August 2, 2015 – San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org – As we have maintained since nearly our inception over 15 years ago, the West has been under siege for decades by the Muslim world – the Ummah, or Dar al-Islam if you prefer.
As most Americans intuitively understand, the ideology of Islamism is not, as apologists assert, practiced only by a "tiny minority" of "violent extremists" – who, curiously, all just happen to be Muslim. Rather, its broad acceptance defines it as main-stream to the point of being normative. This is entirely understandable in that the hegemonic nature of this belief system is inextricably locked into the DNA of Islam, as has defined by the Shari'a itself for over 1,400 years.
The high comfort level that many Muslims have with Islamic supremacy and support for violence to extend the faith isn't a phenomenon which is only relevant outside of the confines of the United States. New research undertaken by the Center for Security Policy – a powerhouse national security think tank located in DC – indicates that approximately 25% of American Muslims support the proposition that, "Violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad." [source, Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists' Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad ].
A similar percentage responded positively to other questions which indicate support for the establishment of a global caliphate operating under the Shari'a. This should serve as an ominous warning in that assuming there are approximately 2M Muslims living in the U.S., the country faces half-a-million potential domestic mujahideen.
Playing into this pre-violent ideological fervor are dozens of U.S. based highly litigious organizations controlled by the ideology of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood which have been appointed by the American legacy press as official spokesmen for Islam in America.
This is common knowledge within national security circles and is hence unremarkable to the degree that it requires no further development here.
However there is a far larger strategy being played out internationally where powerful NGOs have been established with the expressed purpose of legislatively muzzling - under pain of criminal prosecution - any expression of opposition to or criticism of Islamism and/or forced Shari'a compliance.
These groups are largely unknown to most in the West. Unfortunately those who are ignorant of what is playing out in these external forums includes many, if not most members of Congress.
Arguably the most powerful and so-far successful stealthy jihadist group which operates in plain view, but nonetheless under the media's deficient radar, is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC], characterized by the Center for Security Policy's president Frank Gaffney as:
"…a multi-national Muslim mafia. It is 57 states and Palestine that have come together to promote what is fundamentally the agenda known as Shari'a, that is, a totalitarian political, military, legal program that would force all of us…to submit to its barbaric repressive, supremacist agenda…" [please refer to below video, at approximately 1:00] (Click on link below)
The OIC is already incorporated as part of the U.N.'s regimen of world government, sending representatives to and freely participating in the thoroughly corrupt body's meddling in international matters.
If one could summarize OIC's ambitious intent, it is - through international treaties - to bind the United States and the West into a series of protocols which would over-ride the freedom of speech and religion provisions in the U.S. Constitution. This would have the effect of criminalizing anything which might be deemed by Muslim fanatics as offensive to Islam, categorizing it as hate speech, or to use the Shari'a defined term, blasphemy.
These codes, odiously and disingenuously proposed to "combat religious intolerance," would in actuality/practice override the entire corpus of Western law, making it subservient to the dictates of Islamic ideology.
The Obama administration – in a massive act of appeasement [some might conclude, treason] - has been instrumental in furthering OIC's program, with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton serving as its lead intermediary, for example working for passage of the U.N.'s resolution 16/18 in 2011 – an international codification defining "crimes" involving "hate speech."
"In the view of veteran international religious liberty analyst and advocate Elizabeth Kendal resolution 16/18, ‘far from being a breakthrough for free speech … is actually more dangerous than" the religious defamation resolutions. "Indeed, the strategic shift from defamation to incitement actually advances the OIC's primary goal: the criminalization of criticism of Islam," she wrote." [source, Patrick Poole, Largest Islamic Body in the World Calls for More Anti-Free Speech Laws in Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack , PJ Media]
It gets worse…
Before passage of the U.N. resolution in December, Clinton addressed a meeting of the OIC on July 15, 2011.
"I want to applaud the Organization of Islamic Conference and the European Union for helping pass Resolution 16/18 at the Human Rights Council…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 fight intolerance wherever it occurs…The resolution calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence. We will be looking to all countries to hold themselves accountable and to join us in reporting to the UN's Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights on their progress in taking these steps…I have asked our Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom, Suzan Johnson Cook…to invite relevant experts from around the world…to build those muscles of respect and empathy and tolerance that the secretary general referenced. It is essential that we advance this new consensus and strengthen it, both at the United Nations and beyond, in order to avoid a return to the old patterns of division." [source, U.S. Department of State, Remarks at the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) High-Level Meeting on Combating Religious Intolerance ]
Lost in Clinton's specious pitch is that within the Shari'a any criticism of Islam or its prophet is subject to violent suppression and/or reprisal. Hence in the strictest sense the operative text of the agreement threatens to destroy U.S. freedom of expression and religious liberty as these corrosive ideas already have largely done in parts of Europe, where "hate criminals" are regularly hauled before civil courts.
Seeing the threat posed by the adoption in international law of "hate crime" legislation an important new study has just been published, The Organization Of Islamic Cooperation's Jihad On Free Speech .
Authored by Deborah Weiss, Esq., a recognized authority on the matter and related issues, the monograph explores the OIC's Muslim Brotherhood inspired legal jihad against the West.
Regarding U.N. 6/18 Ms. Weiss sees the same dangers heretofore outlined, stating:
"The OIC applies, moreover, a "consequence-based test" for "offensive" speech that places all responsibility for potentially violent responses on the speaker, while absolving of any responsibility for their actions Muslim individuals who might retaliate violently." [p. 8]
It is within this context that that the Muslim bogeyman of "Islamophobia" is introduced and becomes operative:
"Ever confusing cause with effect, the OIC asserts that Islamophobia is one of the greatest causes of the threat to world peace and global security, rather than concluding that perhaps Islamophobia is the consequence of actions taken by a violent and stealth Islamist movement around the world." [p. 24]
With such codes already extant internationally, all that stands between the U.S. Constitution and a forcibly Shari'a compliant society is a domestic enforcement mechanism, shards of which already exist, for example Democrat Senator Edward Markey's S.2219: Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 which was rammed through Congress in 2009 by what proved to be fleeting, Democrat majority in both houses.
Concluding this piece, Ms. Weiss provides some perspective of the stakes which are involved in allowing the Islamists' stealth jihad to cut the throat of America's founding principles, a clever means of conquering a society from the inside out, using its very freedoms and liberties as a hangman's noose:
"Freedom is not the normal state of the world. It is the exception…[it]…does not have to occur in a violent coup. It can be lost slowly, due the gradual erosion of values, societal complacency and the incremental chipping away at laws that protect freedom, as well as the passage of laws that destroy it…The first stage is self-censorship. It begins with people societal pressure urging people to use "sensitive speech", "politically correct speech" or "responsible speech"…authoritative institutions issue directives, even if they don't constitute legal prohibitions.
…next…create civil laws or regulations that prohibit free expression. This can take the form of legislation, such as "hate speech" laws or such laws can be applied by government agencies that adopt their own regulations…whether or not those regulations comport with the nation's constitution.
…The last step in the process is the criminalization of speech. In this instance, prohibited speech is deemed an offense against the State and can be prosecuted. Those who are charged with criminal speech in the West, face the possibility of fines or imprisonment. In totalitarian countries as well as Islamic theocracies, the punishments are even harsher, resulting in jail, flogging, or even execution…" [p. 38]
At this point we must note the real horror of such a process playing out in the United States. Under this administration America has literally become a post-constitutional society with the CIC issuing dozens upon dozens of illegal executive orders, which carry the force of law, absent court or legislative action to the contrary.
The Framers of the Constitution saw and provided for methods [covered primarily in the idea of checks and balances between executive, legislative and judicial branches of government] designed to stop such usurpations of power which in the case of the Obama presidency are rapidly leading to a nascent totalitarian state.
What these men couldn't have foreseen is the lack of an opposition party or pushback by legislative factions intent upon protecting their turf. Absent enforcement, the rule of law does not exist and it is this existential threat which an increasingly nihilistic America and a demoralized West now faces.
©2015 PipeLineNews.org LLC. A ll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.