Posted on 02/03/2016 3:38:04 AM PST by HomerBohn
This is why the party of treason must be stopped. Hillary Clinton has long been agitating for Islamic restrictions on free speech. Perhaps she hopes to silence all of the whisperings about her and her long-time love, Huma Abedin.
During her times as Secretary of State, Clinton met behind closed doors with the notorious Islamic world body, the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), in order to work towards American worldwide sharia adherence. Here is the poison fruit of the party of jihad's leadership.
"House Democrats Move to Criminalize Criticism of Islam," By Robert Spencer, FPM: Lumping together violence with "hateful rhetoric" is a call to destroy the freedom of speech. 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.
Islam must be destroyed. It is pure evil.
Wow, Geller slips that in as if it's just an afterthought.
If this is not when “all hell breaks loose”, Texas we should close our borders and stand guard against the hordes.
A truthful statement about Islam, that does not benefit Islam by having it said, is slander.
.
The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another......Sounds like that is exactly what they are attempting.
Someone want to explain to Geller what a non-binding resolution is?
1st amendment, 2nd amendment..... It’s all to be pissed upon by the Dhimmicrats
This is a start down that path... It begins with criticism of islam, and will be extended to criticism directed at minorities, non-Christian religions, homosexuals, communists, illegal aliens, and other constituencies of the Democrat party.
The final step is to then make such criticism illegal, and punishable by imprisonment and then we have become the USSR
She knows it's part of Dhimmicrat incrementalism. Don't be fooled, non binding is just a start. I didn't think they'd get away with “hate-crimes “ but thought crimes are now illegal.
It seems a good place to insert my current tagline.
Somebody tell me again how Barack Hussein Obama is not a Muslim.
This isn't America anymore.
Word!
You want to bet that no "progressive" federal judge won't use that "non-binding" resolution as cover for his decision that anti-Islamic speech is a hate crime?
On the bright side, The Lord and His apostles didn’t need a first amendment to speak the truth.
Yes.
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.