Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is receiving support for her recent statements on the Muslim Brotherhood from an interesting source: Eric Allen Bell, a former supporter of an Islamic mosque who did a 180 degree turn after research convinced him that reality of Islam is quite different than it’s portrayed by the left.
In an interview, Bell called Bachmann “unbelievably courageous” and said he believes that “the Islamization of the West is the defining issue of our time.”
Hard to believe that there are still ‘conservative leaders’ in America:
In 2009, according to GMBDR, a U.S. federal judge ruled, “The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA (Islam in North America) and NAIT (North American Islamic Trust) with (Holy Land Foundation), the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas.”
This is what infiltration looks like:
John McCain says Abedin is “a dedicated American.” Even if he is correct, the larger issue is being obscured. Many in government and the media don’t want to face the possibility that infiltration is a tactic of Islamic extremists who repeatedly say they want to destroy not only Israel but the “Great Satan” America.
This is an absolute nightmare:
The Enemy in the House:
Carney Refuses To Identify Capital Of Israel Twice In White House Press Briefing
Clearly this exchange (watch it below) indicates that the Obama Administration is indeed contemplating ways to circumvent the First Amendment and outlaw criticism of Islam: blasphemy laws would, if they succeed, be coming to the U.S. If this, happens, it’s all over. If the U.S. adopts blasphemy laws, that would be the end of any resistance to jihad, as we will be rendered mute and thus defenseless against its advance. (I hope one of you will bake a cake with a file in it and come visit me in prison.)
Surely the First Amendment will prevent this, you say? The First Amendment does not automatically enforce itself. And if those charged with guarding and protecting it are determined to do away with it, they can hedge it around with nuances and exceptions that will render it as toothless and essentially void as the Second Amendment already is in some areas of the U.S.
“DOJ official refuses to promise that DOJ will NEVER advance an anti-blasphemy law,” by Patrick Poole atÂ PJ Media, July 26:
A stunning exchange took place today when Assistant AG Tom Perez of the DOJ Civil Rights Division refused to commit to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution that it would never advance a law criminalizing the right to criticize any religion.The non-commital answer by Perez was in response to a question asked by Rep. Trent Frank (R-AZ): “Will you tell us here today that this Administration’s Department of Justice will never entertain or advance a proposal that criminalizes speech against any religion?”
Perez is a guy who complimented Islamic terrorists for lobbying against airline security measures:
- Perez also listened while another Islamist called for the Justice Department to redefine religious free speech as illegal discrimination.
Department of Injustice is in the bag of the OIC:
The concept is that there should be a “Defamation of Religions” law internationally that would make it criminal to speak negatively about any “religion,” although the proposals always have focused on Islam.
The idea is “nothing more than an effort to achieve special protections for Islam â€“ a move to stifle religious speech,” according to an analysis by Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice.
The Human Rights First organization has chimed in, saying the idea simply violates fundamental freedom of expression norms.
Tad Stahnke, of Human Rights First, said the concept is “unfortunate for both individuals at risk whose rights will surely be violated under the guise of prohibiting ‘defamation of religions,’ as well as for the standards of international norms on freedom of expression.”
The issue also has been addressed by Carl Moeller, chief of Open Doors USA, in an interview with WND at the time, because of the pending threat to the freedoms in America.
“This is a battle for our basic freedoms,” he warned. “This [U.N. idea] is Orwellian in its deviousness. To use language like the anti-defamation of a religion. It sounds like doublespeak worthy of Orwell’s 1984 because of what it really does.” Â (More)