The beauty of being for less government, a lean bureaucracy, sunsetting regulations, expiring rules, and lower taxes (taxation is theft) is that if an opposing political machine were to assume power, even temporarily, they can’t use what you did against you.
Never assume the tyrannies, petty or otherwise, that you implement for political advantage won’t one day be directed at your pointy little head. A maxim regulators and legislators should have in mind when considering laws and rules they are prepared to impose on the populace.
Yes, a constitution ought to be enough, but even the most strident among the liberty faction fall off that wagon more often than they’d care to admit.
Democrats are particularly good at enacting things never intended to be used against them.
The Left dismantled the filibuster in the US Senate to “get things done,” but whine when Republicans want to do that too. That’s more of an appetizer example than an entree, so here’s one that goes boom.
The Progolodyte cranks have lost their minds over Trump bombing Iran. Not authorized. Unconstitutional (as if they care or have a clue), but Congress gave the president this power. Julian had Col Robert Maness on Granite State Live this week, and they talked about it.
As the Colonel reminds us, and Rep. Thomas Massie, you all did this. You haven’t undone it. And, as I wrote in comments elsewhere, until you do or a lawsuit makes its way to the US Supreme Court and they decide it is unconstitutional, we’re stuck with what Congress did. You FAFO’d.
FAFO
The colloquially popular fuck around and find out continues to be helpful as the Trump Administration uses Biden and Obama era excesses to irritate self-infliced leftwing wounds. One of my favorites, the main course, is hate speech laws. According to the same, mentioned in the previous paragraph, there is no such thing as hate speech. There’s speech and the narrow crevice of activity that might be determined as not protected under the First Amendment. Libel and slander, incitement. It’s a short list. And even incitement isn’t considered hate speech.
So why have it at all?
From Dems looking to silence debate to prosecutors looking to pig-pile on charges, hate speech is a fashionable idea. Hate is a real human emotion; you can’t stop it or regulate it. The Democrat Party runs on it. And if it isn’t a crime absent action, then it can’t be after the fact – but that’s the thing. Democrats make it a crime as part of an action because they need the culture to accept that hate can be a crime without it. Not their hate, yours as imagined by them.
The Summer of Love. BLM. Silence is violence.
CRT teaches that every white person is born with the original sin of racism (hate) and there can be no repentance or forgiveness. Hate as a crime, absent action.
Here in New Hampshire, our soon-to-be former Attorney General tried repeatedly to link crimes he labeled as hate crimes to violations of the state’s civil rights act. He appears to have wanted to use the latter as leverage to regulate protected speech (IMO). The courts got one right and rang Formella’s bell hard.
The overbreadth of the state’s construction of the Act creates an unacceptable risk of a chill on speech protected by Part I, Article 22 of our State Constitution.”
This was the AG of a Republican governor in the Live Free or Die State, so feel free to ask how he came up with the idea.
Hate speech laws gotta go, but before that happens, the idea of them needs to be neutered, which brings us to the headline and what goes around. Democrats love them some hate speech laws, but do Republicans love them now too?
Mohamed Sabry Soliman, the suspect, previously faced 118 charges related to the attack, which injured at least 15 people. Among the previous charges were 56 crime-of-violence counts, 28 first-degree-attempted-murder counts, and an assortment of counts related to assault and the use of incendiary devices, all of which were brought by the state of Colorado. There had previously been one federal hate crime charge.
I confess to having laughed out loud when I read the headline. “Justice Department charges Colorado man with hate crime for Boulder attack.” Pam Bondi’s DOJ is using the Left’s love affair with hate crime against a guy with a suspiciously Muslim sounding name who firebombed a “vigil for Israeli hostages in Gaza.” Seems terribly cliche.
Mohamad firesbombs Jews in blue Colorado. Has he declared it a constitutionally protected exercise of his religious beliefs? Might as well try because it has about as much relevance as calling it a hate crime.
Motive matters, but if a white wife kills her white husband because she hates him (that cheating prick), that’s not a hate crime. If a white gang kills a hated rival white gang member, it isn’t either. The same is true for gangs and crimes of color. Black on black crime is the biggest reason for crimes against black people, but they are never charged as hate crimes.
Let’s not give the government any ideas or authority, and if they have it, that needs to be rolled back..
So, while I find it amusing that the Trump DOJ is leveraging the left’s passion for institutionalizing thought crime, I’d rather they revoke any rules and repeal any laws that suggest it can even or ever be a thing. Hate crimes were not conjured up to disincentivize haters from committing crimes. It exists to normalize thought crime, and that needs to stop.
