Phew! Dodged A Bullet!!!

[PoliticalChic]

I'm speaking about the election, of course!
Just the slightest nudge to the Left, and the nation would have a President, Bill's wife, who eschews free speech.



This is the path we'd have stumbled down....

1. "Canada: Parliament Condemns Free Speech


2. On October 26, Canada's parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion, which was the result of a petition initiated by Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum.

• "Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning." — Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. Majzoub is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
  
  
• What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS "does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam" now to be considered an "Islamophobe"?
  
  
• The question, naturally, is whether Canada's motion will be replicated in other parliaments in the West. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is particularly active in Europe, having opened a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union in 2013.
  
  
• In what parallel universe can the efforts of the OIC to stifle free speech possibly be considered advancement of freedom of speech and religion?
  
  
• As the OIC steps up its media campaign and efforts in Europe, European parliaments are likely to experience initiatives like the petition in Canada. The European Union, for one, looks as if it would be to happy facilitate such a motion." Canada: Parliament Condemns Free Speech
  

A minuscule shift in the voting....and this would have been America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This, from the petition that led to Canada's parliament unanimously banning free speech:

1. "Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments..."

Well....not just speech,it seems.

Liberals can allow 'sentiments,' either.


2. "...extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. .... these violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam."

Really?

Soooo.....how is it that 'these violent individuals' have no trouble quoting the Q'ran for justification?



3. "They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world."
'Exist in peace'???
Headlines worldwide scream quite the opposite message.
Canada: Parliament Condemns Free Speech


So.....the correct response by Liberals is to silence any discussion of what is going on????

Liberals and reality......mix like oil and water.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And....this is the bullet America dodged:

1. At his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts had this interchange with Senator Schumer:
At the Senate hearings for Judge Robert's Supreme Court nomination, Senator Schumer asked Roberts if the 'little guy' would get special consideration in the court.

"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."
Read more: Roberts Sworn In as Chief Justice | Fox News



2. In her last debate, Bill's wife vowed to pick only Justices who would rubber stamp Liberal dogma.

Here...her own words:

".... at the goings on about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election. Namely, what kind of country are we going to be? What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens? What kind of rights will Americans have? And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of of women's rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."
Fact Check And Full Transcript Of The Final 2016 Presidential Debate




Since Democrats have shown their hand, the desire to ban free speech, you can see the road she would have taken America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"....does their vote mean that those Canadians who dare to criticize Islam and disagree vehemently with the premises of the motion are likely to be considered (even more) beyond the pale of civilized society? Does it mean that only one view is correct and that any view that differs from it will now be, by default, incorrect -- if not criminal?

It will almost certainly deter people from speaking up,...

....creating a threatening atmosphere of political correctness, where those who do not adhere to the groupthink are shamed and ostracized. Such strangulation of opinion also cannot be beneficial to any country's national security..."
Canada: Parliament Condemns Free Speech



And this:
"There were, of course, no parallel motions in Canada's parliament to condemn "Christianophobia" or "Judeophobia," the latter being much more prevalent than "Islamophobia." In fact, according to statistics, Jewish Canadians are more than 10 times as likely to be the victim of a hate crime than Muslim Canadians."
Ibid.




Anyone know the only 'religion' that Barack Hussein Obama has stood up for, shielded from criticism, defended and advanced?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"It was exactly this kind of toxic, politically correct atmosphere in the United States that enabled Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, to gun down 13 people and to wound 29 others in the Fort Hood massacre in 2009.

His former classmate, Lt. Col. Val Finnell, told Fox news at the time that, despite Hasan's suspicious behavior, such as giving a presentation justifying suicide bombings, nothing was done about Hasan to see if he might be a security risk. Instead, he was treated with kid gloves. "The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody's religious belief, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit", said Lt. Col. Finnell.



In December 2015, a man who had been working in the area where the San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook lived told CBS Los Angeles that,

"he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people. "We sat around lunch thinking, 'What were they doing around the neighborhood?'" he said.

The fear of being labeled an "Islamophobe" is real and has had lethal consequences. It is this fear that the Canadian parliament has now elevated into a parliamentary motion, signaling that this sentiment is shared by the highest echelons in the country, those who make the laws."
Canada: Parliament Condemns Free Speech




Soooo.....would a President Bill's wife have sided with the same political correctness???

You betcha'!!!!

 

[2aguy]

I'm speaking about the election, of course!
Just the slightest nudge to the Left, and the nation would have a President, Bill's wife, who eschews free speech.



This is the path we'd have stumbled down....

1. "Canada: Parliament Condemns Free Speech


2. On October 26, Canada's parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion, which was the result of a petition initiated by Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum.

• "Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning." — Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. Majzoub is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
  
  
• What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS "does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam" now to be considered an "Islamophobe"?
  
  
• The question, naturally, is whether Canada's motion will be replicated in other parliaments in the West. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is particularly active in Europe, having opened a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union in 2013.
  
  
• In what parallel universe can the efforts of the OIC to stifle free speech possibly be considered advancement of freedom of speech and religion?
  
  
• As the OIC steps up its media campaign and efforts in Europe, European parliaments are likely to experience initiatives like the petition in Canada. The European Union, for one, looks as if it would be to happy facilitate such a motion." Canada: Parliament Condemns Free Speech
  

A minuscule shift in the voting....and this would have been America.

A great weight has been lifted.....we have breathing room to try to fix things now....

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm speaking about the election, of course!
Just the slightest nudge to the Left, and the nation would have a President, Bill's wife, who eschews free speech.



This is the path we'd have stumbled down....

1. "Canada: Parliament Condemns Free Speech


2. On October 26, Canada's parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion, which was the result of a petition initiated by Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum.

• "Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning." — Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. Majzoub is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
  
  
• What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS "does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam" now to be considered an "Islamophobe"?
  
  
• The question, naturally, is whether Canada's motion will be replicated in other parliaments in the West. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is particularly active in Europe, having opened a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union in 2013.
  
  
• In what parallel universe can the efforts of the OIC to stifle free speech possibly be considered advancement of freedom of speech and religion?
  
  
• As the OIC steps up its media campaign and efforts in Europe, European parliaments are likely to experience initiatives like the petition in Canada. The European Union, for one, looks as if it would be to happy facilitate such a motion." Canada: Parliament Condemns Free Speech
  

A minuscule shift in the voting....and this would have been America.

A great weight has been lifted.....we have breathing room to try to fix things now....

It will be quite an uphill battle....

...none of his opponents in the campaign.....including Republicans...will want to see him successful....no matter how that will benefit America.

The people have an opportunity here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"A democratic parliament presumably should not be cowing its citizens into silence. The term "bullying" comes to mind. Parliamentary bullying and reckless disregard of the freedom of speech should have no place in a society that cares about the values of freedom and national security. Canada has already seen, to its disgrace, attacks on free speech against Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, among others. Is this the country Canada wishes to become?"
Canada: Parliament Condemns Free Speech


Is this the country Liberals/Democrats wish America to become?

Sure do.

"...US House Resolution 569, "Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States," which was introduced in the House of Representatives on December 17, 2015. This Resolution is more detailed than the short condemnation of Islamophobia from the Canadian parliament, but the essence of both appears to be the same: Criticism of Islam or of Muslims is wrong and should be condemned, if not outright criminalized."
Ibid.



A Democrat proposal:

Sponsor: Rep. Beyer, Donald S., Jr. [D-VA-8] (Introduced 12/17/2015)
Committees: House - Judiciary
Latest Action: 01/15/2016 Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice. (All Actions)


This is what a vote for a Democrat endorses.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is what we dodged in deep-sixing Bill's wife:


"Europe: Let's End Free Speech!
Are European Countries Now Police States?

Evidence is mounting that expressing even a mild opinion that runs counter to official government policy can land you in prison, or at least ensure a visit from your friendly local Kafkaesque police. Has Europe effectively become a police state?

Several European governments are making it clear to their citizens that criticizing migrants or European migrant policies is criminally off limits. People who go "too far," according to the authorities, are being arrested, prosecuted and at times convicted.



In the town of Sliedrecht, police came to Mark Jongeneel's office and told him that he tweeted "too much" and that he should "watch his tone": his tweets "may seem seditious". His offense? One tweet said: "The College of #Sliedrecht comes up with a proposal to take 250 refugees over the next two years. What a bad idea!

In September 2015, Die Welt reported that people who air "xenophobic" views on social media, risk losing the right to see their own children."
Europe: Let's End Free Speech!




Can you imagine.....morons weeping of missing out on the banning of free speech!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trump won because of trade. Period. He won because he agrees with Bernie Sanders on trade.

And disagrees with the OP, which is quite humorous.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"European Union Orders British Press NOT to Report when Terrorists are Muslims

• In France, Muslim terrorists are never Muslim terrorists, but "lunatics," "maniacs" and "youths".
• To attack freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not anti-hate speech; it is submission.
• By following these recommendations, the British government would place Muslim organizations in a kind of monopoly position: they would become the only source of information about themselves. It is the perfect totalitarian information order.
• 
  According the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) -- part of the Council of Europe -- the British press is to blame for increasing hate speech and racist violence. On October 4, 2016, the ECRI released a report dedicated only to Britain. The report said:
  
  some traditional media, particularly tabloids... are responsible for most of the offensive, discriminatory and provocative terminology. The Sun, for instance, published an article in April 2015 entitled "Rescue boats? I'd use gunships to stop migrants", in which the columnist likened migrants to "cockroaches"...
  
  The Sun newspaper has also published inflammatory anti-Muslim headlines, such as its front page of 23 November 2015 which read "1 in 5 Brit Muslims' sympathy for jihadis", along with a picture of a masked terrorist wielding a knife..." European Union Orders British Press NOT to Report when Terrorists are Muslims

Would Bill's wife and her party have backed this sort of insanity????

You betcha'!