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…
LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — A veteran Los Angeles police sergeant is suing the city claiming he was discriminated against because of his Wiccan religion, weeks after his wife filed a similar lawsuit.
Sgt. A.J. DeBellis, who joined the LAPD in 1990, filed a complaint Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging discrimination, harassment and retaliation, according to City News Service.
DeBellis claims he was “verbally berated” and issued negative comment cards by a captain and a lieutenant after voicing complaints about his mandatory attendance at a training session and holiday gathering at a Christian church in Chatsworth in December 2012.
DeBellis claims he was required to sit through a recital of a Christian prayer and that religious music was played “during a significant portion of the event.”
I’m curious. When did the police start mandating attendance at religious functions? And what would be the reaction if the event had been Wiccan? Or Islamic?
This isn’t the 1950′s – wherein it was assumed everyone was a Christian. Except, of course, for those lovely quirky Jewish folks. (Obviously, there were no Islamic people in the 50′s, and no Wiccans – save those followers of Aleister Crowley.) I do wonder about ‘legitimate’ Wiccans versus folks using a non-mainstream religion to line their pockets, though.
Regardless, I’m all about being able to stand up for one’s beliefs. And government not mandating participation.
h/t CBS Local Media
West Des Moines, IA – There’s a new smartphone app for drivers having an ‘oh crap!’ moment behind the wheel. The ‘Oh Crap’ app is designed to help drivers being pulled over for suspected drunk driving.
It was put together by lawyers in Iowa as a way to educate the public of their rights if they are pulled over. It also helps to document the stop for lawyer’s use later.
“We want to educate citizens on what their legal rights are and are not in the state of Iowa and eventually everywhere else. But we also want to serve as a tool to allow people to document their invocation of their rights and their use of legal protections that exist,” said Bob Rehkemper, an attorney and co-creator of the app.
The app gives tips to drivers being pulled over like: “shut up” and “be polite.” There’s a feature to calculate your blood alcohol content and a button that contacts an on-call lawyer. Plus, there is a whole section on basic legal rights when being pulled over. (Fox News)
WHAT? We now need an APP to understand and exercise our basic legal rights?
Okay – they should develop one for self-defense shooting and related matters.
I sense a trend, here…
It appears that despite the judge granting the TRO on Wednesday, yesterday the ATF went to the judge ex parte (meaning without the other side, in this case Ares, being present), and got a “clarification” of the prior TRO. This “clarification” seems to give them the green light to apply for a “lawful search”.
IMHO, in order to have a change between Wednesday when the original TRO was granted, the ATF would have had to have alleged Ares was about to get rid of records and that they, the ATF had emergent reasons for going in now rather than waiting till the full hearing that was scheduled for March 20.
Here are the prosecutor’s allegations behind the ex parte allegation.
-They materially misrepresent the lower receivers as “firearms”.
-they essentially argue “how dare Ares use the law to get a TRO against us”, that somehow that was a “trick” on Ares part not to provide the “firearms” as per agreement. But if they had the TRO, they were not required to turn over the weapons.
HT: Moderno, Bearing Arms
Yes, my friends, it appears, in spite of a court order, ‘clarification’ was obtained and the BATFE was able to ‘legally’ raid ARES ARMS and search for customer information!
God forbid a firearms business operate under all the rules and laws – they will get raided, anyway!
Of course, persons performing their business in a legal manner rarely shoot back!
Of course, there are those among us who after reading multiple stories of incidents daily regarding officer malfeasance, theft, abuse, perjury and felonies who look askance at such a professional paper.
I personally know a number of law enforcement folks who truly believe their oaths and (I think) hold to them (to the best of their ability, considering their agency ‘rules’). But my knowing doesn’t matter.
It’s all about public perception.
It doesn’t help that Hollywood producers like Dick Wolf (of the Law & Order programs) portray law enforcement as everything from straight arrows to crooked-as-a-dog’s-hind-leg. I just watched a cross-over episode (with L&O SVU) of Chicago P.D. (the newest agency in the collection) wherein the head of C.P.D. Intelligence is ordered to ‘do whatever it takes’ to break a serial rape/maim suspect. He puts him in ‘the cage’ (a chain link enclosure not affiliated with the jail system) and proceeds to beat on the suspect and begin cutting off his ears (something the suspect is alleged to have done) until he gives up the location of the still active co-suspect.
Now, just like our Republic, I’m all about looking at the total picture, warts and all. And, if the Chicago P.D. did (or does) such things, they need to be held accountable.
Just like the serial rapists who collect ears for souvenirs.
But, if it’s only fiction, then it colors the general public’s already jaded perception of police.
h/t Richard W. DeShon, Mike Vanderboegh
wirecutter spells it out. In spades!
Not OWNER. Not LEGAL RESIDENT. Occupant. You know, like all that junk mail you throw away pro-forma says on it.
A further observation from wirecutter personally…
I got news for you – if you even let a cop enter your house he can search it “for his own safety”. I found that out when my psycho ex tried to cut me and I called the cops to get it documented – 7 or 8 cops showed up (it must’ve been a slow night) and they immediately opened every door in the house looking for ‘assailants’, checking closets, behind furniture, even told me to open my safe which I refused to do. The final straw came when one of them opened a small box on the end table and I told them all they did NOT have my permission to go through my personal effects and to hit the porch, we’ll do the paperwork out there ‘for their own fucking safety’. Surprisingly they complied and everybody calmed down including myself. Hell, I even offered them all a cold beer.
But yeah, never let a cop into your house willingly. Besides, they can always say you consented to a search and it’s your word against theirs.
NOW comes the kicker! The vanguard of the dissenters against this decision is (wait for it)
Justice Ruth Bader Ginzburg
Personally, I’d bet I’d agree more often with wirecutter than Justice Ginsburg on most things.
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
(I saw this (text) on wirecutter‘s blog, and felt it was meant to be shared – Guffaw)
1) “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
A. Karl Marx B. Adolph Hitler C. Joseph Stalin D. Barack Obama E. None of the above
2) “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few…… And to replace it with shared responsibility, for shared prosperity.”
A. Lenin B. Mussolini C. Idi Amin D. Barack Obama E. None of the above
3) “(We)…..can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”
A. Nikita Khruschev B. Josef Goebbels C. Boris Yeltsin D. Barack Obama E. None of the above
4) “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own … in order to create this common ground.”
A. Mao Tse Tung B. Hugo Chavez C. Kim Jong Il D. Barack Obama E. None of the above
5) “I certainly think the free-market has failed.”
A. Karl Marx B. Lenin C. Molotov D. Barack Obama E. None of the above
6) “I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in
(the) entire economy that they are being watched.”
A. Pinochet B. Milosevic C. Saddam Hussein D. Barack Obama E. None of the above
(1) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
(2) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
(3) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
(4) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
(5) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
(6) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton
Be afraid. Be VERY afraid! – Guffaw
Former Representative Gabby Giffords remembered her almost fatal assault the other day by skydiving – celebrating her life!
And, Good for Her…as far as that goes…
I’ve friends and relatives on Facebook who praised her as being courageous and brave.
But, she and her astronaut husband Mark Kelly are still actively involved in an organization they helped found with a goal of more gun control for the law-abiding!
I don’t think so.
Here she is with one of the rifles she owns and wants to have further controlled.
Hypocritical AND Cowardly.
No ‘hero’ in my book!
Excerpted from Foreign Policy: The FBI’s creeping advance into the world of counterterrorism is nothing new. But quietly and without notice, the agency has finally decided to make it official in one of its organizational fact sheets. Instead of declaring “law enforcement” as its “primary function,” as it has for years, the FBI fact sheet now lists “national security” as its chief mission. The changes largely reflect the FBI reforms put in place after September 11, 2001, which some have criticized for de-prioritizing law enforcement activities. Regardless, with the 9/11 attacks more than a decade in the past, the timing of the edits is baffling some FBI-watchers.
“What happened in the last year that changed?” asked Kel McClanahan, a Washington-based national security lawyer.
Visit Pat Dollard to see the entire story.
And from the same government that brought you the above…