Falling Toward Socialism and Worse

[Soldier4Christ]

I'm sure that it won't even be tried on those like Al Gore.

It has been said that the google owner is close friends to the current administration.

[nChrist]

I'm sure that it won't even be tried on those like Al Gore.

It has been said that the google owner is close friends to the current administration.

I feel quite certain there will be one set of rules for the SOCIALIST PARTY ELITES and a different set of rules for the people. That's what happens in a country that is no longer free.

[Soldier4Christ]

Red Chinese flag flies near White House
Chinese festivities honoring 60th anniversary of regime

The flag of the communist Chinese regime has been raised over festivities near the White House honoring the restrictive nation's 60th anniversary, according to videos posted on YouTube as well as reports from the Chinese Central television network's English-language report.

WND reported earlier when plans were announced for the events held over the weekend, drawing a response from columnist Chuck Baldwin, who said the idea "challenges my vocabulary.

"Words such as UNBELIEVABLE, UNREAL, HORRIFIC, OBSCENE, even TRAITOROUS quickly come to mind," he wrote in a column. "Remember, the communist leaders of Mao's China are not called the 'Butchers of Beijing' for nothing. Since seizing power in 1949, it is estimated that the communist government in China has murdered more than 50 million people (some reports say the number is over 70 million)."

According to the CCTV documentation of the festivities, the park near the White House was used for "an eye-catching national flag-raising.

"Hundreds of Chinese came together to celebrate the 60th anniversary of their home country," the report said.

Organizers of the event stated it was the first time the Chinese national flag was raised in a public place in Washington.

Zhou Wenzhong, the Chinese ambassador in the U.S, said it was a step towards better relationships between the nations.

A Dutch student who also posted a YouTube video of the activities wrote the nation of China will "amaze" people.

"China is great! The west should take China as an example in many ways," the student wrote. "Perhaps the Chinese way is better than our western way, look what a mess the world is because of us Westerners. China can change the world!"

When the White House confirmed that the flag of Communist China would fly over the Ellipse, the public area adjacent to the president's residence, those following the issue were disturbed.

"This is an outrage," wrote on Fox forum page participant.

"Don't believe a flag belonging to a Communist nation should ever be flown in this country, at the White House or anywhere else," said a second. And a third added. "Which communists should we believe, OURS or theirs???"

Baldin warned of the dangers of forgetting past confrontations.

"Does the name Chosin Reservoir mean anything to anyone? Obviously, the name doesn't mean anything to President Barack Obama. However, that name means much to the tens of thousands of American families who lost husbands, sons, and fathers there," he wrote.

Chosin was a Korean conflict confrontation in which 60,000 troops from China crossed into North Korea to attack American troops at the reservoir. More than 4,000 Americans died.

WND's original report cited Obama's previous encounters with flag troubles. It was Obama's official campaign blogger who had a Communist Party flag in his Harvard apartment.

Such emblems also were an issue during Obama's presidential campaign when a Houston Fox TV affiliate captured images of a volunteer in an Obama campaign office working in front of a flag featuring the image of Che Guevara, the South American revolutionary who became Fidel Castro's executioner after the communist takeover in Cuba.

At that time, the Obama campaign issued a statement calling the flag "inappropriate" and noting that the office where it was displayed was funded by "volunteers" and was not the official campaign headquarters.

However, it was Sam Graham-Felsen, a journalist-on-leave from The Nation, who joined Obama for America in 2007 and worked as the official blogger. He, according to a 2003 article in the Harvard Crimson, adorned one corner of his shared student apartment with "a Communist Party flag ... bought on their trip to Russia the summer after sophomore year."

The coming flag event was condemned on the forums page on Fox News commentator Sean Hannity's website.

"People could understand if there was a Chinese visitor at the White House and the Red flag was placed on the stage behind the speakers, but to hoist the commie pinko flag in 'honor' of the founding of the People's Republic of China is absurd," the forum participant said. "This only goes to prove the Obama administration is out-of-touch with the American people."

William Gheen, chief of Americans for Legal Immigration, the pre-eminent organization battling against illegal immigration, said it's the message that is sent to the world that will be significant.

"Our concern is that sovereign wealth funds, like the Chinese, now control the executive branch more than the American people," he said. "China is not our friend. China is our enemy. Our enemy is coming and raising their own flag in a type of proclamation.

"I expect the Chinese media will make a big thing of it," he said, saying something like, "'Look how strong and powerful China is, raising our flag on the White House.'"

He said it conveys the same message as if Old Glory would be raised on the property of the Kremlin.

A spokesman for the American Legion told WND that if the proper protocols are followed, there should be no issue with the actual display of a Chinese flag, especially since diplomatic visits routinely include the display of foreign flags.

See the following link for associated videos:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110583

[Soldier4Christ]

Cops, deputies warned again about right-wing 'terrorists'
SPLC alarm: 'Militiamen, white supremacists, anti-Semites, nativists, tax protesters coalescing'

A private activist organization apparently is picking up where the federal government left off when the Department of Homeland Security issued its "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" warning that returning veterans and people in a long list of other categories were potential terrorists.

Only the new warning, delivered recently to police officers, sheriffs and other law enforcement personnel across the country, is lumping those dedicated to the constitutional principles on which the nation was founded together with crazed killers.

The fall 2009 "Intelligence Report" was issued recently by the Southern Poverty Law Center, where officials confirmed to WND it was published specifically for and delivered to law enforcement personnel across the nation. The SPLC did not respond to a WND request for other comment.

But the article groups members of various organizations such as Oathkeepers – whose mainly military and law enforcement members pledge to uphold their constitutional duties, including the duty to question and refuse what appear to be illegitimate orders – with a man "said to be interested in joining a militia" who is accused of killing two deputies in Florida.

Garbage, says a supporter of the individual rights of gun ownership contained in the Second Amendment.

Mike Vanderboegh is with the Sipsey Street Irregulars, who describe themselves as among the 3 percent as in: "During the American revolution, the active forces in the field against the King's tyranny never amounted to more than 3 percent of the colonists."

The SPLC "are conflation experts," he told WND. "They have a pot and they throw everyone in it in an attempt to tar the rest of us with the racists and terrorists they throw in there."

He said the largest number of active members of various "militias" are constitutionalists, libertarians and conservatives who simply fear the government's swift advances toward federal ownership of banks and auto companies, intervention in personal rights such as health care and obstruction of constitutional provisions with gun regulations.

Only the minority are focused on conspiracy theories and the like, he said.

He said, for example, he was at the Oathkeepers April ceremony in Lexington, and the members with no significant exceptions were highly decorated and long-term serving military members and police. The group's principles include statements they will uphold their oath to support the Constitution.

"What I saw there was quintessentially America," he said.

The warning from the SPLC echoes the alarmism from the earlier federal report. WND has posted the report online.

It warned of potential terrorism threats from those who:

    * Oppose abortion

    * Are returning veterans

    * Oppose same-sex marriage

    * Oppose restrictions on firearms

    * Oppose lax immigration laws

    * Oppose the policies of President Obama regarding immigration, citizenship, and the expansion of social programs

    * Oppose continuation of free trade agreements

    * Are suspect of foreign regimes

    * Fear Communist regimes

    * Oppose a "one world" government

    * Bemoan the decline of U.S. stature in the world

    * Are upset with loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and India, and more

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano later apologized to veterans for including them in the list but not to other groups of people, not even when WND also reported later that the "extremism" report was confirmed to have been based on Internet "chatter."

Under the headline "Going Feral," the SPLC warning to police quotes personalities such as Fox News host Glenn Beck, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann and actor Chuck Norris.

"It's like Thomas Jefferson said, a revolution every now and then is a good thing. We are at the point ... of revolution. And by that, what I mean [is] an orderly revolution, where the people of this country wake up and get up and make a decision that this is not going to happen on their watch," the warning quoted Bachmann, R-Minn., saying.

Norris, in a WND column in March, wrote, "How much more will Americans take? When will enough be enough? And, when that time comes, will our leaders finally listen or will history need to record a second American Revolution?"

Check out WND's impressive collection of 13-star Betsy Ross flags, Navy Jack, Gadsden and tea-stained flags!

Beck's "threat" was, "If this country starts to spiral out of control and, you know, and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control … Americans … just won't stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up."

In a later column, Norris addressed the issue in a discussion of the 9/12 rally in Washington, where hundreds of thousands of people assembled to protest uncontrolled spending by government and its interference in individual lives.

"On Sept. 12, 2002, we sought to protect our nation against terrorists from without. Beginning on Sept. 12, 2009, we are seeking to protect our nation against enemies of our republic from within. Many of us are protesting the present political direction of Washington. Outrageous borrowing, excessive bailouts, massive spending, speedball stimulus plans … swings toward socialism are just a few of things that were protested that day. Of course, economics is far from America's only problem, as large as it appears to loom," Norris wrote.

"I want to emphasize: this revolutionary movement is not solely an independent, Republican or Democrat fight. It represents patriots fed up against modernists who seek to overturn almost every principle and tenet laid down by our country's founders at the inception of our republic. From the East Coast to the 'Left Coast,' America seems to be moving further and further from its founders' vision and government," he said.

A column by gun rights author David Codrea said, "SPLC's Larry Keller asserts they are 'particularly worrisome.' A fair question might be 'why' or 'to whom?' It's not like they're associated with anything other than patriotism, in spite of his attempts to insinuate racist ties."

Codrea said a militia was important enough for the Founding Fathers to declare them "necessary to the security of a free state."

The terror theme also was raised recently by Democrats. WND reported when an "Organizing for America" campaign document outlined a plan to have activists telephone their state's senators Sept. 11 to demand a "public option," which critics say would lead to a government health-care monopoly.

Bobby Eberle, posting on a Republican Party site called The Loft, said Obama "and his team have no limits on what they will do or say in order to inject socialist views into the minds of Americans."

"They also have absolutely no respect or appreciation for the American way and the sacrifices Americans have made in order to stay free and to promote the American way of life across the globe. Just take the latest effort being pitched at BarackObama.com. Rather than remembering the Americans who lost their lives during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Obama's political team wants you to make phone calls on 9/11 to fight back against 'Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists,'" Eberle wrote.

The OFA plan said, "All 50 states are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly reseizing power for their treacherous leaders."

Shortly after the "extremism" report was released, WND reported, the Department of Defense was describing protesters as "low-level terrorists."

WND later reported when the DoD eventually withdrew a training manual question that linked protesters across the U.S. to terrorism.

The Thomas More Law Center has filed a lawsuit against Napolitano and the DHS on behalf of nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage, Gregg Cunningham of the pro-life organization Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Inc. and Iraqi War Marine veteran Kevin Murray.

The lawsuit alleges the federal agency violated the First and Fifth Amendment constitutional rights of the three plaintiffs by targeting them for disfavored treatment and chilling their free speech, expressive association and equal protection rights. The lawsuit further claims DHS encouraged law enforcement officers throughout the nation to target and report citizens to federal officials as suspicious rightwing extremists and potential terrorists because of their political beliefs.

[nChrist]

The above was an insanely bad move. According to them, the only ones left to be unafraid of would be COMMUNISTS AND FAR LEFT LOONS. By the way, these are the folks who do violent demonstrations, NOT the CONSERVATIVES. They aren't smart enough to realize that they also lumped in the vast majority of all law enforcement officers as ones to be afraid of. The vast majority of law enforcement officers are CONSERVATIVES, OATH KEEPERS, CONSTITUTIONALISTS, AND HAVE FIRM BELIEFS ON MOST OF THE LISTED CAUSES FOR FEAR. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR ACTIVE DUTY AND RETIRED MILITARY, AND ALL DECENT, GOD-FEARING PEOPLE. In fact, 80% or more of the population would be dangerous. NOT! THE DANGEROUS ONES ARE THE COMMUNISTS AND SUPER WHACKO LEFTIES WHO ACTUALLY THINK THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE OVER THIS COUNTRY. THEY KNOW THAT THEY CAN'T EVEN MAKE THE ATTEMPT WITHOUT TRAMPLING THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION. SO, THEY FEAR THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION - RIGHTFULLY SO! VIOLATIONS CAN EASILY BECOME A CAUSE TO REMOVE THEM FROM OFFICE AND PUT THEM IN PRISON! IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE PROPER RESPECT FOR THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION - THEY CAN LEARN IT IN PRISON!

I'm still sitting here considering how dumb and insane this is. They just insulted 85% of the country that most definitely includes the armed forces and law enforcement. I gave this administration way too much credit for intelligence. In comparison, Goober and friends may be intellectual giants.

[Soldier4Christ]

Hate crimes bill - law by the weekend?

A spokesman with the American Family Association says the hate crimes bill passed Thursday afternoon by the House could have a chilling effect on free speech and religious freedoms in the nation. If the bill passes the Senate, federal prosecutors will be able to intervene in cases of violence against people because of gender, sexual orientation, "gender identity," or disability. (See Associated Press story below)

Bryan Fischer is director of issues analysis for the American Family Association. The bill passed by the House, he says, is alarming. (The vote on HR 2647 was 281-146; see roll call vote)

"For the first time in American history we are criminalizing thought," Fischer laments. "Thomas Jefferson said the reach of legislation should extend to actions only and not to opinions -- and now we are punishing people not just for what they did, but what they were thinking when they did it.

"It's also going to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, especially religious speech. And [in] other places where these hate crimes bills have gone into effect, pastors have wound up in jail or fined for preaching a biblical view of homosexuality."

Fischer says he would not be surprised if the bill passes through the Senate by the weekend. "I suspect the president is putting pressure on some Democrats in Congress to get this done so he can sign it by Saturday night," says the AFA spokesman. "[That very evening] he's going to give the keynote address at the Human Rights Campaign dinner. That's the major homosexual advocacy group in the nation.  I think he wants this scalp on his belt walking into that dinner."

He also has concerns about overturning such legislation in the near future. "Something like this is going to be very difficult to repeal," Fischer admits. "It's doable, but again [there's] a slim chance that Republicans or conservatives will have control of either the House or Senate in 2010 -- so we'll be fighting a rear-guard battle for some time now."

The hate crimes amendment is attached to a $681-billion Pentagon policy measure that now heads to the Senate.

House moves to extend hate crimes to cover homosexuals

Assaulting people because of their sexual orientation would become a federal hate crime in legislation the House voted on Thursday. The bill would significantly expand the hate crimes law enacted in the days after Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination in 1968.

Should the Senate also approve the bill, federal prosecutors will for the first time be able to intervene in cases of violence perpetrated against people based on their sexual orientation or "gender identity." President Obama is a strong supporter of the hate crimes legislation.

Civil rights groups and their Democratic allies have been trying for decades to broaden the reach of hate crimes law. "It's a very exciting day for us here in the Capitol," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., saying hate crimes legislation was on her agenda when she first entered Congress 22 years ago. The late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was a longtime advocate of the legislation.

Many Republicans, normally stalwart supporters of defense bills, voted against the must-pass defense bill because of the addition of what they referred to as "thought crimes" legislation.

"The very idea that we would erode the freedoms for which our soldiers wear the uniform in a bill that is designed to provide resources those soldiers need to get the job done and come home safe is unconscionable," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, a member of the Republican leadership.

GOP opponents were not assuaged by late changes in the bill to strengthen protections for religious speech and association -- critics argued that pastors expressing beliefs about homosexuality could be prosecuted if their sermons were connected to later acts of violence against homosexuals.

Tom McClusky, vice president of the conservative Family Research Council's legislative arm, said the next step likely would be contesting the legislation in court. "The religious protections are pretty flimsy," he said. He contended that Democrats were trying to move their "homosexual agenda" this year because it would prove unpopular with voters next year.

[nChrist]

The only so-called hate crimes I'm aware of involving homosexuals is in the reverse - homosexuals hating and assaulting Christians. So, this is just more inside-out, upside-down LUNACY!

[Soldier4Christ]

Has anyone else heard about the new healthcare bill placing the DMV as the place to disburse who gets it and who doesn't? This is no joke. It is true that the DMV is being chosen for this task. Even though that isn't joke it does make me wonder if this is because the DMV in many states already have the equipment to test for CO2 emissions and will tax according to that output or put the subject off the road if they don't pass it. Make sure that you don't eat beans before going to the DMV in the future. 

[nChrist]

Has anyone else heard about the new healthcare bill placing the DMV as the place to disburse who gets it and who doesn't? This is no joke. It is true that the DMV is being chosen for this task. Even though that isn't joke it does make me wonder if this is because the DMV in many states already have the equipment to test for CO2 emissions and will tax according to that output or put the subject off the road if they don't pass it. Make sure that you don't eat beans before going to the DMV in the future. 

I see this as sinister - another agenda - involving law enforcement to develop DOSSIERS on private, innocent citizens. I hate this idea and would consider it to be a totalitarian style of an end to privacy. Law enforcement officers who understand what this means would be totally against it. The potential for abuse is great, and I personally believe this is why this method will be utilized and ABUSED.

[Soldier4Christ]

It is definitely and means to meet the ends with the ends being communism. The DMV in Illinois is already famous for it's many abuses. It's easy to see that it will be abused in the same manner and worse on a national basis.

[Soldier4Christ]

Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty in Copenhagen, Claims British Lord Monckton




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/

[nChrist]

I'm speechless right now!

Somebody needs to be bridled!

[Soldier4Christ]

I think they need to be bridled and hobbled and perhaps placed in stocks as well.

[Soldier4Christ]

Shut up! U.S. sponsors plan to restrict free speech

Joins Egyptians in proposal to United Nations Human Rights Council

A proposal sponsored by the Obama administration at the United Nations that purports to seek protection for "freedom of opinion and expression" actually is a call for a worldwide crackdown on freedom of speech and a mandate for nations to ensure "that relevant national legislation complies with … international human rights obligations" – a clear threat to the First Amendment, according to critics.

The resolution was submitted recently by the United States and Egypt. It was approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council as a first step in its process through the international organization.

It demands that all nations condemn and criminalize "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation told WND the issue is not about free speech at all but about installing international precedents to stifle any criticism of Islam.

Groves has written for the Heritage Foundation on the issue, citing the demands from members of the Organization of Islamic Conference that national legislatures pass laws to ensure protection against "defamation of religions."

"Such a ban … could not withstand legal scrutiny in the United States," he wrote. "The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech and expression, even when speech is offensive or insulting. Moreover, a religious 'speech code' would disrupt the assimilation of religious minorities that has occurred throughout U.S. history and could breed resentment rather than understanding among America's religious communities."

He also cited the need for the U.S. to oppose strongly any such move, "given the penchant of some federal judges – including justices on the U.S. Supreme Court – to rely on the decisions and opinions of international courts and organizations."

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice as well as the European Centre for Law and Justice, which has been involved in fighting "defamation of religion" plans at the U.N., said the "free speech" resolution itself "incites discrimination."

"The proclamation of the Gospel in Muslim countries has been called incitement of religious discrimination," he told WND. "The U.S. backing of this is a mistake. The Universal Declaration of Human rights protects free speech.

"I am very concerned the U.S. is co-authoring something like this," he said.

Sekulow cited the wording in several parts of the proposal, which was reported widely by other media at the time of its adoption by the U.N.'s Human Rights Council in stories that cited almost exclusively the "free speech" concept.

But Sekulow noted the proposal also raises "concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges states to take effective measures, consistent with their international human rights obligations, to address and combat such incidents."

Likewise, in paragraph 6, the U.N. writing stresses "that condemning and addressing, in accordance with international human rights obligations, including those regarding equal protection of the law, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is an important safeguard to ensure the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all, particularly minorities."

The U.N. General Assembly has approved a "defamation of religious" resolution in each of the three sessions from 2005 to 2007. The text always has been similar, and it always has had major support from Islamic nations with opposition from Western democracies, including the U.S.

Groves' evaluation noted that even "offensive speech and expression" is protected by the U.S. Constitution except in narrow areas such as obscenity and libel.

"Blasphemy, sacrilegious statements, and any other speech or expression that insults or denigrates organized religion is, for better or worse, protected by the First Amendment," he wrote.

Online critics of the administration were alarmed that it now is the United States pursuing a plan that would protect "freedom of opinion and expression" by cracking down on statements critical of issues, groups or religions.

In a column published on Europe News, Robert Spencer of JihadWatch wrote that while reducing "advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred" sounds like a good idea, there is plenty wrong with it.

"First of all, there's that little matter of the First Amendment, which preserves Americans' right to free speech and freedom of the press, which are obviously mutually inclusive. Any law that infringed on speech at all – far less in such vague and sweeping terms – would be unconstitutional," he wrote.

"'Incitement' and 'hatred' are in the eye of the beholder – or more precisely, in the eye of those who make such determinations," he continued. "The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as 'hate speech.' The Founding Fathers knew that the 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."

The resolution cites the "right to freedom of opinion and expression" as "one of the essential foundations of a democratic society."

It also expresses deep concern over "violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression."

cont'd

[Soldier4Christ]

But it also cites the responsibility of states to "encourage free, responsible and mutually respectful dialogue."

The resolution then "calls upon all states … to take all necessary measures to put an end to violations of these rights and to create the conditions to prevent such violations, including by ensuring that relevant national legislation complies with their international human rights obligations and is effectively implemented."

It also demands that nations "promote a pluralistic approach to information and multiple points of view by encouraging a diversity of ownership of media and of sources of information."

Egyptian spokesman Hisham Badr told the assembly, according to a U.N. report, that freedom of expression sometimes has been "misused to proliferate negative racial and religious stereotyping and incitement to racial and religious hatred."

He said "every state must condemn and resolve to combat them in according with the obligation stipulated in human rights law," the U.N. said.

Speaking for the United States on behalf of the plan, Chargé ad interim Douglas M. Griffiths said the effort was intended to build on the commitment from President Obama in a Cairo speech that the U.S. was ready to "help bridg[e] the unhelpful divide regarding freedom of opinion and expression," according to the U.N.

Zamir Akram of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference noted the "duties and responsibilities" of nations to fight hate speech. He cited the need to protect not only individuals but religious and belief systems from "negative stereotyping."

"Now no less distinguished a personage than the president of the United States has given his imprimatur to this tyranny; the implications are grave," Spencer continued. "The resolution also condemns 'negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups,' which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism – for that, not actual negative stereotyping or hateful language, is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and allied groups. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Quranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that's 'negative stereotyping.'"

Eugene Volokh, who teaches free speech law, criminal law, tort law, religious freedom law and other subjects at UCLA, and also founded the Volokh Conspiracy weblog, said that the First Amendment protecting speech in the United States isn't so secure all of a sudden.

"If the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech, presumably we are taking the view that all countries – including the U.S. – should adhere to this resolution," he said.

"If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we're implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it,' he said.

The administration, he opined, would "presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such changes).

"I'm worried that it might be a step backward for our own constitutional rights, because of what seems to be the U.S. endorsement of the suppression of 'any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence' and possibly of 'negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups,'" Volokh said.

"Advocacy of mere hostility – for instance advocacy that people should hate and be hostile to radical strains of Islam (and its adherents), or to Scientology, or to Catholicism, or to fundamentalist Christianity, or for that matter to religion generally – is clearly constitutionally protected here in the U.S.; but the resolution seems to call for its prohibition," he said.

"Beyond that, I'm worried that the executive branch's endorsement of speech-restrictive 'international human rights' norms will affect how the courts interpret the First Amendment, so that over time, 'an international norm against hate speech ... [would] supply a basis for prohibiting [hate speech], the First Amendment notwithstanding,'" he said.

Spencer reported in 2008 the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic States, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, warned, "We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed" regarding free speech about Islam and terrorism.

"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," Ihsanoglu continued, according to Spencer's report.

On Volokh's Web forum, one participant said, "Just another example of how the Chicago Mafia that is now running this country is going to destroy it, in advocacy of their beloved New World Order, in which the USA is secondary to 'international groups,' and indeed is held equal with, let us say, the Congo, or perhaps Belize, or Luxemburg, etc."

Added another, "Future liberal academics and judges will cite resolutions like this to claim the existence of a 'compelling interest' in banning 'hate speech' that overrides free speech rights. … In practice, hate speech laws are used in most of the world to silence dissent, not protect vulnerable minorities."

The 57 member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have lobbied for the "anti-defamation" plan, which is based on the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, since 1999. The Cairo declaration states "that all rights are subject to Shariah law, and makes Shariah law the only source of reference for human rights."

The U.S. State Department also has found the proposal unpalatable.

"This resolution is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to address the situation of all religions," said a statement from Leonard Leo. "We believe that such inclusive language would have furthered the objective of promoting religious freedom. We also believe that any resolution on this topic must include mention of the need to change educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion."