"Aid and Comfort" are on the Way
Monday, November 13, 2006
Via the Harry Binswanger List, I have learned that the Dhimmocratic Party, flush with victory and eager to prove itself even more serious about having religion "in the public square" than the Republicans, will waste no time paving the way for our Islamic overlords.
As soon as they take office, they will begin working feverishly to pass legislation aimed at making law enforcement ignore religion when ... attempting to prevent religion-inspired terrorism. They will also attempt to prevent open discussion of the Islamic faith.
From FrontPage Magazine:
Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, who is likely to be the next House Speaker, has announced her intention to "correct the Patriot Act" and wants to criminalize scrutiny of Muslims at airports and elsewhere: "Since September 11, many Muslim Americans have been subjected to searches at airports and other locations based upon their religion and national origin. We must make it illegal." Since religion is the one factor that the jihadists themselves invariably point to as the motivation for their violent actions, Pelosi is calling upon investigators to ignore the single most important key to understanding jihadist strategy and goals. If she gets her way, any Muslim who is searched at an airport at any time will be able to claim that he is being illegally profiled; a law criminalizing searches of Muslims at airports would have a chilling effect upon any effort to investigate jihad terror activity in the Muslim community. [bold added]And if that is not bad enough, the Dhimmis will make it illegal for our government to rationally evaluate the ideology of our enemies.
[John] Conyers[, D-MI, the probable new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee] has also masterminded House Resolution 288, which condemns "religious intolerance" but clearly singles out Islam as needing special protection from such criticism. It states that "it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form," and "calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith." The bill was referred to the House subcommittee on the Constitution in June 2005, but Conyers, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, could rescue it from legislative oblivion. [bold added]And speaking of oblivion.... The only way we're going to weather these rabid America-haters being in power is to get hip to little plans like these, spread the word by any means available, and rouse the opposition. The first few months with these useful idiots in power will be especially dangerous, for the Republicans will be shell-shocked, the Dhimmocrats foaming at the mouth, and the American people almost entirely unaware of the nature of the new majority party they elected.
As a first step towards actively redoubling our efforts at self-defense, read the whole thing.
-- CAV
4 comments:
>it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form.
I saw that and thought how is it different from what the Bush administration is already doing? After all, this is the government that responded to the cartoon jihad by claiming that no one deserves to have their religion insulted.
At least the Conyers bill (first proposed back in 2005) has the virtue of being honest and up-front in its depravity and moral indifference.
That is an excellent point. And at least when the foolishness is presented openly rather than smuggled in, it can actually be more easily opposed.
Very alarming is this, which I hadn't noticed a while ago: "[HR-288] calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith."
Acts? Like criticizing in a private forum? And will we let CAIR decide what is "offensive" or "biased"? WTF? The advantage of evil being open (and so easily identified and opposed) is a dear one. If we don't act quickly and decisively against it, we may find ourselves nearly unable to act.
Dhimmacrat. Indeed, the best word for that thoroughly dispreputable gang which appears to be working overtime to sell us out and as quickly as possible.
While Mr. Bush's response to the Cartoonaphobia incident was revolting, the craven silence that characterized the universal response of his Democrat colleagues was not only thoroughly disgusting but extraordinarily revealing as well: Mr. Bush did NOT attempt to introduce his objections as a matter of LAW. The Dhimmacrats will, and they will do so because they either do no know or reject out of hand the very idea of freedom of speech, which means that they either do not know or reject out of hand the idea of an individual's right to think (that's slightly redundant: the Democrats rejected the idea of the individual long ago, which means that they reject the very foundational principle of this nation).
With the Dhimmocrats in power, we will see the GOP put to the test. Do enough of them see such measures as a threat or are too many eager to hitch Christianity onto this for the ride as with hate crimes legislation?
Post a Comment