If elected president, Hillary Clinton would try, by executive order if proposed legislation fails, to impose ‘blasphemy’ laws by linking hate speech with violence – which would punish criticism of Islam

well-intentioned-reasonAt least 51% of Democrats already support criminalizing “hate speech.” This proposed hate speech law would make it a crime for people to make public comments critical of Islam and Muslims by claiming that such speech is intended to stir up hatred against a group based on their religion (and not their violent and criminal behavior as well as their supremacist attempts to live under their own laws and force Americans to accommodate their excessive religious demands).

Townhall  Under this type of law, anyone critical of Sharia Law and Islamic fundamentalism could be prosecuted as hating Muslims. We’ve seen these types of laws spreading throughout Europe and elsewhere, and if Hillary Clinton is elected in 2016, she has shown repeatedly that she will appease her liberal supporters and make anti-Muslim hate speech legislation a major priority.


While Clinton was Secretary of State under President Obama, she championed the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC)-backed United Nations Human Rights Commission Resolution 16/18, which calls for “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”


This resolution is an overt attempt to force Sharia Law compliance worldwide—banning criticism of Islam everywhere—and Hillary Clinton supports it wholeheartedly. Despite the countries of the OIC ignoring and perpetuating many human rights abuses and even refusing to sign the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights, these nations worked with Hillary Clinton to meet their objective of criminalizing so-called “Islamophobia.”


These are the kind of speech codes that Hillary Clinton would bring to the United States. 

Filmmaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, maker of “Innocence of the Muslims,” the video falsely blamed by President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the 2012 Benghazi terror attack that killed four Americans, was jailed as promised. Clinton is reported to have personally vowed to “make sure that the person who made that film [“Innocence of Muslims”] is arrested and prosecuted.”

Hillary Clinton was more consumed with gagging the free speech rights of the filmmaker than finding the terrorists who killed four Americans. By lumping together violence with “hateful rhetoric” Democrats seek to destroy freedom of speech.


 On December 17, 2015, leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of the destruction of the First Amendment. Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell, Niki Tsongas, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others, House Resolution 569 condemns “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

What H. Res. 569 does is conflate violence — attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances – with “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric,” which are identified on the basis of subjective judgments.


The inclusion of condemnations of “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric” in this Resolution, while appearing to be high-minded, take on an ominous character when one recalls the fact that for years, Ellison, Carson, and his allies (including designated terrorist group CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) have been smearing any and all honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence as “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.”

This Resolution is using the specter of violence against Muslims to try to quash legitimate research into the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy us, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.

Hillary-fan Mark Zuckerberg agreed to censor anti-Muslim migrant "hate speech" in Facebook
Hillary-fan Mark Zuckerberg agreed to censor anti-Muslim migrant “hate speech” in Facebook

 If we are going to be “potential targets” as long as we “continue to offend Islam and Muslims,” then the obvious solution, according to the Western intelligentsia, is to stop doing anything that might offend Islam and Muslims. After all, at the UN, Barack Hussein Obama proclaimed: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” 

So what offends Islam and Muslims? It ought to be a simple matter to cross those things off our list, right? Making a few sacrifices for the sake of our future of glorious diversity should be a no-brainer for every millennial, and everyone of every age who is concerned about “hate,” right?

Resident of apartment complex in Texas told to take down his American flag because it “is a threat to the Muslim community.”

So let’s see. Drawing Muhammad – that’s out. And of course, Christmas celebrations, officially banned this year in three Muslim countries and frowned upon (at best) in many others, will have to go as well. Alcohol and pork? Not in public, at least. Conversion from Islam to Christianity? No more of that. Building churches? Come on, you’ve got to be more multicultural!

Everyone agrees. The leaders of free societies are eagerly lining up to relinquish those freedoms. The glorious diversity of our multicultural future demands it.

And that future will be grand indeed, a gorgeous mosaic, as everyone assures us, once those horrible “Islamophobes” are forcibly silenced. Everyone will applaud that. Most won’t even remember, once the jihad agenda becomes clear and undeniable to everyone in the U.S. on a daily basis and no one is able to say a single thing about it, that there used to be some people around who tried to warn them.