Come, you spirits, that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me, and fill me from the crown to the toe topful of direst cruelty. (Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 5)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a woman scorned, first by her husband former President Bill, who favored swishier skirts and less nagging, and then by the Democrat machine in favor of a nobody from nowhere during the 2008 election, finds every little opportunity to vent her wrath on her own country. Her latest roller-pin is reminiscent of Lady Macbeth’s supplications to be given the nerve to commit murder. Hanging out so often with all those Muslim men has more or less unsexed her to the point that she is willing to commit, if not murder, then a dire cruelty which arguably could be defined as treason.
As reported by Jihad Watch and other news outlets, the principle advocates of a move to criminalize the legitimate examination of any religious faith, especially Islam, are globalist One-Worlders who seek to bring the U.S. under their thumb. Their particular “one world” is a global caliphate, with or without United Nations trappings. Their particular bugbear is “Islamophobia” or a legitimate fear of Islam and Sharia law – briefly, of Islamic totalitarianism.
JEDDAH, Ramadan 1/Aug 1 (IINA)-During the next few months, Washington plans to host a coordination meeting to discuss with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) how to implement resolution no. 16/18 on combating defamation of religions, and how to prevent stereotypes depicting religions and their followers; as well as disseminating religious tolerance, which has been endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council last March, in agreement with Western countries. The resolution was adopted after lengthy discussions held between the OIC and countries in which the phenomenon of Islamophobia is in [sic] the rise.
The U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had announced the intention of the U.S. State Department to organize a coordination meeting during her participation in the meeting which she co-chaired with the OIC Secretary General, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in Istanbul on 15 July 2011. The meeting issued a joint statement emphasizing the dire need for the implementation of resolution 16/18.
According to informed sources in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the two sides, in addition to other European parties, will hold a number of specialized meetings of experts in law and religion in order to finalize the legal aspect on how to better implement the UN resolution.
But “Islamophobes” do not have a monopoly on fear. The distinction between “Islamophobes” and “Freedom-of-Speechophobes” is that the first group does not seek to gag, penalize, suppress, or criminalize speech per se. “Islamophobes” do not fear freedom of speech. They value and encourage it.
For a glimpse of ideal dhimmitude, in which Islam is a protected religion, see this Christiane Amanpour sales pitch on the lifestyle of Aramco employees in Saudi Arabia. Notice the abject deference its American employees pay to Islam and Saudi Arabia. This is a glimpse of one’s life under Sharia law, except that you won’t be horseback riding and living in a privileged infidel’s ghetto. The Americans you see here are dhimmis, and Amanpour approves.
Speechophobes, on the other hand, fear the unfettered, free discussion and criticism of Islam because otherwise Islamophobes might convince others that Islam is a primitive, barbaric, man-hating system ripe for totalitarian implementation, that every facet and aspect of Islam, from its iconic “Prophet” to its magic wand metaphysics to its schizophrenic Koran to its damnation of non-believers is open to scrutiny, refutation, and even mockery. Islam begs to be insulted on top of injury, to be defamed, blasphemed, and denigrated.
The sources said that the upcoming meetings aim at developing a legal basis for the UN Human Rights Council’s resolution which help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.
On the other hand, the OIC Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, stressed that the crime committed recently in Norway was a result of the rise of the extreme right in Europe and its easy mobility in political circles. He said that the OIC had warned several times against of what might be called institutionalization of the phenomenon of Islamophobia through the involvement of the European extreme right in government institutions and political action….
There is only one religion that has been consistently “defamed,” and that is Islam. From the mass murders in the West to the everyday murders and persecutions in Muslim countries, Islam has been the inspiration of ninety-nine-point-nine percent of the atrocities. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be Islam. Can anyone be blamed for identifying the duck? Especially if it leaves a trail of blood and guts behind its waddle?
Clinton did not need to conjure up “spirits” to imbue her with the strength to betray her own country. She sat with them in Jeddah and plotted to bring Islamic censorship to the U.S. via the U.N. She is such a special dhimmi to the Islamists that she apparently has been granted dispensation and need not wear a headscarf in their company or in Saudi Arabia. There are no pictures of her in Saudi Arabia wearing one. Any other woman caught on Saudi Arabian streets without one would be jailed by the religious police, Muslim or non-Muslim.
Clinton’s character aside – and that could be the subject of book-length treatment and not a pretty picture – why would she be willing to sell out not only America, but Israel? Because, on a purely diplomatic and “practical” standpoint, she will not challenge, first, the anti-Semitic nature of Islam, and second, the notion that Islam is a “religion of peace” (as Westerners perceive it, not as Muslims know it is not).
Ron Kampeas of Capital J discusses this issue and has this to reveal about the OIC and its agenda for censorship, or the suppression of speech if it “defames” Islam:
In a revealing comment on the nature of this controversy, the observer for Indonesia remarked in the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (1997, December 22) that ‘‘it could only be assumed that the motive of those who insulted Islam was to generate conflict with Islamic peoples or even to justify the injustices to which they were currently being subjected’’ (para. 14). Accordingly, Indonesia – along with other OIC states – maintains the view that no critical comment concerning Islam is justifiable – regardless of whether the forum is academic or the objective pursued is a worthy one, such as the elimination of discrimination. Underscoring this perspective two years earlier, a representative from Iran informed the UN that ‘‘in the opinion [of] the Organization of the Islamic Conference the right to freedom of thought, opinion and expression could in no case justify blasphemy.’’
So, those who “insult” Islam are responsible for the murders and persecution of not only Muslims in Muslim and non-Muslim countries, but of non-Muslims? (Call it the Oslo-Breivik Syndrome, newly discovered by Islamists.) These are not “injustices”? Stonings, amputations, female genital mutilation, beatings, child rape, woman rape, mandatory self-effacement, ritual self-abnegation, and the whole Islamic culture do not constitute injustice?
To the OIC, and with the silent consent of Hillary Clinton, freedom of thought, opinion and expression do not justify “blaspheming” or “defaming” Islam. Period. And Clinton will help the OIC find legal ways to enforce that censorship in this country. She will “cooperate.”
The United States oath of office for the President is specified in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
So help me, Allah? If she had been elected President, would she have simply mouthed the oath of office, as Barack Obama did, and proceeded to not preserve, protect and defend this country, as he has done? Would her policies have been any different from Obama’s, or worse?
Is she one of the Weird Sisters of Macbeth, or the nagging, instigating wife of Macbeth? Whichever she is, it is the task of “Islamophobes” to undo what she has done and will do. We should not expect her to ever wring her hands in regret, as Lady Macbeth did in the end.
We will not suffer the fate of King Duncan. We will not be silenced.