Monday, September 06, 2010

Obama: Muslim missionary? Part 4
Exclusive: Chuck Norris exposes president's rejection of Constitution, support for Islam


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 06, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

By Chuck Norris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nine years ago this week, we began to chant: "We will never forget 9/11."

Nine years later, I think too many of us have forgotten, especially those in the White House.

Islamic extremists murdered more than 3,000 innocent American lives on Sept. 11. Who would have believed that within a decade of that tragic event that we'd also have a new president who believes, according to his own 2009 Cairo confession and creed, that it was "part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear"? Not to mention his mission to fight for the mosque near Ground Zero!

In Part 1 of this series, I began to demonstrate how President Obama is using Special Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Conference, Rashad Hussain to "deepen and expand the partnerships that the United States has pursued with Muslims around the world since President Obama's speech in Cairo last June."

In Part 2, I detailed Obama's real spiritual beliefs based upon a rare in-depth 2004 interview by a religious reporter of a major newspaper publication, including his beliefs about prayer, sin, heaven, the Bible and the person of Jesus.

In Part 3, I explained how Obama categorically has been prejudicial in his treatment against Christians and Christianity in comparison to Muslims and Islam.

In Part 4 here, I will not only expand on that case but show how the Obama administration has changed course in just this last year regarding passing anti-First Amendment defamation of religion resolutions, exclusively benefitting Islam and its proliferation while again abandoning the principles in the U.S. Constitution.

In October of 2009, the White House rightly opposed the Organization of the Islamic Conference's (OIC), an inter-governmental body of 56 Muslim countries, push for the United Nation's Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution that would broadly condemn the defamation of religion (or the defamation of Islam), because it would plunder Americans' first amendment rights to freedom of speech.

Hypocritically, however, as the Heritage Foundation reported, at the same basic time that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was publicly repudiating that U.N. Human Rights Council resolution, on Oct. 2, 2009, "the Obama Administration's delegation to the 12th session of the council and OIC-member Egypt co-sponsored and adopted a resolution on freedom of opinion and expression that contains the essential elements of the resolutions on 'defamation of religions' that the U.S. opposed in the past."

And just a few months ago on June 23, 2010, that anti-First Amendment stand was reiterated when America's special envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, clearly explained the new leg ofObama's Muslim mission at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars – information by the way that no mainstream news agency I could find even reported. Hussain said, "The OIC and the Obama administration will work together in the U.N. on the issue of defamation of religion, especially in Europe." (Please read that again!)

Could it get any clearer? "Especially in Europe," but not excluding America!

Do we naively believe that Obama, the OIC and U.S. Special Envoy Rashad Hussain will not continue to pound on the tolerance doors of the world and Washington government, until the First Amendment is overstepped and abandoned again under the same guise as U.S. hate crime laws? If the U.S. already passed hate crimes laws in a tolerant-infatuated culture, how far away is an international hate crime or anti-defamation law, especially under this administration?

The key problem here is obvious: If international tolerance for Muslims can be increased then codified into international law or a violation of human rights so that a religion and its adherents cannot be defamed, it categorically overrides and violates the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights and the core principle of U.S. free speech. And it's only a matter of time before the feds use that international pressure to try to coerce the American people to accept the same stateside, just like they have hate-crime laws.

And why should we not believe that Obama will again overstep the Constitution by handing over the administration of defamation of religion laws to global and international powers, when he in fact recently reported Arizona immigration laws to the U.N. as an example of human right violations?

Instead of the U.S. attacking those who are cutting off limbs or stoning Islamic women in the Middle East under Shariah law, the feds attack the good people of Arizona by reporting their "treatment" of illegal aliens, when all they are trying to do is to enforce the very immigration law the feds are ignoring?

Why doesn't the U.S. instead seek to pass an international resolution to clamp down on those Islamic extremists in Europe, who are completely out of control and ignored by the White House and even mainstream media though they protest, riot and hold up their hate signs to bomb or behead anyone who does not follow Islam?

Of course, Obama and the rest of his administration will do or say nothing against Islam in any form. If they would, they would have defended the U.S. against the greatest Muslim jihadist, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who in Dec. 2009 publicly accused the U.S. of actively planning and plotting to stop mankind's real savior: i.e. Mahdi, the imam that Muslims believe will be the ultimate savior of mankind.

To the contrary, Obama's Cairo pro-Muslim mission continues, and proof came again just last week. While the president announced to the nation from the Oval Office that, on Aug. 31, 2010, the combat mission in Iraq ended, on the same day, unbeknownst to the most of the country and world, the Obama administration held a special workshop for 25-30 Muslim leaders from 20 national Islamic groups (under the leadership of the "Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations") to provide the groups "funding, government assistance and resources."

And as a cherry on top of the Obama Islamic financial sundae, while most Americans would have to prove they have medical insurance or face a fine under Obamacare, many believe the stage is set so that Muslims could be exempt in the future from that financial penalty, due to a loophole in the law for conscientious religious objection, specifically created for those like the Amish, who believe their community cares for their own. Many Muslims are already rejoicing over this exemption based upon their belief that mandated universal health care is haraam or forbidden like other types of commercial insurance, because it is based on future speculation like gambling or the charging of interest.

At a time commemorating Sept. 11, when recent polls show 70 percent of Americans are opposed to a Ground Zero mosque, and one in five Americans believe Obama is a Muslim, does he really expect that we will naively tolerate and approve of the Islamic bias in his presidential religious leadership and administration?

It's time we heed the wisdom of our fourth president, James Madison, who said, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

(It's because of our wayward and out of control federal government that I filmed my brand new comical "Trigger the Vote" PSA, so that we all will register to vote and clean up Washington, D.C., from one side of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. You can check it out on YouTube under the title "Tough like Chuck" or go to TriggerTheVote.com.)

1 Comments:

Blogger Ben said...

HRC & General Assembly resolutions have no legally binding effect, they only serve to give moral support to Islamic tyrannies.

But international human rights covenants such as ICERD are enforcible in the World Court.

At the end of November, the HRC's Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary International Standards will meet for about ten days to work on a binding protocol to ICERD. The protocol will insert into ICERD the contents of the Defamation Resolutions.

Obama will sign it, the Senate will ratify it, the Supreme Court will not hear it, and we will kiss goodbye to the First Amendment.

We can not stop it, but we can raise the price. Few people know about this, but existing p;rovisions of ICED, ICCPR & CPPCG require that Islam be proscribed by law. We can bring this fact to the attention of the world and demnd that the World Court enforce those provisions.

Who will do it? Who will sign the International Qur'an Petition, send it to his downstream with an exhortation to sign and forward it and give it the publicity it needs to make progress?

Tuesday, September 7, 2010 at 1:22:00 AM GMT-4  

Post a Comment

<< Home