Our Washington D.C. correspondent Frontinus sends this report on proposed House Resolution 569, “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States”, which is now before the U.S. Congress with 82 co-sponsors (all Democrats).
HR 569: CAIR’s Standard Operating Procedure
Your American readers who aren’t aware of HR569 probably should be, and your European and Canadian readers may be interested to learn just how successful the Muslim Brotherhood has been in its penetration of the U.S. government, and how close we are to seeing the full implementation of U.N. Resolution 16/18 in this country.
This resolution won’t pass, of course, but that isn’t what’s significant about of it. What’s important is the process that is now underway in Washington D.C., of which HR 569 is just a small part.
First, take a look at the text of HR 569:
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—
(1) 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 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.
Once again, this will not pass. However, the fact that 82 Democrats have co-sponsored it will be used to validate the Muslim Brotherhood (CAIR, ISNA, MPAC, etc. etc.) claim that hate crimes have increased (and of course they haven’t for Muslims, although they may have increased against Jews in America, who are historically identified in FBI statistics as victimized in hate crimes five to ten times more frequently than Muslims in America).
This is the usual modus operandi used by the Ikhwan, and it’s a consistent systems approach. (As indeed is the entire jihad-dawa approach to supremacism a systems approach. I recommend Jasser Auda’s text Maqasid Al-Shariah as Philosophy of Islamic Law: A Systems Approach — it’s light on the jihad doctrine, but gets to the broader implications of Shariah as a closed system with open-ended ambitions.)
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:
- 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.
It’s also worth noting that there are 188 Democrats in the House of Representatives, and 246 Republicans. So unless this gets a lot of new co-sponsors in 2016, a counter-argument against the DNC on this Resolution would be that it has met with overwhelming bi-partisan opposition from the majority of Democrats (106) and all Republicans in the House.
I think it both strategically and tactically effective not just to criticize the efforts of adversaries, but to point out when they’re losing dramatically, rather than to magnify their actual loss into the appearance of a victory. Of course, 2016 could bring new co-sponsors and then a bigger battle will be on.
But yes, it is a successful effort for the target audiences at which it is aimed, including the foreign funders for CAIR, ISNA etc., all of whom will be tickled pink that this bill has 82 co-sponsors. As will the OIC, who might have helped a bit in drafting the Resolution.
However, I think the American public as a whole isn’t very sympathetic.