Democrats love everything containing the word hate, while they despise freedom of speech:
the Muzzle Award goes to the Democrat Party in perpetuity:
XXXXX
According to a report, House Democrats will not condemn anti-Semitism specifically following the controversy over Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), but will instead condemn “all hate” in general.
Murder is murder. Codifying “Hate Crimes” is discriminatory in that it makes one victim more important than another in the eyes of the law. If ever the slippery slope argument was applicable it is in convicting an accused defendant based on motive alone. One unrelated remark defined as hate speech uttered by a defendant years before he was arrested can be used to prove he or she committed a hate crime.
The logic used by liberals never cease to amaze me; never more than trying to pass “Hate Crime” legislation. Such philosophical legislation boggles the mind because it assigns a psychological motive to selected acts.
The most outlandish example of defining a hate crime was the time President Clinton blamed Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City Bombing.
According to President Clinton it was Rush’s conservative views that triggered hatred in Timothy McVeigh. Bubba apologized as soon as he realized he had a tiger by the tail. After Clinton’s faux pas no one called the Oklahoma City Bombing a hate crime because Democrats did not want the public to know the reason McVeigh did it. Hating the federal government enough to blowup a federal building is not the place advocates of Hate Crime legislation want the public to go.
McVeigh was eventually punished for blowing up a federal building killing approximately 169 federal employees. His trial and punishment were pure and simple —— unclouded by talk of a hate crime. Had the government called it a hate crime they would have admitted McVeigh hated the federal government. In one sense he did hate the federal government because he did it to avenge the government slaughtering men, women, and children in the Branch Davidian Compound in WACO.
NOTE: Neither Democrats nor media mouths ever accused Hillary Clinton of a hate crime even though they knew she ordered the Waco Massacre. Hillary’s “command” has been swept under the rug with the standard explanation: “Conspiracy theory nuts twisted the facts in order to get Hillary Clinton.” Read everything you can find about the Waco Massacre and you will find that the only conspiracy is one covering up for Hillary. The same swamp coverup is protecting Hillary’s from her email treason.
https://www.statesman.com/news/20180...ver-waco-siege
Compare the things Obama said and did throughout his public life to he things President Trump is saying and doing leads to one conclusion the late Charles Krauthammer (1950 - 2018) said about the sewer rat: Pay no attention to what he says. Watch what he does. Charles Krauthammer
Another load of hate crime excrement was deposited by NYU:
The murderous attack in Pittsburgh should compel us to put those differences aside. This is a moment for our political leaders, including the President, to desist from any language that fuels discrimination or hatred of any kind. Words matter, especially those coming from our leaders. It’s also time for federal, state, and local agencies to enforce reporting requirements and pursue prosecutions of hate crimes, including anti-Semitic attacks. And it’s an opportune moment for the broad network of human rights advocates, here and abroad, to join the fight against the growing tide of anti-Semitism in the U.S. and worldwide.
What in hell is a secretary of state for democracy?
I am the Jerome Kohlberg professor of ethics and finance at NYU Stern School of Business and director of the Center for Business and Human Rights. I served in the Obama Administration from September 2009 until March 2013, as the assistant secretary of state for democracy, hu... MORE
I wonder how the "reliable black vote" would react if Hillary Clinton & Her Sisters explained that the "sacred sacrament of abortion" was devised by Margaret Sanger and her crowd as a means of genocide —— eradicate blacks in America? And please do not tell me that advocating infanticide is love speech.
Bottom line: This U.S. should never pass a law against hate speech or hate crimes. The crimes are enough with creating a special category. In addition, such laws reek of human Rights and the United Nations.
Whenever a single organization can define anything the people in charge of that organization make the decisions for everybody. The SPLC is one such organization:
The Southern Poverty Law Center has become the go-to “expert” on “hate groups” for establishment media and companies such as Amazon, but when a Washington Post Magazine reporter was commissioned to produce an in-depth feature on the organization, he came away with a least some doubt about SPLC’s credibility as an arbiter of “hate.”
The reporter, David Montgomery, clearly is an admirer of SPLC, but his article was titled “The State of Hate: Researchers at the Southern Poverty Law Center have set themselves up as the ultimate judges of hate in America. But are they judging fairly?”
The Post writer points out that SPLC has expanded its scope of “hate groups” from the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists to conservative organizations that defend traditional marriage, opposed illegal immigration and warn of the threat of supremacist Islam to Western civilization.
The United Nations hierarchy ——not member states —— decide everything from the atmosphere’s temperature to mass migrations. Not only do those filthy bums define human Rights, they created International law and a judicature to rule favorably on the U.N.’s political agenda, while lesser organizations like the SPLC are stuck with forcing their political agenda on a real judiciary.
QUESTION: Why is anybody surprised that Mark Zuckerberg is exactly like every dirty little moralist that ever lived?
The minute a martinet acquires political power they impose moral behavior on every sinner in sight. Priests do it, the wealthy do it, and politicians certainly do it. Hell, Democrats send out their tax collectors to force their morality on everybody.
The only thing that makes Zuckerberg unique is that he scares the other moralist freaks because he owns the biggest pulpit the world has ever seen. Naturally, Zuckerberg defines the sin he abhors more than any other. Hate speech is his gig.
Mark Zuckerberg has big plans for regulating "hate speech" on Facebook. And he's stepping up artificial intelligence (A.I.) operations to silence those he deems hate-speakers, to keep the community "safe." He forecasts that it will be a done deal in five to ten years. Asked how he evaluates hate speech and where he draws the line on it at Facebook, by Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota during testimony in the Senate yesterday, Zuckerberg replied:
Zuckerberg is late to the game. Socialist moralists began attacking freedom of speech when they invented politically correct speech. Politically correct speech quickly morphed into punishing politically INCORRECT speech. Democrats alone could not have made that transformation stick. It was judges when they legislated against politically incorrect speech.
I do not expect congressional committees to defend the First Amendment, but before Zuckerberg is crowned Pope conservatives should remind them that offensive speech needs the most constitutional protection. Remove that protection from the First Amendment and the Constitution itself is halfway down the always-busy slippery slope.
Freedom of speech on the Internet is specifically the High Court’s enemy more than it is the enemy of the entire federal government and the media.
Democrats began attacking freedom of speech decades ago when they invented that masterpiece of doublespeak —— politically correct speech. The beauty of politically correct speech is that it is never punishes when the education industry forces children and university students to listen to it. Conversely, politically INCORRECT speech will get you killed if Democrats have their way.
Democrats took hate speech to its inevitable end in the violent country they created:
Nearly every op-ed writer at The New York Times has compared Trump to Hitler. (The conservative on the op-ed page merely called him a “proto-fascist.”) If Trump is Hitler and his supporters Nazis, then the rational course of action for any civilized person is to kill them.
That’s not just a theory, it’s the result.
Finally, lets not forget Hillary Clinton’s young Turkettes:
Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by jimmymccready
Never Again
Posting Rules
Bookmarks