"Hate speech" is not unlawful.  I have every right to hate anyone.  Feelings cannot be legislated.  Hate crimes are an insidious corruption of common law where a crime is defined as an intentional malicious act, referred to as mens rea.  It is the deciding factor in determining whether an act is criminal or not.  While Congress can make no law to abridge the rights to speech and the press, committing an act with malicious intent is still considered to be criminal, however, the punishment must fit the crime — what are the direct damages? 

To protest against illegal immigration is not a malicious act, unless the rights of another have been violated intentionally and with malice.  To decline to make a gay wedding cake is not 'hate.'  To hire a person based on merit is not 'hate' against those without.  To bear witness to atrocities committed by another is not hate.  How do these hate speech laws work when it comes to screaming 'F#@K YOU!'  I suppose the application of these laws are selective at best.  It may be a sin to hate, but it is not a crime.

I like:

The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate.

Perhaps the longest running racket in history is the 'lord-servant' hierarchy in which everyone has a lord to obey and some have servants to command.  The seminaries trained 'leaders' to whom the common people would be beholden as authorities.  You were to 'know your place.'

Prior to the American Declaration of Independence, every person was considered a subject and property of the Crown under the protection of some 'lord.'  Adams referred to the real revolution to be that of the American Mind in which the common man was master of his own house and property and not subject to the whims of men who claim to be their 'lords.'

What is the difference between the answers coming from a free man and a slave to the question "Who am I?"  Most slaves will answer the same way, whereas a free person has limitless possibilities.

Tyranny dictates the answer to the questions "Who am I?  What is the purpose of (my) life?"  Hence government 'education' to impress upon the individual to become an obedient 'worker' also known as 'taxpayers' to squeeze.  While little by little people can be indoctrinated, the break from the hypnosis can be instantaneous.  The truth sets one free from the bondage of a lie.  To Make America Great Again, perhaps we will see a rebirth of the American Mind.  ;-)

Gene, I do not recall where in the Constitution the central government was given the responsibility of issuing money.  The government could borrow money and the Coinage Act specified that money would be gold and silver, the counterfeiting of which carrying a death sentence.  I agree that whoever issues the money rules, however it was supposed to be the People that hold the currency in their own hands across the nation.  Money was created in proportion to the production of goods.  The private Federal Reserve Bank is most likely unconstitutional and the fact that we MAY NOT use gold or silver as currency any more, somebody's head should have rolled a long time ago.

And, yes, after the Civil War, the US citizen was introduced and over time people no longer considered themselves citizens of their state but citizens of the nation.  However, strings have been attached, since essentially the principle of State sovereignty was eradicated after the Civil War.  But the People can change their government whenever they want to, and can even enforce the charters that have become mute.  Our servitude is not complete yet. ;-)

Part of the problem is due to the fact that people are not permitted to defend themselves, they are told to let the burglars take whatever they want because it is not worth losing your life over material things. (A burglar can sue you for harming him.)  It is a shift from being personally responsible for one's security (like every other living animal) to being dependent upon a police state and justice system after the fact.  There would be less crime, first of all, if criminals could not expect their victims to be powerless. 

Secondly, 'punishment' could be delivered instantly with deadly defensive force by the armed non-victim, thus serving as a deterrent to other would-be perpetrators.  Prisons and punishment are the tools of tyrants against the opposition, which is why we must ever be cautious about depending on such tools for security — inevitably a corrupt system becomes more corrupt until everyone is in need of permission to live.

Good points, John S!

Spoken like a true bigot.

It is YOU who shows hatred — no doubt Alford is also a racist according the leftist knee-jerk reaction.  Why not address the argument instead of simply parroting from the Saul Alinsky handbook?  Talk about 'lazy.'

Kind of like today in the USA.  Play upon people's fears, lie to them about impending doom, declare an 'emergency' to suspend liberty in exchange for security, steal from the people at every turn to keep them in dependency, and twist the plain meaning of words to mean their polar opposite.  The combination of hypnosis and propaganda keep the narrative going that 'service' to the state is 'freedom' and that dependency is a 'right'.

“I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more if they had known they were slaves.”

~ Harriet Tubman

Has anyone noticed how totalitarian the Democrat party platform has become?  Forget about the words 'socialism, communism, fascism' — totalitarianism is what it is.  'New rules' always coming out of their mouth in order to perfect their domination of the health and wealth of the people.  All 'we need' are more regulators to oversee it all and make adjustments accordingly.  And people are demanding this?(!!) 

The fact that the Democrats do not even see their own collusion with totalitarianism is the scariest part.  The globalist Republicans follow the same play book.  The battle to rule the world does not stop...

Wealth redistribution IS totalitarian, it cannot happen any other way, unless people voluntarily give, then it is charity.  The denial of charity and compassion among people themselves but somehow residing in government is a totalitarian pillar.  Upon closer examination, the poorer neighborhoods are kept in a constant state of disrepair in order to raise more money.  Like a sick patient being treated for the symptoms indefinitely rather than giving the cure.  The cure, as always, rests with the individual, and when he is ready to take the needle out of his arm, he may discover that he can make his own way.

I'm with Katie on this one.  It is questionable whether the right to self-defense includes a right to violate tenets of Christianity by 'punishing' another via violating the same 'law.'  The old law was an eye for an eye, Jesus said 'turn the other cheek' and 'forgive those that persecute you,' and now there's no limit to what an eye is worth but it is often everything that you have.  Sinners convicting sinners and rendering judgement as if they were the hand of God.  Again it is about power rather than justice, which is how the Roman Catholic Church had corrupted the essence of Christianity and became a conquering army waging 'holy war.'

The problem becomes more obvious when the making of laws are placed in the hands of men who use them to pilfer and command the populace.  Where does our justifiable punishment of criminals come from?  Why does the US have the largest prison population per capita in the world?

As a result, THIEVERY has become the modus operandi for those who are to judge thievery and punish thieves — how is this different than murderers issuing capital punishment?  As far as I can tell, the justice system has simply become a license to steal, threaten, kidnap, imprison, and kill for a career path with a pension — all paid for by the spoils.

Ron, what language are you referring to?  Where is this found?  Thanks.

Good point, where is the virtue if there is no choice?  Forced to 'choose' is but servitude.  As integral as morality is, it must be freely chosen.

Democracy is a con if forced to choose only from the 'approved' choices.  The assumption that all must accept one of these choices is also a corruption.  What about ALL the other possibilities not even brought to the table?  Why are we to believe that people are either on the right or the left?  Why not front, back, top and bottom — what about absolute zero?  It is a prison of the mind designed to turn sovereigns into subjects, and to legitimize evil acts as authorized by the people.  But in reality, the consequences cannot be avoided by simply declaring them 'legal,' the Laws of Nature rule.

Yes, no doubt Locke's 'white male privilege' discredits him and his observations.  If only he were as unbiased as you, Waffler. ;-) 

Amen!  

Indeed!  The joy of personal responsibility and self-determination.

Love it!  It's certainly refreshing to hear rather than blaming others and making demands.  Be somebody.  ;-)

That's the solution today, more rules (laws).  Got a problem?  New rules!  Doesn't fix the problem?  More rules.  When is a person to transition from following the rules, to making his own rules?  Why is it that we must either command or obey others?  Commanding oneself seems to be too much power to allow the common man.  'Telling people what to do' is the longest running racket in human history.

Without honor, one will eventually become lost in self-delusion.

Slavery is the number one racket in the world, far from being abolished, the conditions are merely improved in the 'civilized' nations.  Most demand their servitude/security.  Those that demand Liberty are called selfish and are bound even tighter as an example.  Self-sufficient, productive, and cooperative people are a threat to victim-consciousness (i.e. slave-consciousness).  Apparently people who wish to live free are 'radicals' — that's what they tell us on the boob tube.  I'm not sure how wanting to live up to the ideals of America is considered so dangerous by the oppressed masses, but here we are...

Jefferson inherited his slaves and they were already used as collateral and could not be freed without the debts being paid off.  Had his entry in the Declaration of Independence been accepted by the Southern states, slavery would have been abolished, and Jefferson's slaves would have been freed.

Where is 'hate speech' defined in the Constitution?  This is a European socialist concept.  Is 'hate' now a crime?  Who is to judge, and what is the punishment?  There certainly appear to be many exceptions that allow rioters to violently protest against 'hate' all the while exhibiting the most hateful displays and actions.  This is to censor and punish those that do not parrot the party line — how has the party of tolerance become so intolerant?  It is war, pure and simple, for your mind.

The power for subjects to defend themselves against the Crown has always been unconstitutional in monarchies.  Keeping the common person subservient and dependent is the business of ruling.  No oppressed people have ever freed themselves without fighting for it — this is why they are kept disarmed.