http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2219/text

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title28/USCODE-2011-ti...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/534

http://www.justice.gov/crs/pubs/htecrm.htm

 

So, my friends, we have (yet another) problem.

Let us first get something absolutely crystal clear, without any doubt in anyone’s mind, so that what I am about to put forth here cannot be misconstrued or used in a manner that is not consistent with its meaning.

I do not, nor do we at Conservative Brain Works, condone any sort of violence. We do not condone hate crimes as those are spurred by misconceptions and people who misunderstand the true meaning of intolerance. So that being said let us move on to the meat and potatoes of the story.

Here we have another politician, Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), introducing legislation. That in itself is, well… It’s kind of what we pay them to do, however this particular one may be more problematic than, at least on the surface, it seems. All I ask is that you go to each of the links that I have embedded and read for yourself. You will find, if you read enough, that a simple reporting of something can lead to convictions, and again that doesn’t seem so bad right? However let’s look at something that I myself was party to recently, now this is a quote from a Facebook post that I responded to here on Conservative Brain Works  - “Any person who raises a weapon against the government should be shot & killed or arrested & prosecuted as terrorists.” Okay, here we have someone who was having a knee-jerk and gut reaction to a story that they had read on Facebook. Naturally the media had done its job very well (or poorly – you decide) and had made this particular story something that it was not. As a matter of fact (and here’s where I make you search through my Conservative Brain Works page to find the story) the intent of the person that made statements was quite the opposite of what the media portrayed those statements to be. Now let’s look at exactly what was said in this post “any person who raises a weapon against the government should be shot and killed…” Now I’m not sure what our federal government would think when this is viewed through the lens of the newly introduced legislation… But let’s dissect this only small portion one piece at a time shall we?

Let’s go with the first part first: “any persons who raises a weapon”… Now that seems to me like it would be pretty much the definition of violence. Okay so here we have someone saying that anybody who raises a weapon against… Sounds like an opening statement to something that could be a very powerful statement right? But now we get to the second part of that (actually let’s go to the end part and then come back to the middle): “…should be shot and killed.” OH - now that sounds like part and parcel of the definition of hate right? So one would think that, at least so far, a post like this would fall right in line with this most recent legislative introduction by Sen. Edward J Markey (D – Mass.), right? Perhaps, and here comes the rub, this particular post may be dismissed as not hateful and maybe even acceptable – and here’s why: were going to go back to the middle “… against the government…” That is where we would see a blind eye turned to something that is perhaps the best definition of hate speech that I’ve ever personally seen. Now let’s look at that post in its entirety so we can get a good, logical, non-emotional, constitutional examination of this statement to see if it really does fall in line with what you and I, as American citizens, would consider hate speech.

“Clive Bundy is a Terrorist. A home grown, bigoted & racist terrorist. He should be arrested and his property and holding seized. Any person who raises a weapon against the government should be shot & killed or arrested & prosecuted as terrorists.”

At first glance this simply seems like an emotional, knee-jerk reaction to a story. But it is a prime example of what our government would consider hate speech. Now this hate speech is not against a particular ethnic background nor is it against a religious viewpoint nor is it against anything that is currently listed in the law (again I have made the links available here so go read for yourself) but it is hate speech against someone who is standing up for their own liberties! It is hate speech against people who would (and you must use this with common sense people) stand up to the government, while staying within the confines of the first and Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Now do you honestly think that the government would have an issue with this? I think perhaps this would be a good question for this particular Senator.

Now if I were to post something on my really awesome webpage under Facebook, Conservative Brain Works, and said that I passionately disagreed with… Oh… I don’t know, something like: abortion, homosexual marriage, high taxes, bloated government, too much government control, too much trolling for information on American citizens, removal of civil liberties (I will stop the list now because I could go on for probably three or four pages!) - You get the idea - I would simply be exercising my constitutional rights. Now as long as I never said I was promoting violence to any certain group or people and as long as I never said I was condoning hatred (which…, we don’t) then no one would say anything right?

WRONG - we have already seen where our own government will target groups and use strong arm and militaristic tactics to penalize them if they disagree with the current administration. But I am partially digressing from the point of this particular article. We are entering an era where freedom of speech is being muted by those in power. I cannot tell you how many times I have gone to various websites where people can leave comments on issues and have seen the very essence of what hate speech is. I myself prefer not to use expletives when I’m speaking and I do not like to use them when I’m writing as there are many eloquent ways to express one’s thoughts and opinions in, perhaps, an even more powerful way than just cussing. But that being said I do not dissuade others from practicing their freedom of speech. I do not like it, I would prefer it if people did not use cuss words all the time, I find them to be small minded and repulsive – but that does not mean they do not have the right to use them! Blood has been shed, by many many people, so that people can spew anything they want to out of their mouths. I do not care if you are talking about your favorite sports group, singer, color, whatever – you have the right to speak as you want to speak! Now of course we must temper this freedom with common sense and a duty to protect our own (that would be the American citizens, not just those in power in the federal government) and that would include recognizing real danger when that danger is embedded in the exercise of this freedom of speech.

But when do we say that crossing a line between freedom of speech and oppressive, Orwellian government control is not acceptable? When will we cease to freely, with dull cow eyes, hand over our civil liberties and our freedoms to those who would take them in the “interest of the better good”? At what point did we relinquish our self-reliance and personal responsibility and allow those whom we elect to dictate what we can and cannot say and what we can and cannot do in our lives?

The final question, that I beg your indulgence for, is this: Let’s just say that the federal government begins searching your posts on the Internet (on any site that you may go to and voice your opinion). Now let’s just say, for example, that you posted something that may in some small and infinitesimal way be construed as hateful speech. Let us say, for example, that you highly disagreed with three women getting married and getting the same tax provided benefits as a good wholesome traditional married couple. That, in itself, within the broad sweeping guidelines (and here I’m going to reference the links I have provided:

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2219/text

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title28/USCODE-2011-ti...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/534

http://www.justice.gov/crs/pubs/htecrm.htm) - may be considered hate speech. You may not have any hatred in your heart for the individuals themselves, you may not have any hatred at all! In fact, you probably do not have any hatred in your heart, you are merely disgusted with something that you find vile and offensive! But, if it is up to big brother (I must be on some sort of Orwellian kick today), any time that you disagree with something that the federal government does not disagree with you may be held in contempt of the law. I know that seems a little extreme, but is it really? We have just recently seen the effects of what real hatred is, and that hatred came from within the ranks of our own federal government and the various organizations that fall under federally controlled agencies. We have seen people who were filing for tax exempt status (using current laws, current rules, exercising proper due diligence etc.) being targeted because they disagreed with the current administration.

Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Americans, my fellow Soldiers, my brothers and sisters – at what point do we say to the federal government that they need to stop infringing upon our rights? Our rights which have been continually renewed with the blood of fallen heroes, Soldiers, Marines, Airmen, Sailors, all those who would fight to keep America as she was intended by the framers.

We here at Conservative Brain Works believe that the Constitution needs to be upheld. We have rule of law, we have freedoms, and we have a balance between the two. We believe that the states should have the power that the states were intended to have, and that the federal government relinquish its power and gives it back to the states. We believe that personal responsibility, honor, integrity, personal courage, (yeah, if you are or were in the Army you know what I’m quoting here) compassion for those who need help, and willingness to help those who are in need are characteristics of the individual. These are not characteristics that can be given to you by the federal government.

We are a people under law – but more importantly we are a people under constitutional freedom. We are a people who will use our current process (you know, that whole voting thing) to remove from power those who would sully the Constitution, take away our freedoms, remove our civil liberties, better themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer, and think that they are better than you and I.

So go forth, blog, post, write narratives, express your words as you would express them. Just remember that when someone reads, hears, watches what you say that you are representing not only yourself and your thoughts but the very Constitution that give you the freedom to say what you say.

Sorry guys, wrote this one quickly with no proof-reads, have to run now – thanks.

Posted at: https://www.facebook.com/cbrainworks

Your fellow American,

Ken, the non-politician politician.

Views: 20

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

Political Cartoons by Jerry HolbertPolitical Cartoons by Steve Kelley

ALERT ALERT

Pay-Back !!! Pedophile Who Assaulted Nearly 200 Kids Stabbed To Death In Prison

A convicted pedophile who abused almost 200 children was stabbed to death in North Yorkshire, England, on Sunday.

Richard Huckle, 33, from Ashford, Kent, was given 22 life sentences in 2016 after he admitted to sexually abusing 71 kids whose ages ranged from six months to 12 years between 2006 and 2014, according to the BBC.

The report said Huckle was attacked with a makeshift knife while inside his cell at the Full Sutton Prison.

At the pedophile’s trial in 2016, investigators said they found over 20,000 indecent photos and videos of his assaults, which were shared with other pedophiles via a site on the dark web called The Love Zone.

Reports said that prior to his arrest, Huckle posed as an English teacher and Christian volunteer worker in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where he groomed impoverished children.

In one of his online posts, Huckle reportedly wrote “Impoverished kids are definitely much easier to seduce than middle-class Western kids.”

Reports said he attempted to make money from his crimes by crowdfunding the release of the photos.

“Huckle also created a 60-page ‘how-to’ guide for other pedophiles seeking to evade being caught, and kept a scorecard and points system regarding the children who were abused — leading investigators to speculate he may have as many as 200 victims,” a Fox News report stated.

At his sentencing in 2016, Judge Peter Rook condemned Huckle for his heinous crimes he said had become routine for the pedophile.

Rook commented:

Your offending behavior became entrenched in your everyday life. Your life revolved around your sexual activities with young children. Your distorted beliefs in respect of children are deep-seated. Your self-delusion knows no bounds. It is also clear that, had you not been arrested, you planned to continue the same lifestyle using the expertise that you were keen to show off to and share with other abusers so as to continue your sexual exploitation of the children of such communities.

Reports said prior to his death, Huckle refused to cooperate with authorities when they tried to unlock a cache of encrypted files he had access to that may contain the names of victims and other pedophiles, according to Fox News.

BONUS VIDEO

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service