Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Nobel Peace Prize Denigrated by Obama’s Award

online petition

objection against the absurd decision to award B. Obama Nobel Peace Prize

Nobel Peace Prize Committee
Sponsored by:

Lets express our objection against the absurd decision to award B. Obama Nobel Peace Prize. His activity had not yet abounded the unusual achievements. And although it can not be denied his potential, a decision the Nobel Committee is definitely premature, and in addition the political. Unfortunately, such a choice Stockholm committee is directed at existing laureates this prestigious Prize, who have spent years devoted themselves to working hard and consistently for their ideals.

Hat tip:

Imperfect as it is, the petition is far superior to anything I could produce in any language other than English, and it just scratches the surface of my sentiments. I endorsed it without hesitation and hope that you will, too. There are more than 1600 signatures and I hope it will garner one thousand times that number.

Awarding the peace prize to a terrorist appeasing traitor denigrates the prize as much as honoring Arafat & Carter did.

This post received the honor of a referral from the Washington Post, presumably from the Sphere Related Content link associated with “Nobel jury speaks out in defense of Obama prize“. The jury seems to believe that anal osculation of Islam is a good thing; in reality, it invites attack by displaying a lack of awareness and resolve to defend ourselves. Dajjal 10/13/’09

October 13, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , | Leave a comment

UNHRC US Delegation Reveals Treachery

The  U.S. Delegation to the UNHRC  uttered and published a statement on a human rights report. That statement exposes the  Obama administration’s treason to scrutiny; I can not resist.  I have therefore selected excerpts for dissection. [Emphasis added.]

Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,UNGA,,,4ab0a9180,0.html

The Human Rights Council – 12th session
Statement by the Delegation of the United States of America
Delivered by Sarah Cleveland
Geneva, 30 September 2009

While we do not support the concept of “defamation of religions” for reasons well known to this Council, my government is strongly committed to religious freedom and has condemned the use of negative and derogatory stereotypes and discrimination and/or discriminatory policies. We recognize that such stereotyping and discrimination affects individuals of all faiths and races, and express our strong condemnation of the types of such intolerance provided in the report.

It is good to read that the Obama administration does not support the concept of defamation of  Islam, but it would be better  if they would emphatically condemn it. The term “negative and derogatory stereotypes” raises a red flag.  Its implication: ‘all Muslims are evil’ its reality: Islam is evil. It is a veiled reference to Geert Wilders’ video Fitna and the infamous Danish Cartoons. Once that overly broad term is enshrined in law, it will be used to criminalize all criticism of Islam.

As noted in our response to the High Commissioner on the issue of defamation of religion, the United States believes the best way for governments to address the issues underlying intolerance is to develop effective legal regimes to address acts of discrimination and bias-inspired crime; to condemn hateful speech and proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups. We strive to do this while vigorously defending the freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

Crime is crime, regardless of the identity of the victim. Rape or robbery, assault or murder, the effect is the same whether the victims is straight or queer, Atheist or Muslim and ought to carry equal penalty dependent on the offense, not the victim.

Condemning hateful speech raises the issue of definition. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared Fitna and the Danish Cartoons to be hate speech, following the lead of the OIC. From their viewpoint, any truthful criticism of Islam is hateful speech.  Their tactical objective is to criminalize all criticism of Islam so that we will be completely disarmed in the war of ideas.  The Obama administration is siding with the enemy, against the First Amendment right of free expression.

The advocacy of proactively reaching out to all religious communities … especially minority groups points out significant hypocrisy.

  • condemned the use of negative and derogatory stereotypes and discrimination
  • proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups

The inconsistency should be immediately obvious to everyone. So should the second incidence of hypocrisy  in that paragraph.

  • condemn hateful speech
  • while vigorously defending … freedom of expression

When the cartoonists pointed out the fact that Muhammad was a terrorist,  their  art was condemned as hateful speech. The OIC and its factotums in  the UN  Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism; I refuted that assertion in Freedom of Opinion and Expression by revealing the source of the association. That is truth, not hate speech. President Obama would condemn it.

Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are serious challenges facing the international community and the United States believes they must be examined methodically and deliberately. The United States submits that this process of self-examination and action by the international community begin with greater opportunities to exchange views and address empirical data and practice on matters related to racial, ethnic, and religious diversity, discrimination, and intolerance – notably through discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards – so as to broaden our common understanding of these important issues and provide a solid foundation for a broad-based consensus for further actions and initiatives.

You think that racism refers to irrational hatred of people whose skin color is different. That is not what the word means to the OIC and UN. To them,  it  means criticism of and enmity to Islam.

4.  Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;

Since the publication of the Durban II Preliminary Document,  when you read racism in a UN document, you can translate it as Islamophobia. No word is safe in the Orwellian UN.  Related intolerance is a code phrase for the same concept. Islamophobia implies irrational fear and loathing. What is irrational about fear and loathing of a war cult which has murdered 270*106 people in the last 1386 years?

The Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards has an abstract name which contains no hint of its purpose. The committee is a subset of the UNHRC. Its purpose is to write a legally binding protocol to ICERD. The protocol will make criticism of Islam a criminal offense in international law.  The Obama administration just endorsed that damnable program of action which directly contravenes the First Amendment. The details are contained in a series of blog posts.

The various national submissions to the committee are contained in this pdf file: Outline for the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards Consultations.  The Non-Paper Paper, which makes the objective crystal clear, is contained in this pdf file:

October 13, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment


%d bloggers like this: