U.N. Resolution 16/18 or U.S. Constitution

Discussion in 'USMB Breaking News' started by Mrs. M., Dec 29, 2015.

  1. Mrs. M.

    Mrs. M. Man Feed Guest Writer Op-ed Contributor

    Nov 2, 2015
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:

    The O.I.C. is the second largest organization in the world. It is comprised of 56 Islamic nations and the Palestinian Authority. This organization represents and speaks for 1.5 billion Muslim people worldwide. They have permanent observer status at the United Nations which affords them the luxury to draft treaties and lobby voting nations for signatures. They are also the largest voting bloc at the U.N.. They have the power to influence U.N. decisions but cannot vote in the General Assembly.

    The O.I.C. is behind the creation of U.N. Resolution 16/18. The purpose of submitting this resolution to the U.N. is quite sinister. They are determined to strip Americans of their 1st Amendment rights and make it illegal to criticize Islam.

    News sources have stated that the previous administration rejected Resolution 16/18 on the grounds that it would criminalize the defamation of Islam. In response, the O.I.C. edited the word Islam and replaced it with religion and blasphemy. According to their beliefs, there is no religion other than Islam. They recognize only one religion. Their own. This would include the definition of blasphemy. It applies to Islam and nothing else yet many do not realize this.

    We are dealing with a very deceptive people who are very skillful at crafting words that appear acceptable while the meaning is defined by a previous transaction unbeknownst to those who sign on.

    President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have signed Resolution 16/18 knowing full well what it will mean for the American people. Under the terms of this agreement we are obliged to be tolerant of those who are intolerant. The intolerant are not obliged to reciprocate because their religion does not call for tolerance. They will be permitted to continue to practice their religion of Islam unhindered. It is only the Christians, Jews, Hindus and non Muslims that must comply.

    What does this mean for the FBI, CIA, Secret Service and Military personnel? It means that they will no longer be permitted to use terms such as Jihad, Islamic terrorist, or any other words that might offend the O.I.C. and its members. It also means that they will be prevented from doing a thorough job of protecting Americans because they won't be permitted to identify the enemy.

    Shortly after the San Bernardino Islamic terrorist attack, Attorney General Loretta Lynch stated that she would prosecute anyone who used anti-Muslim speech. She is acting in compliance with U.N. Resolution 16/18 even before it has become an international law. If U.N. Resolution 16/18 becomes international law it would enforce Sharia.

    It would then become illegal to talk openly about Islam even if what was being discussed were the truth. There could be no mention of stoning, beheading, or associating terrorism with Islam.

    It has been reported that our State Department, under the guidance of Hillary Clinton, hosted a three day meeting in 2011 with the O.I.C., foreign government representatives and other international groups. What was the purpose of this three day meeting? U.N. Resolution 16/18.

    The damaging effects of U.N. Resolution 16/18 have already been felt in parts of Europe where it is against the law to speak against Islam. Journalists are careful to use the word immigrants rather than Muslims. Those who refuse to comply with the law could be arrested and put on trial. One French citizen was arrested after protesting against Islam in a public park. In Quebec they are introducing Bill 59 which would fine first offenders between $1,000 and $10,000 dollars. That is only the beginning.

    It is only a matter of time before they try to do it here.

    Our Constitution is under attack. Thankfully some are not afraid to sound the alarm. Major Stephen Coughlin has warned Americans that Sharia-compliant U.N. Resolution 16/18 violates Article VI of the Constitution which states the supremacy of the Constitution and its laws. To accept U.N. Resolution 16/18 is to nullify our own Constitution in favor of Sharia. Sharia cannot co-exist with our Constitution. UN Resolution 16/18 undermines our ability to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies.

    President Barack Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have betrayed the American people. They co-sponsored U.N. Resolution 16/18 (with Pakistan) in order to take away our 1st Amendment rights and give our enemies the upper hand. They have broken their oath to uphold the Constitution and have subjected the United States to a very dangerous and formidable enemy.

    The American people need to be informed about U.N. Resolution 16/18 before it is too late.
    It is either U.N. Resolution 16/18 or our U.S. Constitution
    It cannot be both.
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Moonglow

    Moonglow Diamond Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Jun 27, 2011
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    sw mizzouri
    Has the WH supported the spread of blasphemy laws?
  3. Tehon

    Tehon Gold Member

    Jun 19, 2015
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Now stop your sniveling. And if you feel a calling to "inform" people in the future, at least try to do it in a credible way, before you lose all credibility.

    United Nations Affirms the Human Right to Blaspheme
    Late last month, the UN issued a new statement on the extent of freedom of speech under international law. It says that laws restricting blasphemy as such are incompatible with universal human rights standards.

    The statement came from the Human Rights Committee, the body of eighteen “independent experts” mandated to monitor compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or ICCPR, the 1966 human rights treaty that provides for freedom of opinion and expression and other fundamental rights. The Committee’s general comments represent authoritative interpretations of the provisions of the ICCPR. Unlike the highly-publicized resolutions produced by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, the provisions of the ICCPR are legally binding to its more than 165 parties.

    The message of General Comment No. 34 is not only a clear condemnation of the blasphemy laws of countries such as Pakistan, which despite having ratified the ICCPR in 2008, continues to impose the death sentence for blasphemy and “defiling” the name of Prophet Muhammad. The Comment equally repudiates the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which has upheld Austrian, British, and Turkish laws against blasphemy and religious insult by invoking a sui generis right to “respect for the religious feelings of believers.”

    Last edited: Dec 30, 2015

Share This Page