Obama, Free Speech and the Islamists

Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor under the Clinton administration, was recently interviewed by the Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas regarding the Benghazi incident.  A senior fellow at the National Review Institute, he writes for National Review Online and is the author of several books on Islamism.

Mr. McCarthy faults the Obama administration on it’s lack of decisive action and incompetence in handling Benghazi, even using the label “dereliction of duty”.  He points out how the administration repeatedly lied about the cause/source of the Benghazi attack, claiming it was a response to an anti-Muslim video.   This leads to Mr. McCarthy stating that since 2009, the Obama administration continues to work with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to find agreement on U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, which would deem it unlawful to incite hostility toward religion.

“What we are effectively doing is codifying the Sharia blasphemy standard under which any criticism of Islam…is deemed to be a capital offense, not just a crime … something that is so profoundly serious that it could be met with the death penalty,” McCarthy said.

Mr. McCarthy’s comments bring to light the disturbing trend of the Obama administration to bend and submit to Islamists not only domestically, but on a global scale.  To fully understand the motivation behind U.N. Resolution 16/18, one simply needs to look into the makeup and history of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

A permanent delegation of the United Nations, The Organization of Islamic Cooperation  consists of 57 member states and is headquartered in Jedda, Saudi Arabia .   It’s charter is quite clear in regards to goals and objectives, and as would be expected primarily focuses on issues that are beneficial to Islam …

Chapter 1, Article 1, paragraph 11:
To disseminate, promote and preserve the Islamic teachings and values based on moderation and
tolerance, promote Islamic culture and safeguard Islamic heritage;

Chapter 1, Article 1, paragraph 12:
To protect and defend the true image of Islam, to combat defamation of Islam and encourage dialogue
among civilisations and religions;

Chapter 1, Article 1,paragraph 16:
To safeguard the rights, dignity and religious and cultural identity of Muslim communities and
minorities in non-Member States;

Considering that a number of the OIC member states are named in reports of the persecution of non-Muslims and the OIC is headquartered in a country that severely restricts any religion other than Islam, it’s really not hard to conclude that any OIC support for U.N. Resolution 16/18 is not aimed at the protection of all religions.  Jonathan Turley, writing on op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times (2011) put it quite well:

Although the resolution also speaks to combating incitement to violence, the core purpose behind this and previous measures has been to justify those who speak against religion. The members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, have been pushing for years to gain international legitimacy of their domestic criminal prosecutions of anti-religious speech.

Using the United Nations as a platform for globally promoting an Islamic agenda is always disturbing.   In this case, even more so since political correctness is being wielded in a way that places our own 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution at odds with the international community.  Mr. Turley writes:

The OIC has hit on a winning strategy to get Western countries to break away from their commitment to free speech by repackaging blasphemy as hate speech and free speech as the manifestation of “intolerance.” Now, orthodoxy is to be protected in the name of pluralism — requiring their own notion of “respect and empathy and tolerance.” One has to look only at the OIC member countries, however, to see their vision of empathy and tolerance, as well as their low threshold for anti-religious speech that incites people.

… and in relation to Mr. McCarthy’s reference to working with the OIC:

Although the OIC and the Obama administration claim fealty to free speech, the very premise of the meeting reveals a desire to limit it. Many delegates presuppose that speech threatens faith, when it has been religious orthodoxy that has long been the enemy of free speech. Conversely, free speech is the ultimate guarantee of religious freedom.

The Obama Administration’s coziness with  the Organization of Islamic Cooperation sets off a number of concerns, considering the national interests of most of the OIC member nations conflict with the standing policies and laws of the United States.    The Benghazi incident and the U.S. response appears to be another symptom of a far greater problem – an ever growing American capitulation to Islamic global interests.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

Related articles

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: