Obama Denounces Anti-Islam Film During U.N. Speech: ‘An Insult Not Only to Muslims, But to America as Well’

President Barack Obama gave his highly-anticipated speech in front of the United Nations General Assembly this morning, posing a challenge to the international community that the roots of turmoil in the Middle East be confronted.

Considering recent events, Obama discussed the ongoing anti-American turmoil unfolding across the globe. In his speech, he declared that “there are no words that excuse the killing of innocent” and that there is “no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.”

After heralding democracy and prior to delving into the importance of free speech, Obama made it known that the anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” is “an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well.”

The president did take the time to lambaste those who decry insults against the Prophet Muhammad, but who ignore insults waged against Jesus Christ and other symbols of religious importance.

“The future must not belong to those who lander the prophet of Islam but to be credible those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches destroyed or the Holocaust that is denied,” Obama proclaimed.

Watch some of Obama’s comments, below:

Muslims calls for U.N. to end free speech

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.

Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah, a professor at King Abdul Aziz University in Saudi Arabia, is a member of several international organizations, including the Centre for Studying the Aims of Sharia in the U.K., as well as serving as the vice chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars.

The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre ranked bin Bayyah No. 31 on its list of the 500 most influential Muslims in the world for 2011.

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.

“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. “This poses a threat to world peace 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.”

Bin Bayyah’s statement was titled a “Declaration Regarding the Offensive Video to Muslims,” a clear reference to the YouTube film, “Innocence of Muslims,” which has been widely – if controversially – blamed for inciting riots against embassies in the Middle East and the resulting death of four U.S. diplomats.

The Obama administration had similarly asked Google, the parent company of YouTube, to review whether “Innocence of Muslims” violates its terms-of-use policies.

Thus far, Google has refused to remove the video from YouTube, though it blocked access in some sensitive countries.

Pundits from a wide spectrum of news outlets have agreed the video is protected by free speech rights in the U.S.

Bin Bayyah’s statement continued, condemning the embassy attacks in the Middle East: “We implore you not to inflict violence upon anyone, whether foreign delegations or otherwise. You should not destroy property or flout the values and cherished principles that you defend, as attacking innocents, killing foreign diplomats and ambassadors contravenes religious and moral principles before it contravenes political ones.”

Read more here.

Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns

UN environmental initiative is the Tea Party’s new nightmare

Tea Party activists have started to sound the alarms over a United Nations initiative most Americans have never heard of, but one that many in the movement see as one of the greatest threats to America’s sovereignty.

“Americans are so focused on Congress and Obama at the federal level of government right now that most are overlooking the socialism creeping in at the local level through Agenda 21,” the Tea Party publication the Tea Party Tribune warned readers on July 2.

Agenda 21 is a UN initiative that 178 governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) adopted in 1992 under the auspices of saving the environment. It bills itself as a coordinated plan of action to help nations and local government ensure “sustainability.”

“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment,” the U.N. website explains.

While the aim sounds innocent enough, Tea Partiers argue that it is just a means to an end. The end, they say, is the usurpation of American sovereignty, a planned economy and redistribution of the wealth.

The media may be quick to dismiss this as the breathless caterwauling of a minority of Americans, but American Policy Center president Tom DeWeese says not so fast. According to DeWeese, these concerns are legitimate and repercussions of Agenda 21 are already visible, in urban growth schemes across the country.

Read more here.

Women’s Conference Bans Opposing Views on Abortion

by Derrick Jones

While the rhetoric of the abortion industry relentlessly promises to “empower women” with “information” to make the “best choice” for themselves, pro-lifers know that the “information” always steers clear of educating women about the reality of abortion.

Take the second global Women Deliver conference held last week in Washington. Judging from its website, the conference, co-sponsored by the United Nations Population Fund, UNICEF, the World Health Organization, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, was designed to concentrate on decreasing maternal mortality in the developing world (something successfully done in the developed world for more than 70 years.) Who could disagree with such a noble endeavor?

But if you dig deeper into the conference’s program and its presenters you’ll discover an inordinate focus on promoting legalized abortion-on-demand in countries whose laws protect the lives of unborn children. The illogic of the conference organizers, like that of pro-abortion non-governmental organizations (NGOs) at the United Nations, is that increased access to abortion equals increased maternal health. It is better access to quality medical care, not abortion, that drives down the maternal mortality rate.

Jeanne E. Head, National Right to Life’s vice president for international affairs and a representative at the United Nations, and a crew of staff and interns stood outside the Washington Convention Center early last Wednesday morning to educate the delegates. They handed out pink bags emblazoned with the words “Celebrate Motherhood” as attendees arrived for the morning plenary session.

The bags contained a life-size fetal model of an unborn child at 12 weeks gestation, a scientifically accurate brochure on the development of the unborn child in utero, and a brochure — which struck right at the heart of the conference — discussing the proven means of reducing maternal mortality rates worldwide.

You would think Women Deliver conference organizers would be thrilled by increased access to information. But you would be wrong.

As fast as staff and volunteers handed out materials to many of the more than 3,000 (mostly female) attendees outside the convention center, conference staff inside the convention center confiscated the pink bags from surprised attendees as they walked in the main doors.

According to one Ugandan attendee (who came outside to get a second bag because her first had been commandeered), the conference staff were telling attendees that the “pro-lifers are trying to ruin our conference,” with information that was “anti-human-rights,” “anti-choice,” “anti-life,” and “anti-woman.”

Anything that might even hint that abortion is not the answer to the world’s problems must be confiscated and destroyed. Dissent must not be tolerated — a familiar pattern not just at the UN but around the country.

Just look to the states and you’ll find the same obfuscation. Common sense laws, supported by a majority of Americans, seek to inform women about the risks associated with abortion, the biological development of the unborn child, and alternatives available, even provide the opportunity to view a real-time ultrasound image of their child. And they are inevitably challenged in court by the pro-abortionists.

Such laws have been held as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court as far back as the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. But that doesn’t stop the abortion industry from filing brief after brief to keep these laws from taking effect.

It all begs the question: why? Simple. When women are given all of the information about abortion and know that there are alternatives, they are far more likely to give their child life. And that cuts into the abortion industry’s bottom line.

Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider and promoter of abortion, is a billion dollar industry. In its 2007-2008 annual report, PPFA said that their clinics performed over 300,000 abortions in 2007 — more than 25% of the annual number of abortions performed in the United States. The average cost of a first trimester abortion is roughly $400. Do the math.

Tragically, abortion has become a big business worldwide. And for the international abortion industry — including many of the Women Deliver cosponsors — the women of the developing world represent an untapped market full of profit potential.

An Opinion On The Iran Sanctions

Posted At Great Satan’s Girlfriend

Well, well, wail!

Those magical stunning sanctions were to be like, super “crippling,” “biting” “smart,” and “targeted” sanctions

In reality, however, the best adjective to describe the new sanctions is “ineffective.”

“…Although the paltry effect of the new U.N. sanctions might not have much of an impact on Iran, it could spur the U.S. Congress to implement unilateral sanctions on Iran’s petroleum exports, which the Security Council’s resolution does not address.

…”Congressional sanctions probably will not change Iran’s strategic calculation either, but supporters can plausibly argue that they could choke off the money that pays for Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimates that oil sales comprise as much as 76 percent of the regime’s revenues.


While the wicked SA 300 Air Defense System is untouched by the sanctions – Great Satan’s right of interdiction is sweetly intact – consorted into the mix

“A very strict regime of inspections of potentially contraband cargo going to and from Iran that could — that would violate sanctions. So, states would be asked and required to inspect, on their land, in their ports, on sea, such cargo that may be suspicious.”

Tough to believe these – or any sanctions will reinforce desired behavior in Mullahopolis’ behaviour nuclear – and containment is more like wishful thinking than a policy

Essentially – Great Satan “…has already “checked the box” to show that engaging Iran doesn’t work. Now she’s has started the process of “checking the box” to show that the “broadest and toughest” sanctions ever imposed on Preacher Command don’t work.

And that leaves 44’s Admin’s Charade in the unenviable (for them anyway) sitch

“… with no other options except formal adoption of regime change as the explicit goal of its Iran policy—and/or military strikes…”

Pic “Sanctions aren’t a strategy! They’re a tool for achieving the strategic objective of preventing Iran becoming a nuclear weapons state!” with the Stunners

Sources: US to join advisory group with anti-Israel past

Associated Press

The Obama administration is preparing to join an international advisory group that the United States generally has shunned due to fears it would adopt anti-Israeli and anti-Western positions, US officials said Wednesday.

The officials told The Associated Press the administration plans to announce as early as this week that it will begin a formal relationship with the Alliance of Civilizations.

The five-year-old, UN-backed organization aims to ease strains between societies and cultures, particularly the West and Islam.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the decision publicly.

The Bush administration boycotted the group when it was founded in 2005 over because it feared the group would become a forum for bashing Israel and the United States. Those concerns were magnified a year later when the alliance released a report that officials in Washington said unfairly blamed Israel and the United States for many of the world’s problems.

Since President Barack Obama came into office last year, the United States has opened the door slowly to informal dealings with the alliance, including attending some of its meetings as an observer.

‘More positive approach’

The United States has yet to join the alliance by becoming a member of its “Group of Friends,” countries and organizations that have lent their names and support to its goal of countering the rise of religious extremism and cultural polarization.

The decision to join grows out of Obama’s desire to broaden US participation in international groups and improve its standing among Muslims.

Earlier moves have included Obama’s thus far failed outreach to Iran and Syria, his speech from Egypt last year to the world’s Muslims and the US decision to join the much-criticized UN Human Rights Commission.

The United States also participated in preparatory meetings for a UN conference on racism that the administration ultimately boycotted because of its expected anti-Semitic position.

The US had been the only member of the Group of 20 major advanced and emerging economies to refuse to join the friends group, which now includes 118 countries and organizations.

Many nations in Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia are members along with multilateral blocs including the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Israel and the United States have been among the conspicuous holdouts.

The officials said earlier fears about the “imbalances” in the group, which was set up by Spain and Turkey, had been dealt with after the United States expressed “serious concerns” about the 2006 report.

That report focused on the Middle East and identified Israel’s “disproportionate retaliatory actions in Gaza and Lebanon” as a main cause of Muslim-Western tension.

The officials said the administration had been assured by its current leader, former Portuguese President Jorge Sampaio, that it would take a “more positive” approach to its work.

The officials said they had consulted closely with Israel on the decision to join the alliance. Israel has no plans to join, diplomats said.

%d bloggers like this: