Hate Speech? Texas Lawmaker Drops Bill To Make It A Federal Crime For Whites To Criticize Minorities
US Congress Member Sheila Jackson-Lee has introduced legislation making it a federal hate crime for white people (and white people only) to criticize or "vilify" any racial minorities. It is tempting to laugh at such tomfoolery, but attacks on the First Amendment must all be taken seriously. Also today: Spooks come clean, admitting they knew all the time the Hunter Biden laptop story was genuine. And...here we go again with Leana Wen...
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host Daniel.
Good to see you this morning.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
I'm doing well, doing well.
Absolutely.
We are having a lesson today on the First Amendment.
It's in jeopardy.
And there's a little bit of confusion out there about what the First Amendment says.
Some people think that you have more freedom if you get rid of the First Amendment.
The freedom for them to say whatever they want and lie their way into control in the government.
And they certainly lie about what the Constitution says.
But no, there was a legislation revealing what Sheila Jackson Lee actually believes.
But I think it's a good lesson because everything she thinks and talks about and what she likes is a message because it's exactly opposite of what the First Amendment says.
You know, she said that anybody, she introduced a bill to criminize the conspiracy to commit white supremacy, criticism of nine non-white people.
So it's just totally ridiculous.
You know, I so often have mentioned that if you believe in the First Amendment, you get to say the critical things, the things that people don't want you to say, criticizing your own government.
But here, you know, she wants to punish people.
And one of the reasons why this is so foolish, because let's give her the benefit of the doubt that she's not so solidly in the position that we need chaos in the streets in order to remake the world.
She may well be a Marxist in that sense.
But that isn't exactly it.
What she's saying is that we are going to punish white people for saying something that they decide is criticizing the black people.
Does that mean I can't say anything about Obama?
So it's okay.
And that means everything is racist.
And I think my experience in Washington for the members in Congress, I think it's changing.
I think the colors are changing in Washington.
And I see some pretty bright minorities.
And I think that is good.
But I don't like anything to segregate and define.
I don't even like them reporting on election.
Well, how did the black people vote?
How did the Hispanic people vote?
How did the white people vote?
And that's all fostered by the media.
Sure, it can be interesting, but I just don't think they should hold on pins and needles.
And I often wondered how they're able to dignify that because I've lived in places where minorities live next to me.
Do they get counted as white people or what?
They do it by geography.
But I just think it's horrible what she has introduced, but we should learn the lesson.
And if you look at it and people read this, just assume everything she says, the opposite is true.
And I would say that my most severe criticism of this is anti-libertarian.
It is not based on the basis of a principle of liberty.
And it's certainly not based on anything whatsoever in the Constitution.
Yeah, that is true.
Well, let's take a look at how some of the right-wing Twitter is looking at it.
And of course, obviously they're critical of it.
Here's the National Conservative.
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee just introduced a bill that would make it a federal crime for white people and white people only to criticize mass immigration or to say anything that she claims would vilify a, quote, non-white person or group.
And Gateway Pundit is next.
Let's put that one on.
They say, Radical Democrat Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee introduces a bill to make white people criticizing minorities a federal offense, which is pretty much exactly what the bill is.
And let's go next to the next one because this is the bill itself, H.R. 61, to prevent and prosecute white supremacy-inspired hate crime and conspiracy to commit white supremacy-inspired hate crime and to amend Title 18 of the U.S. Code to expand the scope of hate crimes.
Now, that second part is something new and novel, which is very interesting in the bill, which is, if we can put that back up, conspiracy to commit white supremacy-inspired hate crime.
And what this means is you could have nothing remotely to do whatsoever with the crime committed somewhere.
You don't even know where it is.
But if you had said something or posted something on social media that Sheila Jackson Lee thinks might have inspired some kook over here to hurt someone, then you are actually guilty of a federal crime and can be prosecuted as a federal criminal.
That is how wild and insane it is.
And I think, Dr. Paul, we can laugh at it.
We can talk a little bit about Sheila Jackson Lee later because we remember her very well from her time on the Hill.
But the thing is, even if we can laugh at how crazy the bill is and how crazily it's written, which we'll also talk about, there's something about it that's profoundly not funny and very scary.
That's for sure.
You know, the one thing I don't think Sheila understands and the people who promote what she says, and that is this idea that's all based.
And their intentions, I don't know because we can't read exactly what they're thinking.
But give them the benefit of the doubt, well, you know, there's been unfairness in the world.
There's been slavery, and we have to do this, and we have to make sure everything is fair.
But the assumption of all this stuff that they do is based on the fact that they think minorities are minorities.
You know, that they're incapable of solving our problems.
I love the stories of people who had been slaves and they get rid of their slavery and their bounds, which are government-produced, and how productive they have.
And these are wonderful stories.
But the people like this resent this.
They don't want to hear about the success.
But once you assume, well, minorities need protection, they need help, you're insinuating they're inferior.
They're incapable, yeah.
Why do they need this?
And, You know, that to me is one of the things.
And I think it not only is not beneficial, it's very harmful.
I think this teaches people to raise up that if they're in a minority, that something terrible is done, and anything that they fail at, there's an excuse.
It's never the responsibility.
It's like only minorities have these kind of problems.
But, you know, when you think of the problems that they deal with, and they're real because they're usually government-created, but since the population of white people is so much greater than minorities, if you have problems of poverty or whatever that's going on and you want to deal with it, well, you know, they don't talk about, well, you know, 10 times more white people, you know, have this problem.
But that's why it's so hateful to use this.
And of course, I think the epitome of this ridiculous hate about this was the president.
He tells a black man when he's talking to him, they tried to have a conversation there.
And when Biden says, you're not voting, he says, well, buddy, you ain't black if you don't vote for me.
How can anything be more ridiculous and more hateful than that?
The question is, could Biden be prosecuted under that crime if he said this to the people?
That's a good question.
He could actually be going up himself.
Well, it is an attack on the First Amendment, and the First Amendment is part of the Constitution that all members of Congress, including Sheila Jackson Lee, swore to uphold.
So you do have that there.
But, you know, once again, we turn to our friend Jonathan Turley, who's very good at spotting these things and analyzing them.
Let's put this next note.
This is from his website, jonathanturley.org, which obviously you should read every day.
He's always got something very interesting there.
He says, House bill would criminalize social media postings supporting white supremacy or replacement theory.
And he talks about the anti-free speech movement in the U.S. continues to grow with alarming speed among writers, journalists, academics, and most importantly, Democratic members of Congress, openly calling for censorship.
And I think he captures it in that first sentence, Dr. Paul, which is, yes, we can laugh at Sheila Jackson and Lee, we can laugh at how absurd this whole thing is.
However, it's part of a larger movement.
Now, she may be on the outer fringe of that movement, but if you look at Hegelian dialectics, she's bringing the synthesis back toward her position.
And put that back up really quick, too, because as we were talking, I also thought this too, because Jonathan Turley says something pretty strong about this.
He says, this bill is an almost impenetrable word salad of convoluted provisions.
Now, that was criticizing a black person, and he is definitely white.
I think Turley himself could be prosecuted under this bill, but let's cut to the chase.
This is how Sheila Jackson Lee's staff, and let's be honest, it was her staff, this is how they wrote this bill and see if anyone can understand what this actually says.
Let's go to the next one.
This is the central provision of the bill.
A person engages in white supremacy-inspired hate crime when white supremacy ideology has motivated the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of actions that constituted a crime or were undertaken in furtherance of activity that, if effectuated, would have constituted a crime.
Is that clear, Dr. Ball?
Do you?
Clear as mud.
You know, these kind of things are easier to sort out if you have a libertarian view because the lines are sharply drawn.
You can't hurt people, and you can't steal from people.
And it's very sharp.
If you hurt people, fine.
But it doesn't say you can't insult people.
And besides, when you start talking about hate, That is a very subjective position to take.
It has nothing to do with objectivity.
So, oh, yeah, he said something, and that was very hateful.
Yeah, that wasn't very nice.
But the whole thing is, that's the reason there is a First Amendment.
And I think the founders, the early politicians, they did not mince words.
They were pretty strong on that, and they believed that's what they were protecting.
And it's something that I think that people don't realize that, you know, hate and, you know, dislike, these are subjective, and they're just tools of mischief.
They maybe want the mischief for the sake of the mischief, or they might want to just get an advantage, or they might want to not, you know, assume responsibility for themselves if something goes wrong.
It wasn't my fault, you know, somebody else's fault.
I was born that way, so therefore I can't ever overcome it.
Then, when you look at how many people of all colors have been born with handicaps, that that's the ones that we really praise are the ones who do these fantastic successes, you know, and overcome that.
So, I just think this is the worst thing you could do if you cared deeply about people who are struggling and sometimes legitimately being so-called mistreated but not abused.
Now, what we're talking about here is legal abuse and threats and intimidation and something that is going to hurt the very people they think they're going to help.
You know, one of the things I was most proud of, I think, when I worked in your office is how clearly the bills that we drafted for you were written.
I mean, you could literally go into there.
I'm not patting myself on the back because everyone else in your office was the same way.
You could literally go in and read any Ron Paul bill that was drafted by his staff and immediately understand what it was about, what it tried to do, and a good sense of the background of why it was written.
And they were usually pretty short, you know.
And so we talk a lot about how the bills written by other members are long and convoluted, paragraph three, section, whatever.
And it's all a way of obfuscating what they're actually trying to do, which is something bad.
But Sheila Jackson Lee takes it to a whole new level in the way her staff drafts her bills.
Let's look at this.
This is a little bit more, and this is from Turley's analysis of it.
And it's actually very sinister behind it, but we can almost read it and just scratch our heads.
The Jackson-Lee bill would allow postings on social media to be the basis for criminal charges.
Now, I'm going to read a little bit more and see if we can all help follow along with this bill.
at least one of whom published material advancing white supremacy, white supremacist ideology, antagonism based on replacement theory, or hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-white person or group and such published material, or was published on a social media platform, or by other means of publication, with the likelihood that it would be viewed by persons who are predisposed to engaging in any action in furtherance of a white supremacy-inspired hate crime, who are, or
who are susceptible to being encouraged to engage in actions in furtherance of a white supremacy-inspired hate crime.
And go to the next one.
This is the next part.
Could, as determined by a reasonable person, motivate actions by a person predisposed to engaging in a white supremacy-inspired hate crime, or by a person who is susceptible to being encouraged to engage in actions relating to a white supremacy-inspired hate crime, or was read, heard, or viewed by a person who engaged in the planning, development, preparation, or perpetration of white supremacy-inspired hate crime.
And he says, Turley says, this bizarrely written responsible person standard is so opaque and cryptic that it is enthralling.
Complicated Congressional Bills00:02:31
Well, that was a long time.
Holy man, that's a lot to study.
That would be tough if we had to memorize that for school or something.
Maybe if we're not careful, that's what we're doing with the way our public schools are going.
But, you know, this could be simplified, and I'd simplify it once again with a rule, a basic rule that could be incorporated into a legal system.
Don't hurt people and don't mess around with their stuff.
That would be really complicated.
I wonder if they would understand that.
The trouble is, is everybody would understand that.
It would be easy to enforce.
Get out of my house.
Even the IRS agents would have to be careful because of how they do all the redistribution.
But you talk about these long, complicated bills.
But even now, even with this transition, which I see a lot of good things happening, you know, over to Republican control of the House.
But Republicans have written some rules and laws.
They're rather long and complicated, too.
They're capable of doing it because the power behind the scenes, the real power when it comes to the Federal Reserve and the foreign policy and all, you have, a lot of people have to be protected because they have paid their way.
They've paid their dues.
I've sent you this, this, this, and you owe this to me.
I have a right to it because I sent you money.
And the bills get longer and more complicated.
People get more confused.
Sometimes they have, it gets so bad, they don't know how much money is in the bank, and they have trouble passing these bills.
And it could be a bit entertaining now that they're going to pass the budget.
You know, the other thing is, I don't want to pick on Republicans.
You know that.
But in the old days, I can remember when we were taught that the communists were bad people, which the Soviet communists were, but they had five-year plans.
And we were always, see, five years and didn't work and they're still doing it.
Well, the Republicans have just given us a 10-year plan.
That's admitting they're not changing the principle.
It's just who has the political strength to do it and who has the lobbying effort and who has the power at the FBI and the CIA and all the shenanigans going on.
Who runs government?
Who's in charge of this coup anyway?
Operation Disinformation Warfare00:11:25
Well, it is kind of funny, Dr. Paul, for Sheila Jackson Lee to be all of a sudden very interested in hate crimes because she was notorious for being one of the most hateful members of Congress.
And I remember when we were there, article after article about how she treated her staff.
Now, she went through chiefs of staff like most of us go through underwear.
I mean, she changed it once a day, if not more.
And she was known for her phrase that she said to her staffer, and I won't repeat it, obviously, here, but it was, quote, you stupid MFer.
And that was literally how she referred to her staff.
You never referred to us that way.
But that was in articles like on Capitol Hill newspaper.
She was notorious.
So one of the most hateful members of Congress who treated her staff among the worst of anyone in Congress.
And that's saying a lot.
Now she's worried about hate crimes and being hateful.
She even ran into problems because of that attitude on airplanes.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
You've read of it a little bit.
She was banned from one airplane, I think, at least.
Yeah, maybe more than once.
So, all right.
Anyway, well, we'll follow this, and it's funny, but it's also a little bit concerning.
Well, let's move on to the next story, Dr. Paul.
And again, I mean, this is Jonathan Turley Day.
We should send him a check from our massive bank account.
Maybe we just get him in here and talk with us like he used.
He was one of our early special speakers in the Liberty Committee meetings and luncheon.
And he spoke at two of our conferences.
But if we have him, we'll probably have to have lunch for him.
We'll get some shrimp.
Well, let's look at this next piece because it is very interesting.
Word from the Wise.
It's a play on words because he's talking about Douglas Wise, who's a former DIA and CIA operations officer.
Former intelligence official admits that they always assumed the Hunter Biden emails were genuine.
And Doug Wise is one of the ones who signed that letter saying this, remember, just before, just before the election, he signed that letter.
50 intelligence professionals said, this Hunter Biden laptop has all the makings of Russian disinformation.
The effect of that was to bury the laptop in the whole Russia gate hoax and probably to help push Biden over the line, even though he had 850 million voters and votes.
But this article is funny at times.
Some of this stuff, you have to make it funny or you'll get the press.
And when he was being described, I guess it was Wise who was talking about that.
Yet Wise still maintains that while true, he and other officials were right to call it as likely disinformation.
Arguing that something is true but still constitute disinformation sounds a lot like, well, disinformation.
So he hasn't backed away from it.
He's just justifying it.
That's a twist of values and twist of honesty and twisting of words.
And in a way, that's what, you know, Sheila was doing extremely so.
So he's saying this too.
But at least we're getting some benefit from him.
You know, the fact that he's even, he's sort of covering himself a little bit, but I don't think he does a good job at making him look very saintly.
Yeah.
Well, I have to say there is an element of truth in what he says, which is that disinformation will generally contain a lot of actual information.
It's not made out of whole cloth.
And obviously, if you're trying, if the Russians are trying to run some kind of an operation against the information operation against the U.S., they would take something generally true and use it to an advantage.
So in one way, he's right and he's clever about this.
But on the other hand, what he actually is doing is burying important news for political reasons, even though he knows it's important and relevant.
Let's do that next clip because this is something from Turley's article about it.
He says, yes, it's no surprise to learn that the emails he helped spike were genuine.
And he's not alone.
Washington Post columnist Thomas Ridd wrote, quote, we must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation, even if they probably aren't.
And Turley says, let that sink in for a minute for a second.
It doesn't matter if they're real and not Russian disinformation.
They should be treated that way.
And the reason is, the unspoken reason, is because it's to the political advantage of the candidate they prefer.
So they use the weight of their history in the intelligence community.
Oh, I can't tell you where I learned that, wink, wink, wink.
They use that, the weight of that, the gravitas that they think that gives them, and it has given them, they use that to political ends.
And that's a deeper problem, I think, Dr. Paul, that we have in society.
And it shows you that they're not dumb.
They know how to use their skills.
And I see this as being very systematically deceitful.
It's sophisticated in a way.
And they are able to persuade people.
So they're talking to a slightly different audience than maybe you might see on MSM every night on television.
But they're aware of the fact.
But I think that goes on steady.
You know, this whole thing about naming bills in Congress, and I would always tell the staff, when you're studying a bill for me, look at the title.
You'll probably know it because it's going to be the opposite of it.
The anti-inflationary bill.
Well, they got what they wanted.
They got Joan in office, so I guess it was a successful intelligence operation.
I'm going to close out, Dr. Paul.
I just had one little tidbit that I was going to throw out there for you because you remember Dr. Leanna Wynn.
She was a CNN doctor during COVID, and she was on almost every day screaming about your mask and screaming about taking your shots and basically trying to silence anyone who challenged what the CDC said.
And at the time, what people like us were saying, which is that something is fishy with the numbers because everyone who goes into the hospital and dies with a COVID test died of COVID.
And we said all along, and so many people, Peter McCullough and all the other doctors, said this is fishy, this is wrong.
They're trying to pump those numbers up to scare people.
Well, here's Leanna Wynn just yesterday.
She's back on TV.
Guess what she said, Dr. Paul?
CNN's Dr. Leanna Wynn admits the U.S. has been dramatically overcounting COVID deaths.
Says we need to start separating actual COVID deaths from deaths with COVID, which we said all along and many others like us, Dr. Paul, but now she doesn't want those numbers to be so high.
So she's changing her tune.
Let's remind everyone of the same Leanna Wynn and what she said just a little while ago.
CNN's Leanna Wynn, the unvaccinated should not be allowed to leave their homes.
I think she should not be allowed to speak on the media.
Yeah, you know, she's talking about the punishments.
You know, if you don't do as they say, and they use it all the time, they'll punish you, we'll punish you.
But sometimes, you know, they have to vary it a little bit.
And California is very creative on this kind of stuff.
So they intimidate people, and it isn't punishment, it's rewards.
You have suffered so much that we have to take care of you.
And we have a few flaws in it that we don't know who should be rewarded and who shouldn't be.
But nevertheless, everybody gets rewarded.
All they have to do is put their hand up and say, I want my reward.
It's a couple dollars.
Five million dollars a person because a great-grandmother, maybe he suffered or didn't even live in this country.
Besides, so it's all Jimmy, another just gimmick to play on the hearts of people and make them feel bad and responsibility.
But there's good news in this.
This brings this bankruptcy thing down sooner.
And right now, California, they must have had some pretty rich people there because in spite of all the junk they were doing, they had a huge surplus until a year ago.
And now it's a huge deficit.
So when it collapses, it goes fast.
And that, of course, you know what it's waking them up to, like it is in the various liberal states.
We need more money from those people from Florida and Texas.
You know, we've got to take it from them because we are one country and we have to help each other.
So that's going to end.
But if we don't guide people through this and suggest that it need not to be total disruption and total conflicts and fighting, we have to have a plan for that.
But right now, it's coming, and they're going to have more demands and more demands because you can imagine, you know, this whole thing, you know, it wasn't very simple and they haven't yet solved it, is how to make sure that it's a secondhand gift.
We give you free education and make the people now who work their way through college pay for them.
The people who got the freebies, they don't have to pay it back.
And they're Mickey Mousing around with that.
And it's still not settled because it's so big.
But what about the deficit?
You know, $31 going on, $32 trillion.
And they think they can work this out.
You just have to get the right people to have them suffer.
Terrible.
I'm on that, Dr. Paul.
Okay, I want to, of course, thank our viewers for once again tuning in today.
It's been very necessary, I think, to point out what is going on when we are always encouraged by having viewers who appreciate the comments that we get.
And we're going to continue plugging away because we're very confident that although far from perfect, I think we are basically on the side of telling the truth compared to what we have to report on.
And I think the American people are waking up because the one thing is the nonsense that we hear that was passed out as just, you know, freebies and everything's happy.
And for a while, and we have been so wealthy, well, we're not so wealthy as we used to be because now we're just living off the borrowed money and the fake money and the fake investments that have been going on for especially the last couple decades.
But it's really been going on ever since we've had that Federal Reserve.
And I'd like to know more about it.
And that's why I'm still plugging away for an audit of the Fed on exposure of exactly how they participate in all this nonsense.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.