Wednesday, December 30, 2015


Washington, D.C. Office
127A Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-5042

Wilmington Office

1105 N. Market St., Suite 100, Wilmington, DE 19801-1233
(302) 573-6345

Dover Office

500 West Loockerman Street, Suite 450, Dover, DE 19904
(302) 736-5601 or toll-free 877-668-3368
Published on Dec 30, 2015
As if funding them, training them, "accidentally" dropping weapons in their territory, and spending $5 billion taxpayer funds ineffectively wasn't enough, elected officials want to squeeze even more of your hard earned money for the neverending war on terror. Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, went on the Morning Joe Show to call for a “small surtax” to pay for the war against the Islamic State.
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 - The Washington Times - Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Sen. Chris Coons said Tuesday that he believes a war surtax is a viable solution to funding the fight against the Islamic State terror group.
The Delaware Democrat argued on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that the United States “charged” into war with Iraq and Afghanistan with “no serious thought” on how to pay for it.
 “As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and Appropriations Committee, I’m trying to raise my hand and saying we’re not doing our job in Congress,” Mr. Coons said, according to a press release. “President Obama sent us an AUMF, that’s Washington-speak for a request for a declaration of war against ISIS, all the way back in February, and we have not taken it up, debated it and passed it. We owe that to our veterans and to those serving in the conflict against ISIS but we also need to stand up and say: ‘How are we going to pay for it?’”
The senator penned an op-ed Sunday for the Philadelphia Inquirer proposing a temporary war surtax that would include an exemption for U.S. troops and their families. He said he introduced a federal budget amendment in March that would impose a temporary surtax, and he plans to explore the option again when the Senate reconvenes in 2016.
“There are a whole lot of outrageous statements being made, very aggressive, very bellicose statements being made by Republican Presidential candidates, and by my colleagues in the Senate about how much they would do, how aggressive they would be,” he said Tuesday. “I think if they also had to vote to fund the cost of the wars they’re threatening to expand, it would create somewhat of a speed bump. It would force us to debate not just the strategy of the war against ISIS, which we need to more seriously contemplate, but it would also force us to look at the cost – short term and long term – of the conflict we are already well into against ISIS.”

Washington D.C.

  • U.S. Senate
  • 332 Dirksen Building
  • Washington, D.C. 20510
  • tel (202) 224-5141
  • fax (202) 228-0776

Senator Coons: "New Revenue Streams"
"We cannot write another blank check for war"
( Wants to Tax More So He Can Fund Planned Parenthood Instead)
Published on Mar 26, 2015

U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) calls up his budget amendment insisting that Congress find a way to pay for the war against ISIS in a speech on the Senate floor on March 25, 2015.

BURLINGTON, VERMONT: 802-862-0697/800-339-9834
ST. JOHNSBURY, VERMONT: 802-748-9269

Coons, Sanders propose temporary surtax to pay for war with ISIS

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
March 26, 2015

Amendment will be voted on this afternoon

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) proposed a temporary surtax to pay for American military operations against ISIS.  The proposal, offered as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2016 federal budget currently under consideration by the Senate, is backed by Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), Ranking Member on the Senate Budget Committee.  Under the Coons-Sanders proposal, the temporary surtax would be discontinued once relevant military operations have concluded. 

The amendment will be voted on this afternoon.
“Through each of our nation's armed conflicts, new revenue streams not only provided the resources our military needed, they reminded the American people that our country was at war and we all needed to contribute to the effort,” Senator Coons said on the Senate floor last night.  “But after 14 years and two wars that have cost our nation trillions of dollars, I fear we have forgotten this important lesson from our history. We cannot write another blank check for a war.”
“The Republican Party has to end their hypocrisy with regard to deficits and the national debt,” said Senator Sanders.  “They are going to have to be honest with the American people.  Wars are enormously expensive, not only in terms of human life and suffering, but in terms of the budget.  If the Republicans want another war in the Mideast, they are going to have to tell the American people how much it will cost them and how it will be paid for.”
Since last year, Senator Coons has led efforts to ensure the U.S. does not, once again, begin open-ended military operations that could stretch on for years without considering potential fiscal impacts.  Earlier this month, Senator Coons pressed top military officials, including U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, on the Obama Administration’s position on paying for combat operations against ISIS.


Published on Dec 29, 2015
As he wrote for Yeni Safak, the pro-Erdogan main newspaper under the control of Erdogan in Istanbul. In his article regarding the new presidential system which Erdogan wants to establish, Karaman desperately defended Erdogan and declared what we were saying all along they will do; that Erdogan will soon become the Caliph for all Muslims. The following is a presentation of the exciting part in an article Hayrettin Karaman wrote: “During the debate on the presidential system, here is what everyone must do so while taking into account the direction of the world’s national interest and the future of the country and not focus on the party or a particular person. What this [presidential system] looks like is the Islamic caliphate system in terms of its mechanism. In this system the people choose the leader, the Prince, and then all will pledge the Bay’ah [allegiance] and then the chosen president appoints the high government bureaucracy and he cannot interfere in the judiciary where the Committee will audit legislation independent of the president. ” Hayrettin Karaman

Turkey’s Erdogan: Hitler’s Germany 

Exemplifies Effective Presidential System

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

It is inconceivable that any Western leader would favorably cite Hitler in any context, but in Turkey, citing Hitler doesn’t bring instant opprobrium. Mein Kampf  became a bestseller when it was published there in 2005, and Hitler remains popular. Also, a former classmate says Erdogan used to carry a copy around when he was a young man. Hitler’s antisemitism resonates with Islamic Jew-hatred.
“Turkey’s Erdogan says Hitler’s Germany exemplifies effective presidential system,” Reuters, January 1, 2016:
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, who is pushing for executive powers, cites Hitler’s Germany as an example of an effective presidential system, in comments broadcast by Turkish media on Friday.
Erdogan wants to change the Turkish constitution to turn the ceremonial role of president into that of a chief executive, a Turkish version of the system in the United States, France or Russia.
Asked on his return from a visit to Saudi Arabia late on Thursday whether an executive presidential system was possible while maintaining the unitary structure of the state, he said: “There are already examples in the world. You can see it when you look at Hitler’s Germany.
“There are later examples in various other countries,” he told reporters, according to a recording broadcast by the Dogan news agency.
The ruling AK Party, founded by Erdogan, has put a new constitution at the heart of its agenda after winning back a majority in a November parliamentary election.
It agreed with the main opposition CHP on Wednesday to revive efforts to forge a new constitution…. 

Czech President Calls Influx of Refugees to Europe an “Organized Invasion”

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

In his third annual Christmas message since assuming the presidency of the Czech Republic, Czech president Milo Zeman addressed the subject of the European migrant crisis and called the wave of refugees an “organized invasion.” Speaking from the Lany presidential chateau in central Bohemia on December 26, Zeman said:
I am profoundly convinced that we are facing an organized invasion, and not a spontaneous movement of refugees. Those who defend the immigrants talk of compassion and solidarity. But compassion is possible for the old, infirm, and primarily for children. But a large majority of illegal migrants are young, healthy men without families. I am asking: why don’t these men take up arms and battle for the freedom of their country and against Islamic State?
A report in The Telegraph (U.K.) noted that, in his address, Zeman drew comparisons between the adult male refugees fleeing the Middle East and Czechs who fled their country when it was under Nazi occupation from 1939-1945, suggesting that in both cases, their countries would have been better served if they had stayed to fight against the occupiers.
The Telegraph also observed that both the Czech Republic and neighboring Slovakia, former communist countries that joined the European Union in 2004, have rejected the EU’s system of quotas for distributing refugees who have entered Europe during the current migrant wave.
We reported in our article posted September 25:
At an emergency EU summit held in Brussels on September 22, heads of government from the European Union approved a plan to distribute 120,000 migrants fleeing turmoil in the Middle East across Europe.
The plan partially accommodates a request made by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to the members of the European Parliament meeting in Strasbourg, France, on September 9. Juncker asked EU members to accept 160,000 migrants.
In that article, we noted that Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia — which are directly along the major route used by migrants entering Europe  — voted against the measure.
In an earlier September 7 article, we reported that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban spoke to Hungarian diplomats in Budapest that day, criticizing efforts by EU leaders to impose immigration quotas before the continent’s borders are made secure. Orban stated:
As long as we can't defend Europe’s outer borders, it is not worth talking about how many people we can take in.... The quota system wants to treat the effects before it treats the causes of immigration. The main reason for this is because [the EU] cannot control its outer borders.
Hungary built a 110-mile-long fence along its border with Serbia to help stem the tide of migrants, many of whom are headed for Germany.
The issue of securing a nation’s borders against unrestricted entry has been a frequent topic of discussion in the United States as well as Europe. In the United States, critics of unrestricted immigration charge that the U.S. government is encouraging border jumping by irefusing to enforce U.S. immigration laws. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) posted a statement on his Senate webpage on June 3, 2014 that carried the headline: “President Obama is personally responsible for ‘rising crisis’ at border.” His message began:
The rising crisis at the border is the direct and predictable result of actions taken by President Obama. He and his Administration have announced to the world that they will not enforce America’s immigration laws, and have emphasized in particular that foreign youth will be exempted from these laws. 
Sessions noted that even the New York Times had reported that the Obama administration’s lack of enforcement had become widely known throughout Latin America, and that we might as well hang a sign saying “open” across the U.S. border.
Just as Zeman described the wave of refugees into Europe as an “organized invasion,” many Americans, including writers for The New American, have described our own border crisis the same way. In an article reprinted from and posted on our website in June 2014,  “The Illegal Immigration INVASION,” journalist Chip Wood wrote:
The Texas Department of Public Safety reports that in only one week, from May 28 to June 4, in just the Rio Grande Valley, the Border Patrol caught more than 8,300 illegal aliens who had made it across the border. Again, that’s the count for just one week and in just one part of Texas.
This is an invasion, pure and simple. There is simply no other word for it. And unless it is stopped, the America we know and love will cease to exist. [Emphasis in original]
Whether in Europe or the United States, when thousands of aliens ignore a country’s borders and enter illegally, that constitutes an invasion. However, Americans still have some tools that are useful in stopping their invasion that Europeans have surrendered to the regional government that the EU forms. 
One of the primary barriers to national sovereignty hampering EU nations trying to secure their borders is the Schengen Agreement — a treaty signed in 1985 by five of the 10 member states of what was then called the European Economic Community. In 1990 the agreement was supplemented by the Schengen Convention, which effectively removed internal border controls. The Schengen Area, which consists of 26 countries, has become virtually a single state for international travel purposes. Border controls exist only for travelers entering and exiting the area, but there are no internal border controls.
Fortunately for Americans, our nation has so far rejected efforts to impose something like the Schengen Agreement in North America. One such failed attempted was the rejected Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), which was founded in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005, by Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and U.S. President George W. Bush.
In 2006, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs argued that the SPP was part of a plan to merge the United States, Canada, and Mexico into a North American Union similar to the European Union. Multiple articles published by The New American and by its affiliated organization, The John Birch Society, made exactly the same point.
Finally, there is our Constitution. Though recent presidential administrations of both parties have ignored it proscription, the document states in Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”
When the federal government became derelict in its duty to protect the states from invasion, at least one state decided to take on the job, itself. On July 21, 2014, Texas Governor Rick Perry announced that he would send 1,000 Texas National Guard troops to the Mexican border to deal with the massive wave of illegal immigration by unaccompanied children.
It is fortunate that we do not have a “Schengen Agreement” in our nation or in our continent.
Related articles:


Planned Parenthood Faces 

Funding Cuts in Texas and Utah

and research purposes:

Planned Parenthood, whose 327,653 abortions performed from October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013 made it the nation’s largest abortion provider, is facing state funding cuts in both Texas and Utah. As a result, affiliates of the abortion giant have gone to court, with Planned Parenthood of Utah filing notice on December 28 with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver that it plans to appeal a federal judge’s ruling that allowed Governor Gary Herbert to cut off its funding. 
On December 22, U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups upheld Herbert’s decision made last August ordering state agencies to stop acting as a conduit for federal grants that the state had applied for and then awarded contracts to Planned Parenthood to provide the programs. Herbert’s order blocked about $275,000 from Planned Parenthood’s sexual education programs. The Salt Lake Tribune reported on August 17 that the governor’s decision was made in response to a video featuring an official with Planned Parenthood’s national organization discussing providing fetal tissue to scientific researchers and how much the group charges for the service.
“We now have a video where they’re selling fetus body parts for money and it's an outrage and the people of Utah are outraged. I’m outraged. So for coloring outside the lines, Planned Parenthood forfeits some of their benefits,” the Tribune quoted Herbert as saying. In return, Planned Parenthood of Utah sued the governor on September 28, but Waddoups’ ruling rejects that suit.
Utah is not the only state to deny funding to Planned Parenthood. In one of the othe states doing so, an official with the Texas Department of State Health Services informed the Houston-based Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast on December 21 that they are cutting off funding to the affiliate for an HIV prevention program. The funding amounts to about $600,000.
“There will be no further renewals of this contract,” an agency official wrote in the notice to Planned Parenthood. quoted a department spokesman who said that his agency is “working with local health departments in the area to continue to provide [HIV prevention] services.”
A report in the Texas Tribune stated that the cancelled contract is funded through the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention but managed by the state. A spokeswoman for the CDC said she was unaware of the state’s notice and did not provide a comment to the newspaper.
This was not the only time Texas state officials have cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. As The New American reported on October 27, in response to the same videos that had prompted Herbert’s decision in Utah, Texas Governor Greg Abbott had cut off all state and local funding to the abortion provider. Abbott pulled no punches in condemning Planned Parenthood and its practices in a statement he gave to, which said, in part:
The gruesome harvesting of baby body parts by Planned Parenthood will not be allowed in Texas and the barbaric practice must be brought to an end. As such, ending the Medicaid participation of Planned Parenthood affiliates in the State of Texas is another step in providing greater access to safe healthcare for women while protecting our most vulnerable — the unborn.
The Office of inspector general of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission also sent a notice of termination to Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast back on October 19 stating that the state was ending the organization’s enrollment in the Texas Medicaid program, citing “a series of serious Medicaid program violations.” Furthermore, stated the notice,” The State has determined that you and your Planned Parenthood affiliates are no longer capable of performing medical services in a professionally competent, safe, legal, and ethical manner.”
The videos released by the Center for Medical Progress that prompted both Utah and Texas to defund Planned Parenthood’s activities have also had an impact at the federal level. Though efforts to remove the abortion provider’s funding from the $1.1-trillion spending bill recently passed by both houses of Congress were unsuccessful, the lingering aftereffects of the heinous actions they exposed did remain. As Michael Tennant noted in an article for The New American posted on December 24, a group of senators, led by Rand Paul (R-Ky.), managed to convince the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) office of inspector general (OIG) to investigate the government’s oversight of grants for fetal tissue research.
Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) Daniel Levinson replied to Paul and 34 other senators on December 4, telling them that his office would “interview HHS and National Institutes of Health (NIH) officials, as the majority of HHS funding for human fetal tissue research is awarded through NIH.”
Levinson also stated that his office would be “gathering relevant documentation related to policies and procedures for monitoring fetal tissue research activities.” He noted that his goal is to determine how NIH is monitoring both HHS and third-party fetal tissue research and to uncover “any known violations of Federal requirements.”
It remains to be seen, however, if Levinson’s investigation will actually identify any HHS violations of federal law related to fetal tissue research. As with many other areas where the federal government has delved into areas where it has no constitutional mandate, action taken at the state level is more likely to stop the abuses.
Related articles:


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The Obama administration is giving every signal that the president is poised to make use once again of an executive order to require all persons “in the business” of selling any firearm to perform a background check.
While no one disputes the constitutional authority of a president to issue an executive order to direct members of the executive branch to enforce a law passed by Congress, the Constitution says nothing about a president — the executive branch — making law by himself. Article I of the U.S. Constitution is explicit: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." (Emphasis added.)
Yet, that is exactly what Obama is proposing to do, regardless of how vehemently he may deny it. He no doubt will argue he has every right to issue an executive order to restrict Americans' Second Amendment rights. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest has said that lawyers have been “scrubbing through the law” to find ways to enact stricter federal gun control measures. The president met earlier in December with well-known anti-gunner Michael Bloomberg to discuss ways to implement more restrictions of gun ownership and possession — without Congress.
Present law requires federally licensed dealers to conduct a background check on each person who wishes to purchase a firearm. However, the Harvard School of Public Health claims that 40 percent of all gun sales and other transfers (such as gifts) happen with no such check. Proponents of the “universal” background check argue that those who purchase firearms at gun shows, for instance — where there are no such checks — may include criminals and those with mental disorders.
This is the so-called “gun show loophole,” whereby individuals who are not actually gun retailers sell firearms at weekend shows. Additionally, these gun owners also conduct private sales. It should be noted that many federally licensed dealers would like to see all gun sellers forced to conduct background checks, because they resent the competition from unlicensed dealers.
Obama has long held in contempt both the Second Amendment and gun owners. In 2008, when running against Senator Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, Obama told a sympathetic audience, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. ... And it is not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them ....”
The National Rifle Association (NRA) and others oppose Obama’s proposal to “close the gun show loophole," contending that it is simply the next step toward gun confiscation and making private gun ownership illegal in the United States.
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced a bill on December 21 to block any attempt by Obama to use executive action to add even more gun control laws to the federal statutes.
Obama and other gun-control advocates contend that they are not in favor of outright confiscation of privately owned guns, but rather just “common sense” laws to stop mass shootings and other acts of “gun violence.” But as a glaring example that gun laws don't stop criminals, despite California having some of the strictest gun control laws in the country — already mandating universal background checks for all gun purchases — Syed Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik were able to legally obtain firearms and kill 14 people in San Bernardino on December 2.
In short, closing the so-called gun show loophole would not have prevented the shooting spree in San Bernardino, yet that is what Obama called for in reaction to the massacre.
Speaking recently at Umpqua Community College in Oregon — scene of another mass shooting Oct. 1 — Obama indirectly told us what his real intentions are:
We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.
But Great Britain and Australia's laws were not the closing of a gun show “loophole,” but rather outright confiscation of firearms. Twelve days after a man murdered 35 people in 1996 with a sem-automatic rifle in the Tasmanian city of Port Arthur, the Australian Parliament acted to outlaw most private ownership of guns. Such a move in the United States would be unconstitutional, clearly abrogating the Second Amendment.
The Australian model, which President Obama cites as a way one of our “friends” has moved to prevent “mass shootings,” began with a gun buyback program of 650,000 “assault" weapons in 1996. Before anyone could legally possess a weapon, they first had to obtain a license. Licensees were required to demonstrate a “genuine need” for the gun they wished to purchase and to take a firearm safety course. Simply wishing to defend oneself from a possible home invasion was insufficient cause to obtain a license.
The globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has praised the Australian gun-control policy and stated that it could “serve as a model for the United States.”
But would legislation similar to the Australian gun law reduce mass shootings in America?
Two researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia, Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi, do not believe the Australian law has been of much use. They stated,
There is little evidence to suggest that [the law] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.
The evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.
Other studies have reached the same conclusion.
In 2008, when she was an opponent of Obama for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton criticized Obama for his condescending remarks about rural Pennsylvanians “clinging to their guns and their religion.” She told a campaign audience that her grandfather had taught her to shoot when she was a little girl. “People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter,” she insisted.
Now Clinton touts her support of the “Australian model.” During a town hall meeting last fall in New Hampshire, an audience member cited the Australian model and asked her if such an anti-gun law could be enacted here. She told him that his idea was “worth looking at.”
According to America’s 1st Freedom, a publication of the National Rifle Association, Clinton recently told a group of donors that the Supreme Court “got it wrong” on the Second Amendment in the Heller and McDonald cases. In those two cases, the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment did indeed establish the constitutional right of an individual to keep and bear arms.
So, a President Hillary Clinton would almost certainly be as hostile to the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms as Barack Obama has been. She would no doubt appoint federal judges of her ilk, and certainly use her own pen and phone to craft executive orders to further chip away at the Second Amendment, as well as many other liberties now enjoyed by Americans.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

In FrontPage today I explain how lumping together violence with “hateful rhetoric” is a call to destroy the freedom of speech:
December 17, 2015 ought henceforth to be a date which will live in infamy, as that was the day that some of the leading Democrats in the House of Representatives came out in favor of the destruction of the First Amendment. Sponsored by among others, Muslim Congressmen Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, as well as Eleanor Holmes Norton, Loretta Sanchez, Charles Rangel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joe Kennedy, Al Green, Judy Chu, Debbie Dingell, Niki Tsongas, John Conyers, José Serrano, Hank Johnson, and many others, House Resolution 569 condemns “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.” The Resolution has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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.
That’s not what this H. Res. 569 would do, you say? It’s just about condemning “hate speech,” not free speech? That kind of sloppy reasoning may pass for thought on most campuses today, but there is really no excuse for it. Take, for example, the wife of Paris jihad murderer Samy Amimour – please. It was recently revealed that she happily boasted about his role in the murder of 130 Paris infidels: “I encouraged my husband to leave in order to terrorize the people of France who have so much blood on their hands […] I’m so proud of my husband and to boast about his virtue, ah la la, I am so happy.” Proud wifey added: “As long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims, you will be potential targets, and not just cops and Jews but everyone.”
Now Samy Amimour’s wife sounds as if she would be very happy with H. Res. 569, and its sponsors would no doubt gladly avow that we should stop offending Islam and Muslims – that is, cut out the “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric.” If we are going to be “potential targets” even if we’re not “cops” or “Jews,” as long as we “continue to offend Islam and Muslims,” then the obvious solution, according to the Western intelligentsia, is to stop doing anything that might offend Islam and Muslims – oh, and stop being cops and Jews. Barack “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” says it. Hillary “We’re going to have that filmmaker arrested” Clinton says it. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, certain that anyone who speaks honestly about Islam and jihad is a continuing danger to the Church, says it.
And it should be easy. What offends Islam and Muslims? It ought to be a simple matter to cross those things off our list, right? Making a few sacrifices for the sake of our future of glorious diversity should be a no-brainer for every millennial, and everyone of every age who is concerned about “hate,” right? So let’s see. Drawing Muhammad – that’s right out. And of course, Christmas celebrations, officially banned this year in three Muslim countries and frowned upon (at best) in many others, will have to go as well.Alcohol and pork? Not in public, at least. Conversion from Islam to Christianity? No more of that. Building churches? Come on, you’ve got to be more multicultural!
Everyone agrees. The leaders of free societies are eagerly lining up to relinquish those freedoms. The glorious diversity of our multicultural future demands it. And that future will be grand indeed, a gorgeous mosaic, as everyone assures us, once those horrible “Islamophobes” are forcibly silenced. Everyone will applaud that. Most won’t even remember, once the jihad agenda becomes clear and undeniable to everyone in the U.S. on a daily basis and no one is able to say a single thing about it, that there used to be some people around who tried to warn them.