Hillary, Benghazi, and Free Speech

During the Benghazi hearings Secretary Hillary Clinton stubbornly blames Islamic attacks on You Tube video in spite of her own admission to the contrary. Why?

A really short version of the story might be this: “Hillary mysteriously blames You Tube video for Benghazi. Good News for Sharia; Bad News for Free Speech!”

A basic synopsis of the story: Congressmen are bewildered as Hillary sticks steadfastly to blaming terror attacks on You Tube video even though she privately denies any connection. Rep. Jim Jordan concludes election motives must be behind her behavior. Looking deeper we find that the Obama White House and State Department have been pushing the “inciting video” story to advance a UN joint project with the powerful OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperating) to undermine First Amendment rights and install Sharia Law worldwide.

A fuller explanation of events:

  • On Sept. 12th, 2011 and onwards Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained to the country that the attack on the Libyan Consulate Annex at Benghazi leaving four people dead was due to an “inflammatory video posted on You Tube”; this repeatedly backed up by Ambassador Susan Rice.
  • During the recent Benghazi hearing, Rep. Jim Jordon pointed out that Hillary Clinton chose that explanation even though she admitted it to be false in emails she wrote soon after. On Sept. 12 she wrote to the Egyptian Prime Minister that “We know that the attack in Libya has nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest.”
  • Jordon goes on to confront Clinton that the subterfuge had something to do with maintaining an Obama narrative going into a re-election campaign.
  • Though the White House has officially backed away from the Inciting Video explanation, Hillary and Obama stridently maintain their opinion regarding its influence on violent Islamic behavior.
  • It turns out the “inciting video” fantasy provides convenient pretext to achieve of greater goal. Kindly read on:


-In 2011 Secretary of State Clinton represented the Obama Administration at the UN Human Rights Council.

-In cooperation with the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation,) the largest voting block at the United Nations, UN Resolution 10-18 is passed “combatting religious intolerance”.

-In 2012, following the Benghazi attack, the Resolution was amended jointly by the OIC and the State Department to additionally condemn “defamation of religion”.

– Clinton issued a State Department release: to “not criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence”.  

Looking beyond the magnanimous tone, she is recommending that when speech does incite, then she recommends criminal action.

-Her comments wholeheartedly reflect the wording of the Amendment which sought to criminalize such speech and calling on UN members to pass appropriate legislation.

­ – The introduction of such a law is in complete accord with Sharia Law which penalizes any criticism, mockery, or even honest evaluation of Islam. Another consequence for us is that it turns the First Amendment on its head.
-Additionally, in the weeks after Benghazi, on Sept. 25th, President Obama went before the UN General Assembly to proclaim that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”. Again, blaming the video, and recasting the word “slander” into some extra-legal mold where the word has some vague subjective meaning verses a strict legal one. More like Sharia does.

  • So, the confusing hours following the attack offered and opportunity to introduce the narrative baked into to UN Resolution: that an expression of Speech caused the death of four Americans by irate Islamists, and that the perpetrators (those exercising that speech) should be charged with some yet to be legislated hate crime.
  • But why would the Secretary of State of the United States and the White House be interested pursuing a narrative of events that leads to the establishment of some alien system at the expense of our own? Sadly, this opens up a whole other discussion about the goals of the Progressive Left, the kind of alliances they regard as worthy, and why.