We’ve heard the story of the frog that rests in cold water on a stove. As that water boils, the frog remains in the water as the water temperature slowly rises. This slow death for the frog would certainly not have happened if the frog was placed in boiling water. It would surely sense the danger and immediately jump out.
Unfortunately, many of our freedoms are being taken away, slowly without even the hint of something coming, until it is too late and the deed is finished. We would certainly object if it came at once and we would immediately jump into action to prevent it. However, because freedoms are taken away or threatened slowly, we hardly notice.
Let me give you two examples of where your freedom is directly being threatened:
First is House Amendment 1204. From Congress.gov, this amendment is described as:
Amendment sought to prohibit warrantless searches of government databases for the communications of U.S. persons and to prohibit government agencies from mandating data security vulnerabilities in products or services for surveillance purposes.
According to the FreedomWorks article by Adam Brandon, “The amendment would require the NSA and other intelligence agencies to follow due process and obtain a warrant to collect the communications of American citizens.” Additionally, the amendment “also prohibits government agencies from requesting that U.S. companies build security vulnerabilities into their hardware or software in order to make it easier for the government to access them.”
Although this amendment that protects the Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizure has twice passed the House, this time, if failed. And Barbara Comstock voted to kill it.
Second is House Resolution 257 which purports to condemn hate speech. From Congress.gov, the resolution in part reads:
Condemns hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States. Affirms that the United States stands united in condemning hate and evil in all forms. Rejects hate-motivated crime as an attack on the fabric of society and the ideals of pluralism and respect.
Although it sounds nice to outlaw discrimination, this resolution would forfeit part of your First Amendment right to Free Speech.
According to an opinion piece in FairfaxTimes.com, this resolution is similar to one not voted on that specifically condemns “violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims. It is a different side of the same coin: an attempt to undermine Free Speech protections so that Islam cannot be criticized.”
When one votes for a particular resolution, they would agree with that resolution. But when one introduces that resolution, this becomes a particular belief position that the person has. They must have an overwhelming passion on that resolution – enough that they would personally bring it to the floor and read it into the record.
HR 257 was introduced by Barbara Comstock herself. The FairfaxTimes.com piece sums up nicely, “Rep. Comstock’s resolution is a dangerous, undefined attack on First Amendment protections enshrined in the Constitution, specific protections which are incompatible with the Islamic doctrine of Sharia Law.”
It is unfortunate that the sitting Republican congresswoman is at odds with the Constitution. This is a dangerous place to be, if you wish to represent those who actually do support the Constitution. It remains very troubling to know that she put her hand on the bible and swore to defend the very Constitution that she is so willing to restrict and limit.
I can only suspect that she is hoping that the frog doesn’t realize that the water is beginning to boil around it. This brings great news. The people are noticing this slow erosion of our freedoms and the rising temperature of the threat to our country. They are jumping out the pot.
10 comments
Barbara Who
Shak, you could have been even stronger on this: “hate speech” legislation does not forfeit part of our First Amendment rights – it does away with them completely! Freedom to express only approved views is the very antithesis of free speech. It is the policy of every petty dictatorship and tyrannical government in history and the very thing that the First Amendment was intended to protect all Americans against.
Regarding “hate crimes,” this is just one step removed from the hate speech thing. The thought – not the actual illegal act – has now become the crime. Is murder worse if it is done because the perpetrator hated the victim’s religion than if the perpetrator just wanted to steal some money from a till? Try telling the family of the guy who was just killed over $35 and some change that it wasn’t as big a deal as it would have been if the murderer had been motivated by “hate.”
This needs to be ridiculed by every American of goodwill as the “thought crimes” bill and conservatives should be asking Democrats when they will be creating a Federal Department of Thought Crime. Then again, forget it – – they probably would take it seriously and actually try it.
If Barbara Comstock introduced this resolution, she has abandoned all of us.
Godspeed on your campaign.
Shak,
I appreciate your efforts here, but regarding HRes 257, you are only quoting from the resolution. You may well disagree with the resolution, but I want to be sure no one misunderstands what a house resolution is and does (or doesn’t do, in this case).
As I read the comments below, it seems that some people think of this as a law of some sort. It isn’t. A resolution is an expression of an opinion – the opinion of those who vote for it, and if it passes, of the body which passes it.
You quoted for the resolution summary, but not its text. Anyone can examine the full text here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/257/text
It is longish but it is worth a read.
Whether any of us thinks this resolution was necessary or not, we should all be aware that a House resolution has as much force of law as a local GOP committee resolution, that is to say ZERO.
I believe that hateful speech and actions are both morally wrong. I also believe that we must distinguish between the two: speech is and should be protected under the 1st amendment. People should have the right to think and say reprehensible things. Only criminal actions – regardless of their motivation – should be prosecuted. I am also disturbed by the increasing trend toward categorizing speech as a “hate crime” even if it doesn’t threaten anyone. People like me, who believe marriage is between one man and one woman aren’t committing a crime; however, unpopular our opinion.
At the same time, I want to be the first to speak out against actual crimes (violence, property damage, etc) that target people based on the color of their skin, their ethnicity, how they worship, who they are romantically attracted to, or anything of the kind. This resolution simply says such crimes are bad, they should be prosecuted according to the law, and the victims should be assisted as provided for under the law.
First — The Senate version of this passed unanimously — which means TED CRUZ (who Shak supported) was for it — along Mike Lee and Rand Paul
The only prominent person against it has been DAVID DUKE — congrats Shak for signing up with David Duke and against Ted Cruz in your zeal to smear Barbara.
http://www.loudountimes.com/news/article/former_kkk_wizard_david_duke_attacks_rep._barbara_comstock
The good news: If it violates the Constitution, it’s toast and can be safely ignored.
Shak, “hate speech” legislation does not forfeit part of our First Amendment rights – it does away with them completely! Freedom to express only approved views is the very opposite of free speech. It is the policy of every petty dictatorship and tyrannical government in history and the very thing that the First Amendment was intended to protect all Americans against.
Regarding “hate crimes,” this is just one step removed from the hate speech thing. The thought – not the actual illegal act – has now become the crime. Is murder worse if it is done because the perpetrator “hated” the victim’s religion than if the perpetrator just wanted to steal his wallet? Try telling the family of the guy who was just killed over $35 and some change that it wasn’t as big a deal as it would have been if the murderer had been motivated by “hate.”
This needs to be ridiculed by every American of goodwill as the “thought crimes” bill and conservatives should be asking Democrats and Barbara Comstock when they will be creating a Federal Department of Thought Crime. Then again, forget it – – they probably would take it seriously and actually try it.
Free speech is all about freedom to hold and express opinions that others find repulsive. This is not because we want repulsive speech but rather because we want freedom and we want to protect a God-given right (free speech).
If Barbara Comstock introduced this resolution, she truly has lost her way. Godspeed on your campaign against her.
You sound biased.
“Although this amendment that protects the Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizure” – what does that even mean? The fourth amendment is not being illegally searched or seized. And, it is an admendment.
Try again
I had to re-read that as well – it looks like there’s some punctuation missing. I believe what is being said is that Comstock voted against an amendment that affirms 4th Amendment protections against gov’t agencies searching databases without proper warrants in place.
And her introduction of HR 257 is an absolute disgrace – whatever side of the spectrum you’re on. We have a 1st Amendment in this country. We don’t have to like what people say, but we can’t stop them from saying things we don’t like. That she could propose something like this should be a wake up call to anyone that supports her. Seriously, they are putting people in jail in England for thought crimes on Twitter. In Canada you can be thrown in jail for using the wrong pronouns. That’s where this leads.
She INTRODUCED that? Yes, that is bad. Very bad.
“NSA and other intelligence agencies to follow due process…” Ba, ha, ha. Good luck with that.
But, seriously, federal surveillance is an under-the-radar issue that deserves much more attention. And I’m not just saying that because there is a microphone in my cheese.