Back in June 2009 President Obama gave a speech in Cairo. In it he said, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam whenever they appear.” Sorry Barack Hussein Obama, but the only real duty of the President of the United States is to uphold the Constitution and defend that nation against any threats.
It is not the duty of the President to appease America’s enemies, or seek to rewrite history, or push ideological agendas. And it certainly is not the duty of the US President to become an apologist for Islam. I don’t recall in his swearing-in ceremony any words about him becoming the first President in American history to champion the cause of Islam.
Indeed, imagine if he dared to say, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Christianity whenever they appear.” The entire secular leftist world would go apoplectic: “Hey, what the heck happened to that separation of church and state?” They would be going ballistic over such a statement.
But the promotion and defence of Islam seems to be just hunky-dory. We have seen Obama engage in one anti-Christian agenda item after another, while at the same time bending over backwards to appease Islam. But of course he is not alone in this.
Plenty of American leaders have become de facto apologists for Islam, all the while denigrating their own country and its Judeo-Christian heritage. This in itself is bad enough, but when it compromises American security, it becomes even worse.
So fearful are so many American elites of offending Muslims in any way, that they have completely lost the plot, and fail to face reality. They simply do not want to get real about who our enemies are. And the last time I checked, it was not old, grey-haired, white women taking lessons in how to fly low-level swoops on 747s.
Mark Steyn in his very important new book also speaks to this insanity of failing to identify who our enemies are. He too worries greatly about how we are putting American security at jeopardy because of moronic political correctness and anti-anti-Islamism. Says Steyn:
“The lessons of 9/11 were quickly buried under a mountain of relativist mush. Consider the now routine phenomenon by which any, um, unusual event is instantly ascribed to anyone other than the obvious suspects. When a huge car bomb came near to killing hundreds in Times Square, the first reaction of Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor, was to announce that the most likely culprit was ‘someone with a political agenda who doesn’t like the health care bill’ (that would be me, if his SWAT team’s at a loose end this weekend). When, inevitably, a young man called Faisal Shahzad was arrested a couple days later, Mayor Bloomberg’s next reaction was to hector his subjects that under no circumstances would the city tolerate ‘any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers’.”
But let’s get back to Obama. His relentless attempts at placating, appeasing and promoting the Islamic cause is as foolish as it is dangerous. Consider one damaging piece of UN moonbattery, the United Nations Human Rights Resolution 2005/3, “Combating Defamation of Religions,” which was passed in April of 2005.
This resolution stated that “defamation” and criticism of Islam was simply out of bounds. Amazingly, the non-binding resolution was easily passed. It was presented to the UN by Pakistan, on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
Hot on the heels of this is Resolution 16/18, also moved by OIC (which now stands for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation). Nina Shea picks up the story, alerting us to this alarming situation: “The White House is giving free-speech opponents a megaphone”.
Says Shea: “Last March, U.S. diplomats maneuvered the adoption of Resolution 16/18 within the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC). Non-binding, this resolution, inter alia, expresses concern about religious ‘stereotyping’ and ‘negative profiling’ but does not limit free speech. It was intended to — and did — replace the OIC’s decidedly dangerous resolution against ‘defamation of religions,’ which protected religious institutions instead of individual freedoms. But thanks to a puzzling U.S. diplomatic initiative that was unveiled in July, Resolution 16/18 is poised to become a springboard for a greatly reinvigorated international effort to criminalize speech against Islam, the very thing it was designed to quash.”
She continues, “Having won the latest round in the ideological contest for individual rights and freedoms at the United Nations this past March, the administration is now gratuitously establishing a new ‘transnational’ forum to essentially re-litigate the matter with a body that is openly hostile to such freedoms. This forum’s agenda is to be structured so that freedom of expression will be put on trial and inevitably condemned by most forum participants as, itself, a human-rights violation. In raising OIC expectations that ‘anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes’ will be dealt with under soon-to-be-drafted ‘implementation’ procedures, the administration is riding a tiger.”
Australian religious freedom expert Elizabeth Kendal has also written extensively on this worrying development. She very nicely summarises what this move is all about:
“And so, while it is being hailed in the West as a victory for free speech, Resolution 16/18, ‘Combating intolerance …,’ is even more dangerous than resolution 2005/3, ‘Combating Defamation of Religion’. It is in no way an OIC back-down or a breakthrough for liberty. Rather, the change in focus from defamation to incitement is not only totally consistent with OIC strategy since early 2009, but it actually advances the OIC’s primary goal: the criminalisation of criticism of Islam.”
Let me repeat this last line; this is all about “the criminalisation of criticism of Islam.” All over the Western world moves are under foot to make it a crime to say anything critical or negative about Islam. Here in Victoria we have Stalinist Religious Vilification laws which already basically operate in this fashion.
And concurrent with this is another major development all over the Western world: the move to make the proclamation of Christianity illegal. Laws are being passed all over the place with the sole purpose of silencing Christians. Whether they are vilification laws, or anti-discrimination laws, or so-called hate speech laws, the results are the same: a full-fledged attack on Christian freedom of speech.
It is interesting how these two dangerous trends so nicely dovetail: silence Christians, and silence any criticism of Islam. With laws like these being passed all over the West, who needs suicide bombers. Stealth jihad and creeping sharia are moving along quite nicely, thanks.
Of course getting laws like this passed will not result in the faithful getting their dark-eyed virgins in paradise, as dying for Allah does, but it still renders the West impotent, impoverished and enslaved. That too is something all Islamists look forward to.