In FrontPage today I explain how 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.

Jackbo Godfrey says
Wow, so now the Global Jihad Movement (Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Iran, etc.) no longer wants the destruction of Western Civilization and Sharia Law over the Planet (including USA) because of this bold resolution. Wait? What?
miriamrove says
so we have to silences and self censor our selves so Muslims don’t get their feelings hurt? Aint happening.m
Susan says
Umm, tell me when have they ever not criticized Christians? I think if we can handle it so can muslims!
Paul T Leslie says
Actually Susan, Muslims can’t handle it.
Their tenets establish criticism as justification for them to cut your head off. It’s why Charlie Hebdo happened. It’s why muslims have unleased days of rage around the world.
Ronald Molina says
This is absurd and needs to be stopped!
Edwin1683 says
If passed, this resolution would be a catastrophe for free speech and the future of America.
Rocky Lore says
Democrats defend the Muslims who throw gays off buildings and stone rape victims
William L. Di Gennaro says
“If Freedom of Speech is taken away then dumb and silent we will be led,
like sheep, to the slaughter.” George Washington, 1783.
nacazo says
David Yerushalmi, where art thou? Is this even constitutional????
abad says
What should be criminalized is Islam, not the freedom of speech about Islam.
Wellington says
The Democratic Party of the United States has been increasingly discrediting itself over the past several decades. It has become almost indistinguishable in its goals from virtually all mainstream parties in Western Europe, which is to say it has lost its American character. Now, with this initiative it has effectively proved traitorous to the Constitution itself, and to the single most important part of the Constitution, the First Amendment. My disgust with the Democratic Party is total. Only fools or worse will remain members of it while still sickeningly calling themselves American.
The Republican Party is certainly far from ideal but it has not lost its collective mind as has the Democratic Party. These are ominous times indeed for freedom in America when only one major political party still embraces the Constitution in its entirety.
epistemology says
They want to replace the the First Amendment by sharia law. I can’t fathom it. I always envied you guys because of the First Amendment. It’s a superb democratic achievement. The clowns of the Democratic party have lost their minds. Unlike Western Europe American politicians don’t depend on moslim votes.Obama is Muslim Brotherhood, no doubt about that. He wants to spread Islam. But what about Hillary. I bet her Huma has whispered in her ear. Never surrender one single bit of the constitution to sharia. We need definitely anti-sharia legislation all over the West.
All the best to you and yours, take care my friend and a happy New Year
Jay Boo says
The supposedly “no God platform” Democratic Party suddenly seems to be making the Islamic god their appeasement to Allah platform.
DP111 says
If that is the case, the Democratic party should be transferred to Guantanamo.
Jerry says
Would these new laws condemn the hate speech and terroristic threats in the Hadith and Koran? Just wondering.
This must be the way our leaders want to make our 1st amendment sharia compliant. I’m just a dumb truck driver, but I know when I hear terms like “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric” in regard to islam I feel I’m rolling downhill without breaks. This is obviously a way of caging our free speech with violent criminality, thereby creating a judicial basis for silencing rational critics of Islam. Islam can threaten to kill the infidel because it’s a religion. But I bet if I draw a cartoon of a bearded man called muhammad and muslims are “offended,” well, you know who’s going to be charged with hate speech. I used to love my country. Now I fear it.
Jay Boo says
In reference to:
“Would these new laws condemn the hate speech and terroristic threats in the Hadith and Koran?”
Apparently not, according to the link in the article (House Resolution 569) this applies only to Muslims.
This must be a cold-calculated election year Democratic Party solicitation to obtain Muslim dirty blood-money for campaign donations.
revereridesagain says
You’re not “dumb”, Jerry. And being a truck driver is an honorable productive occupation, which is more than can be said for being a politician, especially one who has sold out to Islam. Of the three people pictured above, the one on the left is a criminal and the other two are shills for a tyrannical totalitarian religion. All three should be locked up, and instead they are powerful and free to plot how to silence and subjugate the rest of us.
Robert has been making a very important point lately, namely that this will get worse but it will also get better, because as Islamic violence and Leftist censorship increase more people will begin to see through the Muslim miasma and realize that yes, we are at war with Islam. Those in our government who should be protecting our freedoms are determined to aid and abet the enemy in silencing us. The Church is feeding the crocodile, other Christians are trying to blame anyone who doesn’t bow to their own “holy book”, but that is what it is and none of us can let it stop us from fighting back.
Charli Main says
Truck driving folk like you are the backbone of their nations. Honest, hard working folk like you are our best chance of driving the Muslims invaders back into the sea. (figuratively speaking )
Walter Sieruk says
First,that there are some politicians in America who many want to criminalize criticism of Islam shows that Islamic lobby groups must have so strong influence in the United States government.. This shows extreme extent that the Islamic powers of influence may even try to sneak through an unconstitutional “law” of making criminal the First Amendment of the constitution of the right of free speech.. Middle East oil money sure must by power. Second, This also exposes the the imams and mullahs as well as the other apologists for Islam must have no actual firm and real arguments to defend Islam . This lacking in genuine reasons based as foundation to uphold Islam is obvious, to all who are willing to see, by this attempt to criminalize criticism of Islam In other words a law to criminalize criticism of Islam shows that,in essence, Islam must be a very weak and fragile religion as to not being able to hold up to criticism.Third, This further proves what is had discovered through the years when talking with different Muslims. Which is that faith in Islam in based on powerful emotions and strong feelings and not based at all on logic or reason. This second and third point is a reminder of what Benjamin Franklin printed in POOR RICHARD’S ALMANACk .For what Mr.. Franklin printed may ,very much, may apply to a person having faith in Islam. For that ALMANACK reads “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”
Jay Boo says
A photo of the Qur’an dripping with infidel blood —
over trampled Christian bodies.
Islam
By George says
Islamization
Question: What describes an innocent, peaceful muslim? Answer: one who is not trying to kill or convert you. Those are usually dead ones. The rest are actually waiting their turn. Quran, 8:12,”I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.” Surely, this cannot be a formula for an individuals spiritual struggle, can it? I guess Donald Trump is right and the others aren’t!
It is pure propaganda to continually tell Americans that Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is only peaceful when it is not on the attack to subjugate us infidels. To even defend ones self from that attack places Americans in the position of being accused of racism Islamophobia and hate. These hateful words are screamed by the left-leaning press about anyone who objects to ‘em.
Ted Cruz recently fell for this line of propaganda by trying to differentiate Islamic Jihadists from Innocent, peaceful muslims. He’s wrong, of course! It can’t be done, but, he is running for high office and can’t be seen as not standing squarely for all citizens. That’s sad. Ted should really stand up for Americas Constitution and the rule of law as it applies to all Americans. To those who do not wish to comply and assimilate, he should invite them to leave America and return to their squalid, violent Islamic homelands. They have no business being here. Fat chance of that!
Quran, 9:14, “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.” To injure and humiliate Infidels (non-believers) has the blessing of Allah but, it is ‘ordered’ as a means of punishing non-believers and healing the hearts of Muslims as well.
How should non-believers (Christians and Jews) react to these violent teachings from the “religion of peace?” First, Christians and Jews must not be afraid to stand up for, and defend, the Bible and the Torah, and themselves. Second, clergy must seriously enact the biblical command to go forth and preach the Gospel. A few protestant denominations do this with vigor but many others, recognizing the change from Christianity to secularism, and afraid to contain it, must return to Christianity by example. Protecting sexual predators, hopefully now weeded out of the Catholic Priesthood, didn’t help them, and neither did the several evangelical TV preachers caught in adulterous positions by which their authority, and livelihood, was lost.
Quran, 9:33, taken from the final chapter of the Revelations of Allah, tells muslims that Allah has made Islam superior to all religions and in fact, sets in motion the need for Jihad, the expansion by military means to dominate all people and all other faiths of the whole world.
Europe is nearing the completion of its Islamization. Except for the odd spasms of Islamic violence, predicated upon alleged insults to the Prophet and Islam, the transformation is going according to plan. Not by military invasion as of yore, but by assimilation and over production in host countries, like cancer cells invading its host body. For Europe, the process has been slow, deliberate and methodical. For America, it is being hurried along by Obamas invitation to Syrian Jihadists to throw their roots down here, in our soil, to prosper and multiply.
Quran, 25:52: Therefore listen not to the unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness.” To “strive against” means Jihad. Islam means submission. Our politicians and preachers had better do some soul searching and do what’s right. There can never be a “peaceful, innocent muslim.” It just ain’t gonna happen!
Chabuco says
Are they gonna ban the Mein Quranpf? Ah, no…. just criticism of it and its adherents, of course. Nothing sociopathic about that.
Hutch says
Scroll back up and look at the picture again, Note the star in their crescent, you know who that is, look at it’s position, it’s in the core of the earth. It’s supposed to be the house of god….what’s god’s house doing in the heart of the earth?
Theodoric says
No book in the world has inspired more hateful rhetoric than the Quran.
No ideology in the world has inspired and motivated more violence than Islam.
No group of people in history has been more bigoted, hateful and violent toward people outside the group than the devout Muslims who regard the Quran as the word of “Allah,” and the brutal “Prophet” Muhammad as an “excellent example” for Muslims, as the Quran itself declares him to be.
Therefore let Congress now pass a resolution condemning the hateful rhetoric of the Quran, and the hateful and bigoted violence of the devout Muslim perpetrators of countless atrocities in the name of Islam.
Michael Copeland says
See “Book Reviews: The Koran”, at Liberty GB:
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/7010-book-reviews-the-koran
Loe says
You hear about bloggers or people from muslim majority countries criticizing islam and put in prison because of it, once again muslims trying to bring their backwards laws and force them in America. This will be a huge blow to freedom of speech, a lot of things have been changing since we got a Muslim president for America.
Miao Zedong says
Use the koran as template and replace kafir/infidel with muslim in your rethoric.
Richard says
A very dangerous move.
How do you define “hateful rhetoric”? According to Muslims, and their idiot supporters, if you say something that maybe true, but engenders hate in the person hearing it, that is “hate speech” or “hateful rhetoric”. Thus we are not permitted to say that which maybe true.
This if we point out the Quran permits men to beat their wives, mistresses and those women “their right hand possess”, or that Muhammad was a pedophile because he had sex with a 9 year old child, this would engender hate in Muslims and thereby be classified according to them as “hateful rhetoric” and would be criminalised.
Geert Wilders trial – “according to the prosecution it doesn’t even matter that what he says is true; what matters is that it’s illegal. Well, when the truth is against the law, then there’s something seriously wrong with the law, because when the truth is no defence, there is no defence, and the law has no anchor..” Pat Condell
Western Canadian says
To muslims, what you say does NOT have to engender hatred…. It merely has to be something they don’t want to hear. You know, something inconvenient, like the truth. About ilsam.
mark Smith says
Duncan Lewis (Head of ASIO Australia) – Imagine for Yourself the Images a Society Has Informed or Will Inform when a Society Accepts Blasphemy as a Normative Paradigm Within its Midst.
http://citizensfirstasnau.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/duncan-lewis-imagine-for-yourself.html
rrjdoj/proud American's says
Imagine when a society accepts BARBARISM against women and little girl’s such as forcible rape and female circumcision assisted by little boy’s.Oh yeah it should be allowed according to Hillary and company.ISLAM! ABSOLUTELY NOT!Go home and live according to perverse teachings of Mohammed.
annieoakley says
To find out who you are ruled by, find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
JawsV says
Here’s the Sponsor of the Bill: Donald Beyer, Jr., of Virginia (Democrat)
don@friendsofdonbeyer.com
Paul Leslie says
these people are not insane – they are evil.
Commiecrats possess the same world and life view as every totalitarian government that has ever existed. They are committed to the same ideology as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Fidel, et. al.
Democrats are anti-American, pro-Marxist, pro-Muslim subversives engaged in the betrayal of America. This article is a demonstration of their treason, and we can list a number of other current articles showing the same thing, e.g. their assaults on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc.
suh_swami says
If vacillating politicians can cancel or alter any of your rights, you had no rights to begin with…Civil disobedience is called for…These people are mortals, not Come get me Loretta…
worldcitizen1919 says
The resolution doesn’t seem to clarify, include or refer to hate speech by Muslim Mullas or Sheiks in mosques and Muslim gatherings. Surely if the objective here is to prevent violence then they would expect Muslims to tone down their rhetoric also???
Often in their sermons they inflame and incite hatred towards Jews, Chrisitans and Baha’is and Israel.
It’s equally not acceptable to condemn other Faiths and Israel in sermons, books, educational material because this is how terrorism is spread by indoctrination with inflammatory materials and videos.
This resolution is vague in the area of Muslim hate speech and that would lead to Muslims being free to continue using it with Americans’ hands tied behind their backs.
Or do they think that in mosques there is no slander against Americans, Jews, Baha’is and Israel??? That is very naive as we here in Australia deported a Mulla for repeatedly using hate speech in his weekly sermons at the mosque many years ago. I think he was deported or threatened with it and the hate speech stopped soon after.
The resolution should put all sides on notice that incitement to violence is unacceptable not just Muslims because it is the west who are being subject to terrorist attacks with people being killed not Muslims. Are Muslims being attacked in the USA by Americans??? This resolution seems to be saying that.
RonaldB says
I think you’re missing the point.
The purpose of the resolution is not to prevent rhetoric which encourages violent acts towards Muslims.
” House Resolution 569 condemns “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.”
The purpose of the resolution is to confound legitimate, but effective, criticism of Islam with the explicit encouragement of violent acts towards Muslims. It thus clears a way to make criticism illegal, while claiming to observe the First Amendment, which does not protect the direct incitement of violent acts.
The Muslims commit violent acts towards non-Muslims at the direct behest of the Koran and Hadith. You can’t be an observant Muslim and not be in favor of the violent suppression of non-Muslims when the time is favorable to victory. The Muslims who claim to support freedom of expression are going directly against the teachings of Muhammad.
Are the Koran and Hadith directly protected by the first amendment freedom of expression? Probably. The more serious question is, should immigration of all Muslims stop immediately, and should all Muslim non-citizens be returned to their country of origin? These actions would be completely constitutional, and would not affect the rights of a single citizen.
Gea says
Hate speech of Islam as written by Koran, Hadith and Sira -life of Mohamed (www.cspipublishing.com/pdfs/AtwohourKoran.pdf), which clearly results in creating “soldiers for Allah’ who commit crimes against humanity is NOT protected by the first Amandment of the US Constitution.
Islam is NOT a RELIGION, but an IDEOLOGY of HATE of ALL non-Muslims, which is incompatible with the US Constitution and the Universal declaration of Human Rights. Se need to use our laws against HATE speech against mosques and other Muslim institution which promulgate Islam as written in Koran, Hadith and Sira. SUE! Islam ITSELF is incompatible with the US Constitution and the Universal declaration of Human Rights, and therefore does not belong to any society that respects liberty, justice and human rights.,
jewdog says
Too bad Trump lacks the intellectual sophistication to skewer the Democrats with this, if he’s the nominee. I’d like to see at least one of the candidates have an appreciation for the First Amendment.
RonaldB says
I think you’re assuming that if a presidential candidate went into the details of protecting the first amendment, it would tip the election to his advantage.
The protection of traditional and constitutional individual liberties is simply not an issue with Democrats. They don’t care. They no longer identify primarily as Americans. Can you imagine Hilary or Obama viewing the US as anything other than a teat for the rest of the non-European world to suck on?
Trump’s job is not to skewer the Democrats, which will gain him no votes either in the primaries or general election. His job is to energize the Republican base with the conviction that Trump is not going to sell out the interests of working Republicans and Reagan Democrats.
The most important aspect of Trump’s campaign is to fence out and deport illegal immigrants, and to bar further Muslim immigration until we can learn to predict who will become violent and who won’t (good luck!!!!)
Ted Tyler says
If criticism of Islam is labeled as “hate speech” and criminalized, then Islamization of America will occur quickly. This is a critical treat to our freedom of speech and our efforts should be focused on preserving that freedom. Bill Warner has a short video on how Islam can infect a country called “A Rational Study of Radical Islam”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9sYgqRtZGg Check it out.
Aye Mok Mann says
So just repeat what the Qur’an says without any commentary or interpretation and leave it at that. You cannot be prosecuted for what someone else avers.
Problem solved.
blitz2b says
Brilliant idea….am If we expose Islam through the vile, venemous, hateful verses of the Koran, without commentary, then this alone would serve a purpose to educate the gullible liberals that Islam’s agenda is not to live in harmony with the non Muslim world population, but to utterly destroy civilization as we know it and replace it with the Islamic one.
If these hate verses are put on billboards all over America, then even Muslims would not vandalize them for fear and retribution from Allah.
So let us expose and destroy Islam using Islamic texts and teachings and refrain from putting our own thoughts that could be incriminating.
Michael Copeland says
In addition to the bill’s contravention of the Ist amendment it is discriminatory: it only applies to muslims. That, on its own, should be cause for opposition.
Jeremiah says
in 1776 we had intelligent heroes who used the pen and the sword.
Jay Boo says
Who is the greatest?
Whenever a bunch of insecure Muslim circle jerkers pull their nasty ‘Allah ackbar’ phallic symbol god out from under their Islamic-fetish man-dresses they expect us to coo with reassurance while fawning over them with approval.
Matthieu Baudin says
Anything to avoid naming the enemy and fighting it.
Asdis says
There’s a small chance of this resolution being passed, according to this. Even it does pass, it will not have the force of law and only applies to the chamber in which it was brought. I’m trying to understand what the effect here is – and that seems to limit how the issue is framed in congress, no? No one can make the connection between Islam and violence.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hres569
Angry Aussie says
Fingers crossed the next person to have their head detached in the name of Allah is a politician. Only then might Islam in the West be taken seriously. Bah! Who am I kidding? It would probably be written off as the actions of a mentally ill Lone Wolf.
Bezelel says
The people who put that bill together should be arrested for subversion.
Northern Virginiastan says
Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA-8) from Northern Virginia is the lead sponsor of H.Res.569: see http://northernvirginiastan.blogspot.com/2015/12/don-beyer-sponsors-hres569-on.html (shameless plug for my blog). My ‘”representative” Gerry Connolly (D-VA-11) is a co-sponsor.
Jay Boo says
Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA-8)
Isn’t the Terrorist training mosque Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia in his district?
Jay Boo says
UNBELIEVABLE
I just Googled this terror mosque
At the entrance (On the Row Street side ) in Street View option there is a blue campaign poster under a white sign
It reads ” Don Beyer ”
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8619726,-77.1470223,3a,90y,95.34h,80.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC7cVWgmbpjpKNBmn7xZkbw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
keith says
… don’t worry… that bill isn’t going anywhere… the Repubs won’t let it… but I can’t for the life of me see how the Dems don’t view this as suppression of free speech..!! … they evidentally take their cue from the Prez, who seems to be selective in his choice of what constitutes free speech… The First Amemdment shouldn’t be a cherry-picked interpretation of its text…
No Fear says
I have a right to be bigoted about a holy book that says I am worthy of burning in a fire.
Screw Islam.
Baucent says
“violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims”
This statement is the problem as it lumps objectional behaviour (“violence and bigotry”) to a group based on their religion, with the subjective behaviour of “hateful rhetoric”. Well who on earth will decide if critical questions are “hateful rhetoric”? What is hateful rhetoric to one person may be valid argument to another.
When you have members of a particular religion committing acts of violence in the name of their god and religion, the wider community has a right to question (to quote Trump) “what the hell is going on”. Politicians that don’t understand that right, are dangerous idiots.
Christine Chiomento says
Perhaps it’s more than time to fight ‘fire with fire’ here. They want to protect Islam from criticism, so why not insist they also protect Christianity and Christians from the same? I mean, since they will never listen to us when we protest against what they are doing, as they continue trying to dismantle our country through attacking it’s constitution, why not begin telling them the way it will be from here on out? They want Islam protected, then they need to reciprocate. If we can’t speak to muslims about Christ, then muslims can’t speak to us about their religious beliefs. It seems to me we are being cowed deliberately, and it’s leaving us scratching our heads, unable to figure out how to stop this nonsense, and treasonous behavior by our own elected officials. Turning the tables might work, at least in part. Giving us more time to pray and ask the Lord what else in the world we might try to keep them from subverting the very foundations of our country. Worth a try, I’d say. Nothing else seems to be working.
Edward Cline says
I broke this story on December 22nd. See http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-congressional-overture-to-censorship.html
staffsgt7 says
Then why are we not taking the Koran, sunnah, and even sharia laws to court? Oh, and let us not forget the denigration of non-moslems in their daily salat? Or we should be demanding the shut down of mosques and also ‘schools’ like Zaytuna that teach the hateful and intolerant sharia in Berkeley? The Democrats need to have it shoved right back into their faces the utter crap that is islam.
theBuckWheat says
What is at work when people who normally are aggressively secular move in unison to defend a religion that is so opposed to the libertine social aspects of secular progressives?
Luciano J. Ercolini says
Does anyone have a list of all the Reps. who voted for this bill. The list needs to be publicized.
Mark A says
Follow the link in the article and you’ll find the list you’re looking for.
Mark A says
For those wondering about the sponsors of this resolution, here are the names:
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
December 17, 2015
Mr. Beyer (for himself, Mr. Honda, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Ms. Norton, Ms. McCollum, Ms. Kaptur, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Peters, Mr. Ashford, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Takai, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Keating, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Gallego, Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Delaney, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Gutiérrez, Mr. Quigley, Ms. Esty, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Meng, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Farr, Mr. Pallone, Mr. McDermott, Ms. Lee, Ms. Edwards, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Michael F. Doyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Sires, Ms. DelBene, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Polis, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Pascrell, Mrs. Dingell, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Yarmuth, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Takano, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Tonko, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Ms. Matsui, Ms. Moore, and Mr. Heck of Washington) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
UNCLE VLADDI says
“Progressive” criminals pretend to hold submissive masochism as the highest virtue (for their victims to hold, not them) and the ultimate crime to be causing offense and hurting other people’s (criminal’s) feelings, (i.e: by accusing them of their crimes). So they want to make it illegal to accuse criminals of their crimes, since that might hurt their feelings and in offending them with the often-painful truth, “make” them commit even more crimes!
Is there anything which really ought to qualify as hate speech and be banned?
NO – not because it’s “hateful” (because that sort of nonsense is only making subjective assessments based on emotions;) and “HATE” is really only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam); without ‘hate’ we would never bother to accuse criminals of their crimes in order to stop those crimes.
Unreasonable false displays of hatred and anger on the other hand, are what the Left is good at – but that’s already illegal, not because of the anger displayed, that’s just the packaging, but because it’s fraudulent slander.
Such criminal leftists who try to make “hate” into a crime, only ever make it ‘illegal’ to hate crime itself!
Speech which is already disallowed is incitement of immediate violence and death-threats… and even those aren’t illegal, if say they call for the police to use violence to counter ongoing mob violence and looting, or call for the death-penalty for murderers!
mortimer says
UNCLE VLADDI wrote: ” the ultimate crime…hurting other people’s (criminal’s) feelings, (i.e. : by accusing them of their crimes). So they want to make it illegal to accuse criminals of their crimes, since that might hurt their feelings and in offending them with the often-painful truth”
The process of de-Nazification involved showing them undeniable documentary films of German atrocities.
We must de-Islamize Muslims using a similar process.
Angemon says
Fictional violence – apparently, in the islamophobic US of A, anti-muslim violence is so prevalent that muslims have to invent attacks in order to prove how terrible their situation is.