No more - HR 6054 would stop that cold.
Here is the full text.
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations is the next stop on the path to law - it's been referred to that committee. Its members are:
|
|
|
|
I'm not totally sold on Yet Another Law (YAW). It might easily be quicker, and more effective, if all of us pass local or state initiatives to unmask the perps. However, remember the essential rule of laws:
If a law exists to triumph over your enemy, don't be surprised when it is turned on you.Speaking of laws/rules/actions being turned against you, most of us have been enjoying the various self-righteous sniping from Leftists unhappy that some Leftists - such as James Gunn and Sarah Jeong - that last one who wrote:
Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrantsand
Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblinsAce of Spades has a post that details the self-serving standards of the Leftists.
And, yes, I think his conclusion - that we have to dig in and support ALL non-Leftists' freedom of speech, lest we enable them to work their way through all of the alternative outlets, from the most offensive, to - finally - us.
The problem with any law is enforcement. Enforcement falls under the purview of the executive branch whether it is federal, state or otherwise. We have seen the violent demonstrators who torched vehicles and rioted in the streets inauguration day were let go with nary a slap on the wrist. This is evidence of liberal maneuvering to protect the liberal rioters.
ReplyDeleteThe other problem is that the left will keep this up (demonstrations) and increase their intensity as time goes on. The leadership of this movement is either veterans of the protests of the 60's or people who have been inspired by those protests. The problem is that back in the 60's there was a tangible issue at hand: a.k.a. The Vietnam war. Now, we have people protesting over 'values' and 'concepts' which are by design malleable and subject to change to whatever form they need be to accomplish the goal of firing up protestors.
Masks or no masks, these riots will intensify. Currently, the executive branch is headed by a conservative administration. Imagine if you will, the ascension of another pseudo 'messiah' like Obama who decides to let the rioters riot as long as it is against conservatives. The tally for such events would be blood and an awful lot of patriotic conservative American blood at that.
This soft rebellion is not going away anytime soon and without an adversary the movement will grow and grow. I do not advocate violence in any way as a means of countering any movement. That would be an offensive act and is wrong. However, I do see the need to respond to such provocations if warranted. The law enforcement agencies can be too easily subverted by liberal pressure. If this rebellion started by the left continues, things will eventually get far more violent. We need to ensure defending oneself is not more of a crime than initiating the riots are.
The future of our nation as founded is under attack by those bent on taking the property and success of others away from them to punish them for being successful and reward those who either did not try or tried and failed. Socialism is a system of picking winners and losers instead of leaving them to their own devices. We already have a portion of our government dedicated to doing that now and to see the entire government serving that purpose would destroy the nation that the hard working people have built.
Masks may be the issue at hand, but, it is far more than that in reality.
I am glad for this initiative but the Constitutional Authority Statement is vague -- every power in Art. I, Sect. 8. The purpose of requiring such a statement in all legislation is to ensure identification of specific constitutional authority for any legislation. But something more than "all that" found in that section is required. I frankly don't see anything that applies in so many words.
ReplyDeleteSteve Daece properly observes that expediency is always the wrong option and supporting this measure is indeed expedient for patriots concerned about this pestilential new phenomenon. The correct option in all such cases where federal action might serve some salutary purpose is to urge states to take up the cudgel. States can enact these measures if they want to. Period. Period. Period.
The hour is short, I know, but patriots at the federal level need to seize on this as a good example of good legislation that needs to be adopted by the states. It's not rocket science and a non-corrupt media allied AGAINST Antifa would help pressure the states. But now we're in fairy tale territory (FTT).