Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Hello, Hillary 2016? Goodbye, First Amendment

In an astonishing new poll taken last year by YouGov, an astonishing 41% of Americans – including 51% of Democrats – support criminalizing “hate speech”.  In the poll, such a hate speech law would "make it a crime for people to make public comments intended to stir up hatred against a group based on such things as their race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.”  

While this sounds nice to the sensibilities of the average liberal progressive, it spells a certain threat to our freedom of speech as spelled out in the First Amendment, and potentially the end of this essential freedom enjoyed in our country for over 200 years.  “Hate speech” is, of course, highly subjective and is what progressives call any speech that doesn’t support their narrative and world view, whether the speech is true or not.

It’s something that Hillary Clinton has shown repeatedly that she would make a priority in her term as president, should she pull off winning the presidency in 2016.    Like all totalitarians, she will “stand up” for the rights of society’s “victims” by criminalizing free speech that she and her liberal supporters find offensive - and jail those who dare to cross the line. 

The First Amendment is a nuisance to far-Left ideologues like Hillary Clinton, who view our belief in individual freedom and the right of self expression as a crime against their progressive ideals of an ordered society.   It’s a reason the Left distains our Constitution with such vigor, labeling it outdated, racist, primitive and irrelevant in today’s multicultural society.  Never mind that the values enshrined in our Constitution have given rise to greatest – and most free – society in history, free speech is just too offensive for those who want to mute us in the name of “fairness and equality”.

It’s a worthy price for the goal of a progressive utopia here in America, right?

A few cases in point, in case there is any doubt about Hillary’s true agenda:

While Clinton was Secretary of State under Obama, she championed the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) -backed United Nations Human Rights Commission Resolution 16/18, which calls for “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”  

Of course, the member states of the OIC ignore the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights outright in favor of their own, anti-human rights Islamic declaration, subject to Sharia (Islamic) law which bans all criticism of Islam, its laws and its prophet, under penalty of imprisonment, torture or death.  This resolution is nothing short of forcing sharia compliance worldwide, and Hillary Clinton supports it wholeheartedly.
This Resolution 16/18 effectively requires that countries pass laws criminalizing “Islamophobia”.  The OIC is set on making it an enforceable crime for non-Muslim people anywhere globally —including here in America —to say anything about Islam that Islamic law does not permit. 

This includes even true speech about Islam.   Just ask Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife and anti-Jihad activist, who was charged and arrested under Austria’s criminal code for "denigrating religious beliefs" after giving a series of seminars about the dangers of radical Islam - the kind of criminal code that Hillary would love to import here into the United States.  The Austrian judge ruled that Sabaditsch-Wolff committed a crime by stating in her seminars about Islam that the prophet Mohammed was a pedophile – even though the Koran and other Islamic texts clearly show that he married a young girl at 6 and consummated the marriage (had sex) with her when she was only 9 - and he was 54. Shockingly, the truth is no defense in hate speech cases like this.

Filmmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, maker of “Innocence of the Muslims”, a video falsely blamed by Obama and Hillary on the 2012 Benghazi terror attack that killed four Americans, was jailed as promised, when Hillary is reported to have personally vowed to “make sure that the person who made that film ["Innocence of Muslims"] is arrested and prosecuted.”

She upheld her support of Resolution 15/18 by supporting Sharia law compliance concerning the anti-blasphemy provisions in the law in this case.  Hillary was more consumed with gagging the free speech rights of the filmmaker than finding the terrorists who killed four Americans.

Clinton has also fought against political free speech, with her support for the overturning of the Citizens United decision which struck down a ban on political expenditures by corporations and unions, with the Supreme Court arguing that the ban violated the First Amendment protection of free speech. 

Once again, that pesky Constitutional protection of free speech is getting in the way of Hillary’s agenda for our country.  While, according to Clinton, it should be illegal for billionaires to use their First Amendment rights of free speech to influence elections, it’s completely fine with Hillary to receive hundreds of millions of dollars directly from billionaires – and foreign governments with horrendous human rights records – to fund the unaccountable Clinton Foundation.  It’s the predictable progressive double-standard once again at work.

Hillary has been consistent with respect to her positions on limiting free speech here in the US, and like the 51% of Americans who want to criminalize “hate speech”, she forgets that the greatness of our country – and the Western world – depends on the right of free expression and dissenting speech.   It’s called the FIRST Amendment for a reason, because freedom of speech is our first and most important birthright that the very survival of our republic depends on.   Holding such positions should immediately disqualify Hillary – or any other candidate – from the presidency, because their first and foremost duty of the president is swearing to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States, not shredding it as Hillary will certainly find a way to do if she manages wins the office.

Monday, January 11, 2016

Acknowledging a Pro-Islam Presidency

Should conservatives’ sanity or patriotism be questioned if they believe President Obama is too sympathetic to Islam?  Certainly our nation is one that prizes religious liberty, but just because an American can chose a faith does not mean that faith should be praised or prioritized over others—especially when that faith is so frequently used as an excuse to kill Americans.

President Obama has clearly chosen sides to protect the image of Islam as a supposed “religion of peace” over articulating an agenda to protect Americans from radical Islam.

Obama supports Muslims Pro-Islam presidency

On January 8, 2016, after the terrorist ambush and attempted murder of Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett by suspected gunman Edward Archer, Democrat Mayor Jim Kenney insisted that Islam had nothing to with the shooting and instead suggested that we instead need more gun control.   This is in spite of the fact that Archer, a Muslim, confessed to having carried out that attack “in the name of Islam” and that Archer “pledged his allegiance to ISIS.”  When  Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked about the latest Islamic attack on American soil, the White House had two words to say, according to Kelly: “No comment.”  Providing such cover for radical Islamists is standard practice for radical progressive Democrats like President Obama and Mayor Kenney.

Another good example occurred just hours after the savage terror attack by a devout Muslim in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which took the lives of five American military men. President Obama tweeted this important message: 

“From my family to yours, Eid Mubarak!” — @POTUS

I understand that politicians often tweet religious greetings for all sorts of faiths, but this tweet went out two hours before even acknowledging the murders of our decorated Marines.

When he finally got to a statement, he described the murders as a “heartbreaking circumstance.” A “heartbreaking circumstance,” not an Islamic terrorist attack.

In this written statement, Obama also made sure to remind “…every American of respecting those of all faiths and beliefs”.  Of course, the faith he is clearly talking about here is Islam, as he wags his finger at us to demand we show reverence.  To President Obama and his communications team, celebrating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan–and reminding us to respect the religion of Islam–was a far greater priority than the terror attack that killed five Marines, whose killer had shown clear inspiration from Islam’s teachings on his blog. 

In this case, and others like the Fort Hood terror attack which the administration called “workplace violence,” President Obama refused to call out radicals who use Islam to justify murder.

Acknowledging a Pro-Islam Presidency

Beyond just refusing to call these extremists, look at the holiday President Obama was celebrating. Progressives forget to tell us that the Ramadan’s spirit of giving and “aiding those in need” referenced in Obama’s statement means only giving zakat (charity) to Muslims in need. Unlike Christianity that supports basic human rights and gives charity to people regardless of their beliefs, it is against the religion of Islam to give charity to non-Muslims, which Islamic law forbids.  

Imagine the firestorm of progressive attacks on the Catholic Church–one of the world’s leading charities–if it decided to give only to Catholics in need and no one else? President Obama vigorously defends and respects an ideology that only supports its own members at the expense of others, and that violates basic human rights around the globe.

Then there’s the Iran nuclear deal that Obama pushed through at the U.N. that will inevitably give Iran the nuclear bomb within the next decade, further destabilizes the region, and threatens Israel and our allies.

Iran is the world’s #1 state sponsor of terror. History shows that the Iranians cannot be trusted to hold up their end of the bargain, and will immediately start using the hundreds of billions of dollars in sanction relief to fund more deadly violence against Americans, the West, and Israel. Even the Obama Administration admits these facts.

Again, President Obama chose sides: a lopsided nuclear agreement clearly favoring the genocidal, radical Islamic Republic of Iran over American and Israeli lives.

This trend makes more sense when you look at President Obama’s closest aid and chief advisor, Iranian-born progressive Valerie Jarrett. It was widely reported that she was the advisor that resisted all efforts to take out Usama Bin Laden months after his location was known. She has also been the point person in charge of inviting over a dozen radical Muslims – many with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood - to the White House.

Acknowledging a Pro-Islam Presidency

President Obama was an ardent supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood taking power in Egypt in 2011; this is an organization the openly violates human rights on a massive scale and promotes the death penalty for the “crimes” of apostasy, critics of Islam, victims of rape and gays.

From supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, to the Iran Deal, to refusing to call the latest Islamic-inspired attack in Philadelphia an act of terrorism, to calling the terror attack on Fort Hood “workplace violence”, to honoring Ramadan before denouncing the murder of our Marines in Chattanooga, President Obama has proven himself to be the most pro-Islam president in history.

Whether or not people think that this will have a profoundly negative impact on our nation’s security and future—certainly I do—my hope is that conservatives are allowed to start a conversation about President Obama’s actions without being labeled “racist”, “Islamophobic” or crazy. This pro-Islam trend from the Obama Administration cannot be ignored, or we will pay the heavy price of the potential consequences.

What's your opinion?  Do you think Obama's pro-Islam agenda threatens our nation's security? Interested to hear your comments.