House Resolution 569 was brought to our attention by one of our readers yesterday, sponsored so far by 70+ Democrats and titled “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.”
While violence should be condemned, the conflation with “bigotry and hateful rhetoric” is a direct violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment where offensive speech is as protected as unoffensive speech.
First Amendment- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.
There is no exception to the First Amendment for “bigotry” or “hateful rhetoric,” and there never has been. In fact, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that “government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.”
For the record, Clarence Brandenburg was a Ku Klux Klan leader.
The First Amendment protects even the most offensive speech as long as it is not used to incite violence or lawless action, which is why the hate group Westboro Baptist Church, the people that protest at funerals and hold signs saying “God hates fags,” who basically manages to offend almost everyone… is allowed to do because free speech is protected and is a constitutional right.
By attempting to pass any bill in Congress which would limit the right of free speech, 70+ Democrats listed below are not defending the U.S. Constitution as they are sworn to do, but instead they are attempting to pass a part of Sharia Law in America, specifically their blasphemy law.
Blasphemy in Islam is impious utterance or action concerning God, Muhammad or anything considered sacred in Islam.
What these Democrats are doing is trying to criminalize any criticism of Islam.
Via Robert Spencer:
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.
MEET THE U.S. HOUSE TRAITORS
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).
While by all accounts this resolution has almost no chance of actually passing the U.S. House of Representatives, just sponsoring and proposing the bill accomplishes a couple goals of the proponents of Sharia law in America, as explained by Gates of Vienna:
This House Resolution follows the usual Standard Operating Procedure, now so predictable I’m surprised there isn’t an ISO standard for it internationally: Any terrorist incident is followed by MB claims (some fabricated, some undocumented, some exaggerated) of increased hate crimes followed by efforts to externally validate those claims, as in this House Resolution. There follow efforts to censor 1) any speech that associates the terrorist incident with Islam, and 2) any criticism of the jihad-dawa system, its activist organizations, or its dhimmi supporters.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Easy to diagram or flowchart.
So it won’t pass, but it’s still useful to the Muslim Brotherhood to validate their claims among their own constituency, as well as to the media and the Low Information Voters, or those who just respond to any kind of “virtue-signaling”. And it’s useful to the 82 co-sponsoring Democrats, and the Democratic National Committee as a whole, to claim that all Republicans who did not co-sponsor are therefore, by definition:
racist; Islamophobic; bigoted; engaged in hate speech, by the sin of omission of not cosponsoring; and engaged in incitement to hate crimes, by the implied sin of hate speech resulting from the sin of omission of not co-sponsoring.
The Democrats listed above are blatantly trying to prevent anyone from pointing out that jihadists and Muslim extremists are using the Islamic religion to justify their slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world.
Not only does Barack Obama and most of our Democratic politicians, refuse to utter the terms Islamic extremists or Islamic radicals when referring to ISIS or any other Muslim terror group, but they are attempting to make it so no American can use the terms either. That is the end goal.
TEXT OF HR569
Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.
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;
steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;
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;
recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;
declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;
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 reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.
Feel free to correct me in the comment section if I am wrong, but I don’t remember these House Democrats proposing a resolution which stated “Whereas the victims of anti-Christian hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Christian or believed to be Christian” back in October 2015 after a gunman at an Oregon college singled out Christians, then executed them.
I certainly do not remember these same Democrats standing up for the “inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith,” when Obamacare forced Christians, Catholics and other religious groups to provide abortifacients which goes directly against their religious beliefs, or when a Kentucky clerk was thrown in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals due to her religious beliefs, or when an Oregon bakery had to pay $144,000 in fines for refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple due to their religious beliefs.
The bottom line goes to American Thinker:
This is a snapshot of things to come if we don’t change course. Creeping sharia no longer creeps. It is fully out in the open, and it is on the march. This is what happens when you have an Islmophile for a president, your government has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the clueless masses are hapless victims of media malpractice on the subject of Islam (and so many other topics).
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
Written by Susan Duclos
All News Pipeline