Category Archives: politics

Not a Single Democrat Voted in Favor of Ending FDA Raids on Raw Milk Farmers

By Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

Here’s some news for those who still somehow believe the political left in Washington cares about the People. After U.S. Senator Rand Paul introduced an amendment that would have ended armed FDA raids on raw milk farmers and legalized free speech about the curative properties of medicinal herbs, nutritional supplements and superfoods, are you curious how many Democrats voted in favor of this?

Zero.

Big fat zero, to be exact.

Not a single Democrat in the United States Senate believes in fundamental food freedom, farm freedom or the principles of liberty. Every single Democrat in the Senate is a Big Brother sellout who supports the FDA having more guns pointed in the faces of raw milk farmers, arresting them and throwing them in prison, criminalizing real food and destroying America’s small family farms.

Every single Democrat in the U.S. Senate believes that telling the truth about the beneficial effects of Chinese Medicine, or medicinal herbs, or nutritional supplements should be a crime that can also get you raided, shut down and imprisoned by the FDA. There is not a single Democrat who sees anything wrong with the government sending herbal product formulators to prison. There is not a single Democrat who believes that an Amish farmer has the right to milk a cow and sell that milk to their neighbor without being threatened by the government.

This is an astonishing milestone in U.S. history. When those in Washington who pretend to represent the People openly and publicly vote to crush the very liberties and freedoms they claim to protect, you no longer have a real Democracy. You have a police state.

The Republicans are only slightly better on this issue, by the way. Most Republicans also voted against this amendment. But there are 15 good guys who voted for it.

To see who they are and to read the rest of the story, go to http://www.naturalnews.com/035977_farm_freedom_FDA_Senate.html. (See also Natural New’s article on Sen. Durbin’s anti-supplement bill.)

“The Reason is Religion, Mom”

Army Pvt. Naser Jason Abdo faced his mother during a visit in a Texas jail last July.

Abdo had been arrested for plotting an attack on a restaurant in Killeen popular with soldiers from nearby Fort Hood. He would set off a bomb inside the restaurant, then shoot and kill as many survivors as possible as they scrambled out to safety.

His mother asked the obvious question. Why?

Jurors convicted Abdo for attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and attempted murder after hearing and seeing the answer on video.

“The reason is religion, Mom.”

He had to act in response to American military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a Muslim, he considered those affected by such actions to be family. “When bad things are happening,” he said, “you have to do something about it.”

His mother couldn’t comprehend her son’s logic, to which he explained, “it may seem crazy from the outside, but it’s not.”

Abdo’s reasoning echoes the justification offered by a series of attempted homegrown jihadists. If America is killing Muslims, the logic goes, Muslims must do whatever they can to stop it.

Abdo chose Fort Hood as a target because that’s where Army psychologist Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire a year earlier, killing 13 people. Hasan reportedly shouted “Allahu Akhbar” as he opened fire, and had built a disturbing record of justifying suicide bombings and endorsing other radical ideas during his time in the service.

Hasan had been in direct contact with American-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki before the attack. Abdo carried copies of al-Qaida’s English-language magazine, Inspire, which included articles from Awlaki invoking theology in urging Muslims in America to wage attacks at home.

“We as Muslims should seek the wealth of the disbelievers as a form of jihad in the path of Allah,” Awlaki wrote in one issue. “That would necessitate that we spend the money on the cause of jihad and not on ourselves.”

Despite the self-professed motives, Islamist advocates argue that radical religious interpretations should not be discussed in assessing terrorist plots by Muslims. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) even conspired with a political scientist in 2010 to gin up sales of the professor’s book, which claimed that religious extremism was a minimal factor in suicide bombings.

The group tries to pressure people out of discussing Islamic radicalism in general.

In the wake of Hasan’s Fort Hood shooting spree, CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told a radio interviewer that Hasan’s religious beliefs shouldn’t be considered as a factor. “He could have just snapped from some kind of stress. The thing is when these things happen and the guy’s name is John Smith nobody says well what about his religious beliefs? But when it is a Muslim sounding name that automatically comes into it.”

A week after the massacre, when Hasan’s beliefs and contacts with Awlaki were well established, CAIR issued a press release arguing that those who did discuss religion were exploiting the tragedy to “promote hatred and intolerance.”

And military leaders have shied away from the issue, omitting any reference to it in a report on Hasan’s Fort Hood attack. That drew a strong rebuke last year in a report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

“We are concerned that [Defense Department’s] failure to address violent Islamist extremism by its name signals to the bureaucracy as a whole that the subject is taboo,” the report said, “and raises the potential that DoD’s actions to confront radicalization to violent Islamist extremism will be inefficient and ineffective.”

It is just as odd to see the Obama administration take pains to avoid even uttering the phrase “radical Islam,” opting instead for a generic “violent extremism.” Continue reading

2012 AnthropoGraphia Human Rights Through Visual Storytelling Competition, June 15 Deadline

Anthropographia is a volunteer-run non-profit organization that generates awareness of under publicized human rights issues through visual story telling. The volunteer board of directors and advisors consist journalists, photo journalists, professors of photography, and leaders in the multimedia industry.

The Anthropographia Award for Human Rights gives photojournalists working in various communities and cultures opportunity to share their story or stories of witnessed human rights issues with an international audience.

The Call for Entries for the 2012 Anthropographia Award for Human Rights is now open. This competition, which is free to all, offers an opportunity for photographers to exhibit their work and demonstrate their commitment to human rights issues.

Submission deadline: June 15, 2012
Opening of the exhibition in Montreal September 6, 2012
Exhibition traveling internationally from mid-October 2012 to mid-July 2013

For the 2012 edition of the Anthropographia Call for Entries, we will be selecting 12 photo-essays and 6 multimedia projects out of the entries submitted. These will be selected by a team of curators, including Matthieu Rytz, Founder of Anthropo-Graphia, and our 2 guest curators : Tina Ahrens – Co-Founder of emphas.is and James Estrin – senior Staff Photographer for the New York Times and co-editor of Lens. From the selected photo-essays and multimedia projects, two awards will be granted by the team of curators that recognizes the particular achievements of two photographers in representing human rights issues.

These awards are:
The Anthropographia Award for Photography and Human Rights
The Anthropographia Award for Multimedia and Human Rights

For more info, visit the Anthropographia website.

What Made Leaders of the Past Successful?

By Peter Crawford

The United States is in great need of great leadership. Many former American presidents and leaders implemented active industrial policy geared toward manufacturing at home, and these policies tended to work. There are inspiring examples of U.S. directorship on both sides of the aisle, and they go all the way back to the birth of our country. Since then, the most successful American leaders have made a point to protect American businesses first and foremost.

During colonial times, British law was to arrest and jail anyone with manufacturing talent who relocated from Great Britain to the colonies. In response to this and several trade practices that impeded our ability to manufacture our own resources, economist and founding father Alexander Hamilton drew up steps to build up our own manufacturing – and begin our own country.

Decades later, Abraham Lincoln decided against importing steel from England to build a transcontinental railroad. Instead, he decided to encourage development of our own steel plants. He put import restrictions on British steel thereby giving birth to one of the key industrial engines of growth in this country.

In the darkest days of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt developed a system of import quotas and subsidies for American agriculture. This system remains to this day and that same group of farmers now receives over $180 billion annually worth of subsidies.

Dwight Eisenhower, in the mid-1950s, applied oil import quotas. John F. Kennedy produced the seven-point Kennedy textile program of restrictions on textile imports in 1961. Ronald Reagan put import quotas on steel, machine tools, semiconductors, and a 50-percent import tariff on motorcycles.

We have seen plenty of successful leaders devise strategies that protected and strengthened the U.S. economy. They recognized that manufacturing at home empowers a nation and its companies. It is high time another one of these leaders appeared, as our current choices champion free trade agreements and the outsourcing of production and jobs. They are either uninterested or incapable of making such a change, and this is crippling the American people.

This article was orginally published in Dublin, Ohio web publication Economy in Crisis on May 24, 2012.

Government-Supervised Financial Sector May Lose Value

By Cameron Smith

JPMorgan Chase recently disclosed a $2 billion trading loss associated with its principal risk management unit. For a bank with a capital base of almost $200 billion, a loss of $2 billion is more of a grand annoyance than a “systemic risk,” but the political rhetoric has been explosive. Despite the reality that taxpayer-backed deposits were not actually at risk, droves of politicians from the left are clamoring that JPMorgan’s loss is ample evidence that more government regulation is necessary while the political right is wavering on its commitment to repeal Dodd-Frank.

But, is federal control truly a better alternative? Greed, incompetence, and all sorts of other negative monikers could be applied to the American financial services industry at times. The same President, politicians, and bureaucrats who have shepherded almost $16 trillion in federal debt are gearing up the immense regulatory authority under Dodd-Frank to put the screws to banks concerning fiscally responsible behavior.

Dodd-Frank’s crown jewel is the Financial Stability Oversight Council. The council has ten voting members, nine of whom are federal government employees. Dodd-Frank tasks the council with “identifying risks to the financial stability of the United States”, promoting “market discipline, by eliminating expectations on the part of shareholders, creditors, and counterparties of such companies that the Government will shield them from losses in the event of failure,” and “responding to emerging threats to the stability of the United States financial system.”

With such lofty goals of fiscal soundness, some might wonder if the council might do well to supervise the financial activities of the federal government. The ugly truth is that the council’s members already do! The council’s members include the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Considering the federal government’s economic performance record, do Americans really want to give it radical control over the nation’s financial system?

Evaluating the financial performance of the U.S. government provides a startling comparison to JPMorgan’s recent activities. JPMorgan’s one-time loss accounted for about one percent of its capital base. Unlike those “sloppy” investment decisions, virtually every irresponsible financial decision made by the federal government is borne by U.S. taxpayers.

Since President Obama took office, the federal government has averaged annual deficits of $1.3 trillion. During this period, the “losses” for which the American taxpayers are responsible come in the form of generational indebtedness. This annual borrowing to fund reckless spending accounts for over sixty percent of average annual federal revenues.

Basically, the U.S. government would have been shuttered several times over if not for the capacity to borrow without meaningful limitation and millions of “depositors” who are compelled to contribute through taxes.

Financial regulation that informs the marketplace, improves consumer knowledge of investment risk, and streamlines the dissolution of failed entities may be prudent, but the controlling powers afforded under Dodd-Frank could quite literally result in the government control and supervision of America’s largest financial institutions.

Americans currently have numerous choices where they invest their hard-earned dollars. When one Wall Street bank proves irresponsible, several more are willing to take their business. But giving systemic control of all these options to those running the biggest “too-big-to-fail” entity in the world does not bode well for America’s financial future.

Cameron Smith is General Counsel and Policy Director for the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Mexican Jihad

By Raymond Ibrahim

As the United States considers the Islamic jihadi threats confronting it from all sides, it would do well to focus on its southern neighbor, Mexico, which has been targeted by Islamists and jihadists, who, through a number of tactics—from engaging in da’wa, converting Mexicans to Islam, to smuggling and the drug cartel, simple extortion, kidnappings and enslavement—have been subverting Mexico in order to empower Islam and sabotage the U.S.

According to a 2010 report, “Close to home: Hezbollah terrorists are plotting right on the U.S. border,” which appeared in the NY Daily News:

Mexican authorities have rolled up a Hezbollah network being built in Tijuana … closer to American homes than the terrorist hideouts in the Bekaa Valley are to Israel. Its goal, according to a Kuwaiti newspaper that reported on the investigation: to strike targets in Israel and the West. Over the years, Hezbollah—rich with Iranian oil money and narcocash—has generated revenue by cozying up with Mexican cartels to smuggle drugs and people into the U.S. In this, it has shadowed the terrorist-sponsoring regime in Tehran, which has been forging close ties with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who in turn supports the narcoterrorist organization FARC, which wreaks all kinds of havoc throughout the region.

Another 2010 article appearing in the Washington Times asserts that, “with fresh evidence of Hezbollah activity just south of the border [in Mexico], and numerous reports of Muslims from various countries posing as Mexicans and crossing into the United States from Mexico, our porous southern border is a national security nightmare waiting to happen.” This is in keeping with a recent study done by Georgetown University, which revealed that the number of immigrants from Lebanon and Syria living in Mexico exceeds 200,000. Syria, along with Iran, is one of Hezbollah’s strongest financial and political supporters, and Lebanon is the immigrants’ country of origin. Just like only 19 jihadists were necessary to cause the devastation of September 11, 2001, only a handful of these 200,000 are necessary to wreak havoc north of the border.

A jihadist cell in Mexico was recently found to have a weapons cache of 100 M-16 assault rifles, 100 AR-15 rifles, 2,500 hand grenades, C4 explosives and antitank munitions. The weapons, it turned out, had been smuggled by Muslims from Iraq. According to this report, “obvious concerns have arisen concerning Hezbollah’s presence in Mexico and possible ties to Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTO’s) operating along the U.S.-Mexico border.”

As far back as 2005, an article entitled “Islam is gaining a Foothold in Chiapas” showcased the inroads of Islam in Mexico:

Long a bastion of Catholicism, southern Mexico is quickly turning into a battleground for soul-savers. Islam, too, is gaining a foothold and the indigenous Mayans are converting by the hundreds. The Mexican government is worried about a culture clash in their own backyard… Muslim women in headscarves have become a common sight….

To appreciate the significance of the fact that Muslim headscarves “have become a common sight” in Mexico, consider the words of former jihadist Tawfik Hamid, who personally knew al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri. In his book, Inside Jihad, he writes: “The proliferation of the hijab [Muslim headscarves] is strongly correlated with increased terrorism…. Terrorism became much more frequent in such societies as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, and the U.K. after the hijab became prevalent among Muslim women living in those communities.”

After discussing an increase in converts to Islam, the article continues by saying: “It’s a development that is beginning to worry the Mexican government. Indeed, the government even suspects the new converts of subversive activity and has already set the secret service onto the track of the Mayan Muslims. Mexican President Vincente Fox has even gone so far as to say he fears the influence of the radical fundamentalists of al-Qaida” [emphasis added].

Kidnappings, as part of a drug cartel or as part of a jihadist operation, which legitimizes crimes such as kidnapping and child slavery, have become increasingly common. To convert non-Muslims to their cause, Islamists also whip up—and then exploit—a sense of “grievance” against the “white man.”

In addition, according to counterterrorism experts in this report, Islamic terrorists blend in better with Mexicans than with Europeans, thereby enabling them to sneak into the U.S. across the southwest border. This Muslim cleric, for example, discusses how easy it is to smuggle a briefcase containing anthrax from Mexico into America, thereby killing at least some 330,000 Americans in a single hour.

Similarly, Michael Braun, formerly assistant administrator and chief of operations at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), said that the Iran-backed Lebanese group has long been involved in narcotics and human trafficking in South America; however, it is relying on Mexican narcotics syndicates that control access to transit routes into the U.S. Hezbollah relies on “the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers and transportation experts as the drug cartels.”

Only a few months ago, Washington announced that FBI and DEA agents disrupted a plot to commit a “significant terrorist act in the United States,” tied to Iran with roots in Mexico. The increased violence—including beheadings, Islam’s signature trademark—is even more indicative that Islamists are well ensconced in Mexico’s drug cartel.

The threat is not limited to Hezbollah; back in 2006, according to ISN, “Mexican authorities investigated the activities of the Murabitun [a da’wa, or missionary-outreach, organization named after historic jihadists along Spain’s borders] due to reports of alleged immigration and visa abuses involving the group’s European members and possible radicals, including al-Qaeda.”

Even innocuous reports, such as this Muslim article, are cause for concern: “Today, most Mexican Islamic organizations focus on grassroots da’wa. These small organizations are most effective at the community level, going from village to village and speaking directly to the people.” Although this may not sound problematic, the strain of Islam being spread by many of these da’wa organizations is the radical, “Salafist,” anti-American variety. Here, for instance, is a popular Egyptian TV cleric saying that while Muslims must never smile to non-Muslims—who, as “infidels,” are by nature the enemy—they are free to do so if the Muslim is engaged in da’wa, trying to win over the infidel into the fold of Islam, especially if the potential convert can help empower Islam in any way.

These are but a few of the many reports on Islam in Mexico. The evidence that many Islamists in Mexico are plotting against the U.S., using all means—such as drug trafficking, which is not forbidden in Sharia law if it serves to empower Islam—is overwhelming.

Under various methods—from the violent to the subversive to the exploitative—Islam allows Muslims to lie and commit other duplicitous acts in the furtherance of Islam. Taqiyya [dissimulation] permits Hezbollah and other Islamists to engage in Mexico’s drug cartel, just as “pious” members of the Taliban in Afghanistan pursued the heroin trade. Aside from sheer violence, justified as “jihad,” or holy war, tactics pursued by Mexico’s Islamists include:

Kidnappings and enslavement, for which Mexico is already notorious. Sharia permits kidnapping, and even enslaving the infidel, in this situation, any non-Muslim in Mexico. The Quran not only approves of this, but allows male jihadists to have sex with female captives of war (Sura 4, verse 3). Here, for example, is a Muslim politician trying to legalize the institution of “sex-slavery.”

Extortion and blackmail, features of the Mexican landscape, are also permissible in Islam. According to Sharia, during jihad, Muslims are permitted to hold for ransom infidels to be sold back for large amounts of money. Here, for instance, is a popular Egyptian sheikh saying that the Islamic world’s problem is that it has stopped plundering and enslaving its infidel neighbors. He even boasts that under true Sharia, he could go to the local market and “buy” a female “sex-slave.”

In using subversive elements for da’wa, Muslims might comfortably use false arguments to turn Mexicans against their northern neighbors. For instance, they often argue that Islam is a religion of “racial equality,” whereas Christianity is the “white man’s” religion, imposed on their ancestors by racist whites who sought to keep them “impoverished” beyond the border. Islamist strategies in Mexico amount to trying to win the unbelievers over to their side, whether through conversion or just cooperation. For those who refuse to cooperate, they are infidels to be used in any way that seems appropriate.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. His article was first published by the Gatestone Institute on May 11, 2012

Super PACs Mute the Majority

[blip.tv http://blip.tv/play/AYL2tDwC?p=1 width=”480″ height=”296″]

UK Government Funds Forced Sterilizations in India

By Wendy Wright

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) The British government gave $268 million to the government of India for a program that forcibly sterilizes poor women and men, according to the Guardian newspaper. This news comes as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation prepares to co-host a family planning summit with the British government in London this July.

Melinda Gates recently dismissed the link between contraception programs and population control in a speech launching her new initiative. Titled “No Controversy,” her campaign intends to “change the global conversation around family planning” by discounting its association with abortion, coercion and immorality, and focusing on universal access.

Around the same time, India’s supreme court heard evidence of coercive mass sterilizations in filthy conditions.

Men and women are rounded up into makeshift rural camps to be sterilized, many left in pain with little or no care. Some women, sterilized while pregnant, suffered miscarriages. Some were bribed with less than $8 and a sari, others threatened with losing their ration cards. Some died from botched operations.

Uneducated men and women did not discover the true purpose of the operations until too late. In a region targeted by the UK government, a 35-year old wife of a poor laborer, pregnant with twins, bled to death.

Clinics received bonuses for doing more than 30 operations a day. Non-governmental workers were paid for each person they convinced to be operated on. One surgeon working in a school building committed 53 operations in 2 hours with unqualified staff, no running water or means to clean the equipment.

“Obsession” with reaching the United Nations Millennium Development Goals pushed India to institute coercive sterilizations, reported the Global Post in 2010.

“There’s a great hurry to again set targets from above to be followed by everyone. And that’s again creating problems,” said A.R. Nanda, India’s former health secretary.

“When you create an incentive system, it privileges one solution over the other and encourages them to cut corners,” said Abhijit Das, the head of Healthwatch Forum.

“And we’ve had very bad experiences with that in the past.”

Sterilization is the most common method of family planning used by India’s Reproductive and Child Health Program Phase II, begun in 2005 with UK funding.

Reports in 2006, 2007 and 2009 by the Indian government warned of problems with the program, noted The Guardian. Yet in 2010 the UK’s Department for International Development recommended continued support. One key reason was to address climate change. Reducing the number of humans would lower greenhouse gases. It conceded there are “complex human rights and ethical issues” involved in population control programs.

Despite the warnings, the UK placed no conditions on its funding.

The UK and Gates Foundation summit aims to collect “unprecedented political commitment and resources . . . to meet the family planning needs of women in the world’s poorest countries by 2020,” stated the Department for International Development, the agency that funded India’s sterilization program.

India’s fertility rate is 2.62. Pressures to lower fertility and reduce the size of families coincide with a worsening gender imbalance of more boys than girls in the country.

Wendy Wright is interim director of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM). Her article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM, a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.”

Gambling and Good Government Don’t Mix

“The first time Ohio voters say ‘yes’ to the gambling industry is the last time anyone has the chance to say ‘no’.” That is the way Rob Walgate, Vice-President of the Ohio Roundtable, describes the landscape as the first casino approved by voters in 2009 finally opens its doors three years later in Cleveland.

Walgate points out the string of broken campaign promises made to voters that have never come true. First is the 34,000 promised jobs that have never materialized. Next is the fact the amendment was so poorly written that the Columbus facility had to be moved and the Cleveland facility is not in one location but actually spans two properties. Casino owner Dan Gilbert is already discussing opening a third extended facility in Cleveland because the original boundaries were not sufficient.

“The tremendous irony here is that the same casino owners who wrote their own private monopoly amendment in 2009 are refusing to abide by their own amendment language. They are just doing whatever they please, and the Governor and the Legislature are willingly following the requests of the gambling industry. Instead of 4 limited casino facilities, Ohio is now facing three facilities in Cleveland and seven more racetrack casinos operated by the Lottery across the state. The deal voters approved has been displaced by an ‘anything goes’ gambling legislature.”

Walgate reminded Ohioans that all this was predicted all the way back to the first gambling campaign in Ohio in 1990. “The gambling industry has a history across the nation of turning limited legal language into a casino gambling tidal wave. That is exactly what was predicted and what is happening, only faster than anyone imagined. Once voters say yes to ‘limited’ casino gambling, the industry takes yes to never mean no. Sadly the Governor and Statehouse politicians are only too willing to please the new casino overlords. The voters have been kicked to the curb along with the Constitution.”

The Roundtable has been making the case that casino gambling and good government don’t mix for three decades. Currently the Roundtable leads a number of plaintiffs in a suit filed to enforce the Constitutional language of Ohio Ballot Issue 3, passed in 2009.

Founded in 1980, the Roundtable is an independent, non-profit, public policy organization headquartered in Ohio and reaching the nation.

USCIRF Alarmed By Blasphemy Amendments in Kuwait

By USCIRF

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) today expressed grave concern over the Kuwaiti Parliament’s approval last week of severe new penalties for blasphemy. The Emir of Kuwait has 30 days to approve these penalties before they would become law. The new provisions would impose the death penalty on Muslims who refuse to repent after being found to have insulted God, the Prophet Mohammad, his wives, or the Qur’an. For non-Muslims, the punishment would be up to 10 years in prison; for Muslims who repent, the punishment would be up to five years or a fine.

“These penalties are alarming and contrary to international human rights standards. It is particularly regrettable that a strong ally of the United States and a member of the UN Human Rights Council has taken these steps,” said Leonard Leo, USCIRF Chair. “The Kuwaiti parliament’s approval is especially unfortunate in light of the new consensus resolutions at the Human Rights Council – adopted in both 2011 and 2012 — that focus on fighting religious intolerance, discrimination, and violence without restricting speech.”

USCIRF urges the United States to work with Kuwait to address concerns about intolerant speech through counter-speech and positive measures, including education and outreach, as provided for in Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. The U.S. government also should urge the Emir of Kuwait to reject the pending blasphemy law amendments and focus instead on criminalizing only incitement to imminent violence. Such a reform would make Kuwaiti law consistent with international human rights standards and the intolerance resolutions that Kuwait supported at the UN.

“These draconian provisions should be rejected because they would place individuals’ lives in jeopardy for exercising their internationally-guaranteed freedoms of religion and expression,” said Leo. “As has been evident during the years USCIRF has monitored religious freedom violations around the world, blasphemy laws do not promote religious harmony as their proponents assert; rather, they exacerbate religious intolerance, extremism, and violence.”