29 1 min 12 yrs

Great video here, recommended by Alison. (thank you!)

Among other things, Pat Condell makes reference to President Obama’s recent co-sponsorship a UN resolution, a resolution which puts  limits on freedom of speech, and were this resolution  to become “international law,” could eventually weaken free speech as we know it in the US.  

Is it possible that President Obama – and like-minded  Internationalists like George Soros –  welcomes International law taking precedence over the US Constitution?  

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

29 thoughts on “Wake-Up America!

  1. Awesome video. And frightening. I hope we still have a constitution left by the time Captain Zero and his gang of loser thugs gets through with America. 2012 can’t get here fast enough for me.

  2. Condell is like that Beatles’ song: "He’s getting bitter all the time". He should really learn to control his fury.

    Apart from that he makes several wild and untrue claims here, and is so low on detail on the others that I suspect he is trying to hide something there too.

    An interesting chap, though, and speaks very well.

  3. Glad you posted. The US co sponsorship of this resolution is a biggie. It calls on states to condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." but more importantly it also condemns "negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups". That one step further that basically suggests cartoons, jokes, discussion, criticism of any religious group is now a crime in the UN’s eyes. As the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech, they are taking the view that all countries — including the U.S. — should adhere to this resolution and all that implies for the US constitution. It is now bowing to international law over it’s own which I always held to be deeply unAmerican.

    Here’s the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d’Affaires Douglas Griffiths after signing up with Egypt who crafted the wording. Egypt that great bastion of free speech right?:

    "The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

    His Egyptian counterpart, Ambassador Hisham Badr, was equally pleased–for all the wrong reasons. He praised the development by telling the Council that "freedom of expression has been sometimes misused," insisting on limits consistent with the "true nature of this right" and demanding that the "the media must conduct itself in a professional and ethical manner."

    Condell as usual is brilliant and gets straight to the obvious point. Makes his co-liberal atheists of the type found at Harrys Place look like chattering class dinner party twerps that they are – a little bit irritated, just mildly cross with Islam you understand. Hence why heinous Islamic bigots are in the international driving seat.

  4. I can’t watch the video at the moment but the suggestion that US is sponsoring some kind of binding resolution which conflicts with the US consitution is pretty obviously false on its face, and wouldn’t survive a supreme court case even if it were true.

    You all need to take your BS detectors in for an MOT.

  5. The US sponsorhip of that resolution was a disgrace. It is something the OIS has been pushing for since the Mo’Toons and now they’ve got their way.

    When the subject came up before the UN General Assembly back in January 2008, the break down of the vote was an almost perfect split between establish liberal democracies and countries you wouldn’t want to live in:

    Those voting for it were:

    " Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe."

    Those voting against:

    " Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States."

    Now the US administration has decided to join the first camp.

  6. The US sponsorhip of that resolution was a disgrace. It is something the OIS has been pushing for since the Mo’Toons and now they’ve got their way.

    When the subject came up before the UN General Assembly back in January 2008, the break down of the vote was an almost perfect split between establish liberal democracies and countries you wouldn’t want to live in:

    Those voting for it were:

    " Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe."

    Those voting against:

    " Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States."

    Now the US administration has decided to join the first camp.

    (Sorry in advance for the double post, I pressed post before I logged in initially)

  7. That one step further that basically suggests cartoons, jokes, discussion, criticism of any religious group is now a crime in the UN’s eyes

    This type of thing as it exists in the various European countries was discussed by Wilders on the radio recently.

    The answer to this is a strong pushback in Europe and in the rest of the world for something along the lines of the US First Amendment. Which we’re never gonna give up.

  8. Frank- it isn’t BS, this is what the resolution actually says:

    "4. Also expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance,
    discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping of
    religions and racial groups continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any
    advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination,
    hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their
    obligations under international human rights law international human rights, to address and
    combat such incidents;"

    It’s in international legalese but it clearly calls for governments to take action against the negative stereotyping of religions.

    http://www.article19.org/pdfs/laws/resolution-on-the-promotion-and-protection-of-all-human-rights-civil-politic.pdf

  9. If that wicked bullshit was accepted here, it would be the end of the US and much of the Brit comedy industry. They’ve made their living for the past fifty years by making fun of the Catholic Church. Not sure that they know any other lines.

  10. And no doubt the nasty hispanic sow Sotomayor will be ready scissors in hand to "punish" offending white males. Free speech is a white concept and will have no place in the non-white "World State" under world law. The UN Charter was said to have been copied off the constitution of the Soviet Union. The main US/UN conspirators were of course Bolshevik agents Hiss and Weiss (Weiss went under the name "Harry Dexter White"). The UN has been very busy making a grab for the internet which is the main arena of free speech. Speech control means internet control. The Convention on Cybercrime was where many of the plots were hatched. Some of the delights discussed included a "permission to speak" token to be attached to every posting to a chat site or message board so the evil speech could be traced back to an individual who would then lose the power of speech. A "license to publish" to be attached to webpages. Armies of the "offended" then to scour the internet and compile a collaberative database of offence like a gargantuan version of the old "hate list" site. Routers to block traffic from entire small countries which hosted forbidden material.Geomapping of the destination of web traffic so the source country websites would respect the sensitivities of the tyrannies at the other end. Search engines to not index banned sites. And state filters of webtraffic like in China.

  11. Phantom – it doesn’t exist in European countries which is how the Danes managed to publish those cartoons. The key UN clause re criticism and stereotyping does not exist under incitement to hate speech here in the UK either. It was thrown out. The House of Lords passed amendments to the Bill which have the effect of limiting the legislation to "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening… if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the clear intention – and not just the possibility – of stirring up religious hatred.

  12. I don’t have time to look but

    I thought that there were such laws in France ( under which Bardot was prosecuted? ) and in Italy maybe

    And the Irish govt just passed some similar anti blasphemy law ?

  13. Great comment by Condell, as always.

    It takes an atheist to cut through the bullshit that is religion (I loved his remark about Ireland’s Stokholm Syndrome), and particularly the woman-hating, barbaric, holocaust-denying superstition known as Islam.

  14. The Resolution is not international law, has no binding effect, and will have zero impact on the United States Constitution.

    That being said, the resolution itself is a joke (as is the UN Human Rights Commission), and the Adminsitration would be better served by not participating in such international foolishness.

  15. "The Resolution is not international law, has no binding effect, and will have zero impact on the United States Constitution."

    drip, drip, drip…it’s not easy for the Internationalists to wrest control from those who favor individual rights, and sovereign nations. A Resolution today, an abdication of the US Constitution tomorrow (if the Lefties can stack the Supreme Court fast enough)

    Little by little, if we aren’t paying attention, freedoms we enjoy because someone else fought for them and died for them, might be taken from us.

    What’s that saying? History abhors a vacuum?

  16. Patty – Actually the saying is that Nature abhors a vacuum. So does my wife.

    There is absolutely no threat whatsoever to any Constitutional Right by this silly resolution. At all.

  17. There is absolutely a significant threat. It’s impact will be greatest in muslim countries against those citizens who dare to criticise Islam – and next time we have a cartoons kind of debacle (which is why this came about and expressly why Obama wanted to get involved) exactly what position will the US take vis a vis its own media in the face of UN muslim nation charges of religious defamation when YOU uniquely led the western charge on this initiative?

  18. It is a nonbinding resolution. The UN General Assemby has made to close to 2000 of them.

    It will have no impact in the Untied States. And in Muslim countries it will have no impact because whatever repressive laws and practices exist will remain unchanged.

    Passing nonbinding resolutions is what the den of vipers called the United Nations does, that and not pay their parking tickets.

  19. The US should not be part of this. If Zimbabwe and Krygistan want to vote yes on this type of thing then let them go right ahead.

  20. Phantom – that part I agree with, in fact I’ll take it a step further, disband the United Nations.

  21. That’s no joke. Keep some of the public health things and other agencies but the world would be better if the UN were disbanded.

    Some of the diplomats there are in NYC living like King Farouk and would have to find real work for the first time in their lives

  22. This all expressly rose from the cartoons controversy. It was tabled by Egypt because of that issue. The point is not that it is irrelevant, you could argue that one for some time until the next controversy arises and then we will see where the US are forced to stand and the measure to which they will be held to account over this re their own press, for both signing and driving this measure. The latter, driving it, being significant. The point is why on earth the US uniquely would champion such a move. Where other nations raised concerns and refused. See signatories above.

    No matter though I agree. This latest fiasco and a number of other issues have led me to conclude that the days of western hegemony are effectively over. It is pointless giving a fuck.

  23. Alison: Once again, and with feeling, the resolution is worthless, it should not have been co-sponsored by the U.S., but it will have no effect on our rights here.

    As for you last line, you raise the important age old question, is it better to give than receive?

  24. Once again – it will. After all I don’t recall too many of your media wanting to discuss the cartoons without this in place. Now they have extra reason to be cautious. After all it’s your UN resolution brought about by your President expressly to appease the muslim world for the next time they have a concern about western criticism. But whatever, as above.

  25. Alison: "After all I don’t recall too many of your media wanting to discuss the cartoons without this in place. Now they have extra reason to be cautious"

    exactly.

  26. I was referring to cartoon type criticising "defamatory" incidents to which this UN thing specifically relates Mahons. I wrote that in my comments about a dozen times and explained that is the basis and origins for it. I also noted we would see how the media react when such situations crop up again and your co signatories hold your media and government to account.

  27. mahons

    These changes do not happen overnight

    And having the imprimatur of this worldwide and supposedly prestigious organization on this will give it a legitimacy in parts of the world where free speech has a far more tenuous hold than it has in the land of the First Amendment.

    You don’t need to defend speech much in America. You do in lots of other places. And here the opponents of speech can say " the whole world including America has signed on to this reasonable proposal "

Comments are closed.