Hitler Demands Churchill’s Arrest!

[Flanders]

Those voices calling for limits on free speech in the name of world peace are really trying to prevent revolutions. Unchecked religions and governments are murderous by nature because they nurture the same personality types. Islam is a murderous, brutal, religion not much different than India’s Thuggees of old. Totalitarian governments are no different than Supreme Deity theocracies when it comes to killing their own people; so it is no great surprise they fear revolution.

Even if those who would put limits on speech are sincere about ending war they apparently do not understand that war dotted mankind’s résumé long before freedom of speech was ever codified. If world peace is the true goal the question is “Does free speech prevent or encourage war?” While you wrestle with that one, here’s an easy one “Does free speech prevent or encourage revolution?” Before you tackle the second question consider the benefits mankind got from the American Revolution, and the horrors Communist revolutions gave the world.

Note that dictators in Libya and Egypt had no expansionist capabilities, yet they were overthrown, while no one is saying overthrow expansionist governments and religions. Iran is an exception only because it wants to go nuclear. That clown at the United Nations wants to protect them all:

. . . Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told reporters in New York today that “free speech” has limits, especially when religious beliefs are involved.

“All of this freedom of expression should not be abused by individuals. … Some people abuse this freedom. This effort to provoke, to humiliate others by using (religious) beliefs cannot be protected in such a way.”

Apparently, the clown in the White House agrees:

The U.S. mission to the U.N. declined to provide any comment on behalf of Ambassador Susan Rice.

Richard Grenell, a senior U.N. diplomat during the Bush administration, was quick to weigh in.

“The secretary-general is wrong; there are no exceptions to freedom of speech,” he said. “There is no U.N. approval process on it. You can certainly disagree with what someone says, but no one has the right to silence another’s voice.”

U.N. chief: Free speech has limits
'Fundamental right should not be abused by such disgraceful, such shameful acts'
Published: 8 hours ago
by STEWART STOGEL

U.N. chief: Free speech has limits

Clowns never understand that protecting religion from free speech will encourage more brutality and killing; so it’s hard for most Americans to see how abolishing freedom of speech guarantees world peace. Frankly, I’d rather abolish the United Nations.

One of the world’s most influential Muslims is now calling on the United Nations – in light of the YouTube movie blamed for violent protests across the Mideast – to impose international restrictions on free speech, criminalizing any statement that impugns Islam.

Winston Churchill would have been arrested had Hitler gone to the League of Nations and demanded that fascism not be criticized.

In a public declaration issued to several Islamic bodies, including the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, one of the largest Muslim mosques in the D.C. metro area and the U.S., bin Bayyah called upon “people of reason and understanding” to put a legal stop to statements that would offend Muslims and thereby threaten world peace.

If Muslims want world peace all they have to do is end the war they started.

“We ask everyone to ponder the ramifications of provoking the feelings of over one billion people by a small party of people who desires not to seek peace nor fraternity between members of humanity,” bin Bayyah wrote.

The subliminal threat does not work. A billion offers more targets.

“This poses a threat to world peace. . .

Jihad is the only threat to world peace I can see.

. . . with no tangible benefit realized. Is it not necessary in today’s world for the United Nations to issue a resolution criminalizing the impingement of religious symbols? We request all religious and political authorities, as well as people of reason to join us in putting a stop to this futility that benefits no one.”

Self-defense is always a tangible benefit.

“Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil asked for similar action ‘within the framework of international charters that criminalize acts that stir strife on the basis of race, color or religion.’ This is a direct appeal to hold Americans accountable to the U.N. blasphemy resolution Hillary Clinton, along with the Islamic bloc, has championed, despite its repressive controls on free speech.”

Can anyone tell me why Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil is better than Hosni Mubarak?

Last year, Clinton worked with the OIC to pass a revised version, Resolution 16/18, which included both the usual condemnation of defaming speech and a paragraph affirming “the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression” plays in “strengthening democracy.”

Top Muslim calls for U.N. to end free speech
Claims violence over film proof constitutional protection 'benefits no one'
by DREW ZAHN

Top Muslim calls for U.N. to end free speech

I’d like to know if Secretary of State Clinton ever considered inserting our First Amendment in her revised version.

And aside from Hussein & Company, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Communist revolutionaries, who the hell wants to strengthen democracy?

Now here’s the bad news:

'End of free speech' signed by Obama - YouTube

 

[Ravi]

The UN can't amend our constitution.

 

[Flanders]

The UN can't amend our constitution.

To Ravi: UN-loving traitors in our own government repeatedly amended our Constitution for the United Nations without bothering with an Amendment ratified by the American people.

If the issue concerns you how about commenting on Congress and the president amending the Constitution on their own. This link is in the OP, but you apparently chose to ignore it:

'End of free speech' signed by Obama - YouTube