Two Democratic Congressman and Attorney General Eric Holder are spearheading equally disturbing efforts to monitor and control the behavior of Americans—even if the Constitution and the truth get trashed in the process…… As it is with so many leftist agendas, it remains up to the bureaucrats at the NTIA to determine what constitutes unacceptable speech that falls outside the purview of First Amendment protections. The bill leaves such interpretations up to the Justice Department (DOJ) and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights…… Civil liberties lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate clarifies the agenda here. “This proposed legislation is worse than merely silly. It is dangerous,” he explained. “It is not up to Sen. Markey, nor to the federal government, to define for a free people what speech is, and is not, acceptable.”
My Take – Holder's mind is so full of logical fallacies it amazes me he functions at all, let alone his DOJ….Oh wait…..I forgot….the DOJ doesn’t function. Holder goes on to explain that “Racial disparities contribute to tension in our nation generally and within communities of color specifically, and tend to breed resentment towards law enforcement that is counterproductive to the goal of reducing crime” as a justification for hate speech legislation.
So, let me see if I understand this correctly? It’s important to stop hateful speech because hateful speech makes black and Hispanic men commit crimes, and makes criminals resent law enforcement! Is that right? Or are those three pieces of information that have nothing to do with one another? Is this ‘disparity’ in the criminal justice system between ‘people of color’ and the white population the result of "hate speech"? Well perhaps it is, if we consider the "hate" spewed out by people like Al Sharpton, who excoriates whites for every ill that has befallen the ‘people of color’ in the nation, but says nothing about the need for responsible personal behavior in the black community, as in black men marrying the black women that have their babies.
Holder states as proof of his views that half of all black men are incarcerated at some point in their life. Is hate speech causing that, and whose 'hate speech' is he talking about that's supposedly promoting all this crime? Especially since it's ‘people of color’ who are committing most of the crimes in the U.S., and “black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicides at ten times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined.” He fails to tell us who these hateful people are, or fails to mention black radicals who generate emotional excuses for blacks who commit crimes - which seems to me would encourage blacks to commit more crimes. So perhaps he has a point. All that radical leftist hate filled ranting may be why more 'people of color' are in prison.
Leftists decry the reason for this disparity as flawed statistics, but the New York Times pointed out that in 2009 that in New York City “blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crime in New York in 2009, including 80 percent of shootings and 71 percent of robberies. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of reported gun assaults.” Here is a fact that I’m willing to bet Holder and his leftist comrades won’t share with the public!
“The vast majority of the victims of violent crime were also members of minority groups.”
Here’s another fact Holder failed to point out. “Non-Hispanic whites..... committed 5 percent of the city’s violent crimes in 2009, 1.4 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies.” So that disparity has nothing to do with “hateful speech” by whites - at least that seems reasonable to me. However, if you consider Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the racists at the NAACP as promulgators of ‘hate speech’, which creates excuses for criminal behavior, like the ‘knockout game’, where young blacks attack whites for no reason, and in some cases killing them. Especially if these whites are women, old, helpless, outnumbered and safe to attack. Is that the kind of criminal behavior Holder thinks can be prevented by monitoring ‘hate speech’?
Well, perhaps he has a point. As an example; has anyone uttered more ‘hate’ speech than Louis Farrakhan and his followers who refer to whites as “the enemy”, and Jews as the black community’s “worst enemy”. That must be the kinds of “hate speech” Holder and his leftist comrades have in mind? Right?
After all, it’s the black population that’s committing most of the crimes in the U.S, and it just isn’t in NYC either. In 2011 Chicago’s blacks committed “94.8 percent of homicides were committed by blacks and Hispanics, and 94.2 percent of their victims were black and Hispanic as well.”
So just who are these leftist comrades trying to protect? Criminals of “color”, or victims of color? Clearly they could care less about white victims. So what "hate speech" is he concerned about, and who are the promoters of this "hate speech"? It would seem to me that those committing the most crimes are mostly black, and motivated by hate speech from black radicals. Perhaps if Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jackson and all of their ilk, had to wear a muzzle for five years we could then determine if eliminating their hateful speech from society had an impact on the criminal behavior of black society.
But as for legislation to “find” hate speech, and who utters it, I have to ask; why is there a need for such legislation when the leftists with whom he hobnobs are publically and openly spouting it daily. Is it possible he has another agenda?