should be made between the ideology of Islam and the religion of Islam”.

The court reasoned that

“the statements that the defendant has made should be seen in the societal and historical context of the fall of 2013, and in this context the court sees the statements about ‘the ideology of Islam’ as pertaining to Islam generally and not only the extreme part of Islam. In this regard, the court has furthermore emphasized that the quoted statements were written on 29 November 2013 at 17.13 and that at 17.27 on the same day — as pointed out by the defense — the defendant wrote in the same [Facebook] thread that “Islam wishes to abuse democracy in order to get rid of democracy.”

For the incredulous reader, it should be pointed out that the court presumably meant that in 2013, Islamism as an ideology had not manifested itself through terrorism in Denmark and Europe in the same way as it has today, a few years later. This is, of course, nonsense, as pointed out by the defendant’s lawyer, Karoly Nemeth: “I believe the court is expressing a lack of historical understanding. The ideology of Islam has existed for over 1,000 years,” he said.

According to this court decision, then, pointing out the totalitarian and cruel aspects of Islam itself is now a criminal offense, considered “insulting and demeaning” to Muslims in Denmark and therefore constituting “racism.” In effect, this means that the court is conflating what might possibly constitute blasphemy with racism. Despite this decision being wrong in every single aspect, the court did, however, get one thing right: It refused to distinguish between Islam as an ideology and Islam as religion. The prosecutor, Bente Schnack, said it did not make a difference whether the defendant spoke of the ideology or the religion of Islam. “It is pretty difficult to tell the difference,” she said.

While the court’s decision was widely criticized in Denmark, two leading professors of Danish criminal law agreed with it. One professor, Gorm Toftegaard Nielsen, said that, “§ 266b is about subjecting a group of people to hatred by threatening, insulting or demeaning them. When you group Islamists with Nazis, then it is not a compliment.”

The following question, of course, inevitably arises: Since when is public debate supposed to be restricted to complimenting each other?

The professor continued: “When he [the defendant] says ‘the massive immigration of Islamists,’ it can easily be interpreted as meaning that those people are as immoral as Nazis… It is not nice to compare those two groups. But that is what he does indirectly and that amounts to subjecting a group to hatred.”

What the Danish district court did was what the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation has long sought: the establishment of Islamic “blasphemy laws,” making criticism of a religion a criminal offence. The UN Human Rights Commission’s Resolution 16/18 does exactly that, although it is non-binding — except presumably for the countries that want it to be. Infractions, as in Denmark now, are punishable by law. The UNHRC Resolution, originally known as “Defamation of Islam,” was changed in later versions — it would seem for broader marketability — to “Defamation of Religions.”

Conversely, in October 2014, when Mohamed Al Khaled Samha, a Danish imam from the Odense mosque, called Jews “the offspring of apes and pigs,” he was officially reported to the police, and local Danish police began an investigation of the imam with a view to charging him for breaching § 266b, but as far as Gatestone Institute has been able to ascertain, no legal charges were ever filed against him. (Incidentally, this imam was among the group of imams who traveled to the Middle East presumably to stir up anti-Danish sentiment in the aftermath of Jyllands-Posten newspaper’s printing of the Mohammed cartoons). In his sermon, Samha also said, “”Palestine has been and will remain the land of Islam. It is the land of the great battle, in which the Muslims will fight the Jews, and the trees and the stones will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.'”

In July 2014 another Danish imam, Abu Bilal Ismail, from the Grimshøj mosque, prayed for the death of Jews at a sermon in a Berlin mosque. “Oh Allah, destroy the Zionist Jews. They are no challenge for you. Count them and kill them to the very last one. Don’t spare a single one of them,” Ismail said. This, too, was officially reported to the Danish police, who never acted against that imam, either.

Instead, it was German authorities who criminally charged him. In December 2015, he wassentenced to a €10,000 fine for inciting hatred against Jews as well as non-Jewish groups in Germany. The Berlin court found that Ismail targeted “Jews with hatred, as well as all other non-Muslim groups living in Germany.”

The German court also said that the Lebanese-born cleric had shown deep contempt for the United States and Europe in his sermon, and that his assault on European civilization and Zionists had met the definition of incitement. The verdict said that Ismail considered Jews as “criminals who kill prophets and children, and Jews are worse than wild beasts in the world of the jungle,” and that “Allah should kill Jews.” Since Ismail had already been convicted in Germany, and a person cannot be punished twice for the same criminal act, the Danish police decided not to press charges.

In another, ironic, development regarding the use of § 266b of the Danish penal code, the state Prosecutor decided that Hajj Saeed, who incited against Jews in the Masjid Al-Faru mosque in Copenhagen, on February 13, 2015 — the very same sermon, in fact, that the terrorist Omar Abdel Hamid El-Husseini attended the day before he murdered Dan Uzan at the Copenhagen synagogue — will not be prosecuted for his statements. In his sermon, Saeed said that the Western “infidel” civilization has led non-Muslims “to an abyss of deprivation and corruption and has reduced them from being human to being at the level of animals”. He incited Muslims to wage war against Jews:

“Our prophet Muhammad had Jewish neighbors in Medina. Did he talk about closer ties, harmony and dialogue with them — in the same way as the UN and those who call for reconciliation between what is true and what is false? Or did he tell them to worship Allah? When they broke their promise and did not accept his calling, well, you know what he did to them… He declared war against the Jews.”

Danish police investigated the imam and recommended that the state prosecutor indict him under the same provision of the penal code, § 266b, for inciting hatred and threatening a particular group of people because of their ethnicity — in this instance because they were Jews. The state Prosecutor, for reasons that are unknown at this point, evidently thought otherwise.

Ironically, the mosque in question, Masjid Al-Faru, is connected with Hizb-ut-Tahrir; and the imam, Hajj Saeed, is considered to be one of the organization’s “rising stars” in Denmark.

In 2002, in fairness, the spokesman at the time for Hizb ut-Tahrir, Fadi Abdullatif, was sentenced for violating § 266b, when his organization handed out flyers against Jews with the words, “And kill them, wherever you may find them and banish them from where they banished you.”

Members of the Islamist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir demand a worldwide Islamic Caliphate during a demonstration in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2006. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons/Epo)

After the February 2015 terrorist attacks in Copenhagen against the synagogue, where Dan Uzan was murdered, and the Krudttønden café, where film director Finn Nørgaard was murdered, Hizb ut-Tahrir told Muslims not to condemn the terrorist attacks, but instead “put things in their right context.”

In Denmark, apparently, it is a crime to criticize Islam and “Islamists,” but calling Jews the “offspring of apes and pigs” and inciting their murder in a packed mosque (and calling non-Muslims in general “animals”) can be done with impunity.

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

Deborah Weiss speaks on Threats to free speech from Obama admin and Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

OIC book

Published on Feb 19, 2016 by securefreedom

Author Deborah Weiss outlines threats to freedom of expression in the US, Canada, UK and elsewhere instigated by the OIC and enforced by the Obama administration and others.

Also see:

Stephen Coughlin interview on CVE and the threat to free speech- part 1 and 2

freedom of thought

The CVE when understood explains a great deal about the shift in culture from individualism and freedom to government control and Orwellian thought and speech crimes.

The Rebel, Feb. 17, 2016:

Stephen Coughlin, former US military intel officer, who routinely briefed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke with me at length about a US program, “Countering Violent Extremism,” and an international one, UN resolution 16/18, both of which are designed to prevent any criticism of Islam, or any examination into the motives for Islamic terrorism and jihad.

This is part one of what will be a three part interview to be published over the course of this week.

*UPDATE: PART 2 (final)

Major Coughlin explains that the restrictions on social media, Facebook and Twitter most formally, as well as the political reaction to Islamic terror attacks, are not isolated events or even separate policies but are part of a foreign campaign to prevent criticism of Islam in Western nations.

The Rebel has posted on Facebook censorship already, and there have been countless examples of formerly unthinkable government interference with free and democratic speech against people who have been critical of an ideology and those who act under that doctrinal influence.

Namely, and exclusively, punishing those who criticize Islam, or leftist identity groups.

A few recent examples:

Man arrested for Facebook posts critical of refugee policy in Scotland 

Bangladesh: Authorities close down bookstand for ‘Insulting Islam’

Edmonton shoe store owner publicly shamed for refusing service to someone in a disguise. (Which happened to be an Islamic face cloth)

A man is being interrogated by police for saying something offensive near a university campus in the US

Denmark fines citizen for Facebook post critical of Islam. (Fine is tailored to be too low to allow for an appeal under Danish law)

Dutch police knock on doors, question people for posting comments critical of Dutch refugee policy 

And these are all from about the past 10 days.

Part II of the interview should be ready late on the 18th, and part III, late on Feb. 19th.

Stephen’s new paper on the CVE, ‘Burning Down the House’, can be downloaded for free here or from his Website here.

Stephen’s book can be ordered though Amazon.elated: An excellent example of how the far left suppresses information that may turn opinion against their agenda

Ottawa talk radio CFRA fires multiple hosts Popular conservative talk show hosts, John Counsell, Nick Vandergragt, Mark Sutcliffe, and Ron Corbett all let go from Ottawa’s only broadcast conservative talk radio. No reason was given

Trump: Banned in Britain?

re

Frontpage, by Deborah Weiss, Jan. 28, 2016:

Shortly after Britain celebrated the 800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta, which laid the foundation for human rights including free expression, the UK Parliament debated whether or not to ban U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump for “hateful comments.”

On January 18, 2016, Martin Luther King Day, the British Parliament took up a three hour debate, at taxpayer expense, discussing the merits of banning an American who may  potentially be the leader of the Free World come the next Inauguration day.

The debate was sparked by a petition to ban Trump, signed by approximately 575,000 Brits, likely comprised primarily of Muslims and liberals.

Attacking Trump as a bigoted Islamophobe, a racist, a fool, a buffoon and wazzok, Members of Parliament argued over whether or not it was a good idea to ban from entry, an American citizen, who was speaking to an American audience, using speech legally protected in America.

Members of the Labour Party and those representing the Scottish National Party were particularly harsh, claiming that Trump’s comments weren’t just “wrong” but “dangerous,” and don’t just “harm our values” but promote Daesh’s “twisted narrative” that “pits the West against the Muslim faith.”

Sparking the controversy was Trump’s announcement of support for a ban on Muslim immigration into America until “our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

Steve Double, a conservative MP, noted the irony of a Parliament that seeks to ban Trump for his ideas, in reaction to Trump’s position seeking to ban people based on their ideas.

Yet others argued that Trump’s comments crossed the line from “hate speech” to “discrimination” or “incitement,” despite the fact Trump has said nothing to encourage others to be violent.  It is this conflation of language and the disintegration of values, including personal responsibility, which is at the root of political correctness that truly poses a danger to Western civilization.

Censorship is clearly on the rise throughout the West including Europe, Canada and even in America.  It takes place in many forms including, but not limited to, societal self-censorship, government condemnation of speech, and so-called “hate speech laws.”

Still, it is only “hate speech” against Muslims that appears to concern the British MP’s, who are pandering to their increasing Muslim constituency.  Muslims in the UK who preach “Death to the West,” hatred of infidels, and abhorrence of all things British, are not shouldering equal accusations of “hate speech.”

To the contrary, Britain has had a somewhat “hands off” attitude towards Muslims, whether jihadists entering from abroad or Islamists preaching hatred of infidels at home.  It has welcomed war criminals, rapists and “refugees,” sometimes with fake passports, so long as they claim Asylum, legitimately or not.

In 2013, Kuwaiti Sheik Yasser Al-Habib came to Britain specifically for the purpose of riling up ShiaMuslims against Sunnis.  He spent 2 million pounds buying a former church and converting it to a mosque and satellite TV channel, from which he broadcasts his fiery sermons.  Though he was formerly jailed in Kuwait for similar practices, complaints to the British Home Secretary fell on deaf ears.

Another case in point is Behar Kasemi, a Muslim refugee in Britain, who has been arrested for threatening to cut his wife’s heart out because she became “too British.” During his interview with police, he insisted that wives are supposed to obey their husbands.

Additionally, subsequent to the public launch of ISIS sex slave trade, approximately 1400 British girls were raped by Pakistani “British” Muslims.  Still, the government has failed to even initiate an inquiry or investigation.

ISIS has made no secret that it planned to smuggle jihadists into Europe through the refugee program in furtherance of its goal to conquer the West and expand its “Caliphate.” According to at least one ISIS operative, ISIS members have already successfully entered Western countries under the guise of Asylum-seeking.

To make matters worse, a Barnabus report indicates that Prime Minister David Cameron was warned prior to accepting the first wave of the 20,000 refugees scheduled to enter the U.K. that ISIS jihadists were among them. But that didn’t stop him from welcoming them with open arms.

The UK government’s previous standard to ban a person from entry was that such a ban would be “conducive to the public good.” It standard later expanded to “unacceptable behavior.”  Ostensibly, jihadi outrages, tirades and violence against infidels constitute acceptable behavior, while speech criticizing such hatred is simply unacceptable.

The British government is in full denial mode, suffering from Jihad Denial Syndrome.  British police denied that the 7/7 terrorist attacks were religiously motivated.  Imams caught on tape preaching venomous anti-infidel sermons have gone unprosecuted as have those who have desecrated Britain’s war memorials.

Although there has long been an unholy alliance between the far left and Islamists, this diseased mindset is spreading to “conservatives” such as David Cameron in Britain.  Whether due to fear, ignorance, spinelessness or Islamist sympathies, British politicians simply do not want to acknowledge that Islamicsupremacism is underlying motivation for the attacks on British citizens and British values.

It is unfortunate that the U.K., past known for its liberal democracy and a proud tradition of free expression has stooped to the level of this Parliamentary debate.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a 57-UN Member body, has long been on a mission at the head-of-state level, to persuade Western governments to penalize “defamation of Islam” with deterrent punishments, preferably criminal in nature.  Under the guise of “defamation”, “Islamophobia”, “racism”, “hate speech” and “incitement”, the OIC aspires to attain the equivalent of Islamic blasphemy laws in the West.

The OIC and other Islamist organizations have also been promoting the false idea that “hate speech’causes terrorism.  As a case in point, it cites the riots subsequent to publication of the infamous Danish cartoons. The assumption is that these riots were inevitable, and their fault lies squarely on the shoulders of the cartoonists rather than those who committed violence.

Having bought into the notion that speech causes terrorism, politically correct politicians espouse the idea that the way to quell terrorism is to stifle speech.  Thus, the rising of speech restrictions regarding Islam are on the rise all across the West, not coincidentally concurrent with the rise of ISIS-inspired attacks and the influx of Muslim refugees.

Many Western politicians parrot stealth Islamist groups, insisting that we must de-link our association of Islam from Islamic terrorism “because that’s what groups like ISIL want.”  Yet, what ISIS does or does not want should not control us.  The Enemy Threat Doctrine mandates that if jihadists say they are religiously motivated, we should acknowledge this fact.  We must know our enemy and be able to name it by name in order to produce an effective strategy of defeat.

Denial of a problem does not make the problem disappear.  To the contrary, the first step in overcoming a threat is acknowledging both its existence and its nature.  Yet, jihadist ideology is only half the problem.  Political correctness, as exemplified by politicians more concerned about “offensive language” than the proliferation of jihadist ideology, constitutes a threat from within.

The U.K. parliamentary proceeding was largely for show. It ended without a vote, as only the Home Secretary has the authority to implement a ban.

Nevertheless, the debate was symbolic of the loss of the Judeo-Christian values of freedom of expression, human rights and personal responsibility, once cherished in the UK.

Donald Trump was merely stating a political position which acknowledged that the US government cannot decipher who is or is not adhering to an enemy ideology and that officials don’t yet have sufficient knowledge to make proper judgments regarding entry.  Apparently, this is an unpopular viewpoint among British MP’s.  And, the UK is increasingly using a ban from entry as a form of tyrannical censorship for those who merely express a dissenting political view or an unpalatable truth, so long as it doesn’t come from Muslims.

Demonstrating the height of British dhimmitude and hypocrisy regarding what is or is not “acceptable behavior,” is the UK’s past bans of Dutch MP Geert Wilders, talk radio show host Michael Savage, and Islamic scholar and author Robert Spencer.  None of them have ever encouraged violence or illegality.  To the contrary, each are on the front-lines in the fight for freedom, including freedom of speech.  If indeed, Donald Trump is banned from the UK, at least he will be in good company.

Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to Frontpage Magazine.  She is also a contributing author to the book, “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network”, the main researcher and writer for “Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation” and the author of “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech.”  Her work can be found at www.vigilancenow.org.

Democrats Castigate “Anti-Muslim” Speech in Proposed Legislation

clinton-oicFrontpage, by Deborah Weiss, Jan. 26, 2016:

As ISIS rises, Democrat politicians forge down a slippery slope to destroy America’s First Amendment and prohibit all discussion of Islamic terrorism.

After the San Bernadino ISIS-inspired terrorist attack, which left 14 dead and 22 others injured, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, America’s top law enforcement attorney, explained that her biggest fear was not more ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks, but “the rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric.”

She threatened to prosecute anti-Muslim rhetoric “edging toward violence” and proclaimed that the Department of Justice has already been investigating those whose language is characterized in this manner. “Edging toward violence” is, of course, not the constitutional standard for illegal speech in the land of the free. The correct legal standard set forth in “Brandenburg vs Ohio” by the Supreme Court is “incitement to violence.” The content of language has to explicitly encourage the violence with imminent lawless action the likely result.  No doubt that Lynch’s “edging toward violence” standard will not be equally applied to the Muslims preaching “death to America” in American mosques.

Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, echoed Lynch’s sentiment and argued that Americans cannot “drive [Muslims] into hiding” – as if anybody were actually doing that. Unfortunately, James Comey, Director of the FBI, who is usually strong on law enforcement, told the Muslim community, “if someone is terrorizing you based on your religion, let us know,” – conflating the mass murder of terrorist attacks with harsh words that might hurt someone’s feelings.

In the administration’s pattern of overt sympathy to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists, it is telling that the Attorney General’s position was announced at a conference by a group named “Muslim Advocates for Peace and Justice,” as “peace and justice” is the official motto of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Notably, American Advocates for Peace and Justice boast of its “strategic lawsuits” against the FBI, CIA, and NSA programs – apparently one of its main goals is to hamper law enforcement and national security efforts.

Let’s not forget either only recently in Tennessee the Attorney General Killian threatened that anti-Muslim speech “violates civil rights,” implying the threat of civil prosecutions for so-called “hate speech.”

All such rhetoric is mirrored if not directed by the White House as in a televised speech delivered in the wake of the California massacre, President Obama lectured Americans, scolding that, above all else, we should curb our rhetoric and refuse to define the war as America vs Islam “because that’s what ISIL wants.”

Now in the aftermath of a wave of Islamic terrorist attacks throughout Europe and America, Democrats in Congress have proposed a bill titled, “HR 569: Condemning violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” This bill contains nothing but inaccurate assertions, anti-freedom proposals and a complete rejection of America’s founding principles.

First, the bill asserts that “victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric face verbal, physical and emotional abuse.” It singles out Muslims despite the fact that FBI statistics demonstrate that hate crimes against Muslims are low compared to other groups – even with inflated reports by CAIR.

Yet, after a wave of Islamic terrorist attacks throughout the West, the bill’s supporters show no concern for the victims of Islamic terrorist attacks. Instead, they sympathize with the Muslim community, thus turning perpetrators into victims in a tactic known as “reverse victimization.”

Second, the bill conflates speech and actions, an important distinction both legally and factually.

The bill asserts that “hate speech” based on faith is in “contravention to the founding principles” of religious freedom. Suddenly the Democrats care about what America’s Founding Fathers believed! Unfortunately, they don’t seem to understand that our Founding Fathers also believed in freedom of speech.  This assertion demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of the First Amendment – a real problem when we are talking about elected officials sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

The bill also fails to acknowledge that Islam in  is not just a religion but a political ideology as well, with totalitarian aspects that are inherently anti-Constitutional. Enemy threat doctrine asserts that in order to win a war you have to know your enemy and name it by name. By refusing to identify the ideological threat motivating Islamic terrorism, elected politicians who co-sponsored this bill would have America on a suicide course – something certainly in “contravention” to the Constitution.

Repeatedly, the bill professes that America welcomes all faiths, beliefs and cultures. Against the backdrop of political correctness and multiculturalism emerges the false idea that all values and beliefs are equal.  Yet, it is plain to see that Nazism, Communism and Islamism are NOT equal to the Judeo-Christian values of liberty, equality and human rights.

The bill argues that anti-Muslim speech plays into the “false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam…” and causes a violent reaction. This argument is not only faulty; it is dangerous!  It plays into the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s notion that “hate” speech CAUSES terrorism. Terrorism is used to restrict speech on one hand and while on the other free speech is protrayed as the origin of terrorism. If the public is convinced that so-called “Islamophobia” causes terrorism, rather than the other way around, Westerners will ultimately conform to Islamic blasphemy restrictions.

However, Islamic terrorism pre-dates “Islamophobia.” Further, Islamic terrorism has ideological roots. Blaming terrorism on geo-political grievances or any other behavior by “infidels” is simply the present hook jihadists hang their hats on. If it’s not one thing, it’s another. Until the West becomes part of an Islamic Caliphate and infidels subdue themselves into submission to Islam, jihadists will not be happy. Besides, America is supposed to be a nation of Judeo-Christian values including that of personal responsibility. This notion that it is OUR fault that someone else commits violence shifts the responsibility from the terrorists to those who make mere comments that the terrorists dislike.

Further, when Islamic terrorists groups say they are theologically inspired, this is not propaganda. It’s true. It’s the stealth groups, like CAIR, who claim there is no theological motivation, that are spewing forth disinformation.

Next, the resolution declares the Muslim civil rights need to be protected. But abridging Americans’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech does not constitute a “civil rights protection.” Perhaps federal agencies designed to protect the security of Americans should focus on national security rather than restricting “rhetoric.” Just a thought!

Finally, the bill “affirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear. …” This is conjured up, as no such right exists. But if Democrats want people to live fear-free, they should address the very real threat of Islamic terrorism and stop worrying about people’s concocted constitutional right to be free from hurt feelings.

The Judeo-Christian values of freedom, equality and human rights, serve as the foundational underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution. It is these values from which freedom flourishes and what sets America apart from the tyrannical regimes of other countries, including Islamic theocracies. Other countries, lacking these values, institutionalize the oppression of women, children, and religious minorities. Our values make America exceptional and cause us to be the envy of the world.

Yet, it is these same values that are eschewed by the far left, and increasingly by mainstream Democrat politicians, as evidenced by Democrat support of this bill. As of this writing, the bill is co-sponsored by 115 Democrats in the House (out of 188 Democrat total) and no Republicans.

There is no constitutional right to be free from offense. Yet, Democrat politicians ranging from Attorney General Loretta Lynch to the Philadelphia Mayor want the public to refrain, not just from gratuitous offense, but from truthful comments about the roots of Islamic terrorism.

Though H.R. 569 has no mandate to make legal restrictions on speech, it creates an environment that makes hate speech laws easier to pass down the road. The threats of prosecution, the constant chastisement from political officials, voted in to uphold the Constitution but who are instead doing everything possible to violate its spirit, are sliding the United States down a slope toward legal incursions to freedom of speech. Because free speech is the basis from which political dissent, religious freedom, and other freedoms flow, speech restrictions are not just unconstitutional, they constitute an existential threat.

Once we start down this road, it will not be only gratuitous “insult” that is prohibited. Outlawed will be dissent on refugee and national security policy, as well as truthful comments about Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities or human rights violations committed in the name of Islam. But facts are stubborn things. And only the truth shall make us free. Tell everyone you know about the anti-Constitutional politicians who are supporting this bill.

Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to Frontpage Magazine.  She is also a contributing author to the book, “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network”, the main researcher and writer for “Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation” and the author of “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech.”  Her work can be found atwww.vigilancenow.org.

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.