title: CRITICAL! HERE’S WHY HILLARY 2016 Comes With Sharia Law And The Loss Of Free Speech [Video]
text: Because of what Hillary Clinton agreed to with the UN, we are at the mercy of Islam in a BIG way! If you watch and read nothing else today, THIS needs to be your focus because if Hillary is elected we go down this path in a BIGGER way! THE 10 YEAR STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN TO COMBAT THE  DEFAMATION OF ISLAM  THAT HILLARY CLINTON AGREED TO: Islamic World Tells Clinton: Defamation of Islam Must be Prevented   in AmericaThis brilliant article by Clare M. Lopez goes into much greater detail but I tried to give you the main part of the argument that Hillary is in cahoots with the OIC/UN to stifle our freedom of speech when it comes to Islam:As 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 4th Annual 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.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). Clearly, the OIC feels some sense of urgency to get the rest of the non-Muslim world, and especially the U.S., on board with these objectives.In this same document is the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers   Resolution No. 1/38-LEG On Follow Up and Coordination of Work on Human Rights,  which makes reference to the OIC s new  Independent Permanent Commission on Human Rights  and stipulates that it  shall promote the civil, political, social, and economic rights enshrined in the Organization s covenants and declarations and in universally agreed human rights instruments, in conformity with Islamic values.  [Emphasis added.] This wording alone should set off alarm bells in view of the OIC s 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI), which explicitly declared that when the Muslim ummah (as represented by the OIC) uses the term  human rights,  what is meant is Islamic law (sharia).  Universally agreed  or not, the CDHRI was served as an official document to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in 1993, thereby creating an established instrument of reference on the Islamic definition of  human rights. The foundational documents upon which the Muslim ummah   the OIC   now relies to undergird its sharia agenda were drafted years ago. The 1966 U.N. Commission for Human Rights International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which entered into force in 1976, was based firmly on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and preceded the 1969 creation of the OIC by just a few years. The ICCPR s Articles 19 (3) and 20 nevertheless foreshadow sharia Islam s demand for restrictions on free speech in an explicit and chilling way.Clearly, the OIC is trying to exploit these international standards, as shown in its April 2011 4th Annual Report on Islamophobia posted at its online Islamophobia Observatory. Given the ICCPR s assertions, the OIC s objective has long since been entered into official U.N. language. It required only a narrowing of the focus from the generality of the ICCPR down to the OIC s exclusive interest in protecting Islam from discrimination. It also required bringing the U.S. on board with the program to enforce Islamic law on slander. With the willing participation of the Obama administration, the OIC has tackled both of these challenges. In Section 6 of the Islamophobia Report,  Conclusions and Recommendations,  the language references the OIC goal of  removing the gaps in international legal instruments  to force the non-Muslim world to comply with its plan to criminalize  slander  of Islam.Those  gaps in implementation and interpretation  refer to U.S. objections to criminalizing free speech (in violation of the First Amendment), and the  structured multilateral framework  would appear to be the agenda in Washington, D.C. from December 12 to 14 at the meeting between Clinton and OIC Secretary General Ihsanoglu. 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.Clinton s own statements reflect the OIC language on the  gap  (emphasis added):  together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps   to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor. It may be recalled that the Obama administration claimed, obviously incorrectly, that defamation was no longer part of these agreements. The language of these resolutions instead stresses  the importance of expediting the implementation process of its decision on developing a legally binding international instrument to prevent intolerance, discrimination, prejudice and hatred on the grounds of religion, and defamation of religions[.] The Department of State is not the only U.S. government agency committed to achieving compliance with the OIC s  Islamophobia  censorship agenda. The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security both have committed publicly to an overhaul of their training materials to ensure that nothing in the curriculum gives  offense  to Muslim Brotherhood affiliates such as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) or the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), with which both departments maintain close relationships. Instructors who previously taught the intrinsic connection among Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture and Islamic terrorism henceforth will be blacklisted by the U.S. government. As documented by the intrepid columnist and author Diana West, the Department of Defense also has made its obeisance to Islam, with troop instructions on how to handle the Qur an and avoid spitting, urinating, or sleeping with feet pointed in the direction of Mecca.Capping the administration s campaign to align U.S. national security policy within the parameters of Islamic law, 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.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. It is to be hoped that dedication to the Constitution   rather than to the OIC s definition of  slander  of Islam or the  test of consequences    will prevail among the ranks of our national leadership. Regardless of what s going on behind closed doors at the State Department this week, Americans should be aware   and outraged. An informed citizenry, as always, remains the final defense of the Republic.Clare M. Lopez is a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and also at The Clarion Fund.Read more: American Thinker