And I’m betting that bringing up US Rep Hank Johnson’s utterance that putting all the US Military on one end of Guam would make it tip over would be hate speech as well? And don’t get me started on “The Rev. Al” and his race-baiting and all sorts of other well-covered annoyances.
And Jackson Lee wants me convicted because “Free Speech”, in her eyes, doesn’t apply to White people when talking about people Not Of Pallor? Emphasis mine:
Last week, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) introduced a bill that was so absurd it had people asking if it was real. As evidenced by its page on congress.gov, and also given the kind of member that Jackson Lee is, it is in fact real.
The bill in question, H.R. 61, also known as the “Leading Against White Supremacy Act of 2023,” seeks to “amend title 18, United States Code, to expand the scope of hate crimes.” It would criminalize the “conspiracy to commit white supremacy,” that is directed against non-white people.
This includes “inspir[ing]” or influencing people to commit such a crime based on having “published material advancing white supremacy, white supremacist ideology, antagonism based on “replacement theory”, or hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group.” Material published on social media platforms is mentioned as well.
And as always, it is ONLY one sided. As the post points out, what happens when other Black People call SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom? Isn’t that within the bounds of Jackson Lee’s bill? Oh wait – it’s only directed at White People.
Look, she is Stupid and I could fill up this blog just writing about what she has said and done to prove the point. I keep wondering how she keeps getting re-elected by spouting this kind of nonsense but I guess “playing to her crowd” makes it happen.
One would think that being elected to the third highest elected office in America just might have her realize and think about her oath of office and, perhaps, what that might mean and entail, but sadly, no. People of her political heft don’t take into account what is Constitutional – just some “gauzy” idea of what they can get away with. The post has a list of her tweets that try to defend her thinking (such as it is) – it proves my point.
Being an engineer has inculcated a sense of either something works or it doesn’t. When I start to think of something, I always first ask “is this lawful? Is it right?” and use that as “my smell test” (as in “does it pass…?”). Other people would say “applying a filter before going off half-cocked”.
Her? Not so much. At all.
And her voters keep sending her back in – one reason why we can’t have nice things (like a government that actually works).
(H/T: Townhall)
