The Scariest Thing You Never Knew About Hillary—Thanks to the Media




There is no question that Donald Trump is damaging his campaign with gratuitous and suicidal insulting of the very groups he needs in order to win: women, Hispanics and independents. Many of them have been turned off by his unwise comments from years ago, and his attacks on some of the women who have recently accused him of inappropriate behavior. But even these groups could be won over if they knew how vital it is to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House.

Mr. Trump’s criticisms of Clinton have not closed the deal with those who are offended by those comments because neither Trump nor the press has reported the truly dreadful things about her. We can blame Trump’s inexperience for not focusing on those things, if he’s even aware of them, but we must blame the Media for most of America’s not knowing why Clinton must be stopped.

The liberal media is never going to do that, of course. But certainly, we should expect the so-called conservative media to do so. Unfortunately, it does not. As a result, Hillary Clinton has successfully portrayed herself as both a patriot and fit to be president. She is neither.

Fox News seems content to offer viewers the endless airing and re-airing of her e-mail scandal, or the daily WikiLeaks revelations. But there is info hiding in plain sight on the Internet that would be far more damaging to Clinton—info America deserves to know.

At the last debate, Trump mentioned Hillary’s threat to Second Amendment rights, but Democrats and independents are not so concerned with the Second Amendment as Republicans.

All Americans are concerned with First Amendment rights, though—particularly freedom of speech.

The holy grail of the Left-jihadist axis is to silence all discussion of Islam’s more unattractive features. It’s also long been a fervent mission of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a group of 56 Islamic states. This mission is pretty much accomplished in Europe, where a person can be prosecuted for being too critical of Islam. In Germany, for example, it’s called “incitement to hatred.”

What’s most ominous about the Democratic candidate is that in 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked diligently with the OIC to pass UN Resolution 16/18,” which calls on all nations to [adopt] measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.” [See 5(f).]

She also worked hard on the “Istanbul Process,” a series of meetings to make Resolution 16/18 a reality. At the July, 2011 meeting, Hillary Clinton “applauded the OIC and the EU for helping pass 16/18. She spoke of it beginning to overcome ‘the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression.’ She also remarked that 16/18 was intended to ‘prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.’”— American Thinker

America’s most precious possession, the First Amendment is the real target of the Process. It’s no coincidence that Resolution 16/18’s language is virtually identical to the wording in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which sets the standard for an exception to First Amendment protection of speech:

“(1) Speech can be prohibited if it is ‘directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action’ and (2) it is ‘likely to incite or produce such action.’”

There is a way the First Amendment could be so limited, with respect to Islam.

In December of 2011, Clare Lopez, a pre-eminent expert on the Middle East and Islam, wrote in American Thinker:

“The OIC’s purpose, as stated explicitly in its April 2011 4th Annual Report on Islamophobia is to criminalize ‘incitement to hatred and violence on religious grounds.”’

“Incitement is to be defined by applying the ‘test of consequences’ to speech.  Under this twisted perversion of falsely ‘yelling “fire” in a crowded theater,’ it doesn’t matter what someone actually says—or even whether it is true or not; if someone else commits violence and says it’s because of something that person said, the speaker will be held criminally liable.

“The OIC is taking direct aim at free speech and expression about Islam.”

And Hillary Clinton helped.

Clinton hosted Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu at the second Istanbul Project meeting, December 12–14, 2011 in Washington DC.

“The reported focus of that 3-day working session, held behind closed doors, was ‘Islamophobia,’ and how to implement tactics that would ensure Islam not be defamed,” wrote Ms. Lopez, in 2013.

Hillary Clinton will surely continue this quest, if she is elected. A Clinton SCOTUS appointee that sees criticism of Islam as an exception to the First Amendment is likely; someone like Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, who was on her short list for vice president, perhaps. The Daily Caller reported that he cohosted a meeting with Muslim activists in 2011, when he was head of the DOJ’s civil rights division. He took no exception to this statement of one of the activists at the meeting, Sahar Aziz, an Egyptian-American lawyer:

“The department’s ‘civil rights lawyers are top of the line … I know they can come up with a way’ to redefine criticism as discrimination.”

“’I’d be willing to give a shot at it,’ said Aziz.”

In his own speech, minutes after, Perez said: “I sat here the entire time, taking notes. I have some very concrete thoughts … in the aftermath of this.”

He also “applauded the Islamist lobbyists for persuading government officials to end extra security checks on airline passengers from Nigeria and 12 Islamic countries. The checks were adopted in 2010 after a Nigerian Muslim [the “Underwear Bomber”] tried to blow up a passenger aircraft on Christmas Day”:

“What did we hear in the aftermath of that? We heard a lot of feedback from people in this room and from leaders across the country that we could be doing a better job [by ending the checks] … and thanks to you, we did just that.”

Such is the breed of Supreme Court justice Clinton could appoint. It is, therefore the Media’s obligation to fully disclose Hillary’s menacing past acts.


Leave a Reply