Obama Begins Imposing Defacto Sharia Law In the USA

America is being colonized by our enemies at the hand of Obama and the Democrat Party who are imposing Sharia Law right under our noses.

Obama routinely criticizes Christians and the Christian faith, while at every opportunity he preaches the glories and benefits of Islam.   The Bitter Clingers he so despises should be prohibited and punished for criticizing Islam according to his own words. It is nothing new for Obama.  A year ago he used a Christian Prayer Breakfast to call for curbs on criticism of Islam.  This is a consistent trait with our first Islamic leader who pretended to be Christian in order to deceive the nation he intends to gift to the Caliphate as a slave state.

Yesterday His Heinous, wannabe Caliph Barrack has decreed at a radical Mosque that criticism of Muslims “has no place on our country”, as if by Dictatorial Decree he can simply abolish the inalienable right to free speech and religious exercise.  And while he is not yet able to simply say “so it shall be done” and make it so, Obama has instructed his regime to begin imposing one of the major tenets of Sharia Law which is to abolish any criticism of Islam and criminalize it.

Obama: Criticism of Muslim Americans “Has No Place In Our Country” 

…[Obama] lectured Americans – as always – on our own intolerance, the glories of Islam, and how if we just gaze longingly into his eyes, our souls will be set free of the baser matter surrounding them….Muslims account for only about 1 percent of the U.S. population but account for about half of terrorist attacks since 9/11. That means Muslims in the United States are about 5,000 percent more likely to commit terrorist attacks than non-Muslims.”But statistics are Islamophobic, so Obama merely ignored them. Instead, he focused on the “inexcusable political rhetoric against Muslim Americans that has no place in our country,” lamenting “the threats and harassment of Muslim Americans have surged.” No statistics, just anecdotal evidence, followed….Obama continued, “We have to be consistent in condemning hateful rhetoric and violence against everyone. And that includes against Muslims here in the United States of America.”

The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech no matter that Muslims consider any criticism of their religion as ‘hateful rhetoric’.  But that doesn’t matter to Obama, because Sharia Law trumps the Constitutional limits on government infringing on an inalienable right.

See, Obama is pushing what was introduced by his Attorney general Loretta Lynch back in December:

Loretta Lunch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use “Anti-Muslim” Speech

The day after a horrific shooting spree by what appears to be a radicalized Muslim man and his partner in San Bernardino, California, Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged to a Muslim advocacy and lobbying group that she would take aggressive action against anyone who used “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence.”

…Lynch said her “greatest fear” is the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric” in America and vowed to prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech.

In the mind of Muslims, Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood members that dominate Obama’s Cabinet, any criticism of Islam or Muslims is automatically deemed an act of violence, because that is what Sharia Law dictates.  In fact, in an Islamic State, criticism of any aspect of Islam is an automatic death sentence.  In Dhimmitude states (slave states subjected to Islam) criticism of Islam by nonbelievers is mandated to be a criminal act. And of course, this is EXACTLY what Obama and the Democrat Party are imposing by fiat upon a nation being colonized into a Dhimmi state.

DEMOCRATS MOVE TO CRIMINALIZE CRITICISM OF ISLAM

House Resolution 569 condemns “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.”

 

And of course in keeping with Obama’s policy that if Congress does not do his bidding, he will act unilaterally on his own – he has instructed his Attorney General to implement a UN program that supplants local police forces with UN/Global police policies, of which all impose various aspects of Sharia law.  Now you know why Obama has used the Ferguson and Baltimore Riots as a pretext to put local police forces under the control of the Federal government.  Because this is all about the imposition of Dhimmitude upon a nation he hates and is in the process of destroying.

Did Obama’s ‘Strong Cities’ Initiative Put US Under Islamic Law?

Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced a new worldwide law enforcement initiative, the Strong Cities Network, to be set up in certain American cities. What this actually is is the UN plan for global police, using the Department of Justice. It’s the overriding of American law by the Obama administration in conjunction with the UN, without Congressional input.

What’s the initiative all about? Officially, it’s to prevent and combat “violent extremism in all of its forms” without linking it “with any particular religion, nationality or ethnic group.” The emphasis is on inclusiveness, collaboration, and non-discrimination. Although it doesn’t mention any specific religion, using the language of Obama-speak, its goal of “building social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism” actually means peacekeeping between Muslims and non-Muslims, “mostly by making sure that non-Muslims don’t complain too loudly about, much less work against, rapidly expanding Muslim populations and the Islamization of their communities,” according to Pamela Geller.

This is a reasonable interpretation. Instead of “building social cohesion,” the flood of Islamic refugees and immigrants are destroying social unity in Western nations; yet they’re being welcomed by governments despite public outcry. And the FBI recently sent out a bulletin to law enforcement warning of attacks against Muslims by “militia extremists,” even though there’s no proof of any imminent attacks. In DHS reports, we’ve also seen the Obama administration target conservatives such as Christians, gun-owners and pro-lifers as dangerous.

So Obama is being consistent: Islam good and wonderful – Christians are hateful bitter clingers and dangerous.  Everything must be done to make sure America is as vulnerable as he can make it, and criminalize those who dare point out the dangers of what Obama is doing and with whom he is empowering and protecting.

Couple what His Heinous said yesterday at the mosque and what his regime is imposing via all these ‘initiatives’ and policies that harass and target American Christian and Conservative groups with the following news that Obama has ordered immigration laws to be ignored and border agents to “stand down”, and clearly brethren SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES.  But we cannot say that for much longer if Obama gets away with what he is doing.

BORDER AGENTS ORDERED TO STAND DOWN, ‘MIGHT AS WELL ABOLISH IMMIGRATION LAWS’

In a shocking reversal of policy, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents are being told to release illegal immigrants and no longer order them to appear at deportation hearings, essentially a license to stay in the United States, a key agent testified Thursday.

Obama reinstates ‘catch-and-release’ policy for illegal immigrants

The Obama administration has revived the maligned illegal immigrant “catch-and-release” policy of the Bush years, ordering Border Patrol agents not to even bother arresting and deporting many new illegal immigrants, the head of the agents’ labor union told Congress on Thursday.

Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, said Homeland Security was embarrassed by the number of illegal immigrants not showing up for their deportation hearings, but instead of cracking down on the immigrants, the department ordered agents not to arrest them in the first place — meaning they no longer need to show up in court in the first place.

Mr. Judd said the releases are part of President Obama’s “priorities” program, which says he’s only worried about illegal immigrants who came across after Jan. 1, 2014. Mr. Judd said illegal immigrants without serious criminal convictions on their record only have to claim they came before 2014 — without even needing to show proof — in order to be released without ever being arrested.

“Immigration laws today appear to be mere suggestions,” Mr. Judd testified to the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration subcommittee. “That fact is well known in other countries.”

Kill All The White Christian Conservatives

Historical lessons on where the Progressive/Marxist/Fascist Left  is taking America

The handwriting is on the proverbial wall in regards to what is coming at us – but most of you reading this will not believe it, or want to hear it.  Your liberal-leftist friends will laugh and declare this to be delusional.  Your other friends will think it ridiculous or impossible.

Yet history is screaming the warnings at us with an almost daily occurrence of parallels that make anyone who has properly read history realize something far worse than what happened last century is unfolding upon us.  An understanding that most willfully ignore – because they will not allow their minds to contemplate that such things are possible here, even though history teaches us they are playing out like a blueprint before you.

This is because in 6,000 years of recorded human history – human nature does not change.  Neither do the Principalities and Powers in High places that many in our “enlightened” society do not believe exist.

Henry Dampier.com has posted one of the most succinctly intelligent and historically urgent essays I have recently read regarding where this nation is headed.  It’s a hard read.  The writing is above your average sophistication, and I would assume he is doing so for reasons that I find familiar; proper English usage goes over the heads of most in our digital media culture today and the subject-matter is razor sharp, shredding sanguine notions that accompany Normalcy Bias.

Before you get started, I want to add to the prescient timing of Dampier’s essay – these headlines and news posts are all road signs leading to the destination Dampier illustrates with subtle aplomb:

Praise, from those of us excited to see any club of all-white all-men rendered extinct,

The end of white Christian America is nigh Common Core written for the purpose of ending “White Privilege” in the nation.

“Just being White is racist because your existential state of Living While White constitutes a form of racism in itself”.

Being Christian is automatically discriminatory, and therefore biblical Christianity must be banned.

Progressives respond to survey: “The only good Christian is a dead Christian.” ‘

Kill all the Whites’ was once unthinkable in places like Rhodesia and South Africa at one time not too long ago.  What happened to whites in those nations reveals that the current zeitgeist of vitriol in America towards Conservative Christians makes it clear that the Leftists are moving towards a similar goal .

The wholesale demonization of Christians and white Conservatives over the Restoring Religious Freedom Acts the past week is your canary in the mine.

Demonization programs always rapidly descend from boycotts, to empowering government seizures of wealth and property, followed by criminalizing existence and then, pograms of extermination. The goal is to eliminate the cited ‘problem’ to the planned utopia, and the Left is telling us daily whom they hate and whom must be considered a threat to the country.

This is how millions are wiped out in genocides, and the seeds being sown right now – are already germinating and will bloom sometime in the not-too-distant future.  ‘Kill Whitey’ will become just more than a slogan for ghetto blacks and race pimps.

It will become government policy.

Kill the Kulaks

Why have America’s leading organs of influence decided to demonize white, Christian men as the most uniquely evil group in the history of the world? Why is it necessary for students, especially of that ethnic group, to unpack their invisible knapsacks?

The answer is that these men are routinely targeted for politically-empowered looting, usually by their own wives, with the assistance of the state. This looting would not be morally palatable without a pervasive myth of uniquely white male evil. It would otherwise trip the moral alarms that might otherwise come up when dissolving a family for personal gain.

When the left says that they want to expropriate you (and later kill you) in increasingly less subtle terms, they are being entirely serious, and the dumbest mistake to make is to treat it as idle talk. They mean what they say. They will do what they say as soon as they have the political will and the numbers to execute it.

The growth in anti-white-male op-eds in influential magazines makes more sense when you look at the real lives of middle class men, which are often marked by either divorce or threatened divorce, which typically involves an enormous transfer of valuable assets from the man to his ex-wife. This expropriation would have been regarded as execrable even just 50 years ago, but with the assistance of a powerful guilt-myth, it goes down much easier.

The pre-existing myth can be used by lawyers and others to sway judges to the favor of their clients. If white men are assumed to be uniquely wicked, it becomes easier to weave their reported actions (whether true or false) into a legal case against that man, and then to use that case to deprive him of his children, assets, and honor.

The irony here is that men like Teddy Roosevelt, the founder of the Progressive party, were imperialistic white supremacists. However, this was within the framework of the ‘white man’s burden’ of uplifting the other races of the world. This part has stayed within the Progressive platform, and arguably the supremacy plank has stayed also, but in the form of creating a uniquely flagellating class, trained into self-loathing. The tragicomic part of this is that the successful uplift of African-Americans that TR brags about as a unique American success has been reversed by future more aggressively progressive policies.

The flagellating guilt complex is seen as furthering the international-uplift mission, but the Christian aspect has, in large part, been bumped off. The humility before God has become humility before the diversity instructor. The Fall from Eden has become the fall from a murky fall from racial grace. The space in life that would have been allocated towards the worship of God has instead been allocated to the hatred of the White race, although this co-exists simultaneously with a proclamation that race is a social construct that has no bearing on anything temporal.

Without Satan and the demons as scapegoats, White men and their pallor do a great job as stand-ins as the source of the world’s great historical and contemporary evils. The narratives catalog all the purportedly unique historical crimes of the White devil, and then close with some argument to seize the assets of that class, often combined with a demand for the denigration of that entire category of person.

It is not entirely useful to make the comparison to Nazis and their assignment of anti-Jewish math problems and the like in schools, because this program of retaliation is seen as a corrective for those sorts of things, in the same way that the Nuremberg trials were one-sided against the Axis, while ignoring the pervasive and open attacks on civilians by the Allies, in which civilian body counts were seen as success indicators.

It might be funny to bring up the Turks and how they got rid of the Armenians, but most people are unfamiliar with that, and in any case, unlike in the 16th and 17th century, ‘Turk’ is not a byword for ‘bad person’ — ‘White’ is. That is the cultural context in which the educated American classes are operating in. Reforming the image of the Kulak is not easy when every day, all the educated people learn that to hate the Kulak is to get in good with the authorities.

So, what is a Kulak to do? For one, you should take the language denigrating your ethnic group seriously, because calls for asset seizures are always presages to calls of physical liquidation. Once your liquid assets are seized, it is necessary to take your tough-to-move assets, and when you have nothing left to give, you are useful either as a slave or as a dead body.

If the moral trend can be reversed, by openly contradicting the story of [insert group here]’s perfidy, then good on you, but typically, once a state has begun the scapegoating process, it finds itself unable to back down from it — it has to see it to its logical conclusion. Physical resistance usually never occurs, because actors within states only begin these sorts of widespread demonization programs if there is unlikely to be any real physical resistance to it.

Similarly, whining slogans about ‘white genocide’ are meaningless when that sounds like a great idea to the people who want to expropriate you. The guilt-narrative is that White Christians are uniquely responsible for the post-1945 crime of genocide, and that retaliation is more than fair play. That chatter only works if they are actually amenable to that moral argument, and in fact, they think it would be a great thing, and have indeed cheered on such operations in countries like Rhodesia and South Africa.

Memorializing the Communist leader Mandela is practically mandatory in the US, just as veneration of various Communist revolutionaries was mandatory in the USSR.

No one cares — that, in fact, only enhances the support for the policy on the opposing side. In the same way that telling Turks that they are naughty for getting rid of the Armenians, the left just grins and laughs when you tell them that they are doing what they want to do, what they plan to do, what they are openly proud of talking about doing.

The cheeky proposal is to make like previously successful mass-exiles and to negotiate deportation between the state that wishes to get rid of the host population, and a state that could make use of it. The exile of the Huguenots from France to other Protestant countries throughout Europe is a good example of this sort of relatively peaceful ethno-religious cleansing. The more serious proposal is to break up the United States, due to incompatible moral visions of society among the differing members.

In this way, you could separate the states between those that believe Whites are demons whose sin requires punishment on this Earth, and those who believe that Whites are men to be judged by God and perhaps by other men when the time calls for it.

Much like Stalin rewarded journalists and minor authors with high prizes for authoring tracts against the Kulaks, our contemporary authorities award such prizes for demonizing our Kulaks. None of this will make much sense without a good understanding of the greatest, most terrible man of the 20th century, and this biography is a wonderful place to start.

Being able to credibly threaten this would be the only thing that could even begin to derail the de-Kulakization program in place. Once the authorities can no longer promise worthwhile prizes and status in return for mouthing words of hatred towards the White devil, the words will stop being spoken with nearly as much authentic fervor.

We should learn from history that negotiation with the terror is not possible — that is the road to the fate of men like the Girondists, moderates exterminated by the Jacobins. Taking the symbolic meaning of language seriously is important, because people must use strong symbols to arrange any project, either great or terrible.

When the left says that they want to expropriate you (and later kill you) in increasingly less subtle terms, they are being entirely serious, and the dumbest mistake to make is to treat it as idle talk. They mean what they say. They will do what they say as soon as they have the political will and the numbers to execute it. That could be a long time, but it might not be, either.

Also, to think that you can deflect the hatred towards some other subclass of Kulak is folly, because you’re next, even if that succeeds.

In the contemporary sense, just as historically, the way to avoid the de-Kulakization is to re-align yourself with the state and against the Kulaks. If you could credibly be mistaken for a Kulak, you instead loudly proclaim how much you hate Kulaks, and how willing you are to assist in their expropriation.

A defense can be mounted in a secure state, but it can’t be  mounted within a state that is entirely oriented against you. Finland withstood the Soviet invasion, but the states which were already in the Soviet orbit left the gates unlocked, and gladly accepted absorption. During the civil war in Spain, towns purged and counter-purged one another until the borders were clear — the secular Bolsheviks versus the Catholic Francoists.

Even then, people caught on the wrong side of the internal border were killed by their friends and neighbors, often with crude farm tools in barbaric rituals.

This even of course has occurred in recent times under American supervision — similar mass-killing of civilians is going on as I write this in Ukraine and New Russia. Ethnic cleansing famously occurred under hapless US supervision in Iraq, amassing an enormous body count. The American press is uniform in either glossing over these murders of civilians or in lauding them as necessary.

It is not so much of a jump to say that the same governing class that did not bat an eye in those wars would not bat an eye to do the same domestically, at least following a crisis of significant magnitude.

It’s not wise to trust in moderate political parties to brake the success of the neo-Jacobin left, because moderate parties are the first ones to go in crisis, under pressure from both sides.

Of course, none of this will make any sense if you are totally unfamiliar with the history of the left, especially in the 20th century. The rhetoric will seem benign because the symbols that they use for certain things are going to appear benign, rather than containing murderous intent. The normalcy that you have experienced for most of your life will be what you expect to experience for the foreseeable future, because you don’t have the records of others stored in your head, warning of such things.

In the same way, when people talk about ‘socialized medicine,’ you are going to have an entirely different emotional reaction to it if you know that Soviet doctors dumped dying patients out in front of hospitals to make their statistics look better than if you are wholly ignorant of that anecdote.

This is why it is often so difficult to make what should be an alarming historical parallel argument with regards to the bloody history of the left — contemporary people have been trained into fearing the ‘Brown scare,’ but not the far more dangerous ‘Red scare.’ They feel calm when they should feel alarm. They dismiss language that they should take seriously until precisely the moment before language commands action.

Obama To “Take Steps” Against Free Speech And Press That He Says “Provokes Muslims”

Under the false guise of ‘protecting those in uniform’, White House Propaganda SpokesImbecile Josh Earnest says Obama has a “moral responsibility to push back” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks.  Obama and Democrats then retreat for meeting in cloak of secrecy with media banned.

 

We all warned where Political Correctness would one day go; to the government BANNING free speech.  And so, the opening volleys of what we predicted have now been made official.

In the aftermath of the French Charlie Hebdo Jihad attacks, Obama’s actions and lack of action demonstrated his written promise to “Stand with the *Muslims* should the political winds shift in an ugly direction” and snubbed the Unity March against Islamic terrorism with the rest of the world’s leadership.   Upon the international and domestic outrage of his snub, His Heinous sent John Kerry with singer-songwriter James Taylor to sing “You’ve got a friend” to the French leadership, in an ultimate gesture of American insanity and stupidity in order to give the middle finger to the world’s stand against Islamic terror.

Obama then lectured that Europe must do more to ‘integrate Muslims’ into their cultures.  You know, the religion that declares in the Koran that it has a duty to force conversions to Islam by the sword or KILL the infidels wherever it finds them.   Obama advocates European suicide because obviously, the welfare states that have made native Europeans minorities in their own countries are not enough to stave off the ‘inevitable acts of extremism that took place in France’.

In the subsequent press briefings at the White House, Josh Earnest in attempting to excuse the 2012 White House opposition to Charlie Hebdo’s satirical stabs at Islam, made it clear in a White House Press briefing on January 12th, that Obama has a “moral duty” to quash and restrict journalism that he says is offensive to Islam or may provoke Jihadists.  And like clapping seals, the Praetorian Media dutifully seig heil’s our first Emperors justification to ban any Journalism he says is *offensive to Islam* right before he banned all press from reporting or even being present at his secret retreat meetings with Senior Democrat Party officials over this weekend, where topics would range from his proposed Federal takeover of all Community Colleges to our response in France to the ‘workplace violence’ that took place there.

First Amendment?  Obama don’t need no stinking First Amendment, and by his decree – neither do we.

 

Obama To Media: Don’t Report Against Muslim Jihadis

There is truly no end to the string of outrages perpetrated on our nation by Barack Obama (or whatever his real name is). The laundry list seems interminable, and today we can honestly regard anyone—anyone—who supports this man and his administration as being dangerously deceived. There is simply no defense of this lawless “president,” who is a clear and present danger to our freedoms, our economy, our healthcare system, our property rights, the freedom of the Internet, our military and national defense—every aspect of our constitutional Republic.

Many of us have long observed that Obama has traitorously aided and abetted our Muslim enemies, giving them weapons, billions of taxpayer dollars and their formerly-imprisoned “soldiers of Allah,” to continue the spread of their cancerous caliphate across the Middle East and elsewhere. If we didn’t know any better, we would believe his sympathies lie on the side of the barbaric Islamists. In truth, we don’t know any better. The only rational conclusion is that this man is an enemy of the United States.

Therefore, it was no surprise, but no less outrageous, when the Daily Caller reported on Tuesday that the White House Minister of Press Propaganda, Josh Earnest, reported that Obama wants to squash freedom of the press. Well, that’s not exactly how he put it. From the Daily Caller piece:

President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defense forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.

“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.

Isn’t this always the case? Our freedoms are so often stolen by facetious claims of “safety.” It’s why we stupidly stand without shoes in airport “security” lines, and like sheep, allow junior power-trippers of the TSA to grope our bodies before boarding a plane. “Safety.”

So, Obama, who believes the Muslim “call to prayer” is one of the “prettiest sounds on Earth,” wants to protect from offense the delicate sensibilities of his jihadi brethren by preventing the media from reporting the truth about Muslim jihad. Excuse me, but that’s not the American way, Mr. Quisling! Aside from the fact that one of our most sacred, God-given freedoms is freedom of speech, which includes freedom of the press, Americans do not bow to 7th century throwback Muslim bullies. But I don’t believe we are being ruled by an American—at least not in the theoretical sense of the word. Whatever Obama is, regardless of where this mystery man was or wasn’t born, he is not behaving like an American, much less an American President. He is behaving as a despotic, anti-American enemy within our nation.

As with everything this man and his fellow travelers do, the ostensible reason is not the reason. Spokesmouth Earnest claims Obama’s desire to squelch media expression is for the “safety” of our military troops. That’s a lie. Since when does Obama give a rip about the military, much less its safety? Besides the fact that, if left to its own power, free from insane bureaucratic rules of engagement, the military can take care of itself, the past has shown us that caving to bully Muslims will never appease them. It only makes us appear weak and ripe for attacking. No. I’m certain that the real reason for this lunatic anti-American proclamation is that Obama agrees with one goal of the Islamists: to silence all criticism of Islam. He is just as offended by it as the most retrograde Muslim brute. After all, he claimed the future must not belong to those who “slander” the “prophet” of Islam, right? And, in this case, “slander” means “tell the truth about.”

I’m losing what little optimism I might have had about our chances of undoing Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of the United States. This man and his criminal cabal have their evil machine set on “full demolition,” and with a craven, corrupt Congress too scared of its own shadow to oppose him, and with a detestably compliant media—no longer a “free press,” by the way—from where can there possibly emerge a force to stop or reverse this dreadful course of tyranny on which we’re locked?

White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles

McConnell: DISCLOSE ACT Will Silence Criticism of Obama By Intimidation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While the nation is still reeling from the outrage over the ObamaCare ruling and Obama’s Policy Directive abolishing the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Friday raised the alarm bells on another bill that will be voted on in the Senate on Monday.

The DISCLOSE ACT (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act), Or The Mob Intimidation Act as Mark Levin called it, is scheduled for a vote in the Senate on Monday.  is not about disclosing – it’s about intimidation.  DISCLOSE ( another ridiculous misnomer by the Democrats) is an attempt to require ALL 501-C4s and 3’s to disclose political causes and contributions made.  Under the prism of ‘transparency’ in campaigns, the Act according to McConnell is not at all what is being painted by the Democrats.

Mr. McConnell stated on Mark Levin’s radio program on Friday evening that the bill is a “direct threat to the First Amendment” and will require disclosure of all 501-C4s for this Administration in order to intimidate those pesos and corporations that disagree with the Obama regime by using the IRS and the FCC.

McConnell said that Democrats and bill Sponsor Chuck Schumer (D-NY)  “Jury rigged this bill to exempt all unions from any of requirement imposed on non-unions”, one of the major political arms of Obama and the Democrats.  He went on to state that this bill not at all “serious” about transparency, rather it is a cynical attempt to silence any bad-mouthing of Obama or the Democrats.  McConnell did not mince words by stating that the bill is “designed to quiet the voices of Conservatives who complain about Obama….using this bill as an enemies’ list”.  McConnell suggested that persons and groups who are critical of this Administration face intimidation by the FCC or the IRS for blogging or supporting groups upon this bill’s passage.

Schumer is a sponsor of DISCLOSE, and admitted is a ‘deterrent effect’ to quiet the voices or scare away those who oppose Obama and his policies.  The Senate Minority Leader was more pointed by claiming that the bill is designed to ” Shut up their critics and intimidate people” while at the same time creating a massive ‘power grab’ of American’s free speech rights.

The NRA is also pushing hard to help defeat this.

McConnell closed by stating that “This Administration is a real threat to America as we have known it”.

US News & World Report also weighs in and also classifies this Act as a mechanism to intimidate any supporters for Romney:

Obama, Democrats Push DISCLOSE Act to Intimidate Romney Donors

Snip:

On Monday the U.S. Senate is going to again take up the DISCLOSE Act, an effort the Democrats and their allies want to pass in order to be able to intimidate donors to the GOP, to Romney, and to conservative causes.

….It’s not the new system they don’t like—even while they attack it. It’s that without knowing the identity of the donors who are giving the money to the GOP, they can’t send their mobs arising out of the “Occupy” movement and like-minded groups to the homes of donors in an effort to intimidate them into closing their checkbooks. Last week, for example, hoards of protesters descended on a neighborhood in New York to picket the home of a couple holding a Romney fundraiser, including a plane towing an obnoxious banner overhead.

Other donors to Romney have been singled out by name by the Obama campaign, triggering boycotts of the companies with whom they are affiliated. No such actions have been taken, on the other hand, against individuals or events organized to raise funds for pro-Obama groups. The hypocrisy of the left on these issues should be apparent to anyone who cares to look. They don’t want an even playing field. They don’t want fairness. They want to force, through new law or through intimidation, the GOP’s money out of the political process so they can do all the spending they want, unmatched by anyone who disagrees.

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.

Goodbye Internet & 1st Amendment – Congress To Pass “Free Speech Kill Switch”

Federal legislation purporting to protect online intellectual property will impose sweeping new government mandates that will permit the Justice Department to shut down any internet site it doesn’t like (and cut off its sources of income) on nothing more than a whim.

The hits just keep coming.

The last bastion of free speech and information is about to be legislated away by Congress, and grant this tyrannical behemoth of a federal mammoth, the power to silence and shut down any web site, blog or critical commentary it does not like, under the guise of stopping those who steal online movies, essentially criminalizing the internet.

The US Senate’s Protect IP Act (PIPA) and the House version, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) are Orwellian in scope, and will empower the government to patrol and have the ability to shut down and remove blogs, web sites and forums that are merely accused of or suspected of engaging in ‘copyright infringement’ without charge or trial.

The Chairman of Google noted:

[The] government [will have]the power to cut off Web sites unreasonably. They could be shut down, and search engines such as Google, Bing and Yahoo could be stopped from linking to them.

“The solutions are draconian,” Schmidt said Tuesday at the MIT Sloan School of Management. “There’s a bill that would require ISPs [Internet service providers] to remove URLs from the Web, which is also known as censorship last time I checked.”

Even the liberal Lawrence Tribe warns about the unConstitutionality of these measures:

SOPA provides that a complaining party can file a notice alleging that it is harmed by the activities occurring on the site ‘or portion thereof .’ Conceivably, an entire website containing tens of thousands of pages could be targeted if only a single page were accused of infringement. Such an approach would create severe practical problems for sites with substantial user-generated content, such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, and for blogs that allow users to post videos, photos, and other materials.”And likewise: “The notice-and-termination procedure of Section 103(a) runs afoul of the ‘prior restraint’ doctrine, because it delegates to a private party the power to suppress speech without prior notice and a judicial hearing. This provision of the bill would give complaining parties the power to stop online advertisers and credit card processors from doing business with a website,merely by filing a unilateral notice accusing the site of being ‘dedicated to theft of U.S. property’ — even if no court has actually found any infringement. The immunity provisions in the bill create an overwhelming incentive for advertisers and payment processors to comply with such a request immediately upon receipt.”

The Hill.com itself also warns about the Constitutionally destructive nature of these bills:

Under the so-called “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) the federal government – which is prohibited constitutionally from abridging free speech or depriving its citizens of their property without due process – would engage in both practices on an unprecedented scale. And in establishing the precursor to a taxpayer-funded “thought police,” it would dramatically curtail technology investment and innovation – wreaking havoc on our economy.

Consider this: Under the proposed legislation all that’s required for government to shutdown a specific website is the mere accusation that the site unlawfully featured copyrighted content.  Such an accusation need not be proven – or even accompanied by probable cause. All that an accuser (or competitor) needs to do in order to obtain injunctive relief is point the finger at a website.

Think about that for a moment.  Any liberal mainstream media site, who is in the tank for Obama, or by behest of those they support, can claim copyright infringement and have forums, blogs and other internet discussion groups talking about the news they write, blocked and taken down without so much as a hearing.  And to coerce your ISP to ‘do as they say’ by yanking your site – the Hill reports:

…SOPA would grant regulators the ability to choke off revenue to the owners of these newly classified “rogue” websites by accusing their online advertisers and payment providers as co-conspirators in the alleged “piracy.” Again, no finding of fact would be required – the mere allegation of impropriety is all that’s needed to cut the website’s purse strings.

 The proposals also mandate that User activity be policed and monitored by the ISP, and establishes the same kind of government-restricted firewall that China and North Korea employ against their citizens.

But then again, the Ruling Class tyrants will no longer suffer us little people from getting our information from sources besides their mainstream crony lackeys, and will do anything to silence and prevent dissent against their rule over us.

U.S. Government Moves To Ban Internet Access

Taking a cue from Communist China, Congress moves to empower the Federal Government to ban access to web sites.

Under the guise of national security and interfering with infringement on any copyrighted material, the House of Representatives this week introduced the “Rogue Web Sites Bill”; legislation designed to allow the government to create lists of internet sites that are to be banned from any access by Americans.

Note that tyrannical regimes necessitate the crackdown of the free flow of information, and they ALWAYS do so under the auspices of security or legality to protect the interests of the state and those allied with it.

The days of a free internet are rapidly disappearing into the iron grip of an insatiable government monster.

The New American reports:

U.S. Government Seeks to Create Website Ban List

The U.S. House of Representatives recently introduced a “rogue websites” bill that has managed to attract bipartisan support even though it would force Internet Service Providers to create a list of banned websites and prevent users of those websites from accessing their sites. The list is all too similar to the “ban lists” that are found in China…

It is the House version of a bill that was introduced in the U.S. Senate earlier this year called the Theft of Intellectual Property Act or Protect IP Act.

While the touted focus of the bill is on foreign websites, it may just as easily be applied to all .com domains.

The very language of the bill indicates it is trying to empower the federal government to ban websites.

Once again, the federal government is being given permission to act in violation of individual rights just based on an accusation of something believed to be unlawful, without legal process.

The newest proposal to acquire the ability to ban websites should not come as too much of a shock, as the government has already taken the authority to demand that websites remove information and videos which contain too much “government criticism.” Google admits that there has been a substantial increase in the number of requests by the federal government to take down certain information.

The Call To End Free Speech Has Come

“In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude.” – George Washington, 1st President of the United States

“Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.” – Frederick Douglass

It was only a matter of time. It has been hinted at, suggested in subtle ways and hinted in thinly veiled words – but anyone with foresight could see that the calls of “Hate Speech” would eventually be used to silence any opposition to a cultural lobbying effort. Any minority could run with that football; Blacks, Homosexuals, Militant Muslims, obese people, Secularists and whomever just wants to make sure they can shut up their detractors by force of law. “Hate Speech” is the new New Nuclear Option against liberty of thought and expression.

In Canada of course, we are watching the machinations of government-restricted speech bearing down on magazine and newspaper columnists like Mark Steyn that dare to question or take to task Jihadist Islam, or church clergy that iterate biblical prohibitions against homosexuality. If we think that sort of thing cannot happen in America, we are sadly mistaken.

The illegal immigration and Mexican Nationalist movement inside America has taken that fear to the next step of reality by announcing that newscasters like Lou Dobbs and Talk Show hosts like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are engaging in “hate speech” by speaking out against Illegal Immigration and illegals in America. In new media and online efforts, the massive whitewash of groups like LaRaza, MEChA, and crime statistics being purged of any immigrant status are underway, while these groups look to turn the anti-immigrant sentiments against their loudest opponents in media. The way they are undertaking this effort is to describe the demand for illegals to follow our laws and assimilate into an American culture as nothing different than the path the Nazis took to expunge the Jews from Europe.

This is deliberate lunacy of course. There are enough statistics in crime, video, internet web sites and massive marches about the efforts these groups are making to insist on demands from America. Reconquinista and Atzlan are not myths, they are vocal and written promises being made and marched about. The efforts to silence the speech of those decrying this lawlessness as hate is as absurd as calling the celebration of Cinco De Mayo treason – but here we are, and it is entering the next phase.

The New York Times’s political blog reports on an outrageous speech by National Council of La Raza President Janet Murguia, that somehow they must have overlooked the implications of. Murguia says that anyone harshly criticizing illegal immigrants, especially mainstream opinion-makers, should be removed from the air waves. This of course is the the Washington DC Elite’s wet dream, be they Democrats or Republicans: to silence what they all perceive to be a thorn in their sides of getting away with shoving last Summer’s Amnesty bill down our throats.

The implications of this are mind-boggling. Look for CAIR and the Homosexual lobbies to follow suit with their own calls to do likewise with their detractors. The massive lurch to the Political Left this country has taken will no doubt see a return of the Fairness Doctrine, and it will probably ensure the shut down of talk radio and return the monopoly of information and news to the mainstream media. I suppose since we are already fast on our way towards becomming a multicultural third world bananna republic, this should be no surprise to anyone, but to hear it actually articulated as a political effort is a realization that we are not in Kansas anymore. I guess we should just rename it Atzlan?

It does however, bring the Curses of Deuteronomy 28 to my recollection and I worry the alien nationals enclaving among us are nearing PC parity with Americans. The end result of speech deemed ‘hate’ by lobbying groups and the government are bringing to a close, this experiment we called an American republic.

A Call to End Hate Speech
By Ariel Alexovich
The head of the country’s largest Latino civil rights organization called on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News to stop providing a forum for pundits who consistently disparage the documented and undocumented Hispanic immigrant population.

The group, the National Council of La Raza (meaning “the people”), also has asked Mike Huckabee to renounce the endorsement of Jim Gilchrist, a co-founder of the Minuteman Project, a private organization dedicated to preventing people from illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington on Thursday, Janet Murguia, the N.C.L.R. president, said that anti-Latino remarks on the big three cable news networks are insulting not only to minorities but also to the greater American population.

“It’s personal, it’s intolerable, and it has to end,” she said.

Besides contacting network executives and the Huckabee campaign, the N.C.L.R. has created a Web site to illustrate how disparaging language negatively affects race relations in America.

She listed Glenn Beck, who sometimes appears as a commentator on CNN as well as hosts his own radio show, as one of the worst offenders. Last June, he suggested that America create an alternative energy source out of the bodies of illegal immigrants.

Such talk has serious consequences, Ms. Murguia said. She cited an F.B.I. report which showed a double-digit percentage rise in violence against Latinos since 2003. What’s more, these negative feelings towards Hispanics carries over into U.S. legislation.

“Very often they’re taking their issues straight from some of the hate groups that we just described here, so that actually these words that go out from the hate groups get turned into campaign strategies and political strategies,” said Cecilia Munoz, an N.C.L.R. vice president.

Other major “vigilantes” that need to be kept in check are CNN’s Lou Dobbs, and Fox’s Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes — and most of their guests.

Ms. Murguia didn’t directly endorse any candidate or, for that matter, any political party. However, she had kind words to say about John McCain, the arguable front-runner in the Republican race. Mr. McCain’s plan to handle immigration does not involve the deportation of all illegal immigrants.

“With his emergence as a leading Republican presidential primary contender, I do think that we’ll see this toned down,” Ms. Murguia said. “He has not bought into the demonization or the dehumanization of the undocumented. And, you know, we give him a lot of credit for that. He has stuck principally to that position.

Does it mean that we know everything he’s going to do in that area of reform? And I know he’s got his work cut out for him with a number of people, and we’ll see him put this whole platform together, but we do believe that if he ends up being in a lead role here, we think that that issue will be tapered down.

But it’s not just because of his views — we’re also seeing that it’s a strategy that is not winning for candidates who use it.”

With that she pointed to the single-issue, anti-immigration platform of Tom Tancredo, who withdrew from the Republican race in December. Mr. Tancredo, a congressman from Colorado, had created a particularly scary ad that portrayed Hispanic immigrants as dangerous criminals.

Ms. Murguia argued that hate speech should not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights:

Everyone knows there is a line sometimes that can be crossed when it comes to free speech. And when free speech transforms into hate speech, we’ve got to draw that line. And that’s what we’re doing here today. And we need to make sure that network executives will hold their people accountable and not cross that line.

Michelle Malkin discusses this in context of John McCain’s Amnesty Shamnesty that apparently a majority of Republicans are now willing to forgive and forget for the sake of expediency.

John McCain and La Raza-The Race share a deep-seated contempt for grass-roots conservatives who worked successfully to defeat the disastrous amnesty bill. And they share a common impulse to marginalize their political opponents as “haters.”

Thus, La Raza-The Race has launched a new “We Can Stop the Hate” campaign–smack dab in the middle of the campaign season–to redefine tough policy criticism from the Right as “hate.” They protest that it is “racist” and out-of-bounds to talk about reconquista–even as the McCain campaign boasts a “Mexico First/”Just A Region”/”Free Flow of People” outreach director who’s practicing it out in the open for the leading GOP presidential front-runner.
Yes, an ethnic separatist group that calls itself “The Race”–a group that has embraced John McCain and vice versa–has the gall to crusade against “hate.” Chris Kelly notes that La Raza-The Race head Janet Murguia is calling for networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves and that both La Raza-The Race and another open-borders group are pushing for Fairness Doctrine policies to shut up their foes.

Murgia praised McCain and looks forward to the “tapering down” of immigration enforcement efforts if he wins the White House: “With his emergence as a leading Republican presidential primary contender, I do think that we’ll see this toned down… Does it mean that we know everything he’s going to do in that area of reform? And I know he’s got his work cut out for him with a number of people, and we’ll see him put this whole platform together, but we do believe that if he ends up being in a lead role here, we think that that issue will be tapered down.”
No respect for the rule of law. No respect for the First Amendment.