Hillary's Freudian Slip?

    The first paragraph of this excerpt from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's address to the opening of the UNHRC should raise some concern. I have highlighted the last two sentences of that paragraph.  It appears that she conceives of the HRC as a country instead of a council.  Even the United Nations is not a nation, a sovereign entity. The footnote does not help.  If she did not intend to expand the HRC or its parent organization into a sovereign entity, then the footnote should have corrected the slip.

    The paragraph begins with the first sign of insanity: assertion of a possibility of improving a failed institution whose majority bloc is fundamentally opposed to the council's mission.  Any sane person would know that there is no possibility that one out of 47 members of the council could move it onto the right track. 

    A few paragraphs later, Hillary launches into a sore subject: the annual ritual of condemning 'defamation of Islam'.  She pretends opposition to the ritual & resolution, but we know from the "Freedom of Belief and Expression" jointly sponsored by the State Department and Egypt, that Obomination actually favors censorship.   The transparently false distinction between 'defamation of Islam' and 'negative stereotyping of Islam' stinks like an open sewer.

    Insults?  Stating the fact that Islam's 52 year old founder married the six year old daughter of his bosom buddy, as recorded in muttawir ahadith, is not an insult, it is a statement of historical fact, as is his consummation of that marriage three years later, when Aisha was nine.

    Stating the fact that Islam declared and is prosecuting perpetual warfare against the rest of the human race is not an insult, it is a statement of fact. Since the Qur'an has been translated into multiple languages and posted on the internet, it is possible for us to read it and discover the truth for ourselves.

    Stating the fact that terrorism is an intrinsic, foundational sacrament of Islam is not an insult, it is a statement of fact.  The six canonical hadith collections, like the Qur'an, have been translated and uploaded so that we can  learn that Moe was made victorious by terror. The fatal facts become clear  when certain Qur'an verses are read in the light of Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 and 1.7.331.  Those are 3:151, 8:12, 8:57, 8:60, 9:120,  33:26, 59:2 & 59:13. Yet the resolutions complain that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with terrorism and human rights violations.".

    So Hillary proposes replacing the resolutions with "concrete steps to fight intolerance".  Would she tolerate vampires if they were real instead of mythological?  But she insists that we tolerate the continued existence and expansion of a piracy cult which has murdered an estimated 270,000,000 people since it began its depredations in 622.

    Why  would any sane person tolerate a piracy cult that asserts a divine mandate to conquer the entire world;  declaring the lives and property of non-believers  not to be sacred?  They declare open season on us and we are supposed to tolerate it.  Someone's  head is so far up her anus that she can  perceive neither objective factual reality nor justice. 

    Respect & tolerance must be reciprocal, but Islam is supremely intolerant.  The Qur'an curses us and calls us the worst of living creatures. Islam can not tolerate criticism or questioning because it is false, woven of stories plagiarized from previous faiths. 

    Islam's Shari'ah law prescribes the death penalty for any negative expression about Allah, Moe and their damned cult. The same draconian rule is imposed on conquered Christians.  This annual attempt to impose their rule on us is part of their program of world conquest. We must elect a President who will jam it up their snouts!

[...] In 2009, the United States joined the Human Rights Council because President Obama and I believed we could make a difference by working with you on the inside rather than standing on the outside merely as a critic. And over the past 18 months, we have worked together. We’ve reached across regional lines in an attempt to overcome what hobbles this country^[i] more than anything else, our divisions as member states. The unity of purpose we have forged with respect to Libya offers us an opportunity to continue that progress.

[...]

For example, in this session we have an opportunity to move beyond a decade-long debate over whether insults to religion should be banned or criminalized. It is time to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression and pursue a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs.

[...]

[i] council more than...