Follow Me: Will The US Embassy Attacks Be Used Against Our First Amendment Rights?

Remember way back when Rahm Emanuel, and others, said you can’t let a crisis go to waste?

In 2009 the U.S. and Egypt co-sponsored the free speech restrictions in the Human Rights Council…

Americans are reacting in shock after the U.S. Embassy in Egypt apologized to the Muslim world for “abuse” of free speech–after it was stormed by radical Islamists who raised the Al Qaeda flag and chanted slogans in support of Osama bin Laden on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. In fact, restrictions on free speech regarding religion have been the official foreign policy of the Obama administration since the fall of 2009.

Upon enthusiastically joining the anti-Israel club of tyrants known as the U.N. Human Rights Council, Obama’s new appointees co-sponsored a resolution–with Egypt, no less–that embraced restrictions on free speech that Islamic countries had sought in order to justify harsh anti-blasphemy laws.

The text of the resolution provided that “the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities”–and condemned “negative racial and religious stereotyping,” and stated that the media had a special “moral and social responsibility” to develop “voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct” regarding these topics.

U.N. Resolution 16/18 was brought about primarily to protect one culture, one religion, at the expense of everyone else

While you were out scavenging the Wal-Mart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany and Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, 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.”

Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this 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.”


The background to all of this, unsurprisingly, is an effort on the part of Muslim countries to limit what they consider to be defamatory and blasphemous speech: criticism of Islam, say, or insulting the prophet Mohammed – which, as we’ve learned, can mean anything from drawing a cartoon or making a joke in a comedy sketch to burning a Koran. Such acts – according to some readings of the Koran and, indeed, according to law in some OIC countries – are punishable by death. Hence the riots that met the publication of the so-called “Danish cartoons,” the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and on and on.


And here’s where Resolution 16/18 gets tricky.

Because who, exactly, arbitrates what is “incitement to imminent violence”? Violence by whom? If drawing a caricature of the Prophet incites violence by Islamic radicals to the tune of riots, arson, and murder, all sanctioned by the IOC itself – then drawing such a caricature (or writing a book like the Satanic Verses) will now constitute a criminal act. And that is exactly what the OIC was aiming for. It is also in direct violation of the principles of Western democracy – and the First Amendment. (Though it is crucial to note that any resolution passed by the General Assembly remains nonbinding, which makes you sort of wonder what the point of all this is, anyway.)

Mid-December 2011 – While Americans were busy with school, work (those who had a job), and scaled-back Christmas preparations…

At the invitation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 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.” The implementation meeting focused on two elements of the steps set forth in Resolution 16/18: 1) prohibiting discrimination based on religion or belief and 2) training government officials, including on how to implement effective outreach to religious communities. Participants included experts from invited countries and international organizations, as well as personnel from the United States Departments of Homeland Security and Justice.

Roughly a month and a half ago, Jul 25, 2012, there was a hearing in the US Congress with the DOJ’s Assistant AG Thomas Perez. He was asked no less than four times, by Congressman Trent Franks one simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question he refused to answer…

Got that? Our DOJ’s AAG could not, or would not, answer that he would uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution he swore an oath to uphold.

Yesterday, after the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was mobbed, our beloved USA Flag torn down and defiled and replaced by the flag of our enemy…


… the US Embassy staff released this statement in response to the invasion on US territory…


Although it is coming out that these coordinated U.S. embassy attacks were in the works to mark 9/11, all of this Islamic outrage has been allegedly driven by some stupid video depicting Mohammed, that was allegedly backed by an individual in this country whose rights are supposed to be protected by the US Constitution. And here rides in the all-to-eager to be the almighty gods of who does and does not deserve free speech in this country

Apparently the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt has decided to do just that … or something.

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi asked the Egyptian embassy in Washington to take legal action in the United States against makers of a film attacking the Muslim Prophet Mohammad, the official state news agency said on Wednesday.

Morsi had requested the mission take “all legal measures”, the MENA agency said, without giving further details on what that might involve.

Remember, in January of this year one of our very own SCOTUS Justices advised the new Egypt NOT to look to our U.S. Constitution to write theirs (2:25)…

And so, we now should just dump our Constitutional laws in favor of extremely restrictive Sharia law … because Muslim feelings are hurt.



2 thoughts on “Follow Me: Will The US Embassy Attacks Be Used Against Our First Amendment Rights?

Comments are closed.