Image courtesy Shutterstock.
Posted on 12/31/2015 11:10:34 AM PST by jazusamo
In the days and weeks since the Paris and San Bernardino terrorist attacks, Democrats have spent a lot of time worrying about an anti-Muslim backlash, and have proposed a House resolution to "condemn violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States" to deal with the problem. There does seem to have been an uptick in hateful incidents in the past month, although, as PJ Media's Rick Moran reported, one of the incidents turned out to be a fake hate crime. Most of the incidents are still under investigation.
Still, despite Democrat hand-wringing over this Islamophobic "backlash," Jews, not Muslims, are consistently the greatest victims of religiously targeted hate crimes in America.
In 2014, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports: Hate Crime Statistics found that "of the 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes: 56.8 percent [56.8%] were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders' anti-Jewish bias."
That amounts to approximately 647.52 instances where Jewish individuals, businesses or institutions were targeted. A mere "16.1 percent [16.1%] were victims of anti-Islamic (Muslim) bias," amounting to approximately 183.54 instances where Muslim individuals, businesses or institutions were targeted.
Yet Democrats continue to focus on anti-Muslim hate crimes as if they are by far the most prevalent. Speaking at Muslim Advocates' 10th anniversary dinner on December 3, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that "actions predicated on violent talk toward Muslims will be prosecuted."
Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Thursday warned that the Justice Department could take aggressive action against people whose anti-Muslim rhetoric "edges towards violence" and told the Muslim community that "we stand with you in this."Speaking at Muslim Advocate's 10th anniversary dinner, Lynch said since the terrorist attacks in Paris last month, she is increasingly concerned with the "incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric ... that fear is my greatest fear."
Democratic Reps Don Beyer of Virginia, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, and Joe Crowley of New York made a point of visiting the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia, on December 4. This particular mosque is notorious. Some of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers and Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan reportedly attended services there. And Anwar al-Awlaki, who the U.S. government believes was a recruiter for Islamic terrorists, was an Imam at the mosque.
Beyer said he organized the gathering to help counter a wave of anti-Muslim rhetoric that has taken hold in the aftermath of recent terrorist attacks. He also urged House members across the country to attend mosque services to support U.S. Muslims.
Since that visit, Beyer has submitted to Congress a House resolution that deplores violence and "hate speech" directed towards Muslims. House Resolution 569condemns "violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States." The resolution has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and currently has 82 co-sponsors.
Contained in the resolution is the troubling statement, "Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the Nation's founding principles."
It's nice to know that Democrats still recognize freedom of religion. Over the past few years, they've spent a lot of time and energy trying to force "reproductive rights" laws and gay marriage on Christian conscientious objectors, so people were beginning to wonder. But the statement does not show the same recognition from Democrats that the constitutional right to free speech is still "a cherished value" in the United States.
There is a reason for this. As Robert Spencer noted in FrontPageMagazine, the language "violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric" is designed to chill ideas and speech the left doesn't like.
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.
The "progressive" left reflexively sides with medieval Islamic ideals over the American ideals of the Enlightenment. This has been especially true of late as it relates to the First Amendment. The reason for this "unholy alliance" is simple. Progressives and Islamists share a common enemy: us.
They could’ve rammed this through at any point between January 2009 and January 2011. Nothing stood in their way.
But we can still be hateful against white males, Christians and conservatives - Right?
That must mean they're shutting down Democratic Underground (and most LGBT and Feminist student organizations on campus, then).
...and Planned Parenthood.
'bout time. (golf clap).
How about protecting Christians and white males and middle class Americans from hate speech?
Violation of First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, plain and simple. If this goes ANYWHERE, those who support it from the “so-called” conservative or the demodummie side should immediately be removed by re-call. If McDonald or Ryan bring it to the floor, they should be SHOT! Period.
They ain’t seen nuttin’’ yet.
I micturate on the unconstitutional efforts of TROP, and their Dhimmirat useful infidel spintriari..
The Gaystapo will be on the March..
Yep, and from 0bama himself.
Meanwhile, Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries had confiscated all the cash in Mrs. Klein's (Sweet Cakes owner) checking account and savings account as well as a special account set aside for their church tithe.
"We had three accounts," Mrs. Klein said. "I have one account that's labeled, 'God's money' -- our tithing. They just took it."
If that isn't government "hate speech" against our citizens, I don't know what is.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Would “hateful rhetoric” include a bonafide accusation of rape that includes matching DNA?
Poor wittle muslims, how dare all of us infidels take them to task for going all jihadi on all of the infidels.
There is no problem with Muslim’s per se. The problem is the concern that Islam is not compatible with democracy. Go to London or Paris and see big swaths of both Cities looking more like Tehran than a major Western City. Muslim countries show no respect for women’s rights, free speech, the right to vote or to choose their on leaders. Nothing in their history (to date) suggest an impending change of conscience. Muslim run countries are dictatorial or theocratic messes run by thugs under the veil of Islam.
If I was convinced Muslim were immigrating to the west to embrace freedom rather than erode it, I would have a better attitude about the entire endeavor. It’s just that simple.
A wise person once said, “It’s good to have an open mind but, don’t let it be so open that your brain falls out.”
Deprivation of Rights Under Color Of Law garners rather severe punishment. Legislators need be reminded of the fact.
“one of the incidents turned out to be a fake hate crime.”
At least two, Houston and Fresno.
Probably most are faked.
After the Charleston attacks on Christians were people encouraged to attend Church?
This is unconstitutional.
As usual, the left embraces their would be executioners.
What a travesty of justice that is.
Not only should that Oregon law be thrown out the Klein’s should have recourse against the State for being denied their First Amendment rights.
Death to Islam
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.