House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Swears In Muslim Representative From Minnesota Keith Ellison Using Quran.
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.
This is H.R. 569
This is H.Res 569
If they criminalize speech against Muslims, they should also criminalize speech against Catholics, and how about hateful speech about white people?
“Islam is a totalitarian death cult founded by a child rapist.”
Libtards don’t seem to have a problem with this.
Every congressman of any religion can amend their religion onto that bill. They can also criminalize the statement that Jesus was not the son of God, for instance, which would criminalize islam.
No, they need to kill the bill entirely.
You all mooselimbs can kiss my hairy rear end
“Then they need to add Catholicism and all other religions to their bill.”
they don’t need a bill for that. it’s been ongoing now for the past 20 years
Can Pam Gellar be my cellmate?
That’s why they have such an affinity for Islam.
Adams wastes too many words to describe islam.
islam is a scam devised by a degenerate to give license for him to indulge his perversions. Nothing more.
...... But then again .... who cares about the constitution these days anyways.
Liberalism is all about controlling the masses....islam is perfect for total control and a the basest wants of men....no morals for men just perfect control for the leaders....the perfect war on women and democrats want you to not be able to say a thing against its evil.
Women following dems down this road are just idiots.
The surefire way to get the bill defeated: change “Muslims” to “American Constitutionalists”.
Which Representative will offer that amendment and reveal what’s really going on with the 2 Shariah-supporting Muslims in Congress and their allies?
The enemy of our current government is the American people.
And what, pray, would the punishments be for breaking the law about bad-mouthing the sand-n***ers?
As long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims, you will be potential targets, and not just cops and Jews but everyone
***************************************************
The only way for infidels to not offend Islam and muslims is to convert or die.
That is Islam.
Convert or Die
that, and being intolerant.
Gee, protecting one “religion” while ignoring all other actual religions seems highly unconstitutional.
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.