Tag Archives: Democrat

The last letters

Question: What are the last four letters in the word “American”?

Answer: I can

Question: What are the last four letters in the word “Republican”?

Answer: I can

Question: What are the last three letters in the word “Democrat”?

Answer: Rat! Lots of it!

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Tennessee Law Nullifies First Amendment Right of Free Speech

More creeping Big-Brother state.

The state of Tennessee just passed a law that criminalizes free speech if an image posted online causes “emotional distress” to someone.

Randy of Patriot Action Network alerts us to a new law in Tennessee which makes it a crime to “transmit or display an image” online that is likely to “frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress” to someone who sees it.

Violations can get you almost a year in jail time or up to $2500 in fines.

Shame on you, Bill Haslam

The ban on distressing images, which was sponsored by Democrat Rep. Charles Curtis and signed by Republican Gov. William Edward “Bill” Haslam last week, is an update to an existing law that already makes it a crime to make phone calls, send emails, or otherwise communicate directly with someone in a manner the sender “reasonably should know” would “cause emotional distress” to the recipient. If the communication lacks a “legitimate purpose,” the sender faces jail time.

The new legislation adds images to the list of communications that can trigger criminal liability. But the “emotionally distressed” individual needs not be even be the intended recipient. Anyone who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court decides you “should have known” that an image you posted would be upsetting to someone who sees it, you can face months in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.

If you think the law sounds unconstitutional, you’re right. The Tennessee law is a gross violation of our First Amendment free speech right.

In a blog post, constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh points out just how broad the Tennessee legislation is. The law doesn’t require that the picture be of the “victim,” nor would the government need to prove that you intended the image to be distressing. Volokh points out that a wide variety of images, “pictures of Mohamed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group,” could “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities,” triggering liability. He calls the bill “pretty clearly unconstitutional.”

This legislation must be overturned and fast.

Can you just see Muslim Brotherhood groups like CAIR, ISNA, and ICNA using this unConstitutional law to silence, intimidate, and punish critics of jihadists?

[Original source: https://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/06/new-tenness…]

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Corrupt Congressman Rangel Found Guilty

A bipartisan House ethics panel has just convicted 20-term Demonrat Congressman Charlie Rangel (NY) on 11 of 13 counts of violating House ethics rules!
After hours of deliberation, the panel concluded that there was “clear and convincing evidence” of wrongdoing by Rangel. The 13 counts stem from several House ethics violations, including improperly using his office to solicit donations for a school of public policy in his name at the City College of New York, using a residential apartment in Harlem for his campaign office, failing to report more than $600,000 on his financial disclosure report and failing to pay taxes on rental income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the adjudicatory subcommittee and the full House ethics committee said, “We have tried to act with fairness, led only by the facts and the law. We believe we have accomplished that mission.”
The full ethics panel will now convene a sanctions hearing to recommend a punishment. Serious sanctions — including formal reprimand, censure or expulsion — require a vote on the House floor. Expulsion requires a two-thirds vote, while a reprimand, which Rangel refused to agree to in July, or a censure would need just a simple majority. The ethics panel could also impose a fine and diminish some of Rangel’s privileges.
In an official statement, Rangel slammed the ethics subcommittee’s “unprecedented” decision, saying his due process rights were violated since the panel ruled without him having legal representation. Blah, blah, blah.
The House Ethics Committee’s decision comes one day after the panel rejected an emotional plea by Rangel to delay the trial because he lacked counsel. Rangel’s team of attorneys told him they could no longer represent him in mid-October, and Rangel said he could not afford to hire a replacement right away after incurring nearly $2 million in legal fees over the past two years.
Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, applauded the decision and called on Rangel to resign. “All of Mr. Rangel’s theatrics aside, the facts were clear: Mr. Rangel violated numerous House rules and federal laws,” she said. “Whether these violations were deliberate or inadvertent, the American people deserve to be represented by members of Congress who adhere to the highest ethical standards. Mr. Rangel should resign.”
[Source: The Hill]
H/t beloved fellows Steve & Tina.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0