Fortress of Faith

Christian Apologetics toward Islam and Missions to Muslims

The Obsession Of Liberals With The Suppression of Speech – Part 2

freedom-of-speechThere seems to be an absolute obsession by liberals, by progressives, and specifically by this administration under President Obama, to censure free speech. It is interesting they they have no problem calling us names like bigots, racists, islamophobes, etc. claiming that they have every right under the First Amendment to do it, but if we factually criticize Islam it cannot be tolerated.

Back when Obama made his apology tour and gave his famous Cairo speech he gave us an indication of what his role was going to be when he said:

And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

From the very beginning we were told that Obama sees it as his responsibility as the President of the United States to fight for Islam. He believes he is to stop any negative stereotype against Islam. Now we understand why his administration is trying to stop anything that is critical of Islam. On the other hand, he has no problem with people saying negative things about Christianity. He even seems to enjoy doing it himself.

When you don’t have a good argument, when you don’t have the facts on your side, you attack the person. This is what this administration is doing in many cases. They are now trying to implement hate speech laws to keep people from criticizing Islam.

In his speech at the UN he said:

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

The things that are happening to suppress our free speech are exactly what this President said he was going to do. He is simply keeping his promise.

Our First Amendment give us the right to use negative stereotypes. We have the right not to like each other, and to uses negative stereotypes to tell others why. We have the right to differ with others in our ideas, and to express those differences.

The current Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, after the attack in San Bernardino, shocked us with a statement, which she was forced to walk back, in which she promised to prosecute anti-Muslim speech.

At the time this was one of the biggest Islamic attacks on our nation. Two terrorists plotted to take the lives of Americans in the name of Allah. It was an Islamic Jihadi attack and Lynch in essence said that she would prosecute anyone who pointed out that this attack was done my Muslims.

Listen to what she said when she “walked back” this statement:

The department is prepared to take aggressive action against people employing anti-Muslim rhetoric that edges toward violence.

Inciting violence should be prosecuted, but simply saying that Islam is responsible for these kinds of attacks should not be. We have the freedom to speak our minds in America.

The Homeland Security head, Jay Johnson said described his job this way:

We in the administration and the government should give voice to the plight of Muslims living in this country and the discrimination that they face,”

He thinks it is his job to give voice to the plight of Muslims. His job is to protect the American people from attacks on the homeland, not to be a press secretary for Muslims.

He also said that they are going to make gun control a national security issue. If they do this, they can violate our due process, they can violate our Second Amendment rights, and take away our guns by claiming they are a threat to national security.

Johnson’s statements are consistent with what his boss, President Obama, has said he wanted done. Both of them are derelict in their duties to protect American citizens, not be spokesmen for Islam.

All of this does not stop with this administration. It is also the agenda of someone who is running for President of the United States. Back in 2015, speaking at the Women in the World Summit, Hillary Clinton said:

And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

This tells us how she thinks and what she believes in. She actually believes that my religious beliefs have to be changed to fit her agenda. The agenda she was talking about was the killing of unborn children. As a believer in God’s Word, the holy Scriptures, I believe that we are “wonderfully and fearfully made.” God actually designed us in the womb. In the first 10 days there is a heartbeat in the child. She actually believes that if you have a religious belief that killing that unborn child is wrong, you have to change what you believe.

What other religious beliefs does she want changed? They say that we can’t believe that Islam teaches jihad against all non-believers. We have covered how there has been a purging of our security agencies training manuals of anything Islamic. Not only have they gotten rid of the words, they have gotten rid of the people who would dare mention Islam in their reports.

They cannot allow us to believe that Muslims and Christians have a different god. You cannot believe that Islam is inherently evil. You can’t say that Islam teaches the homosexuals must be killed.

Last week I pointed out that it was a Muslim that killed the homosexuals in Orlando, and who are they are blaming? Christians.

We also need to remember that Hillary Clinton was heavily involved in UN Resolution 16/18, which makes in a criminal offence to say anything negative against Islam. It is an attack against free speech. America had voted against this on previous occasions, but because of the involvement of Hillary Clinton in three international meetings with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation as Secretary of State this has changed. Their purpose was to tweak the language to make it acceptable. At first it said that anyone who denigrates Islam would be guilty of a criminal offense. She got it changed to the denigration of religion. While she was Secretary of State, America voted for the resolution in the UN.

This administration has tried to get Congress to pass this resolution into law and have failed so far. Hillary did make it policy in the State Department, and through the State Department, it became policy in Homeland Security. It is now policy in the Justice Department.

The result of these policies is that if you have good law enforcement officials looking at Islamic ideology as a motive for jihadist attacks they can lose their jobs. Islamic ideology cannot be considered when seeking a motive for a terrorist attack, even if the attacker says that it was his motive like Mateen did in the Orlando attack.

Let’s not forget that the headquarters of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation is in Turkey. Turkey is the headquarters of the OIC and may soon be joining the EU. What to you think Turkey’s position will be on Resolution 16/18?

When Obama spoke at the Islamic Center in Baltimore, a mosque which even the Treasury Department told him not to speak at because of its ties to Islamic terrorism, said:

Since the attacks in Paris, and in San Bernardino, we’ve heard inexcusable political rhetoric against Muslim Americans that has no place in our country.

This is why I refer to Obama as Islams greatest apologist in the world. He is the most well known defender of Islam.

Political rhetoric is supposed to be free speech. They are not defining what they are against. They are simply saying that any political rhetoric against Islam, even if it is true, is inexcusable and not allowed. We are rapidly losing our right to free speech.

100total visits,1visits today

Related Articles

Updated: July 6, 2016 — 5:50 AM
Fortress of Faith © 2015 Frontier Theme