You know Peter, as I read this article a picture of water dropping on a rock came to mind and I could see how over time, one drop of water at a time, eventually eroded that rock and that is what is happening in our government and unless we can find a way to stop it, our freedoms will continue to be eroded. I appreciate your passion in what you do in trying to educate and inform people. Keep it up.

Shalom

Quote:
Hello Friends,

A little over a month ago the United States supported an anti freedom of speech measure passed in the UN. B Hussein's government and Hillary's State Department have been purposely and knowingly infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Much has been written about this in the past here and elsewhere (not in the MSM though) and is part and parcel of B Hussein's Islamic agenda. No other US administration prior to the fraud and great pretender's has supported the OIC's anti freedom of speech measures in the UN. It took B Hussein and his partner in crime Hillary to work out the plan to support it this time after meetings with the OIC a short while ago (Hillary was the culprit at these meetings).

The below article goes into greater detail and explains how you will possibly be considered a criminal for expressing your opinions and beliefs. I'll paste in the email I received from ACT! for America and the article they attached to the email. The highlights are ACT!'s but are relevant to showing the dangers of this UN measure. Read it and understand how the B Hussein regime is impinging on your freedoms and surrendering to the gangsterism of the UN.

Shalom,

Peter

January 5, 2012

“Could you be a criminal?”

State Department partners with Organization of Islamic Cooperation in what could lead to criminalizing free speech


Dear Peter,

“That could never happen here.”

When we shine a light on the conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria for “denigrating religion,” that’s how some people respond.

Or when we warn about sharia law creeping into America. Or 85 sharia courts in Britain. Or “no go zones” in France.

And of course, our State Department would NEVER agree to a UN resolution that has the practical effect of criminalizing free speech, right?

The column below that recently appeared in Forbes (highlights added) is longer than we normally put out, but it is SO IMPORTANT that you be aware of what’s coming our way. Please take a few minutes to read it—because your first amendment rights may soon be in jeopardy.

Of course, that could never happen here.

---

Could You Be A Criminal? US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure

Abigail R. Esman, Contributor

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2011/12/30/could-you-be-a-criminal-us-supports-un-anti-free-speech-measure/


While you were out scavenging the Wal-Mart super sales or trying on trinkets at T iffany and Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”

Whatever that means.

Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval –despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.”

What’s worse, the measure codifies into the UN agenda support for the very notion democracies now wrestle with, and which threatens to destroy the very fabric of our culture: tolerance of the intolerant, or rather, the question of whether a tolerant society must also tolerate ways of life that are intolerant – that oppress women, say, or advocate violence against homosexuals, or force strangers to marry against their will. It is, in fact, this very concept that the OIC has long pressured Western governments to adopt in other ways, and that those supporting the adoption of Sharia law in the west have emphasized. Yet if we fall into that trap – as it appears we are – we will have lost the very heart of who we are.

The Good, The Bad…

Those who support the new measure rightly laud its recognition of the importance of free debate. and the inclusion of new clauses that call for “speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” and “[foster ing] religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly and on an equal footing to society.”

What opponents (rightly) find distressing are calls to adopt “measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.”

(Additional clauses that call for countering religious profiling are also questionable, however civil rights organizations may feel about this, given the problems of Islamic terrorism in the real world. But that’s another matter.)

Oddly, Human Rights First, which previously loudly opposed the initiative for its limitation on “blasphemous speech,” is among those who now praise the newer version. In a statement, the organization opined:

Rather than imposing new restrictions on freedom of speech, which it does not, the new consensus resolution opens the door to an action-oriented approach to fighting religious intolerance. That is very consistent with the U.S. policies and practices – combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting freedom of speech. Resolution 16/18 urges states to train government officials to address religious tensions, to harmonize actions at local and national level, to raise awareness of negative stereotyping of persons, to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue, to foster religious freedom and to speak out against intolerance (among other recommendations). The only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to “imminent violence”, which is in accordance with US law.

But others are less forgiving, noting, among other things, that the resolution does nothing to prevent the continued use of anti-Jewish materials in the schools of Saudi Arabia (where the Protocols of Zion are treated as fact, thereby absolving Saudis of charges of “racism”) or the ongoing persecution of Jews and Christians in numerous Muslim countries. And yet, ironically,it was exactly those same countries who initiated the motion, as put forth in its initial drafts by the General Assembly, with expressions of concern for “cases motivated by Islamophobia, Judeophobia, and Christanophobia.”

Indeed, as M. Zuhdi Jasser, an observant American Muslim and the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, remarked in an e-mail, “Anyone who believes that Resolution 16’18 is some kind of a breakthrough is sadly being duped by the most obvious Islamist double discourse. The shift from ‘defamation’ to ‘incitement’ does nothing at all to change the basic paradigm where Islamist nations remain in the offen se, continuing to put Western, free nations on the defense.” Rather, said Jasser, “We should be putting Islamist autocracies on the defense and then simply reiterate that our First Amendment principles already protect the rights of all minorities — whether Muslim or otherwise — and that the best standard of free speech is the American one. Beginning to categorize speech as ‘incitement’ is a slippery slope that could open the floodgates for any post-tragedy analysis to indict what would otherwise be free speech absurdly as incitement in some far-fetched cause-effect analysis that would depend on proving that speech causes violence.”

Exactly.

It is, indeed, galling to think that we would enter into negotiations of any kind, with anyone, about the freedom of expression that is so central to our very way of life and the core of the founding of America. Ever.

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

… And The Deceptive

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

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

Moreover, since many would claim that the persecution of blasphemers is mandated by their religion, conflicts emerge between guarantees of free expression and the guarantee of freedom of religion and the practice of one’s faith. In othr words: your free speech allows you to insult my prophet: my freedom of religion compels me to kill you for it.

What was that about “incitement to violence”?
Whose violence?

This is how the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation plays “Gotcha.

This is how the American government, however unwittingly, subsumes its own Constitution in deference ot the demands of the Islamic state.

It’s a dangerous game.

True, the Human Rights First position on the issue is significantly more optimistic:

“The U.S. will always enforce its own standards on freedom of expression; these are enshrined in this country’s Constitution. But its legal exceptionalism on freedom of spee ch does not necessarily mean that the U.S. administration needs to be diplomatically isolated when it comes to promoting globally the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which many in the U.S. perceive to be core and founding American values. On the contrary, since the U.S. joined the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Obama administration has openly expressed its ambition to exert leadership within the U.N. body.

The U.S. demonstrated that leadership by securing the passage of Resolution 16/18 at the Human Rights Council and by moving immediately to show through the Istanbul Process Conference that states have tools at their disposal to combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting free speech.”

But note that word: “combat.” That same word appears in Resolution 16/18, which states “Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through, inter alia, education and awareness building.” (Emphasis mine.)

“Combat” implies warfare. Is that the language we want here? Is that one of the options under the vague and wide-open term “inter alia”? And are the “tools at their disposal” – education, interfaith dialogue, and debate — really going to “combat” hatred, especially when that hatred is disguised as proper adherence to one’s faith? When racist myths are taught as historical fact to children across a large swath of the globe?

As for that “faith” thing: it strikes me that those of no faith – atheists – are not addressed anywhere in t his resolution. Are they also to be protected from hate crimes? Is atheism among the ideas to be debated and taught in these awareness-raising sessions? If so, why is that not so stated? If not, why not?

Then there is the ongoing whimpering about the “targeting” of Muslims in non-Muslim countries. Actually, that “targeting” is largely mythical, or at the very least, heavily exaggerated. Throughout the world, from France to the Netherlands to Germany to the United States of America, the majority – by a large margin – of those hate crimes and incidents of discrimination perpetrated on the basis of religion target Jews. (another resource available here) And in virtually every case, the “extremism” in question has been Islamic extremism. (Though recent reports of the despicable behavior or ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel puts a new perspective on the matter.)

The Bigger Picture

But here’s the biggest problem: when the exercise of free speech leads to violence far beyond our control. It’s called “terrorism.” And neither the U.N. General Assembly nor the United States of America has the power to stop it. More importantly: by agreeing to curb speech that could lead to “imminent violence,” we in essence accept the blame for any terrorist acts against America (and the West). We agreed not to provoke, after all.

This, of course, is an unacceptable paradigm, and one we cannot allow to stand.

Integral to the greatness of America is the simple fact that no other country in the world places so sacred a value on free speech – indeed, on free expression – as does the United States. Holocaust denial, for instance, is verboten in Germany. Mein Kampf is banned in the Netherlands. France last week criminalized the denial of the Armenian genocide in Turkey (an act that resulted in widespread condemnation by the OIC, whose Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, had the audacity, days after the ratification of 16/18, to bluster that those who defend cartoons that mock Mohammed as “freedom of thought and expression” have no business limiting the speech of those who deny the Armenian genocide. “This is an indisputable and unacceptable paradox,” he declared). And so on.

Yet in all of this, America has stood strong in its defense of free speech – even blasphemous, hateful, racist, sexist, Pentecostal, homophobic, and ignorant speech. We must continue to do so, no matter what pressures we may face. Because in the end, limiting our rights to self-expression and – above all – the questioning of religious beliefs – will never help to make the world more peaceful – or more free.

Peter when I read this article today from the Canada Free Press I thought it was a good follow up to your previous post about the nightmare the Sacketts are having with the EPA.

Quote:

Here's another article from the CFP I found interesting.

Enthusiastic Paulbots, and his vaporware internet support

Ron Paul’s Support Among Military? 4.4% ... At Best.

- J.J. Jackson Saturday, January 7, 2012

Ron Paul’s supporters are diligent in their support of him. Unfortunately, a lot of that support is what is known in the software industry as vaporware. In other words, it is phony to non-existent. Right now, for example, I have a bunch of emails flooding my inbox telling me why I should support Ron Paul from droves of supposedly enthusiastic Paulbots.

The problem, however, is that 98% of those emails are from obviously hastily registered email addresses at any number of free email service providers. In email after email the message is the same, word for droning word. Checking the IP Addresses in the email headers shows that many of these messages are being sent from the same computer under different emails. One enthusiastic Paulbot sent me the same message, under different Gmail addresses, thirty-seven times within the span of three hours. He even forgot to change his signature every time he sent it. So, “B. Anderson”, and I know you are reading this, try to at least be a little less obvious next time, ok? And you folks honestly wonder why I make fun of you?

What is sad, though, is that sometimes Paulbots are able to fool enough people and parlay this phony sense of support into actual results. See the final vote count of the Iowa Caucuses where Mr. Paul netted more than 21% of the vote.

Now, Ron Paul has some good ideas. He is right that the federal government spends too much money and does far too many things that it should not be doing. But of course his actual belief in such rhetoric on this important issue has to be questioned since it is a fact that he has helped bring back a plethora of earmarks for unconstitutional spending to his district in Texas. He spins this by saying that the money was going to be spent anyway so he was just doing what he should do and help out his constituency and that is how the game is played. To that I say, you either believe in the Constitution or you do not. And these actions show me that Mr. Paul does not, absolutely, believe in the Constitution.

But there is one Big Lie that Mr. Paul’s supporters like to throw out there that really gets my dander up. It gets my dander up because it annoys so many people who are bravely defending this country day in and day out while standing on a wall and in the line of enemy fire. Something that few people, even ravenous Paulbots, have the courage to do. I hear it every day because the election is upon us. The Paulbot emails me and says, “Ron Paul has more support from the military than any other candidate!” Military personnel email me every day telling me that on base there is at best one Ron Paul supporter and how frustrated they are that the Paulbots are telling this Big Lie.

See, members of the military do not like Mr. Paul all that much because they have heard him denigrate America and its military as the source of evil in the world. While I have yet to meet a member of the American military who does not, in general, agree with Congressman Paul that the U.S. military is used too freely, too often and is too diluted around the world. I have also met very few members of the military who do not think that Ron Paul is a dangerous isolationist and worse, someone who cannot be trusted to stand up to evil when it rears its ugly head.

So I thought I would break it down in a manner so simple that we can put the issue of Ron Paul’s military support to rest once and for all and do so using the same standard that Paulbots use to tout how great and mighty this support really is. That method is to look at campaign donations by members of the military. The common refrain from Paulbots is that Ron Paul has more donations from military personnel than any other candidate. Ergo he has the most support. So let’s look at that, shall we?

According to the numbers available on January 6th, 2012, Ron Paul has received $24,503, $23,335 and $17,432 from people who declared themselves as working for the U.S. Army, the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy respectively. The total is $65,270. They are the top three donors listed.

Now, let’s assume that this $65,270 donated to Mr. Paul’s campaign by members of the military all came in one dollar increments. The average donation was in fact higher. But bear with me as we make the number that follows as big, and as unrealistic, as possible to give the Paulbots as much of an advantage as possible, ok?

So, $65,270 made in one dollar increments would mean 65,270 members of the military donated to Ron Paul. In September 2011 there were 1,468,364 total active duty military personnel in the United States. Divide the inflated number of Paul donors by the total active members of the military and you get 4.4%. Hardly an outpouring of support if you ask me. This leaves over 95% of the military that do not, but the Paulbots’ own flawed methodology, that do not support Ron Paul.

Now assume that the average donation by declared military personnel to Ron Paul is ten dollars instead of one dollar. The percentage of active duty personnel that support Paul dips to a pathetic 0.44%. Again, using the argument of Ron Paul’s supporters who like to tout that we look only at the dollar amounts of the donations by members of the military to him, that is.

If the average donation was one hundred dollars? Well, that makes the percentage just 0.044%.

When you look at other candidates, it is true that you do not see anywhere near these numbers for these military professions if you even see them at all. There are, however, reasons for this. First, active duty personnel stationed overseas will often have their spouses make donation for their household to candidates. These donations are then listed under the spouse’s information which is often times not military related. Secondly is that members of the military, from my personal experience, hate to be used as political pawns, and when they donate to political candidates they often do not list their military service as their profession. Thirdly, military personnel, as I have been told by military personnel themselves, generally really hate to be used for political purposes, thus they again do not like to list their service on donations made to military candidates so that their donations cannot be used in this manner. And fourthly, is that there is a concerted effort by Ron Paul supporters in the military to make sure that their donations are listed as coming from military personnel in order to perpetuate this talking point for political gain. But let’s ignore all that. Let’s ignore it because Ron Paul’s supporters use simply the dollar numbers as the end all and be all of the proof to support their supposed claims.

When you look at the numbers alone and apply a little logic, you see that less than 5% of active duty military personnel support Ron Paul at best. In reality, however, the number is less than half a percent. Again, using the “logic” of the Paulbots, of course. Not the numbers they want to paint. But the numbers they are forcing us to accept if they want us to accept their initial premise.

Now I am emptying out my email inbox. I have to. Because over the next month I am going to have to field all the angry emails from Ron Paul supporters because I dared to once again bust their little bubble.

J.J. Jackson

6% of GOP Voters Ready to Vote Third Party If Their Favorite Isn’t The Nominee

Sunday, January 08, 2012

Texas Congressman Ron Paul at a debate Saturday night in New Hampshire refused to rule out a third party run for the presidency if he fails to win the Republican nomination. But there’s minimal support for a third party candidate among Republican voters even if their favorite candidate is not the nominee.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that six percent (6%) of Likely Republican Primary voters nationwide say they would vote for a third party candidate if the candidate they’re backing for the GOP nomination comes up short. Slightly more (8%) say they would vote for President Obama if that was the case. But 78% of these GOP voters plan to vote for the Republican candidate no matter what. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The national survey of 1,000 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted on January 4, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

OR