UTT Special Report: U.S. Submits to Islam

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, May 25, 2017:

Not understanding the Global Islamic Movement and what drives its actions is the reason America lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Since 9/11, military generals, Presidents, National Security Advisors, Members of Congress, and others have been too busy to stop and actually do what the law and their Oath of Office require them to do – know all enemies or do due diligence to know all enemies.  You cannot “protect and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic” if you do not do this.

Last weekend, May 21, 2017, the President of the United States participated in a “Summit” in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia speaking to the leaders of every muslim nation on earth, except Iran, about how to deal with the growing threat of “terrorism.”

When this event is viewed from the perspective of the Islam, the United States submitted to the objectives of the Global Islamic Movement in this current phase of their efforts.

In order to understand the magnitude of this, the language used in this summit must be understood the way the muslim world understands it through the filter of sharia – which is the only source through which Islamic leaders understand anything.

We know this because Kings and Heads of State of all OIC nations were present at the summit when the King of Saudi Arabia spoke.  The OIC – Organisation (sic) of Islamic Cooperation – is the largest international organization in the world second only to the UN, consists of all muslim nations on earth, and is the largest voting block in the UN. The OIC holds Extraordinary Summits every three (3) years at which the Heads of State and Kings of every muslim nation meet and decide strategic directions for the muslim world. In 1990, the OIC Extraordinary Summit approved the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.”  It states, in part, life cannot be taken “except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason,” and goes on to say in Article 19, “There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for a in the Shari’ah.”

Finally, the last two articles of the Cairo Declaration, Articles 24 and 25 state:

“All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.” (Article 24)

“The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.” (Article 25)

The Cairo Declaration was officially served to the UN by the OIC in 1993. This means the entire world was put on notice in 1993 that when leaders of the muslim world use the phrase “Human Rights” they mean “the imposition of sharia law,” and sharia is the only filter through which they understand the language they use when discussing any issues.

In his speech, which preceded President Trump’s comments, Saudi King Salman made many references to “terrorism” and “extremism” and the need to eradicate it from the planet.  Specifically, he said the world must  “stand united to fight the forces of evil and extremism whatever their sources are in response to the dictates of our Islamic religion…Terrorism is a result of extremism.”

When muslim leaders use words, those words must be understood as they are defined in Islam, not as they are understood in the West.  “Terrorism” is defined in Islam as “killing a muslim without right.” Under sharia muslims may be killed if they apostasize from Islam, kill another muslim without right, or if they violate any other law under sharia for which there is a capital crime. Otherwise, to kill a muslim is to be a “terrorist.”  “Extremism” in Islam is to exceed ones ability – to move the Islamic Movement ahead too quickly, thus putting the muslim ummah (global muslim community) in danger because this risks losing muslims who do not understand their duties under sharia and exposing Islam’s true intentions to the non-muslim community thus bringing violence upon muslims – terrorism.

Saudi King Salman spoke at the summit yet he sent two messages:  one for the muslims and one for the non-muslims.  Americans and the rest of the non-muslim world heard the King say he is going to eradicate “terrorists” from the planet and thought he was talking about ISIS and Al Qaeda.  The muslim world heard that the United States was providing hundreds of millions of dollars and weapons to support the Islamic world’s effort to destroy anything on the planet that stands in the way of the complete implementation of sharia – a command from Allah in the command and reflected in the words and actions of Islam’s prophet Mohammad.

Therefore, since President Trump has already killed muslims without right under sharia by ordering the U.S. military to launch strikes against Syria and elsewhere, Islam views him as a “terrorist,” and the Saudi King is speaking about the U.S. President and the United States when he says “Terrorism” must be eradicated.  The Saudi King was not referring to muslims who bomb an arena in Manchester, England or kill Americans in an Orlando, Florida bar or muslims who fight on battlefields in Iraq or Afghanistan when he uses the word “terrorist.”

Understanding this necessarily completely changes America’s perspective of what took place in Saudi Arabia last weekend.  The President of the United States is being given counsel and advice from U.S. officials who appear to lack any understanding of any of this, which will lead America’s to defeat.

Exactly the Islamic world’s objective.

For UTT’s complete analysis of the speeches by King Salman and President Trump please click HERE.

***

Also see: UTT Victory in Arizona and help to bring this training to your town.

***

Stealth jihadists use language deceptively. Learn the definitions of Islamic terms here: Islam’s Deceptive Use of Western Terminology

U.N. leader blames ‘Islamophobia’ for rising global terror

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who took office Jan. 1, wants to end ‘Islamophobia,’ which he says is a main cause of terrorism.

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who took office Jan. 1, wants to end ‘Islamophobia,’ which he says is a main cause of terrorism.

WND, by Leo Hohmann, Feb. 17, 2017:

The United Nations — under a new leader who personally oversaw the relocation of millions of Muslim refugees into the U.S., Canada and Europe — is doubling down on its “anti-Islamophobia” campaign against the West.

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, a Portuguese socialist who headed the U.N’s refugee agency before being promoted to secretary general in January, traveled to Saudi Arabia this week where he sat with Saudi royals and cited “Islamophobia” as the reason for increasing terrorism around the world.

“One of the things that fuel terrorism is the expression in some parts of the world of Islamophobic feelings and Islamophobic policies and Islamophobic hate speeches,” Guterres said at a joint news conference with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir.

Echoing the comments of Hillary Clinton in her 2016 presidential campaign, Guterres said Islamophobia actually helps the Islamic State or ISIS to attract new recruits.

But the way others see it, Guterres just gave a free pass to Islamic extremists to commit acts of terror throughout the world.

It’s a lot like blaming the victim, says Phillip Haney, an Islam specialist who worked for more than a decade at Homeland Security screening immigrants from Africa and the Middle East.

“So Mr. Guterres is telling you that Islamophobia is such a great crime that you will be killed for it and terrorists will rise up because of this and it will be your fault,” Haney told WND.

“Why? Because you are an Islamophobe. It’s your fault that they’re killing you,” he said. “What’s he saying if that’s not what he’s saying?”

Ann Corcoran, a refugee watchdog who has been following Guterres’ career since he left his job as leader of the Socialist International in 2005 to head up the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, said the U.N. has a very narrow focus when it comes to religious intolerance.

“He lectured the world about Islamophobia but had nothing to say, no concerns, about the Christophobia exuded by Muslims who have been wiping out entire Christian communities in the Middle East for years,” said Corcoran, who blogs at Refugee Resettlement Watch. “Nor did he say anything to them, the Saudis, about refusing to take any of the millions of Muslim refugees created by the Syrian civil war.”

The venue for such a lecture was curious, Corcoran said. Christians are not allowed to exist in Saudi Arabia. There are no churches and the punishment for being caught with a Bible is death.

But the U.N. began its anti- “Islamophobia” campaign back in the early 2000s. It achieved a breakthrough in 2011 when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a group of 56 Muslim countries seated in the U.N., to adopt U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18. This resolution encourages member states to crack down on speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to violence” based on religion.

The problem, as Haney and others point out, is who gets to define Islamophobia?

“That puts all the responsibility on the Western world to come up with a non-defined standard for free speech,” he said.

Watch the video trailer for new investigative work former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has called the “must read book of 2017”

Of course the U.S. already has its own well-defined standard. It’s called the First Amendment. So there should not have been any need for a United Nations’ standard to muddy the waters, said Haney, co-author of the book “See Something Say Nothing.”

Guilty of ‘blasphemy’

John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism expert who consults with law enforcement and blogs at Understanding the Threat, said Islamophobia is the modern term Muslim leaders use to identify people who are guilty of the Islamic blasphemy laws, also called the Islamic law of slander.

The legal principle of slander is much different under Shariah law than under U.S. law. Under Shariah, comments critical of Allah, his prophet Muhammad or the Quran do not have to be false in order to constitute slander. All they need do is “offend” a Muslim.

“It is a capital crime under Shariah,” Guandolo told WND. “This is the same nonsense being spewed from the establishment Republicans and from the Democrat Party.”

Haney says Guterres is doing a great disservice to Western civilization by holding it to a standard of Shariah law.

“If Guterres really was concerned about the principles of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness why wouldn’t he say something like ‘there is no excuse for terrorism.’ He’s giving them an out,” Haney said. “‘It’s not your fault Islamic world, it’s their fault.’

“If they’re not required to take any responsibility for their terrorism and can simply blame the Islamophobic Western world it’s only going to get worse. It’s like telling the crack addict, it’s not your fault that you’re addicted to crack.”

How the West adopted Islamic blasphemy laws

It was not long after U.N. Resolution 16/18 was adopted in 2011 that the term “Islamophobia” started showing up everywhere in Western countries.

Countries like Germany, the U.K., Sweden and the Netherlands among others in Western Europe went full throttle in the rush to erase “Islamophobia” from their cultural landscapes. Germany has gone so far as to arrest citizens who post anti-Islamic comments on Facebook, with the full cooperation of Facebook.

The Obama administration tried to do the same through end runs around the First Amendment. After the San Bernardino terrorist attack, Attorney General Loretta Lynch promised to “aggressively” prosecute any speech that “edged toward violence,” while Obama-appointed U.S. attorneys in Minnesota [Andrew Luger] and Idaho [Wendy Olson] made similarly threatening comments after Muslim terrorists were arrested in those states. Lynch and Olson were forced to walk back their comments after a backlash from First Amendment advocates on the right and the left.

It was also right around this time, in 2011, the Justice Department agreed to purge all references to Islam from FBI training manuals that were deemed offensive to Muslims.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which is the largest NGO in the world with direct access to the U.N., had been pushing for a U.N. anti-blasphemy law since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

“They pushed for years to get that thing through and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state they were successful in finally getting it passed,” Haney said of Resolution 16/18.

Pamela Geller, a free speech advocate, blogger and author of the popular book “Stop the Islamization of America,” said all of the recent U.N. secretaries general have been shills for the global Islamic movement.

“Guterres, like all secretaries general since the fall of the USSR, is a tool of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which has been running a years-long campaign against freedom of speech at the U.N.,” Geller told WND. “It is being used to deflect attention from jihad activity and portray Muslims as victims who don’t deserve counterterror scrutiny.”

Doubling down on Trump

Robert Spencer, author of the Jihad Watch blog and a best-selling author of several books on Islam, told WND that Guterres’ statement shows he plans to continue the U.N. campaign and even increase its intensity now that Donald Trump has been elected president of the most powerful country in the world. Trump’s supporters gave him a mandate to cut off Islamic immigration and take on “radical Islamic terrorism.”

Trump’s election, and the success of the Brexit vote in the U.K., have emboldened the leaders of several European candidates who espouse populist, anti-globalist agendas mirroring Trump’s.

That scares the U.N. and its Islamic allies to death, he said, so look for an intensification of the “Islamophobia” drum beat.

“This statement fits into the U.N.’s ongoing efforts to compel states that protect the freedom of speech to adopt ‘hate speech’ provisions that would effectively involve their adopting Sharia blasphemy provisions,” Spencer said.

There is no other explanation, says former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, as to why the U.N. would go out of its way to influence free countries to crack down on speech deemed critical of Islam when it has said little to nothing about actual acts of brutality – forget about speech – by Muslims against Christians in the Middle East.

“Guterres is doing the bidding of Islamic jihadists and is advancing Islamic conquest by silencing truthful speech about Islam,” Bachmann told WND. “Silencing opposition is the jihadists game plan for cornering their enemies.”

Whether it is U.N. Resolution 16/18, or “false charges of a nonexistent Islamophobia,” Islamic supremacists triumph if no one is allowed to criticize Islam, she said.

“No other religion enjoys such protection from criticism,” Bachmann said. “Ironically, no other religion in current times has advanced more violence, carnage and bloodshed than Islam and yet Islam’s gatekeepers demand their religion not be criticized.

“We need to recognize this is nothing more than a well-designed strategy to achieve Islamic conquest and the U.N. Secretary General is now the jihadist’s advocate.”

Spencer believes Guterres’ comment was directed squarely at the Trump phenomenon.

“The idea is that anyone, especially President Trump, who says there is the slightest problem with Islam (or “radical Islam”) is only aiding Islamic State propaganda that the West is waging war upon Islam,” he said. “This is predicated on the further assumption that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the motivation for jihad terrorism couldn’t possibly come from within it. So the poor dears must only become terrorists when we say bad things about their religion, so if we just stop doing that, all will be well.”

The only problem with this theory, says Spencer, is that the Quran’s exhortations to the conquest and subjugation of unbelievers are not predicated on what those unbelievers say or don’t say.

Guandolo added that “This gives us the cherry on top of the argument for shutting down the United Nations and sending them back to their respective countries. It is an anti-American organization which is littered with spies and haters of liberty and justice.”

Guandolo said Guterres is a perfect example of the unholy alliance between the secular Marxist left and the Islamists.

“It is also a great example of civilization jihad, spoken of by the Muslim Brotherhood, in which the Brotherhood spoke of getting non-Muslims to do their work for them.”

Gaffney: The ‘Big Lie’ Is Back

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, November 22, 2016:

In 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to use “some old fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” against those whose exercise of free speech “we abhor.”

At the time, she had in mind specifically perpetrators of what the OIC, the Muslim Brotherhood, other Islamic supremacists and their enablers on the Left call “defamation of Islam.” But the same playbook – in the tradition of Mrs. Clinton’s mentor, Saul Alinsky – is now being followed with a vengeance against what is abhorred by the cabal best described as the Red-Green Axis.

Much in evidence among such “old-fashioned techniques” now being employed is what’s known as “the Big Lie.” It entails the endless repetition of outrageous falsehoods to defame, and ultimately silence, one’s political opponents.

Three good men Donald Trump has selected for key strategic and national security positions are currently getting the Big Lie treatment: his White House Counsel Steve Bannon, Attorney General-designate Senator Jeff Sessions, and incoming National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. They are being relentlessly vilified as “racists,” “bigots” and “haters.”

I feel these able public servants’ pain. Indeed, I know what it’s like to be subjected to the Big Lie. For years, the Islamists and their allies on the hard Left – notably, the discredited (for example, here and here) Southern Poverty Law Center – have used character assassination and vitriol against me (for example, here, here and here) to protect what they otherwise cannot defend: the totalitarian program its adherents call Sharia. The false assertion last week that I had been asked to serve on the Trump transition team sent these rogues into fresh paroxysms of hateful denunciation, repeated like a mantra by their media echo chamber (for example, here, here, here and here).

I am hardly alone in being diagnosed by such charlatans with the made-up condition of “Islamophobia.” Indeed, I am proud to be included in the company of men and women being pilloried for what Islamic supremacists and their enablers would have us believe is “defamation of Islam.” In fact, it is simply informed, astute and courageous truth-telling about the global jihad movement and threat it poses. Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions and Mike Flynn are under assault for doing the same in this and other contexts.

It seems that critics are particularly unhinged by the clarity of these three men and the president they will serve about the fact that Islamic supremacism is not simply a menace overseas. The Red-Green types are determined to prevent Donald Trump from operationalizing the plan of action he described in a major address on the topic on August 15, 2016. Among its highlights are the following:

Our new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt the spread of Radical Islam. All actions should be oriented around this goal….Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam….

In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today. In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country….

Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the effort to take down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of every federal investigator and prosecutor in the country. To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one. Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home. (Emphasis added)

In short, the Red-Green Axis is having conniptions because the American people have now chosen to lead them a president and an administration that will not just be sensible about this threat. It is also determined to do the job Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their minions have adamantly shirked: protecting us against, rather than accommodating, Sharia. So the Big Lie and “other techniques of shaming and peer pressure” are now being applied with abandon to outstanding public servants in the hope of reducing their effectiveness and that of the presidency they will serve.

The transparent falsity and political agenda being served by such lies should, instead, discredit their perpetrators. For that to happen, however, the so-called “mainstream press” will have to stop lionizing the Big Liars and uncritically promoting their handiwork.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. acted as an Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. He is President of the Center for Security Policy.

Free Speech Champions Fight Back Against OSCE ‘Islamophobia’ Industry

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf

Center for Security Policy, by Clare Lopez, October 13, 2016:

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry’s all-out assault on free speech was on full display at the recent annual meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) in Warsaw, Poland. The Center’s VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez and Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin attended the 26-27 September 2016 session, along with Debra Anderson, ACT! For America Chapter leader in Minnesota, Dave Petteys, ACT! Chapter leader from Colorado and key European colleagues Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf from Austria, Henrik Clausen from Denmark, and Alain Wagner from France.

Center VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez

Center VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is a 57-member regional security organization with representatives from North America, Europe and Asia. It describes itself as a ‘forum for political dialogue on a wide range of security issues’ whose approach encompasses ‘politico-military, economic and environmental, and human dimensions’. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is an office within the OSCE that claims to be dedicated to democratic elections, respect for human rights, rule of law, tolerance, and non-discrimination.

Their stated overall objective is helping governments protect and promote human rights, fundamental freedoms and tolerance and non-discrimination, as well as to improve and strengthen democratic practices and institutions. Except that the actual theme of the two-day proceedings had a lot more to do with countering ‘hate crime,’ criminalizing ‘hate speech,’ and demonizing ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Islamophobes’ than it did with genuinely championing the right to believe, live, and speak freely.

Of course, the campaign to shut down free speech when it’s about Islam is very much in line with the top agenda item of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), which is to achieve the criminalization of criticism of Islam in national legal codes. Gagging criticism of Islam is also what the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 tries to do. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked hard to make that happen in the U.S. and around the world when she promoted the Istanbul Process. The idea is to use existing laws against ‘incitement to violence,’ but in a novel way that applies a so-called ‘test of consequences.’ That is, if someone, somewhere, sometime decides what somebody said somewhere, sometime is offensive and then launches a ‘Day of Rage,’ or goes on a lawless rampage destroying property, injuring or killing people, guess whose fault that would be? Under the ‘test of consequences’ speech code, that would be the speaker.

Center Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin

Center Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin

Notably, though, the Islamophobia crowd seemed to be very much on the defensive at this OSCE meeting. Their crouch-and-whine posture most likely had to do with the accelerating numbers of horrific Islamic terror attacks, whose trail of carnage and destruction is splashed across screens around the world for all to see. Along with those visuals comes increasing awareness on the part of more and more ordinary people that when they yell ‘Allahu Akbar,’ it doesn’t mean ‘Hail to the Redskins’: it means they are committing that attack in the name of Allah and Islam.

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry has neither the ability nor actual wish to stop jihad but it sure does wish so many were not putting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and Islamic terror together and then speaking out about it. The only recourse left to them is trying desperately to shut down free speech—including places like the U.S. where free speech is Constitutionally-protected. As CSP Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin puts it:

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.

In other words, what they’re trying to do is enforce shariah’s law on slander – on us, on everyone, whether Muslim or not.

That effort at the Warsaw OSCE meeting went at it by various means: there was a great deal of emphasis on equating Islamophobia with ‘racism’ (but a new kind – not based on skin color), ‘bigotry,’ and violation of ‘human rights.’ Pouty complaints were heard about ‘feeling discriminated against,’ ‘marginalized,’ and the object of ‘hard looks’ because of wearing a hijab. When legal eagle Steve Coughlin and Danish defender Henrik Clausen demanded a specific legal definition of the term ‘Islamophobia,’ they were assailed for…you guessed it, ‘Islamophobia’! Needless to say, there was no legal definition forthcoming (because ‘everybody knows what it means’).

‘Islamophobia’ hysteria reached peak during the OSCE’s second day plenary session, where the Turkish General Secretary of the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (EMISCO), Bashy Qurayshi, came unglued with a plaintive wail that ‘Islamophobes’ who’d been permitted to infiltrate the OSCE were “lying, ranting and attempting to spread hatred at this conference.” He even threw in a reference to such ‘Islamophobes’ as ‘Nazis,’ at which point senior representatives at the OSCE head table actually broke into applause.

By way of counterpoint, however, it must be added that many delegates from Civil Society organizations throughout the OSCE membership area—including atheists, Baha’is, Christians, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons—firmly pressed the case for free speech. We know that they took encouragement from our presence and outspokenness, even as we did from theirs.

The ‘Islamophobia’ crown went home from Warsaw in the sure knowledge that their attempts to silence free speech about Islam have stirred a gathering force of liberty’s champions who will not be silenced.

For more coverage of this year’s OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, including photos and video, please see Gates of Vienna at https://gatesofvienna.net/

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy

***

You can also see all the videos here

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’s “play for pay” campaign

14470645_10154552129456585_593521090828643343_nWarsclerotic,, by Lee Kaplan, October 5 2016:

President Harry Truman once said that any politician who became wealthy as a result of being in public service was a crook. As the American presidential election looms near, Hillary Clinton is showing the former president’s statement to be true.

On leaving the White House at the end of her husband’s presidency, Hillary Clinton cried poverty. Yet today, after her stint in Congress and as the U.S. Secretary of State, her net worth is in excess of 100 billion dollars. To this day Mrs. Clinton has not openly told the truth about where all the money is coming from. Most of this largesse is the result of donations from foreign dictators (notably the Gulf Sheikhs in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE) and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to which these dictators belong.

What is the OIC?

It is a consortium of the Gulf Sheikjs that also became a part of the United Nations. One of its key purposes of late is to try and have blasphemy laws created in the West and worldwide when criticism of Islam is voiced. It is also designed to get the Gulf Sheiks whatever they want from pusillanimous diplomats in the West.

The crux of the matter is how Hillary Clinton criticizes her presidential opponent by trying to suggest he is xenophobic, or more specifically “islamophobic” ( a silly term touted and promoted by UC Berkeley Hamas apparatchik Hatem Bazian, who also called for an “intifada” in America).  She says this is anathema to her humanitarian concern for Syrian refugees with which she wants to flood American shores.

Whereas Barack Obama brought in 10,000 such refugees and seeks to double the numbers, Ms. Clinton insists she wants this number increased to 550,000 or possibly even 600,000. Voters should note not only the fact that such a large number is bound to have many more refugees who are not vetted for security purposes – as is already being discussed in the Press. In fact, her insistence on these increased numbers is a glaring example of her engaging in “Pay for Play”:

The OIC pays her and she promises them she will absorb the refugees so OIC member nations won’t have to do it.

While European countries are being lectured about their failure to take in enough refugees, Saudi Arabia – which has taken in precisely zero migrants – has 100,000 air conditioned tents that can house over 3 million people sitting empty.

While European countries are being lectured about their failure to take in enough refugees, Saudi Arabia – which has taken in precisely zero migrants – has 100,000 air conditioned tents that can house over 3 million people sitting empty.

And one doesn’t need a deleted email to see this. To date, not one Gulf sheikh who donated to her foundation has offered to take in even one Syrian refugee. The Saudis, incredibly, have housing and bedding for three million refugees in their country. Originally created to house visitors for the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca every year, these domiciles have air conditioning, running water and all the facilities to take in more than the 600,000 refugees that Hillary is proposing.

But that might interfere with the solid gold faucets planned for the next palace. Just as American boys can die to save Kuwait, so to can the American taxpayer absorb the flotsam and jetsam of the Arab world.

As Secretary of State, Clinton oversaw a state department that somehow lost 3 billion dollars in tax dollars that are unaccounted for according to the GAO, that spent other tax dollars on building mosques overseas through USAID, that funds UNWRA “camps” where Palestinian children are taught they are to be the next generation of suicide bombers and terrorists, and that pays salaries to convicted terrorist murderers in Israel jails. Those salaries are sometimes greater than many Americans earn. USAID also funds 100% of Palestinian television that incites Arabs to murder the Jews.

In fairness, many of these things were started under the Bush administration, but just as many others were started or propagated during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

As Secretary of State she could have stopped much of this, but she chose not to do so. She let the Arab world indirectly have the US as a piggy bank for totalitarians, letting the Saudis fund world terrorism and rule the roost in Washington. All of this was part of “Pay for Play” as she solicited funds from the Sheikhs for her foundation.

One campaign clip had Clinton saying “We must not insult Islam!”  This was spoken like a true IOC campaigner and an example of a politician pandering to her money source. As terrorist attacks come to the U.S. in St. Cloud, in Phoenix and New York, we can hear Hillary carrying on about how the US must swallow up 600,000 more Muslim refugees – because she must have promised this to the Shieikhs. That’s real play for the pay.

Every one of those Syrian refugees will cost the US taxpayer dearly as well. They will require government health care that we can ill afford, plus food, education and other benefits. Even those who have no terrorists connections will bring with them anti-Semitism and a support ideology that will promote the Sheikhs and other totalitarian enemies of the United States, just as President Obama has done in surrendering nuclear control over Iran. Remember – Hillary presided over that one too. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton will be paying back her funders at the expense of the American taxpayer as billions pour into her foundation in the form of funds that she can ultimately draw on, starting with daughter Chelsea.

Harry Truman obviously knew what he was talking about.

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.