Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee thinks she is smarter than I am and she could be right. But, you have to understand that she had the advantage since I did not have the advantage of attending high school for nine years as she did.
She has now offered up a bill that would criminalize what she considers hate speech against minorities by whites. But, what is interesting is that Black hate speech by Blacks aimed at Asians and Jews is not similarly covered by her bill, and I don’t think that is an accident or an oversight.
The legislation would never hold up in court because it does not apply evenly. Only whites could be prosecuted for hate speech.
If it were charged evenly, Ilhan Omar would be serving life in -prison since she is to the far left of the Nazis when it comes to prejudice against Jews.
That would also apply to many other Democrats. Joe Biden comes to mind when I contemplate that. Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden are three of the past four Democratic presidents who simply hate Jews.
RedState.com has the details about this racist absurdity:
It may be MLK Day, but Democrats aren’t here for all that “content of character” stuff.
Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee, long in the running for being the vapidest member of Congress (oops, did I just commit a crime?), has introduced legislation that could make political criticism by white people against minorities a federal crime.
In what can only be called a convoluted mess, the bill proposes that a white person who “vilifies” any non-white person and has their words end up on social media, accessible by “persons who are predisposed to engaging in any action in furtherance of a white supremacy inspired hate crime,” would themselves be committing a federal crime.
The provision is so broad that you could drive a Mack truck through it. What is a “white supremacy-inspired hate crime” under this statute? How is “replacement theory” defined? Because what Democrats call “replacement theory” as a way to silence Republicans is often not replacement theory at all but is just a reiteration of Democrat-admitted aims to use immigration to influence elections.
Further, the use of “or” in section (B) is important because it leaves “vilifies” as a stand-alone qualifier. What is the limiting principle there? If I post on social media that Shelia
Jackson Lee is an incredibly ignorant, abusive person who has a long history of treating her staff like dirt, does that mean I’ve “vilified” her under this proposed law? It would certainly seem so.
Then there’s the conspiracy angle to deal with. It does not appear that there’s actually any requirement that the “two or more persons” targeted under this statute have any real connection to one another. If someone commits a “white supremacy-inspired hate crime” against a person and I’ve likewise been politically criticizing that same person on social media, even justifiably, I would have now committed a federal crime myself.
This law, if it were to pass, would be used to quash valid political criticism against any non-white person or group (the Black Lives Matter organization, for example) because such criticism could leave those levying it liable to federal charges. Forgetting that such would be a blatant breach of the First Amendment, it also exposes a wild totalitarian desire by Lee and those who think like her.
