There is a piece of legislation making its way through both the House of Representatives and Senate that could have real implications for freedom of speech in the media and on the internet. On Wednesday, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219), which seeks “to examine the prevalence of hate crime and hate speech on the Internet, television, and radio to better address such crimes.” Meanwhile, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) introduced a companion bill in the House – H.R. 3878.
“This really bothers me a great deal. Senator Ed Markey and Representative Hakeem Jeffries… are taking their Hate Crimes Reporting Act and they’re trying to jam it through and get passage in both the House and the Senate. It’s happening simultaneously… Is that part of Cass Sunstein’s old stomping grounds? The information administration looking to analyze all media outlets including radio to determine if they are working to advocate and encourage hate crimes. This is good, huh?”
In a Wednesday press release, Sen. Markey a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, explained why this legislation is particuraly important given the recent shooting in Kansas.
“We have recently seen in Kansas the deadly destruction and loss of life that hate speech can fuel in the United States,” Sen. Markey said, “which is why it is critical to ensure the Internet, television and radio are not encouraging hate crimes or hate speech that is not outside the protection of the First Amendment.”
Glenn happened to have a German radio from the Nazi era on his desk this morning, and he explained the great lengths taken by the Nazi government to ensure the German people only heard what they wanted them to hear.
“This [radio has] the German swastika on it, the German eagle is on it. This was an S.S. approved radio. It would only pick up the right radio stations, so you couldn’t tune into to the BBC or anything else. They just took those frequencies away,” Glenn explained. “I love the people who say the Nazis are extreme right. No, they’re not. The battle of World War II in Europe was communist versus Nazis – communists versus the national socialists… Both of them wanted world domination… Both of them were socialist… It’s the same group of guys.”
(excerpted from Glenn Beck)
YES, the recent shootings in Kansas were horrible. REGARDLESS of the allegedly White supremacist’s choice of targets or his own political thoughts.
Remember when so-called ‘liberals’ championed the First Amendment rights of disgusting individuals like the Nazis who marched in largely-Jewish Skokie, Illinois? Well, these same folks (and their political descendants) are now trying to remove the First Amendment rights of anyone with whom they disagree, for ‘our’ own good, under the guise of the ever popular PC term hate speech.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HATE SPEECH IN A NATION WHICH ESPOUSES PROTECTIONS AS ENUMERATED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION! PERIOD.
AND, USING IT AS AGGRAVATING LABEL FOR VIOLENT CRIME GIVES THE STATE THE METHOD IT NEEDS TO SUPPRESS NOT ONLY THE SPEECH OF DISGUSTING PERSONS WE ALL DON’T LIKE, BUT ALSO THOSE WITH WHOM WE AGREE, BUT ‘THE POWERS THAT BE’ DISAGREE’.
Don’t like President Obama’s policies or legislation? Must be a racist. Wait a minute – that’s hate speech!
Oh wait, it only works one direction…
Published April 11, 2014
EXCLUSIVE: The director of the Federal Air Marshal Service is retiring after being investigated for his role in an alleged operation to acquire guns for officials’ personal use, FoxNews.com has learned.
Director Robert Bray’s home was raided in December in connection with the ongoing probe, according to sources and documents. Law enforcement and congressional sources told FoxNews.com that Bray’s recently announced retirement, which is effective in June, is directly related to the investigation.
I keep waiting for stories about law enforcement not taking bribes, or getting benefits/property/money under color of authority.
Doing their f’ing job enforcing the law and following their f’ing oath!
Alas, no such stories exist, anymore. They’re all about bribery, corruption, and filling their pockets or holsters.
If you’ve read this blog for more that a couple of days, you probably remember one of the many ‘careers’ I had was that of Private Investigator. Both working for others and myself. I’ve written about some of my ‘adventures’ in these pages.
And, it got me to thinking. Obviously, I wouldn’t have become a PI, had they not existed in literature, movies and television. I was disabled, and didn’t make the cut as a cop, so I went to something related. Using my college-learned investigative skills.
I grew up with numerous Hollywood PI influences: Sam Spade, Phillip Marlowe, Richard Diamond, Mike Hammer, Sherlock Holmes, Peter Gunn, Stu Bailey, Spenser, Jim Rockford, Harry Orwell, John Shaft, V.I. Warshawski, Lew Archer, Dirk Gently…
But, who was the BEST? However you define best – most realistic representation, most clever, most cutting edge.
I have my answer, but I won’t post it until you vote. And feel free to comment further, if you like.
Joe Mannix wouldn’t have it any other way.
Of Arms and The Law posted THIS:
Ares Armor gets temporary restraining order against BATFPosted by David Hardy · 13 March 2014 05:02 PM
Summary here. Essentially, Ares makes “80% receivers.” A receiver starts out as raw material — steel, or here polymer. Everyone can agree that’s not a receiver. At the end, it is a finished receiver that, with the appropriate parts attached, can fire. We can all agree that that is a receiver. But at what point between the two does it go from being in one legal status to being in the other?
The industry understanding (and I emphasize understanding) has been that the line is crossed when the future receiver is 80% complete. But this is one area where BATF rulings, if any, are kept private, and never published as a regulation. This violates the Administrative Procedure Act (which requires that general rules for the public be published as regulations — you cannot have a rule that the public must comply with, and keep it secret) and allows a little of wiggle room for “our position is” or “our position has always been.”
Hat tip to Jeff Harris….
Yea! One for OUR SIDE! Freedom, that is…
Isn’t it wonderful when the family of a dead alleged criminal arrives to tell us how there wasn’t really a home invasion?
Somehow, the homeowner didn’t see it that way:
Authorities on Monday said Ronald Green, 66, was watching TV when he was startled by the sound of his front door flying open.
Ramon R. Matlock entered the home, and Green ran to a bedroom to retrieve a revolver, authorities said.
Matlock swung at Green, and Green fired a shot into Matlock’s chest and another into his lower back, authorities said.
Authorities said Matlock ran out the door, but only got as far as the front yard. The Omaha Fire Department pronounced Matlock dead at the scene.
His family claims that perhaps the teen had been drinking and was confused, and thought he was at his aunt’s house. Presumably, crashing in through doors and taking a swing at those inside after they’ve retreated to their bedrooms is just how Ramon greeted people.
The district attorney said that Ramon was known in the neighborhood… and not for his hugs. He ruled Ramon’s entry a home invasion, and his swing at the homeowner a deadly force attack justifying the use of deadly force.
No charges will be filed.
Another example of wasted youth.
I did some incredibly stupid stuff in my youth, and as my Dad used to say, I’m not young, anymore. But, it never occurred to me to get drunk, kick in someone’s door and take a swing at a 66 year-old man!
I was more into whining I had no date for Saturday night. And the only time I kicked in a door was when I locked myself out of my own bedroom at my college roommates house.
h/t Bob Owens, Robert McDonald
Single mother Ivette Ros doesn’t go anywhere without her gun.
But the 37-year-old lost her job as a bank manager for bringing her gun to work at a Wells Fargo branch in Oldsmar.
“When we take our course for concealed weapons licenses, they do state the bank is a place we can take your weapon to, so I never thought otherwise until I was being questioned,” she said.
Ros doesn’t know who found out she was packing or how they found out, but she says bank security questioned her about the gun she was carrying. She says she was fired three days later. … (John Lott)
The courts, or at least lawyers, will fight this one out.
When I worked in the financial industry, the company was VERY clear there were to be no firearms on the premises. Period. Or in the parking lot; in our personal cars. Or at company-sponsored functions – even if we weren’t being paid or after-hours.
Over-reaching a bit, I think.
Thankfully, the Arizona State Legislature addressed the parking lot issue positively. And, as above, I suspect the other issues will be/or have been addressed in the courts or by lawyers.
Not exactly the same, but similarly…
I had a ‘friend’ some years back named Chip. I’ve written about him in these pages. He was a friend to me when I needed one, but was probably a sociopath. He was, at the very least passive-aggressive. We are no longer friends.
He was paranoid about being caught carrying a concealed weapon (before such a law existed in Arizona) so he did carry, openly. A lot. Now, as there was no CCW back then, the culture was different, and people were much more accepting of such behavior.
Back then banks were not off limits to gun carriers. They still are not, unless, of course the dreaded statutory sign is portrayed (in AZ.). But Chip would go to his bank regularly with his Colt Combat Commander in a belt holster for all to see.
I’m guessing some new clerk from a hoplophobic State saw it and freaked out. Nothing happened in the bank. He had done nothing wrong.
But, one Saturday morning about 0800, there was a knock on Chip’s apartment door. Two large suited individuals stood there, imposing. Chip used the pejorative word jamokes to describe them.
One spoke. “We don’ wan’ chuz carrying yor gun in da bank anymore.” (I’m certain his mimicking of the bank employee’s statement was slightly inaccurate in it’s portrayal.)
Chip nodded in the affirmative, and closed the door. Then, on Monday morning, he tracked down the bank president and called him. Such was his nature.
And he proceeded to dress down the bank, the bank president, his employees, his policies, and his lack of legal knowledge.
Then he moved his banking elsewhere. I’m certain THAT told the bank president!
I’m all about every able-bodied, legally-able citizen to be able to carry. Openly, concealed…I don’t care. ANYWHERE. Banks, schools, shopping malls, hospitals, where we work – anyplace bad stuff might happen.
Because bad stuff DOES happen. And we cannot predict where or when.
But, let’s not be dicks about it.
or rather (oops, my mistake), by the dealer’s government agency watchdog…
“It is clear that agency rules were not followed in many of the incidents, which show at least 49 guns were lost or stolen nationwide between 2009 and 2013.”
“The newly released ATF reports show that between 2009 and 2013, agents lost their guns or had them stolen in at least 45 incidents — with a couple of the cases involving the loss of three firearms.
It is unclear if the records include “missing” guns, a separate category used by the agency.
Most of the lost weapons were handguns, but there also were at least two assault rifles stolen. Typically the reports do not indicate what happened to the unrecovered guns. However, in a November 2008 incident, the gun may have wound up in Mexico, according to the report.”
“The report cited examples similar to those in the documents obtained by the Journal Sentinel, with agents leaving weapons in public bathrooms, atop their vehicles, on an airplane and one in a shopping cart.”
Via Katie Pavlich
I sit here wondering how this compares with licensed firearms dealer records, and, of course, the whole Fast & Furious debacle. And wonder if any of the BATFE missing arms are responsible for crimes or even murders?
Inquiring minds want to know.
h/t David Hardy
Firehand shares that information with us…
Who’s actually committing the murders? A very small number
of people with particular connections.
No, our new focus isn’t on neighborhoods like Alton Park or East Chattanooga but instead on “hot” places” and “hot” people. In an article entitled, “The Story Behind the Nation’s Falling Body Count,” Kennedy writes, “Research on hot spots shows violence to be concentrated in ‘micro’ places, rather than ‘dangerous neighborhoods,’ as the popular idea goes. Blocks, corners, and buildings representing just five or six percent of an entire city will drive half of its serious crime.”
The same is true about people. “We now know that homicide and gun violence are overwhelmingly concentrated among serious offenders operating in groups: gangs, drug crews, and the like representing under half of one percent of a city’s population who commit half to three-quarters of all murders.”
Kennedy writes, “We also know some reliable predictors of risk: individuals who have a history of violence or a close connection with prior victims are far more likely to be involved in violence themselves. Hot groups and people are so hot that when their offending is statistically abstracted, their neighborhoods cease to be dangerous. Their communities aren’t dangerous; (these criminals) are.”
What’ve we been saying for years? ‘Stop worrying about objects and worry about the people who commit the crimes.’ Which seems to cover it nicely. Will the hoplophobes and bigots listen? Mostly no.
When someone bombs someone, do we blame the bomb? No, we blame the bomber. But guns are objects of scorn and derision, I suspect largely because of their portability and concealability.
And the people who commit crimes with guns are a very small minority of those possessing them.
And this woman is a United States Senator!
AND, a gun owner and a CCW holder in California!
Can you say idiot and hypocrite? I knew you could.
h/t John Bradley, Doomsday Economy
A federal judge who endorsed “suspicion-less” searches of laptops, cameras and cell phones at the border has set up a possible Supreme Court showdown challenging what critics call “Constitution-free zones” and the Obama administration’s dragnet approach to national security.
I don’t normally side with the ACLU. but…
“I think Americans are justifiably becoming increasingly surprised and even outraged by the extent to which the national security state seems to be monitoring and collecting information about us all,” said ACLU Attorney Catherine Crump. “We think that having a purely suspicion-less policy is wrong, because it leaves border agents with no standards at all to follow. That opens the door that people will be [targeted] for inappropriate reasons.”
Constitution-Free Zones? Seriously? Of course, we already have these elsewhere (airports, train stations, sobriety checkpoints,
stop-and-frisk cities (Oh, wait! They stopped doing THAT!) :-) Score one for our side!
h/t Fox News