Amerika Doesn’t Give A Damn About Benghazi

Obama’s Praetorian Media:  Silence on Benghazi Cover-up as the MarxoFascist Democrats attack and discredit the ‘Whistleblowers’

As I feared, after watching the Benghazi testimony from Issa’s committee hearings on the slaughter of Americans on 9-11-2012 and the cover-up by the Obama regime – not only is nothing going to come as a result of these hearings, the media is ensuring that Obama’s Amerika doesn’t give a damn about what happened there.  They are either totally silent and ignoring the testimony altogether, or slandering the entire investigation as a ‘GOP’ attack on Obama.

Along with Hillary Clinton’s “What difference does it make?!” answer to why did they leave 4 Americans to die and blame the Jihad attack on a youtube video:

…the Marxofascists are now adding insult to injury asserting to those testifying that “Death is a part of life” IOW – this is NO BIG DEAL, SHUT UP and move on:

Elijah Cummings (Marx-MD), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, tells Benghazi witnesses that “death is a part of life.”

I would bet that this talking point the MarxoFascist Democrats are rallying around does not apply to events like Sandy Hook, Aurora Colorado, Boston Marathon bombing, etc.  Imagine if some Conservative said “What difference does it make what kind of gun was used, death is a part of life!”  Not so with the Obama Leftists.  Their treason and dereliction of duty is met with ridicule and lecture while they absolve themselves.

Then of course, the Propaganda media/Obama’s Praetorian are doing all they can to marginalize, slander and then ignore any damaging testimony that makes Obama or his regime look bad or incompetent.

Media Calls Benghazi Testimony as nothing but political “GOP Hearings”

Fox News is the ONLY news outlet actually covering the hearings aside from the internet and C-Span.  The entirety of the rest of Obama’s Media either totally ignores the testimony, or simply follows the talking points to declare the hearings a ‘political witch hunt against Obama’ (because he’s black).

Benghazi Hearings Nothing But A Political Witch Hunt

There are some who upon looking at the preliminary testimony assert that the damning evidence and testimony is enough to topple the Obama regime.

John Bolton: Benghazi could bring down Obama administration

Sorry Mr. Bolton, only in a nation where the Rule of Law is cherished and a people are not consumed with self  gratification at another’s expense would JUSTICE come to those who were derelict, complicit and engaged in treason and cover-up.  In Obama’s Amerika – 90% of the people it will be said – do not give a damn about Benghazi.  They demand gun control, Amnesty for Illegals, Homosexual Marriage and can care less about anything else.  We will be told that the Amerikan people see the investigation into Benghazi as nothing but a GOP/Conservative political attack on the nation’s first black president – and therefore another illustration of racism, intolerance, obstruction to change and bitter clinging.

But for those of us who are Americans – and want to know the truth of the blood-soaked hands of Obama’s regime:

What we learned today about the Benghazi attacks

If anyone suggests that nothing new was said in today’s Benghazi hearing — it’s just not true. It doesn’t take a smoking gun to solve a murder case, and the absence of a smoking gun here doesn’t take away from the fact that huge doubt was cast both on the Obama administration’s diligence with respect to its mission in Libya and its sincerity in explaining what had happened after the fact.

There were several important revelations in today’s testimony. They come from sources that are not mere partisan hacks, but civil servants who experienced the Benghazi attacks up close and have since, in some cases, suffered retaliation from the Obama administration for daring to step forward.

Here are a few of the lessons from today, just the quick and dirty version:

(1) As the consulate in Benghazi was swarmed by at least five dozen armed men and later shelled with precisely aimed mortars, Diplomats on the ground knew right away that they were under attack by terrorists, and even by which ones — they were al Qaeda linked. Ambassador Chris Stevens, in his phone conversation with U.S. diplomats in Tripoli, did not suggest at any point that there was a demonstration going on outside the facility there.

(2) They knew the anti-Islamic YouTube video, made a Copt and later blamed by U.S. politicians, was a “non-event” that had not entered the public consciousness in Libya.

(3) Gregory Hicks, the Libya Deputy Mission Chief, believes that the falsehoods told by administration officials about said video (including Obama himself, Secretary Clinton, Susan Rice and others) harmed relations with Libyan leaders (the Libyan president stated early on that it was a terrorist attack) and contributed to the three-week delay in getting the FBI into the crime scene.

(4) Hicks received orders from on high not to speak with visiting members of Congress without an administration-appointed chaperone/babysitter present at all times.

(5) When he did so anyway (his appointed babysitter lacked the security clearance to be present in the conversation he had), Hillary’s Chief of Staff and Clinton era counsel Cheryl Mills personally called to chew him out afterward.

(6) Hicks — who had previously been praised for his work — was suddenly criticized, blamed and demoted after he came forward and questioned these falsehoods about the YouTube video.

(7) The security situation in both Benghazi and Tripoli evinced negligence by the State Department. Neither facility met the State Department’s own security standards, despite known security risks in Libya, and this situation was only allowed to exist with permission of the Secretary of State herself.

As to the question of whether substantial military help could have been ordered and arrived in a timely fashion, I don’t believe the testimony tells us much. We at least know for sure that no effort was made — not even a request to use the airspace. That doesn’t mean the decision not to send help was not justified by the circumstances.

Hillary’s Benghazi Massacre Kabuki Theater Testimony

Bunk.  Scripted.  Staged. Theatrics. Lies.  Cover Up.  Obama’s Lawless regime is now beyond any semblance of justice.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) was the ONLY Senator aside from Ron Johnson refusing to walk on eggshells or praise Hillary as some kind of  goddess in today’s Soviet theatrics.  Clearly irritated that she had to bring herself down from Olympus to answer smarmy mortals wanting answers to the Obama Regime’s dereliction of duty and treason, Hillary towed the Obama lies over leaving 4 Americans including it’s ambassador to Libya – to be slaughtered by Jihadists back in September.

My only comment was that this was expected after the vain attempt to delay and possibly scrap the hearings altogether post – head-bump SecState.  But on a quick perusal of news video – it is apparent to me that this entire staged event with complicity from the Ruling Class GOP, offered nothing more than pre-screened questions with already-written in-advance answers that Hillary read.  When pressed about the Administration’s official “talking points” about the Benghazi Libya Consulate attack arising from a spontaneous demonstration as a result of a Youtube video – which the Administration maintained for weeks – she says “What difference does it make?”.

To this author – this was spectacular Kabuki theater, playing on the audience of drones this regime knows would support Obama and his regime no matter what happened.  Of course I am not the only one who thinks so.

Scripted.  Staged, and excellently executed propaganda for Obama’s war to annihilate any and all political opposition to his MarxoFascist revolution.  What difference does it make who they abandon, leave to die, kill by drones or sicced upon by female front line soldiers now?

Ameritopia and Obamination is what we have been transformed into.  It will get much, much worse from here on.

Classified Cable Reveals Embassy In Libya Warned Obama A Month Before Attack

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before 9-11, stating Embassy could not defend against Al Qaeda “coordinated attack”.

After Obama left Americans to die by the hands of Al Qaeda Jihadists whom he was arming with weapons and funds, a massive cover-up with complicity of the media continues.  It seems only ONE news outlet is willing to cover the story of Obama’s complicity of assassination of his own ambassador and Americans who defied orders to ‘stand down’ to rescue the mission staff.

Despite the continuing insistence that Obama’s regime had ‘no reliable intel’ of the danger the U.S. Mission in Libya, Catherine Herridge at Fox News uncovers a top secret cable sent almost a MONTH before the 9-11 attacks in Libya whereby the mission’s RSO Security officer stated that the Consulate could not withstand a coordinated attack by Al Qaeda Jihadists whom had training camps in Benghazi.

Obama and the State Department knew  Al Qaeda Jihadist groups were operating in Benghazi.  A flurry of intelligence reports were sent after the fall of Gadhaffi’s regime after a June 6 bomb attack on the Benghazi mission’s security wall and an attack on a Red Cross shelter followed by other assassinations by identified Jihad groups operating in the mountain areas around Benghazi.

Obama’s regime did nothing to reinforce or secure the Mission, even after actual attacks in June.  It kept a ‘minimalist’ position, most likely to facilitate the Fast & Furious -styled arming of Jihadist groups that Obama designated as ‘rebels’ against the Secular Dictatorships in the Arab world whom Obama was working to overthrow.  Reports that the Benghazi mission was serving as an arms cache depot to funnel SAMs/MANPAD surface-to-air missiles and guns to Jihadist ‘rebels’ in Syria adds to the suspicion that Obama let Ambassador Stevens die to bury and cover up his regime’s involvement in treason.

Classified cable warned consulate couldn’t withstand ‘coordinated attack’:

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.

The U.S. Mission in Benghazi convened an “emergency meeting” less than a month before the assault that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, because Al Qaeda had training camps in Benghazi and the consulate could not defend against a “coordinated attack,” according to a classified cable reviewed by Fox News.

Summarizing an Aug. 15 emergency meeting convened by the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Aug. 16 cable marked “SECRET” said that the State Department’s senior security officer, also known as the RSO, did not believe the consulate could be protected.

“RSO (Regional Security Officer) expressed concerns with the ability to defend Post in the event of a coordinated attack due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound,” the cable said.

According to a review of the cable addressed to the Office of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Emergency Action Committee was also briefed “on the location of approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi … these groups ran the spectrum from Islamist militias, such as the QRF Brigade and Ansar al-Sharia, to ‘Takfirist thugs.’” Each U.S. mission has a so-called Emergency Action Committee that is responsible for security measures and emergency planning.

The details in the cable seemed to foreshadow the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. compound, which was a coordinated, commando-style assault using direct and indirect fire. Al Qaeda in North Africa and Ansar al-Sharia, both mentioned in the cable, have since been implicated in the consulate attack.

In addition to describing the security situation in Benghazi as “trending negatively,” the cable said explicitly that the mission would ask for more help. “In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover.”

This is almost a MONTH before the attacks.  Obama’s State Department under the direction of Hillary Clinton were well aware of the threat Al Qaeda and other Jihadi groups posed to the Mission, and as always – Obama’s regime REFUSES to answer questions about this unravelling scandal – instead sticking to a massive lie and narrative.

While the administration’s public statements have suggested that the attack came without warning, the Aug. 16 cable seems to undercut those claims. It was a direct warning to the State Department that the Benghazi consulate was vulnerable to attack, that it could not be defended and that the presence of anti-U.S. militias and Al Qaeda was well-known to the U.S. intelligence community.

In a three-page cable on Sept 11, the day Stevens and the three other Americans were killed, Stevens wrote about “growing problems with security” in Benghazi and “growing frustration” with the security forces and Libyan police. The ambassador saw both as “too weak to keep the country secure.”

Fox News asked the State Department to respond to a series of questions about the Aug. 16 cable, including who was specifically charged with reviewing it and whether action was taken by Washington or Tripoli. Fox News also asked, given the specific warnings and the detailed intelligence laid out in the cable, whether the State Department considered extra measures for the consulate in light of the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks – and if no action was taken, who made that call.

The State Department press office declined to answer specific questions, citing the classified nature of the cable.

Why Libya Cover-Up: Obama Was Arming Al Qaeda & Islamists

Obama has been engaged in gun-walking on a massive scale. Equipping America’s enemies to wage global jihad.

In the aftermath of  9-11-2001, any American working to actively empower, aid, run weapons and guns to Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban or any Al Qaeda associated Jihadi groups would have been seen as having committed high treason against the United States, right?

Well that is EXACTLY what the 44th President, Barrack Hussein Obama, His Heinous – has been doing since he took office.  His regime was not limited to running weapons in Operation Fast & Furious’ gun-walking arming of Mexican drug cartels with American guns, as a way to abolish the Second Amendment and impose gun bans.  His regime was doing the same thing for Al Qaeda and associated Islamist groups in the Middle East to facilitate the “Arab Spring” uprising.

While Obama calls the Middle East uprisings against secular dictators a “fight for Democracy”, the fruit and fact is far from the truth.  In EVERY case that the Obama regime supported, encouraged and it appears now, ARMED the “rebels” against the likes of Libyan dictator Moammar Ghaddafi – actively supporting Al Qaeda Islamist fighters.  From Egypt, to Tunisia to Libya and Yemen – the wake of the “Arab Spring” has installed Islamic Jihadist Theocracies in all those nations.  Nations that were either benign or friendly to the United States and Israel, are now avowed Islamist enemies.  Christians that once existed in these nations, are being systematically exterminated or forced into Islamic conversion as the Copts of Egypt are suffering with reports of church burnings, gang rapes and mass crucifixions in front of Morsi’s presidential palace.

Looking at the FRUITS of whom Obama supported and continues to support in the Middle East, beginning at the outset with his 2009 Cairo speech to the Muslim world – looking back – Obama lit the fuse.  The pattern appears to be that Obama is helping to shape what Islamists are working for: a totalitarian Islamic Caliphate.  Perhaps there is something to the Shia Prophecy about a ‘tall black man’ acting like an Islamic John The Baptist, preparing the way for an Islamic takeover of the globe by dismantling the West from within, arming and empowering Jihadists to take power across the Middle East.  Obama has been instrumental in achieving this Islamist dream.

Obama is not yet done.  He has been working to arm a branch of Al Qaeda Jihadists inside Syria to overthrow the secular dictatorship of Bassar Assad, and that ties directly to the attacks on the Libyan Embassy and the killing of Ambassador Stevens, who was acting in the capacity of an Arms Dealer to Jihad groups in Libya and Syria.

Reports from the Washington Times and Business Insider detail the probable motive in the Libyan Embassy Cover-up that continues to this moment: Obama was engaged in arming Al Qaeda fighters in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East.

The real reason behind Benghazigate

The evidence suggests that the Obama administration has not simply been engaging, legitimating, enriching and emboldening Islamists who have taken over or are ascendant in much of the Middle East. Starting in March 2011, when American diplomat J. Christopher Stevens was designated the liaison to the “opposition” in Libya, the Obama administration has been arming them, including jihadists like Abdelhakim Belhadj, leader of the al Qaeda franchise known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

Once Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown, Stevens was appointed ambassador to the new Libya run by Mr. Belhadj and his friends. Not surprisingly, one of the most important priorities for someone in that position would be to try to find and secure the immense amount of armaments that had been cached by the dictator around the country and systematically looted during and after the revolution.

One of the places in Libya most awash with such weapons in the most dangerous of hands is Benghazi. It now appears that Stevens was there — on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now copiously documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates — for another priority mission: sending arms recovered from the former regime’s stocks to the “opposition” in Syria. As in Libya, the insurgents are known to include al Qaeda and other Shariah-supremacist groups, including none other than Abdelhakim Belhadj.

The report continues to detail that weapons to Al Qaeda included SA-7 MANPAD surface to air missiles – capable to taking down airliners and U.S. military aircraft.  But it is THIS pull quote that hits right to the point of this story:

What cries out for further investigation — and debate in the remaining days of this presidential election — is whether this shipment was part of a larger covert Obama effort to transfer weapons to our enemies that could make the Iran-Contra scandal, to say nothing of Operation Fast and Furious, pale by comparison.

The reasons for the Obama regime to lie, misdirect and re-catagorize what took place at Benghazi is the result of Christopher Stevens’ actual role as arms facilitator and Community Jihadist ‘organizer’ for insurgencies across the Middle East.  Stevens’ last official meeting earlier on the day he was murdered was said to be with an unidentified “Turkish diplomat.” Presumably, the conversation involved additional arms shipments to al Qaeda and its allies in Syria. It also may have involved getting more jihadist fighters into Syria.  According to sources in Egyptian security, Ambassador Stevens was playing a “central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.”

Even Obama Apologist rag the NYT had to concede to the fact that Obama was engaged in arming militant Jihadists, branches of Al Qaeda to Syrian rebels.  As the Business Insider reported: US Weapons Are Going To Hard-Line Jihadists Fighting To Topple The Syrian Regime

Treason seems to be a word that no longer has any application to modern-day America unless the definition is applied to Right Wingers and Conservatives opposed to Obama and the Democrats.  Aiding and comforting Communists and Jihadists was described by the Obama media as improving America’s standing in the world.  Would anyone dare call arming Al Qaeda for use to overthrow regimes that at one time were friendly or benign to the United States, as treason?  No one can be stupid enough to think that arming these Jihadists will not result in those arms eventually being used on Americans – but like Operation Fast & Furious – it appears there is an ulterior motive behind running guns to enemies of there United States.

But run those weapons and aid to Al Qaeda and Jihad groups Obama did, and that appears to be the MOTIVE behind the cover-up of the Benghazi attack and the insistence of blaming the Youtube video for the murder of 4 Americans including Ambassador Stevens.

Obama has provided aid, comfort, funds, arms and impetus to revolution for the purpose of installing an Islamic Caliphate – a beast that no doubt would acquire and use Nuclear weapons with ally Iran against the Great and Little Satan, of whom Obama has worked as a Trojan Horse to tear down from within.

But there are no stones among anyone in Congress to hold such treason accountable to we, the American people.  We, who one day – are going to rue the day Obama betrayed us to our enemies.  How much blood and deaths will result in what Obama has done, is something future history books may put on par with the Holocaust.

Obama Apologizes To Muslims in Pakistan

The Obama Regime is running a series of ‘apology’ ads in Pakistan on U.S. taxpayer dime, blaming YouTube Video that is blocked in Pakistan.

U.S. Embassies around the world are falling and burning.  Ambassadors are being raped and executed by Jihadists.  Obama responds by blaming a Youtube video and apologizing and blaming America and Americans for the jihad attacks and subsequent uproar.

The Regime is spending 70 thousand of our tax dollars to run an ad of comments by Obama and Hillary Clinton blaming a Youtube video that is blocked from viewing in Pakistan, for the Islamic violence that has spread to Pakistan in the aftermath of the Al Qaeda/Jihad attacks on the U.S. embassies in Libya and Egypt on the 11th anniversary of 9-11.  The ad buy, subtitles the comments of the regime in Urdu – the primary language in Pakistan.

Obama State Dept. Scrubs Memo Declaring No Security Threats For 9-11

Obama State Department sent out memo on 9-6 stating there was no threats from Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group, that memo is now scrubbed from the State Department website.

The Obama regime insists they had no warnings about any threats to U.S. embassies up to the attacks in Libya and Egypt.  On 9-6, OSAC – an advisory council of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security under the State Department issued a memo that stated the following:

Terrorism and Important Dates
Global
9/6/2012

OSAC currently has no credible information to suggest that al-Qa’ida or any other terrorist group is plotting any kind of attack overseas to coincide with the upcoming anniversary of September 11. However, constituents often have concerns around important dates, holidays, and major events, Often times, these concerns are the result of increased media attention to the issue, rather than credible evidence of a terrorist plot.

Screenshot of the memo from the OSAC website:

No updates or warnings were issued until right before the attacks began.  Even AFTER Al Gamaa Al Islamiyya and Islamic Jihad issued a statement on 9-10 that they were going to burn the U.S. embassy in Cairo to the ground (which they did).

The narrative from the Obama regime that they repeated Friday, was that they had no warning or any intelligence that an attack was pending, corroborating the memo from OSAC.  Even though Libyan officials confirm they warned the Obama regime an attack was coming 3 Days before 9-11, and Egyptian intelligence warned that Israeli and American embassies were going to be attacked by Jihadists on September 4th.

Nothing was done to secure or prepare the embassies in Egypt or Libya for what was warned to happen in advance.

The regime instead insisted the attacks were a surprise spontaneous protest as a result of a silly video that was posted on Youtube back in July.

The Speak with Authority blog noted the OSAC memo that was issued and the story was soon picked up by NRO and the Washington Examiner.  As stories and sources around the world now confirm that the Obama regime was warned in advance of the attacks but did nothing except insist there was no credible threats, there appears to be a shredding and erasing of documents, memos and proofs that Obama and Hillary Clinton ignored clear warning signs.

One has to wonder why?  Incompetence?

Or something more insidious?

There is no way to discern why, because the State Department and the Obama regime said they will no longer comment or talk about the embassy attacks with the media.

They are busy scrubbing evidence from record and the public eye.

 

Blood on Their Hands

No Marines.  No live Ammunition.  Obama and Hillary Clinton responsible for the ROE that left U.S. embassies without the means to defend themselves.

While Obama and his media get shrill in insisting that a silly video on Youtube is responsible for the attacks at U.S. Embassies in Egypt and Libya that left four Americans dead and the embassies in ruins, Breitbart reports that it was Hillary Clinton’s orders establishing new State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya, signed by the Secretary of State after the fall of Khadafi’s regime, that severely compromised the safety and security of murdered Ambassador Stevens and all American diplomatic staff in Libya.  In addition, those ROE Clinton signed, prohibited the Marines from providing security at any U.S. installation in Libya.

On Friday, Breitbart News said it filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the State Department to secure a copy of the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya.   They conclude the State Department will stonewall their request, and resist release of the document until after the election. They go on to state they assert its contents will be just too damaging because the country will be able to see Hillary Clinton’s signature on the document that served as Ambassador Chris Stevens’s death warrant.

That is to be expected.  Especially after the Obama/Hillary Clinton State Department told reporters Friday afternoon that it won’t answer any more questions about the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate in Benghazi.

What makes hypocritical matters worse, is that the Obama regime has their own personal Praetorian guards, while our embassies have none as it is also reported that Ambassador Chris Stevens did not have a Marine detail in Benghazi, Libya. But White House Senior Advisor and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett has a full Secret Service detail for her coming vacation in Martha’s Vineyard.

Absolutely No Shame. Disgusting.

Obama uses dead Americans slain in Libyan Embassy attack as backdrop prop for campaign speech.

Regime triples down on attacking YouTube video as cause for the uprising in the Middle East and Embassy Attacks, even after Libyan officials confirm the attacks were planned in advance.

Obama regime is using this to impose defacto Sharia law in America, and criminalize anyone who dares to ‘offend’ Muslims.

Sharia Law USA: Efforts To Criminalize Speech Critical of Islam Now Underway

Secretary of State Clinton and Organization of Islamic Cooperation are meeting to discuss implementation of mechanisms to limit speech critical of Islam… in America.

Thanks to LMonty for the heads up on this story.

If you think your head is spinning trying to keep pace with the rapid and deadly threats to our liberty by our this government tyranny over us (just last night they passed the bill to indefinitely detain Americans without charge or trial anywhere in the world), then this news is not going to ease your dizziness – only accelerate it.

While this regime in power says it is working to fight “terrorists” (without mentioning Islam or Jihadists) – at the same time, they are working to CRIMINALIZE any speech critical of Islam under the justification that  such criticism “incites hatred and violence against Muslims” which they equate  to shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, and therefore have legal precedent to restrict.

The Islamists and their apologists seek to impose an aspect of Sharia Law here in the United States, where it is illegal to criticize Islam.  Of note, there is no effort whatsoever to extend similar protections to Christianity or Judaism.  It’s still open season on the biblical faiths in the West.

On top of that, obviously the First Amendment is now moot and abolished in the mind of this Obama regime, as prohibiting the free exercise of the Christian religion is their legal right, while establishing protections for Islam as a matter of law, is perfectly legitimate.

Read very carefully what Clare Lopez states here at the American Thinker about this ‘working initiative’ between the OIC, and Clinton.  Note at the link in particular, the statements of the OIC charter to impose global Sharia Law and what the Obama regime has ALREADY implemented in it’s ‘anti-terrorism’ efforts domestically.  It should chill you to your bones.

Islamic World Tells Clinton: Defamation of Islam Must be Prevented — in America

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomes Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to Washington this week, it is critical that Americans pay attention to what these two leaders intend to do.  From 12 to 14 December 2011, working teams from the Department of State (DoS) and the OIC are going to discuss implementation mechanisms that could impose limits on freedom of speech and expression.

The OIC’s purpose, as stated explicitly in its April 2011 4^thAnnual Report on Islamophobia, is to criminalize “incitement to hatred and violence on religious grounds.”  Incitement is to be defined by applying the “test of consequences” to speech.  Under this twisted perversion of falsely “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” it doesn’t matter what someone actually says — or even whether it is true or not; if someone else commits violence and says it’s because of something that person said, the speaker will be held criminally liable.

The OIC is taking direct aim at free speech and expression about Islam.  Neither Christianity nor Judaism is named in the OIC’s official documents, whose only concern is to make the world safe from “defamation” of Islam — a charge that includes speaking truthfully about the national security implications of the Islamic doctrine of jihad.

Incitement to hatred under the OIC definition includes artistic expression like the Danish cartoons, literary expression like Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, or Pastor Terry Jones’ burning of his personally owned copy of the Qur’an.  According to the “test of consequences,” if Muslims feel compelled to burn, loot, riot, and kill in response to such exercises of free expression, under the laws the OIC wants the U.S. to enact, it would be the editor and cartoonist of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, Salman Rushdie, and Terry Jones who would be held criminally responsible for any damage or deaths that ensue.

Last March, the State Department and Secretary Clinton insisted that “combating intolerance based on religion” can be accomplished without compromising Americans’ treasured First Amendment rights.  But if that were so, there would be no possible excuse for engaging at this level with an organization like the OIC that is openly dedicated to implementing Islamic law globally.  This is why it is so important to pay attention not only to the present agenda, but to a series of documents leading up to it, issued by both the U.S. and the OIC.  From 12 to 14 December 2011, the DoS and OIC working teams will focus on implementation mechanisms for “Resolution 16/18,” a declaration that was adopted by the U.N. Human Rights Council in April 2011.

Resolution 16/18 was hailed as a victory by Clinton, because it calls on countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization” based on religion without criminalizing free speech — except in cases of “incitement to imminent violence.”  But if the criterion for determining “incitement to imminent violence” is a new “test of consequences,” then this is nothing but an invitation to stage Muslim “Days of Rage” following the slightest perceived offense by a Western blogger, instructor, or radio show guest, all of whom will be held legally liable for “causing” the destruction, possibly even if what they’ve said is merely a statement of fact.  The implications of such prior restraint on free speech would be chilling (which is precisely the point).

In fact, the “test of consequences” is already being applied rigorously in European media and courts, where any act or threat of violence — whether by a jihadist, insane person, or counter-jihadist — is defined as a “consequence” of statements that are critical of some aspect of Islam and, therefore, to be criminalized.  ….. Now, if the OIC and the Obama administration have their way, it’s America’s turn.

I contend that is already well underway.  Consider Obama’s speech in Cairo that preceded the militant Jihadist overthrow of Mubarak.  Consider Obama’s celebration of every Muslim holy day with White House Pronouncements, but never once an address on Christmas or Easter.

Once it’s understood that under Islamic law, “slander” is defined as saying “anything concerning a person [a Muslim] that he would dislike,” the scope of potential proximate causes of Muslim rage becomes obvious.

….Consider what is likely to be a bloodbath for Coptic Christians that will occur as soon as the Muslim Brotherhood and its Salafist allies are firmly in control of Egypt.  This provision means that any Western media that accurately report that coming massacre could be legally charged with “incitement to imminent violence” under the test of consequences, in effect blaming those who raise the alarm instead of those who perpetrate the violence.

….It would not be overreaching to conclude that the purpose of this meeting, at least from the OIC perspective, is to convince the Obama administration that free speech that rouses Muslim masses to fury — as defined by the “test of consequences” — must be restricted under U.S. law to bring it into compliance with sharia law’s dictates on slander.

It is important to note this section in the article at the Thinker, and consider the NDAA bill they passed last night that gives government the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely:

…the White House published “Strategic Implementation Plan for Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States” in December 2011.  The plan makes clear that “violent extremism,” not Islamic terrorism, is the primary national security threat to the homeland.  According to this “strategy,” the solution is partnership with “local communities” — the term used for the administration’s favored Muslim Brotherhood front groups, which already are using such relationships to silence their critics, both inside and outside government.  These new rules of censorship state that the term “violent extremism” can no longer be used in combination with terms like “jihad,” “Islam,” “Islamist,” or “sharia.”  And these new rules are already being taught to U.S. law enforcement, homeland security offices, and the military nationwide.

It is already policy in the Obama regime to strike and strip any reference to Jihadist Islam in conjunction with terrorism.  The entire focus of this regime is to paint Conservative Americans, returning vets and the TEA Party as domestic terrorists and extremists, with no reference to Islam whatsoever, AS POLICY.

The agenda of this week’s Department of State/OIC meetings may mark an important “milestone,” as Sayyed Qutb might put it, on the pathway to sharia in America.  If — under the “test of consequences” — those who speak truth about Islam, sharia, and jihad may be held criminally responsible for the violent actions of those who say they find such truth “offensive,” then, in the future, “violent extremists” could be just about anyone…anyone the government, in obedience to the sharia dictates of the OIC, decides they are.

Further, if the rubric is to be based on this “test of consequence,” then it creates a real temptation to any administration so inclined to “create” consequences that will justify a change in America’s free speech rights.  By way of example, analysts have suggested that the motive for the Department of Justice’s “Fast and Furious” scandal, now under congressional investigation, may have been to create a “crisis” — a “consequence” — caused by U.S. guns shipped across the border to Mexican drug-dealers (and used in multiple homicides, including an American Border Protection officer) to “nudge” public consensus to expand gun control laws.

Even if Obama’s State Department seems fully enamored with a “test of consequences” on speech critical of Islam, most Americans across the political spectrum will realize that this perverts the traditional understanding of the First Amendment.

Much more at link.

Precursor to Sharia Law? Obama Changes “Freedom of Religion” to “Freedom of Worship”

Paul Cooper on NewsReal Blog puts the pieces together and asks a question few of us really want to answer.

Why is Obama now using the term “Freedom of Worship” as opposed to “Freedom of Religion” as stated in our Founding documents?

As Cooper points out – when the Obama regime uses new terms, policy soon follows.

My own speculation is that in Obama’s mind – all paths lead to Allah.

Why is Obama Changing “Freedom of Religion” to “Freedom of Worship”?

Words matter.  Words often hold great meaning.  That is especially true when it comes to the words of our founding documents like the Bill of Rights in our Constitution.  Those words are especially cherished.  Yet in the past year it appears the Obama administration has been changing  one key word in that sacred scroll.

Last month the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s 2010 report revealed grave concern about both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejecting the term “freedom of religion” for the term “freedom of worship” in public pronouncements.  Why the change when the First Amendment talks specifically about our freedom of religion and not simply worship?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… – US Constitution

Last November Obama used the term “freedom of worship” at the memorial service for the victims of the Ft. Hood shooting.  A few days later he did it again in speeches in both Japan and China.  In DecemberHillary Clinton also used that terminology three times in a speech at Georgetown University and never once used the phrase “freedom of religion”.  In January of this year Clinton used the “freedom of worship” term four times while addressing senators.

This change in phraseology could well be viewed by human rights defenders and officials in other countries as having concrete policy implications.” – U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s 2010 report

The response by many religious freedom advocates is fear of what this all means.  Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom and member of the Religious Freedom commission believes freedom of worship is limited to private beliefs and prayer but not public activity.

It excludes the right to raise your children in your faith; the right to have religious literature; the right to meet with co-religionists; the right to raise funds; the right to appoint or elect your religious leaders, and to carry out charitable activities, to evangelize, [and] to have religious education or seminary training. – Nina Shea

Some Christian based publications are also worried.

That’s not an inconsequential change: Freedom of worship means the ability to have church services, which is crucial, but leaves out protection for Christian schools, publications, and Christian compassionate ministries…’Freedom of religion’ means that ministries designed to help prisoners change their lives, or to help the poor enter the workforce, can teach what the Bible teaches. Under ‘freedom of worship,’ these ministries could become illegal, as they are in many parts of the world.  This is a development to watch warily. – World Magazine

Some in the State Department argue the words “religion” and “worship” can be used interchangeably and there is nothing to worry about.  Others aren’t so sure and see this change in terminology as a major shift by the Obama administration.

Those of us in the business of sniffing out rats know that this is a rhetorical shift to watch. – Tom Farr, Professor of Religion and World Affairs at Georgetown University and the former head of the State Department’s International Religious Freedom Office

This President clearly sees religion as a key part of foreign affairs when the Muslim world is involved especially.  He is ultra-careful to not want to offend followers of Islam.  We already know that the administration has rejected the term “radical Islam” or any similar language and refuses to admit religion plays a major roll in terrorism.

This new terminology of “freedom of worship” might be given as a sign to Muslim nations and places with Christian persecution like China that they are not going to crack down on religious persecution for minority religions in those countries.  That could explain why Obama first used the term after a radical Muslim killed Americans at Ft. Hood.  And it could also explain why he used the term in speeches in China and Japan.

I’m very fearful that by building bridges, we’re actually stepping away from this fundamental principle of religious freedom. … It is so critical for Western, especially American, leaders to articulate strong defense forreligious freedom and explain what that means and how it undergirds our entire civilization. – Nina Shea

Shea has it right.  I’m not sure who all the Obama administration is trying to build bridges with by a shift in terminology, but it it a dangerous shift.  When Obama’s folk shift terminology that always means there has been a shift in policy.  They (with the exception of  Vice President Biden) choose their words very carefully.  The administration needs to publicly proclaim what this new policy means for Americans and for religious freedom around the world.