Dem Nanny State: Rep Robert Brady Wants New Federal Law to Control “Free” Speech to Protect Members of Congress (video)
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on January 10, 2011
Reminder: This photo was printed in newspapers across the country during Halloween 2009... illegal alien costumes caused liberal outrage and banning, but hanging a disgusting effigy of Sarah Palin outside a home was not considered offensive to many in the left-wing media. Some thought this was funny and told conservatives to lighten up because of 'political humor' and the First Amendment
Rep. Robert Brady plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be “perceived” (key word there) as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress. More Nanny State laws that will only rob law-abiding citizens of more freedoms and won’t stop the bad guys or the crazies.
Am I missing something here? Isn’t it already against the law to threaten people, regardless of who they are? Adding “language” and “symbols” that could be “perceived” as violent to the list of federal crimes tears at the roots of the First Amendment and its protection to citizens to freely criticize the government, regardless of whether it’s a Democrat or Republican who is in office.
What happened this past weekend in Tucson, Arizona to Democrat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, her aides, and her constituents was horrifying and despicable. However, exploiting this heinous act by trying to override the First Amendment is not the answer. Leftists never learn — laws banning American inherent freedoms never work in solving what they’re suppose to solve (like Chicago’s ludicrous gun ban that helped protect and empower only the bad guys). I want to believe that Rep. Brady’s so overwrought with anguish that he didn’t think this oppressive, anti-Constitutional plan through, that he’s already forgotten that it was Rep. Gabby Giffords who read the First Amendment aloud last week on the floor of Congress.
This is not what Rep. Giffords would want for America as a result of a Hitler-loving madman — Jared Loughner — who tried to kill her and succeeded in killing six other innocent people.
A new Nanny State law to control free speech, against “perceived” threatening violence, would never have stopped the mentally unhinged leftist from going his murderous spree. Or attempts to kill anyone, anywhere, for that matter. No one predicted this would happen, but now, in hindsight, there were many signals over the past few years of Loughner’s rage and mental problems.
Additionally, new information is forthcoming that Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had known about Loughner’s threats to the congresswoman and the community for a long time, and HE DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. So, instead of limiting speech, perhaps Rep. Brady should instead investigate the sheriff’s perceived lack of follow-through on protecting Rep. Giffords.
Libs, exercise caution for what you wish. For instance, these types of sicko, left-wing protest signs and magazine covers would ALSO be considered inciting-violence, hate-filled speech, so would be considered federal crimes by the proposed law (I’m perceiving them as such, so off to jail you go, Bush-hating and Palin-hating statists).
I’ve posted most of these offensive anti-conservative photos before, so many of you know these represent just the tiniest tip of the left-wing-hate iceberg. This is freedom of speech, however, and as such, even if it is ugly, loathsome, potentially violent, and highly offensive to me and millions of Americans, it is STILL protected (as it should be) by our Constitution. The Constitution does not guarantee that I won’t ever be offended or frightened by left-wingers, nor should it:
Hate protest sign in May 2010 against Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and Gov. Jan Brewer against the state's pending-at-the-time illegal immigration law
Collage of pro-illegal immigration protesters - in far left photo, slogan on the back of a protesting Puerto Rican singer from the band Calle 13 says 'Luz verde para invadir Arizona.' Translation: 'Green light to invade Arizona' | Credit: Michelle Malkin website
This vampire depiction of Pres. Bush appeared in the leftist LA Weekly... no outcry from Rev. Al Sharpton about the lack of respect for the President of the United States.
For an enormous, comprehensive compilation of left-wing hate headlines, photos, and post links from the past decade, the “must-read” today is at Michelle Malkin’s blog… The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010.
Perception is always in the eye of the beholder, so whose eye will be doin’ the beholdin’, huh? Wonder if Rep. Brady considers this language to be threatening or inciting violence? I’m sure many Americans do — if “hate” and “violence” speech needs any curtailing, let’s start with the president.
Courtesy of Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit:
** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
There’s been a lot of what I perceive to be hate speech coming out of the White House. Will Pres. Barack H. Obama be the first to be charged with these federal crimes?
From The Hill, Dem planning bill that would outlaw threats to lawmakers:
Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.
Brady told CNN that he wants federal lawmakers and officials to have the same protections against threat currently provided to the president. His call comes one day after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was shot, along with 19 other people, at a public event in Tucson. A suspect is currently in custody.
“The president is a federal official,” Brady told CNN in a telephone interview. “You can’t do it to him; you should not be able to do it to a congressman, senator or federal judge.”
Among the six people killed was federal Judge John Roll.
While it is unknown at this time whether the shooting was politically motivated, that has not prevented a vigorous debate about whether heated political rhetoric seen during the healthcare reform debate and during the 2010 campaign is inciting violence.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has had to fend off a fresh round of criticism for a map posted on one of her websites targeting 20 congressional districts that voted for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the 2008 presidential election but had Democratic members that voted in favor of healthcare reform.
Critics originally took Palin to task for the apparent use of the crosshairs of guns to identify the districts. The controversy re-ignited Saturday after the shooting, since Giffords’s district was included on the map.
Brady singled out the map as the type of rhetoric he opposed.
“You can’t put bull’s-eyes or crosshairs on a United States congressman or a federal official,” he said.
However, a Palin spokeswoman denied Sunday that the image was intended to depict gun sights. Palin offered condolences to the Giffords family and other victims of the shooting on her Facebook page Saturday.
In response to Brady’s anti-free speech proposal, here are a few comments I snagged from The Hill’s readers… they numbered more than 1,000, but this handful pretty much reflects the majority of comments, minus the occasional liberal who wants freedom of speech ripped away from anyone who doesn’t share the same ideologies:
From reader GT:
“Rep. Robert Brady (D-Penn.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.”
Lefties threatened Bush for 8 years. Why start now?
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
Oh, that’s right. He was a Republican. Nevermind.
From reader Sols:
Democrats will be offering a bill that requires everyone to be happy.
From reader Davie:
Democrats believe that if they can get rid of that pesky 2nd amendment, that 1st admendment would soon follow.
From reader Diane:
But putting cross-hairs on Pres. Bush, while he’s making an address, on CNN or adding the words “s[***]er wanted” when his picture is posted on a late-night talk show is all right? Or a “documentary” on the Day the President Died (Bush, of course) That’s not inflammatory rhetoric, is it?
From reader sifty:
And I suppose Mr. Brady has final say in what gets marked as dangerous, right?
Soviets got nothing on Democrats except more experience.
From reader Paul:
What happened in Tucson was horrible but easy solutions like what’s proposed here will do nothing except damaging our already fragile liberty. The current contentious political atmosphere can only be smooth by those who started this. Lead by example. Stop the name calling. Take steps to understand the perspective of those who disagree with you. Perhaps then we can actually find real solutions to our malaise.
From reader SgtRock:
Good!
Next time Obama invites violence against half the country by calling them the enemy that should be punished then he will get thrown in jail.
From reader Pay Attention:
Does Brady even have a college education? Our form of government is unique in the world because are elected representatives are answerable to the people and can be recalled by the people. Speaking out against them when we disagree is our God-given right. Those in office do NOT have a God-given right to keep the jobs they’re in.
What happened to Mrs. Giffords was certainly a tragedy, but it is the senseless crime that all of us could have the misfortune to encounter everyday we leave out homes.
As a group members of Congress have a much lower rate of being a victim of violent crime than the rest of the citizenry, but there is no way to remove the risk.
I fully chose to retain my right to speak against any member of our elected bodies. I will not give up my firearms and I will not bow down to anyone who thinks they can rule over me.
From reader ron w:
Guess the Dems want to kill the 1st amendment as well as the second. Ironic how the Republicans are now the ones in the position of protecting our civil rights. My how the tables have turned.
From reader jj:
Ban hate speech?
You mean like Bush = Hitler signs at “peace” rallies.
Or Movies like , “The Assassination of George Bush”?
From reader Gryphon:
This article omits the Bullseye’s from the Democrat party adds on districts across America. The DEMOCRAT party’s crosshair add that ran against JD Hayworth, the Daily Kos Bullseye map. They neglect to mention that a scope is something you use to focus in on something while a bullseye is in fact something you shoot at. Its amazing the lengths liberals go to, in order to try and sound nonpartisan. We are watching. Wonder when they will put out a movie about Obama in Hollywood like they did Bush.
From reader Eric:
Anyone remember Public Enemy’s 1991 effort “By the Time I get to Arizona”? that threatens Arizona politicans over the MLK holiday The video actually featured an assassination.
From reader Fed Up:
Funny the ordinary everyday citizen can be threatened and stalked and raped and murdered and the liberals will find some stupid loophole or technicality to get them off so we are not safe. But this happens (and it is tragic) and they are all up in arms wanting to be protected and to make laws to keep themselves safe. They work for us damm it-how about working to make us safe first-safe from criminals and lawmakers.
From reader Brett:
Sorry Brady you cant legislate everything. What does making a new law helpful when you dont even enforce existing laws? The shooter obviously didnt care about law. Why dont you concentrate on using the Constitution on your business?
From reader Lipstick:
The dems better be careful. Any law they pass might get more of them than republicans. We grown ups all know you can’t threaten anyone. But you can still think or say they are idiots. That is not against the law and cannot be misconstrued as being any kind of threat. Watch out what all of you Bush haters say. He is still alive and you don’t want to be caught threatening him now do you?
From reader StorminNorm:
We’re taking the next step to a dictatorship of the nannystate. Now the lawmakers want to control speech that might make them uncomfortable in response to a crazy man committing a horrible crime that was not related to speech at all.
I only hope that people wake up about this sort of thing. These are rights and they are taking them away.
From reader Dot:
It is so sad that people are crazy enough to think shooting someone can change anything. This young man was apparently fixated on Congresswoman Gifford and though he was leaning left did’nt think she was left enough.How many people old and young had to pay for his lunacy? Mrs. Gifford will now struggle to get back to where she was and I pray she can get there. But Brady is ready now to punish people!? Where was he when President Obama says “when they pull guns we pull knives, get in their face, our enemies”. Why do you jump to put this nut in either party? We will always have people who make threats or carry signs, we will always have attacks from sick people and many people die not just politicians. Are their lives more important? Will taking away more rights for citizens make Brady feel better? Lets just take that moment of silence and say a prayer for Mrs. Gifford her family and all the families and allow a time of healing before we jump to judgement. Unlike sheriff Dubuis or whatever his name is lets wait till all the facts are in. I don’t remember a moment of silence for our brave troops in Ft. Hood when they were massacred by a muslim fanatic should we shut up all muslims? Please people wake up and just think!
Memory Lane… only three videos of myriad examples of left-wingers wishing or laughing about physical harm or death/suicide of conservatives during the past two years. This is what left-wingers think is civil, acceptable speech… because it’s against conservatives. And to think, NPR thought it was offensive that Juan Williams expressed an opinion that when he steps onto a plane that has Muslims dressed in full Islamic garb, he becomes alarmed/afraid.
THAT was offensive to leftist media — but not these sicko videos.
Chris Matthews Finds Humor in the Idea of Rush Limbaugh Being Killed
Keith Olbermann Says Joe Lieberman Should Kill Himself
Failed Comedian Sandra Bernhard Attacks Sarah Palin, Wants Her to Be Raped by Black Gang Members
About the author
[...] [...]