While it might be no surprise that, which our esteemed affirmative action Attorney General Loretta Lynch is apparently unable to do by decree, radicals in the Democrat party are attempting to do through legislation. One may recall that Lynch recently threatened to prosecute anyone who advocated violent action against Muslims in the United States as a response to escalating acts of violence by Muslims.
A group of Democrat lawmakers want to take Lynch’s initiative a step further. In a measure similar to laws passed in some European nations, House Resolution 569 is a bill that seeks to criminalize “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” The Resolution, submitted on Dec. 17, is currently on its way to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
We’ve been telling Americans for some time that the enshrining of Muslims as a protected class is coming, and measures such as this are efforts to that end.
Now, one might argue that H.R. 569 is an outrageous and blatantly unconstitutional proposal sponsored by the worst of the socialist cabal in the Democrat party, and they’d be right. A cautionary note, however: The unpredictability and capriciousness of sellouts among Republican lawmakers have facilitated all manner of malignant schemes enacted through Democrat legislation.
Remember – these are the same people who got Obamacare passed.
Recently, certain prominent GOP lawmakers came out in defense of Muslims after commentators and Republican candidates made rather blunt, critical statements about Muslims. This is in spite of the fact that the aforementioned statements were made in response to the increase in violence on the part of Muslims. If this inconsistency gives rise to cognitive dissonance, I would assure the reader that this is perfectly normal.
Like the elusive biological catalysts that prompt swarming insects and spawning salmon, the world’s Muslims are currently engaged in one of their episodic campaigns to gain supremacy within the known world. In our modern technological age, this means the entire globe. They are being facilitated by Western socialist benefactors who are using them in their own political designs.
Not only have we seen millions of Muslims streaming from their squalid, Third World toilets into developed nations, but we have also witnessed the abject arrogance and sense of entitlement amongst even the most destitute, unskilled, and uneducated among them. The West is expected to admit these miscreants as honored royalty, simply because they are Islamic.
The international press has given fairly wide coverage to the chaos generated by Muslims coming into Europe from the Middle East and Africa. Vandalizing public and private properties given over to shelter them, intimidating locals, dumping garbage in streets, and protesting such things as a lack of free Internet and dietary accommodation by their hosts – all of these have become regular fare. More than 800,000 have entered Greece alone, and in Italy, violent clashes have erupted between Italian citizens and Muslim “refugees.”
On the French island of Corsica, hundreds took to the streets earlier this week to protest the influx of these thoroughly ungracious invaders. Despite a ban on demonstrations imposed in the regional capital, protesters carrying the Corsican flag marched and shouted anti-Muslim slogans.
As a result of this refugee invasion (which, as we established earlier, was orchestrated by Western leftist and Islamic leaders), anti-immigrant factions are forming across Europe. While these groups are characterized by much of the Western press as bigoted troglodytes, their widespread coverage clearly indicates that the underlying problem does not lie in the intolerance of native populations. Outrage on the part of Europeans is no more indicative of their being closeted bigots than Superior, Wisconsin mayor Bruce Hagen’s recent public reference to Barack Hussein Obama’s role as a Muslim bent on destroying America. These responses are byproducts of the evidence at hand.
In America, criticism of the globally-advancing Muslim horde is seized upon as “controversial” by the press and the Obama administration, and we are admonished to deny the threat they pose and unreservedly accommodate them.
This week, WND’s Joe Farah designated the irrational deference to Islam we see among Americans as “Islamophilia Syndrome,” likening this to “Stockholm Syndrome,” which references a pattern of behavior noted among the victims of a protracted 1973 bank robbery in Sweden. My book “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession” detailed, among other phenomena, the irrational deference to black Americans that has been inculcated into the American population at large.
The parallel between Islamophilia and Negrophilia in this context is that both are contrivances of the political left – aspects of social engineering imposed upon Americans and calculated to bring about a resulting benefit to the left’s agenda.
A recent interview given to the “Hollywood Reporter” by black actor Samuel L. Jackson was very telling with regard to the insidious psychological devices in play here; I’m sure Jackson himself had no idea of just how revelatory one of his statements was.
On hearing about the December murders committed by Islamists in San Bernadino, Jackson said he had wished the killers had been white rather than Muslim because, with terror attacks now being committed regularly by Muslims on our soil, they have “become the new young black men.”
One wonders: Does this apparent show of solidarity mean Jackson believes that Muslims, like young black men, have a legitimate beef with America, and therefore justifiable reasons for acting out antisocially? Or rather, does it mean that our society’s concern over the actions of Muslims is as irrational as its concern over the actions of young black men – despite the fact that the actions of both Muslims and young black men have been demonstrably problematic?
Neither of these propositions are themselves rational, but both possess traits typical of the divisive train of thought employed by the left, and illustrate how readily they can be adopted by the individual, regardless of race, education, or economic status.