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.

US Criminalizing Free Speech?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the journalist Abigail Esman, writing in Forbes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HR 569: CAIR’s Standard Operating Procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Congressional Overture to Censorship

HouseCensor3 001The Rule of Reason, by Edward Cline, December 22, 2015:

Stephen Coughlin alerted me to a House Resolution introduced on December 17th, H.Res.569, “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.114th Congress (2015-2016).”  As of this writing, the country remains clueless about this development.

The resolution was introduced by Virginia Democrat Donald S. Beyer, and sponsored by Frank Pallone, a New Jersey Democrat, and endorsed by seventy-one other Representatives, most of them Democrats, and possibly a sprinkling of Republicans. The resolution has gone into committee, but one can predict with confidence that it will emerge virtually unscathed and unaltered. After all, the “victims” are Muslims, and the House wishes to put it in the record that certain of its members are against hurting anyone’s feelings.

Many of the usual suspects have endorsed the resolution: Keith Ellison, a Democrat and Muslim from Minnesota; Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Democratic National Committee; Charles Rangel, New York Democrat; and Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida. Most of the other endorsers’ names I do not recognize. They are all termites who have made careers of eating away at the rule of law and “transforming” America from a Western nation into a multicultural, welfare-statist, politically correct stewpot of no particular character.

Resolutions of this nature have a tendency to be reintroduced later as binding legislation to be forwarded to the Senate. The introduction of this resolution is not yet newsworthy, but it will be if it emerges intact from committee to be voted on by the whole House. One suspects that H.Res.569 was inspired by U.S.  Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s promise to an audience of Muslim Advocates on December 3rd that she would spend efforts to combat and prosecute anyone guilty of anti-Muslim speech. I do not think the two-week gap between Lynch’s pronouncements and the introduction of the resolution is coincidental. It probably took two weeks to compose and fine-tune its wording.

Interestingly, the term “Islamophobia” does not occur in the resolution text. That may or may not have been oversight on the part of the resolution’s backers. But Coughlin, in Parts IV through VI in Catastrophic Failure, reveals in detail the Muslim Brotherhood’s and the  Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) mutual and complementary obsession with having Islamophobia quashed and prohibited on pain of penalty, worldwide, but especially in the U.S.

Nevertheless, as Coughlin explains in great detail in his book, the language of the House resolution mirrors the OIC’s Islamophobia narrative being implemented domestically. See my reviews of Coughlin’s book here.

Missing from the list of backers of the resolution is one Republican of note:Michael McCaul, who represents the 10th District in Texas. He is now chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. But he is very friendly with envoys and officers of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). A Breitbart article chronicled one encounter, “McCaul Meets With Islamic Leader Who Says U.S. Muslims Are ‘Above Law Of Land,” from February 2015.

House Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) was photographed with—and wrote a personal note in silver sharpie to—an Islamic leader who said practicing Muslims in the United States are “above the law of the land.”

On May 13, 2013, McCaul held an open house at a district office in Katy, Texas. While McCaul’s Facebook posting announcing the open house said an RSVP was required, a spokeswoman for McCaul told Breitbart News that Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Houston branch executive director Mustafa Carroll showed up without notice.

During the open house, McCaul and Carroll were photographed speaking to one another. On top of the photograph, in silver sharpie, McCaul wrote to Carroll: “To Mustafa and the Council on American Islamic Relations, the moderate Muslim is our most effective weapon—Michael McCaul, TX-10.” (Italics mine)

The most effective weapon against what?? America? See Michael McCaul’s denial of reality in Coughlin’s Catastrophic Failure, Section VI, p. 401.

In parsing this resolution, let’s first examine all the Whereas’s first:

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

I think I can count the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes committed in the U.S. on the fingers of one hand; I don’t immediately recall any Muslim of either gender in the U.S. of being physically assaulted as Europeans are now being attacked and raped by Muslim gangs of immigrants and “refugees.” I do not think the scarcity of reports of anti-Muslim hate crimes is due to the news media’s oversight; there is just a paucity of such crimes, unless one counts publically burning aKoran or hanging a side of bacon on the front door of a mosque. But one can be sure that when one occurs, the news media will be all over it like raspberry jam on a muffin.  As for “verbal abuse,” that’s covered in the criminal code, so a House resolution on the subject is redundant. Does the code really need another superfluous category that pertains only to Muslims? Is  Congress now turning to maintaining the emotional health and welfare of Muslims? It seems so. There is the nanny state, complemented by the nursemaid state.

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

Note how “violence” and “hate speech” are paired together, as though they were synonymous offenses, which they are not. “Hate speech,” which I have argued for years is an illegitimate concept (prosecute the demonstrable crime, not the contents of a person’s mind), has no metaphysical power to physically harm anyone. For words to be capable of actually harming anyone, they would need to “spoken” by a kind of paintball gun rigged to replicate the sound of an insult as a mass of air that could knock a person flat on his tosh. Words on paper, words transmitted through the air, are not tangible weapons. Further, “hate speech” is not in “contravention” to the nation’s founding principles. It hadn’t been invented yet, and, it being an illegitimate category of crime, it is not to be confused with genuine slander or libel. Those offenses our Founding Fathers knew something about, most of them having been lawyers schooled in British law.

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

And? So what? Those millions of Muslims and their mosques expect to be deferred to and accommodated because their “faith” requires it. No mention anywhere in the resolution of the practice of female genital mutilations, honor killings, beheadings, arranged marriages that often send a girl or woman to Pakistan or some other Sharia-governed country, and sermons advocating jihadand not cooperating with the authorities when the latter are investigating genuine “hate crimes,” such as the Boston Marathon bombing and the San Bernardino massacre by….Muslims. No mention of Muslims bringing into this country their age-old sectarian animosities between Muslims, no mention either of their “cultural” hatred and contempt for Western liberties, so often articulated by Muslim spokesmen.

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

“Innumerable contributions”? Which ones? I can’t think of any advances in medicine, science, literature, or any of the other arts that Muslims have contributed to American society. In terms of an economic contribution, I can think of a spike in gun sales to Americans who, for some strange reason, wish to arm themselves against Islamic depredations. I can see, too, how the presence of millions of Muslims is tearing the fabric of our Western society, because their “culture” is alien and hostile to everything America stands for. Again, in terms of economics, there are the millions of Muslims who have gravitated toward the welfare state and working as little as possible, if ever. Most American Muslims are here for the same reason millions of Muslims want to settle and colonize Germany, Britain, Sweden, and other European welfare states.

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

Come again? Where do we see that “welcoming and fellowship” of Muslims with Jews? With Christians? Except in some bogus “outreach” program or in interfaith “dialogue”? There is a word that covers the act of a Muslim willing to talk civilly with Jews and Christians: hudna, or a temporary truce that Muslims are willing to endure to buy time or gain the trust of infidels. The Koran, however, specifically prohibits Muslims from being friends with infidels or treating them as equals. Any “friendship” or “dialogue” that occurs between Muslims and infidels is simply the practice of dawah, or attempts to persuade infidels to convert to Islam.  Effusive protestations of “friendship” with non-Muslims are but practiced taqiyya.

On the other hand, Koran 003.118 goes:
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand.

Point made. There is much more where that came from. Raymond Ibrahim, for example, has an excellent post on the role of taqiyya and false friendships, “Islam’s Doctrines of Deception.” Or absorb Stephen Coughlin’s section on “Interfaith Outreach” in Catastrophic Failure.

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

So, we mustn’t consider the individual victims of Islamic terrorism, nor their families and friends. Only alleged Muslim victims and their families, and communities, and the whole Islamic ummah can claim victimhood. Non-Muslim victims of Islamic terrorism are simply blanked-out when Muslim victimhood is making the rounds in Washington, D.C.  See the CNS report on the number of anti-Muslim “hate crimes” here.

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports: Hate Crime Statistics, 2014, there were 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes in the U.S. in 2014. “Of the 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes: 56.8 percent [56.8%] were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.” That amounts to approximately 647.52 instances where Jewish individuals, businesses or institutions were targeted. A mere “16.1 percent [16.1%] were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias,” amounting to approximately 183.54 instances where Muslim individuals, businesses or institutions were targeted.

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

If they have been disproportionately “targeted” for “discrimination” it is because such garb is 1) required of Muslim women, otherwise they are beaten or assaulted or honor-killed by other Muslims; and 2) because women are regarded in Islam as second-class human beings, as chattel.  Muslim women who wear the full burqa or other garb that covers their faces are not to be trusted because too many of them have been suicide bombers.

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

This is perhaps the most obtuse and odious “Whereas” in the resolution’s text. Islamic terrorist groups do not engage in “false narratives”; they mean what they say and they as a rule quote chapter and verse from the Koran about why they do what they do. Western “hate speech” does not “play into the hands of terrorists”; we, however, are putty in their hands because we have adopted the false narrative that the terrorists have “hijacked” a “peaceful religion” or have a perverted interpretation of “kill the Jew or Christian if he does not submit or pay jizya.” To wit:

Qur’an (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Suras 9 and 5 are the last “revelations” that Muhammad narrated – hence abrogating what came before, including the oft-quoted verse 2:256 –“There is no compulsion in religion…”.

That is from the horse’s mouth. It can’t be “perverted.”

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;

(2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;

(4) recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;

(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;

(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and

(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

Commentary on these seven points would be redundant.

Someone, please, tell me that H.Res.569 is not in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. That it is not thoroughly and treacherously unconstitutional, aside from it being a commiserating overture to censorship and a not-so-subtle recasting of the UN/OIC Resolution 16/18, which would criminalize freedom of speech about Islam and Muslims, regardless of the form the speech takes.

Someone please tell me that H.Res.569 is not a formal recognition and application of Sharia law, which also purports to be the “law of the land” in contravention of the U.S. Constitution being the “law of the land.”

No one can deny it. No one can say that the resolution does not represent an itch to legally gag Americans when they try to discuss Islam and the Obama-enabled invasion of this country by enemy aliens. No one can tell me that this resolution is not a victory for the Muslim Brotherhood and the OIC.

Doubtless, the House resolution cannot be declared unconstitutional because it is a mere opinion expressed by members of the House. It does not carry the force of law. Therefore, it cannot be enforced or entered into the statutes, provided it survives, as a bill intended to become a law, vetting by the Senate, and is signed by the President.

To become the “law of the land.” Barack Obama would not hesitate to sign it.

Also see: