House Resolution 569 was introduced into the United States House of Representatives on December 17, 2015. It will be part of the legislation reviewed by Congress in 2016. Just to give you a peek at the language included, here is the introduction, right off the top of the bill:
“Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.”
Well, I think “violence” against anyone is already condemned and considered a crime under existing legislation across the land. “Bigotry and hateful rhetoric” has been the target of lawsuits, city ordinances, statutory law, and social pressure for generations now. So why do we need more legislation on the books condemning these behaviors and crimes against anyone? Of any religion? Race? Creed?
The U. S. Dept of Justice defines “hate crimes” as: “the violence of intolerance and bigotry, intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.” 41 states and the District of Columbia have laws against “hate crimes” on their books. These gist of these laws is that the penalty for committing a crime against a random victim is not as bad as for a crime against someone who has been targeted for one of the above reasons, which presupposes then the victim of a “hate crime” is hurt more than your average run of the mill victim. Seriously, an assault victim bleeds just as much whether the perp has chosen them because of a “hate” reason or an economic one, or for for whatever reason. A murder victim is just as dead whether chosen for the color of their skin or for the car they were driving, or the money in their pocket. Dead is dead, and the murderer is still a murderer and will spend the rest of their miserable lives in prison or be executed. As you can tell, I struggle with the logic of “hate crimes”.
Be that as it may, the fact remains there are plenty of laws on the books that address the issue for all victimized people, regardless of race, religion, etc.
But the point of this bill is this: Muslims are a special class of people, worthy of much higher standards of protection than, say, Jews, Christians, or Buddhists, Sikhs, or atheists.
So where does this idea come from? Well, I can tell you this much. It wasn’t the brainchild of Virginia Representative Don Beyer (D), sponsor of HR 569, who just happens to represent Virginia’s 8th Congressional District, which just happens to include the city of Falls Church, which just happens to be the location of the Dar al Hijra Islamic Center. This is the mosque, you may remember, where several of the Sept 11th hijackers attended, where Anwar al-Alawki was the Imam (before he fled to Yemen where a US drone took him out), and Major Nidal Hassan attended prior to his Jihad on Fort Hood. Dar al-Hijra just happens to be the mosque co-founded by Ismail Elbarasse, whose basement was a storage hold for a plethora of documents seized by the FBI in 2004, among which was the document known as the “Explanatory Memorandum for the Strategic Goal for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America”. This was one of the documents entered as evidence in the largest terrorism funding trial in US history. The mosque itself appears to have a long history of Islamic extremist and terrorist ties.
But, yet, even so, the Dar al-Hijra (“Land of Migration“) mosque is not the origin of HR 569.
HR 569 is but a mirror image of UN Resolution 16/18, which was formerly known as the “Defamation of Religion”, or more accurately “The International Blasphemy” law. The goal specifically in HR 569 is to stop any criticism of Islam or anyone or anything Islamic. This has been the steady mantra in the Islamic groups ever since President Obama stated in the UN General Assembly “The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of Islam.”
That statement was like blood in the water for sharks. It followed the White House propaganda line concerning the Benghazi affair where Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans were murdered by Islamic Terrorists. Muslim groups in the UN as well as around the country called for illegalizing criticism of Islam. The Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City posted a link on its own website to a petition for a “law against insulting one’s religion”.
Obama was echoed by the likes of Pakistani President Zardari who said, “The international community must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression.” In other words, violence on the part of Muslims around the world must be expected when someone criticizes Islam or the prophet Muhammad, and it is the critic’s responsibility, not the violent Muslim’s.
That same chorus was joined by the newly elected Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi of Egypt, and then Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it was time to put an end to the protection of Islamophobia masquerading as the freedom to speak freely. Turkey’s President Erdogen called Islamophobia “a crime against humanity”.
These officials were inside the UN in New York promoting their speech killing rhetoric while outside on the street and around the nation protestors were echoing the same thing, demanding the criminalization of free speech. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton co-chaired an international conference in 2011, applauding the adoption of UN Resolution 16/18, and promised to apply pressure at home in the United States to suppress Islamophobia.
UN Resolution 16/18 is the work of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the largest special interest group in the world and second largest governance body compared to the UN itself. OIC, funded largely by Saudi Arabia, represents 56 (Syria was 57) Islamic states throughout the world in their common interest of advancing the cause of Islam, which includes establishing the Sharia worldwide. OIC has been a subject of previous posts on this blog. For more information on OIC click here. The term “Islamophobia” was coined by OIC and propagated by CAIR, and has become part of the lexicon used to silence critics of Islam. (OIC’s inferred definition of “Islamophobia” does not mean ‘fear of Islam‘ as the word suggests; rather ‘critical of, unaccepting or hostile to Islam in any way‘.)
Obviously then, the OIC, by way of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), is behind HR 569.
CAIR was at the forefront immediately following the recent San Bernardino jihad (which left 14 dead and 22 wounded) and, according to Investors Business Daily, “running interference” between investigators and witnesses and suspects”.
“As medics were still removing bodies from the mass shooting, CAIR rushed to assemble a bizarre press conference, letting the media ask questions of Farook’s brother-in-law before the FBI had a crack at him.” – (H/T IBD read more here)
CAIR remains on the FBI’s “bad boy list”, and has been denied delisting by Federal Court as an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ in the largest terror funding trial in US history in 2008 – Un-indicted because the current administration suspended all previous indictments concerning that trial. CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood organization and has been proven to have direct connections to HAMAS.
CAIR was proactive and led the narrative in the San Bernardino jihad about the concern of “backlash” against Muslims. Less than 2 days later, the US Atty General was leading the charge on CAIR’s behalf stating her greatest fear was not terrorist attacks, but retaliatory acts of violence against Muslims. She went on, while addressing a Muslim gathering, to include “rhetoric and bigoted actions” in her list of prosecutions under way.
CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and all its affiliates are having great success formulating or perpetuating the narrative. Something tells me that “rhetorical terrorism” is a term that will be used by more than those spoiled little socialistic college students on college campus’ this fall. While they’ve been looking for a “safe space” from “impactful” words, the Islamists have been working to outlaw them.
Stephen Coughlin, expert in Sharia and Islamic terrorism, and past consultant to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Daily Caller this:
“Over the last few years, major left-wing and Islamists organizations have been working diligently to reframe free speech in an oppositional narrative that distinguishes sanctioned speech, designated free speech, from hate speech in a long-term campaign to brand nonconforming speech as hate speech that is at first to be ridiculed and then criminalized”. (Read more Daily Caller)
Read that again. Major Coughlin has summarized the entire Progressive playbook into one paragraph.
HR 569 in the US Congress has little chance of passing even if it gets out of Judicial Committee. And it’s a resolution, not statute (Not that resolutions are not important and formative). However, the really scary thing is it does have 82 Co-Sponsors, all Democrats. 82. [UPDATED 2/3/16: HR569 now has 125 Democrat co-sponsors. For more updated info see here.]
You can download the entirety of HR 569 here complete with sponsors names, or see the text below. It’s not long and I promise it will raise your blood pressure!
RESOLUTION Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States. HRES 569– Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim;
-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;
-Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native-born citizens;
-Whereas this Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;
-Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
-Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;
-Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances; and
-Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives— expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes; (2) steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
(3) denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;
(4) recognizes that the United States Muslim 12 community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;
(5) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
(6) urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and
(7) reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.
Well…isn’t that special…? I’m not even gonna unpack that sucker!!!