Posted on 12/29/2015 9:26:08 AM PST by Whenifhow
December 17, 2015 ought henceforth to be a date which will live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of the destruction of the First Amendment. Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell, Niki Tsongas, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others, House Resolution 569 condemns "violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States." The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
That's right: "violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric." The implications of those five words will fly by most people who read them, and the mainstream media, of course, will do nothing to elucidate them. But what H. Res. 569 does is conflate violence -- attacks on innocent civilians, which have no justification under any circumstances - with "bigotry" and "hateful rhetoric," which are identified on the basis of subjective judgments. The inclusion of condemnations of "bigotry" and "hateful rhetoric" in this Resolution, while appearing to be high-minded, take on an ominous character when one recalls the fact that for years, Ellison, Carson, and his allies (including groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR) have been smearing any and all honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to incite hatred and violence as "bigotry" and "hateful rhetoric." This Resolution is using the specter of violence against Muslims to try to quash legitimate research into the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy us, which will have the effect of allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded and unopposed.
That's not what this H. Res. 569 would do, you say? It's just about condemning "hate speech," not free speech? That kind of sloppy reasoning may pass for thought on most campuses today, but there is really no excuse for it. Take, for example, the wife of Paris jihad murderer Samy Amimour - please. It was recently revealed that she happily boasted about his role in the murder of 130 Paris infidels: "I encouraged my husband to leave in order to terrorize the people of France who have so much blood on their hands [...] I'm so proud of my husband and to boast about his virtue, ah la la, I am so happy." Proud wifey added: "As long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims, you will be potential targets, and not just cops and Jews but everyone."
Now Samy Amimour's wife sounds as if she would be very happy with H. Res. 569, and its sponsors would no doubt gladly avow that we should stop offending Islam and Muslims - that is, cut out the "bigotry" and "hateful rhetoric." If we are going to be "potential targets" even if we're not "cops" or "Jews," as long as we "continue to offend Islam and Muslims," then the obvious solution, according to the Western intelligentsia, is to stop doing anything that might offend Islam and Muslims - oh, and stop being cops and Jews. Barack "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" says it. Hillary "We're going to have that filmmaker arrested" Clinton says it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, certain that anyone who speaks honestly about Islam and jihad is a continuing danger to the Church, says it.
And it should be easy. What offends Islam and Muslims? It ought to be a simple matter to cross those things off our list, right? Making a few sacrifices for the sake of our future of glorious diversity should be a no-brainer for every millennial, and everyone of every age who is concerned about "hate," right? So let's see. Drawing Muhammad - that's right out. And of course, Christmas celebrations, officially banned this year in three Muslim countries and frowned upon (at best) in many others, will have to go as well. Alcohol and pork? Not in public, at least. Conversion from Islam to Christianity? No more of that. Building churches? Come on, you've got to be more multicultural!
Everyone agrees. The leaders of free societies are eagerly lining up to relinquish those freedoms. The glorious diversity of our multicultural future demands it. And that future will be grand indeed, a gorgeous mosaic, as everyone assures us, once those horrible "Islamophobes" are forcibly silenced. Everyone will applaud that. Most won't even remember, once the jihad agenda becomes clear and undeniable to everyone in the U.S. on a daily basis and no one is able to say a single thing about it, that there used to be some people around who tried to warn them.
Hank Johnson,boys and girls,was the House rocket scientist who once told an Admiral during a Congressional hearing that he was afraid that Guam would tip over if we stationed too many of our sailors/Marines there.
Good Idea. Why don’t we just line each of these “Representatives” (of Islam) up in front of a mosque...and let a masked conservative give them a few lashings Koran style??!!!
May their constituents have the where with all to go to the polls and vote them into obscurity!!
Buh bye 1st amendment protection!
Round em up! Interment and deportations are required!
Is anybody really surprised at this?
Your tagline is in full compliance with my tagline.
“Then they need to add Catholicism and all other religions to their bill.”
Don’t give them ideas. < /sarcasm >
“Free speech” as a doctrine and as an active living principle is almost dead in this territory once known as “the United States of America”. “Favored speech”, the non-offensive application of Political Correctness, is quickly becoming the paradigm, and a surprising number of supposedly learned and “educated” people have no trouble supporting this de facto surrender of what is an inalienable right, to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”, specifically delineated in the Bill of Rights, to include freedom of speech.
I’m sure it will pass easily based on the omnibus bill.
Are they going to arrest Trump?
Is this not government establishing a religion?
“Gee, protecting one “religion†while ignoring all other actual religions seems highly unconstitutional.”
Ryan and McConnell can put this one to bed by announcing they will not support an unconstitutional law that on its face results in the federal government providing special protection for one religion at the exclusion of others. This is a clear violation of the establishment clause.
Unfortunately Ryan and McConnell are tone deaf to the Constitution and the religious beliefs of the vast majority of GOP voters. Likely they will rush to expedite passage of this bill.
It's a fine thing to be vigilant over the crazy people in Washington, but let's "cry wolf" over things that aren't a real threat ... yet.
Bigotry? To have a stubborn and intolerant opinion of someone because of race, creed, religion, etc.
What’s wrong with this? They are going to try and tell people that they’re not allowed to feel or think something?
I have read some of the quran. I hate it. I would not tolerate it. The Japanese don’t tolerate it. Are these people going to move and ban the hateful quran?
“, it doesn’t become a law even if it passes.”
But we know liberals will eventually make it law. They always signal their intentions with “resolutions”.
If Thomas Jefferson knew what his party is up to these days, he’d be furious and would be going over to the Tea Party.
That would stop them dead in their tracks.
Before they pass that...Islam is a a pathetic excuse for a religion...mainly relying on murder of others.
Clear violation of the first amendment.
Molon labe, Beltway Folks. Come and enforce that law.
The only thing I am surprised about is why we have not seen the Enabling Act of 2016 brought forward yet. I have no doubt Ryan and Turtle would be thrilled to get behind this classic Rat legislation.
Those that made the statements are not fit to breathe American air.
One wonders if they are fit to continue living for the desecration of their oath
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.