Extracted verbatim from The Post American Presidency by Pamela Geller, pgs 9-11
In October 2009, the Obama administration cosponsored with Egypt an anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations. Approved by the UN Human Rights Council, the resolution calls on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”
What could be wrong with that? Everything.
There is, after all, the First Amendment, which preserves Americans’ right to free speech and freedom of the press.
“Incitement” and “hatred” are in the eye of the beholder – or more precisely, in the eye of those who make such determinations. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as “hate speech.” The Founding Fathers knew that freedom of speech was an essential safeguard against tyranny: the ability to dissent, freely and publicly and without fear of imprisonment or other reprisal, is a cornerstone of any genuine republic. If some ideas cannot be heard and are proscribed from above, the ones in control are tyrants, however benevolent they may be.
Now no less a personage than the President of the United States has given his imprimatur to this tyranny.
In 2008 the Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanglu, issued a warning. “We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed” regarding free speech about Islam and terrorism. And he reported success: “The official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.”
No American president has ever taken more seriously his “responsibility” to restrict the freedom of speech and bow to Muslim demands than Barack Hussein Obama.