Michigan's new thought police effort violates the 1st and 14th Amendments according to lawsuit by AFLC
Some of Michigan’s new administration’s nonsense goes beyond ‘virtue signalling’ or shaming.
We’ve had a few minutes for it to settle in. But the bottom line is that Michigan’s newest Attorney General Dana Nessel is clearly using the power of the state to persecute those who would disagree with her worldview. To the level legally possible, she is using public monies to pressure those who have something to say to either shut up or be pilloried in the court of public opinion.
And this publicly funded defamation, riding under the guise of fighting ‘hate speech’ is being done indiscriminately, and lazily. Nessel’s new thought police unit is using a map to target, and developed by the SPLC, a private, ideologically driven legal services cult that frequently identifies churches or family organizations as hate groups.
One of those groups is having none of it.
In a lawsuit naming (the new hate crimes unit) DANA NESSEL, and AGUSTIN V. ARBULU (Michigan dept of civil rights director), the American Freedom Law Center has charged that Nessel has officially sanctioned the SPLC’s opinions as those of the state, putting groups like the AFLC officially under the umbrella of hate as described by a private entity. Officially sanctioning the partisan opinions with the use of taxpayer dollars and the authority of the office to punish free speech and educational activities engaged in by the AFLC.
The first question should be, much like any homicide, does current statute prevent anything? If no, then what’s the point of criminalizing another whole new group of people other than to backdoor prohibition?
State Rep. Abdullah Hammoud concedes that his goal is not just to eliminate drunken driving. He wants to keep anybody who has consumed any amount of alcohol from getting behind the wheel.
“Drink, or drive,” said Hammoud, D-Dearborn. “Choose one. It should never be both.”
Hammoud, 29, a non-drinker with a background in public health, introduced a package of bills last week that would lower the threshold for drunken driving to a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05, from the current 0.08.
Hammoud a non-drinker? Allah-Shazam! Guess what? He’s a non-pork eater too. Shall we criminalize eating bacon? Why not, Abdullah’s Democrat Party buddy, Alexithymia Ocashew-Cortex wants to ban cow farts, and am pretty sure pigs fart too so, let’s not offend any moslems, right? 🤦♂️
Apparently so, if one reads the constitution. “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state..” Stated in Article IV reads fairly clear.
But where are the limits? If one were to go with that part as it has been interpreted, the congress then has power to declare all land to be under it’s jurisdiction, and subject no longer to the respective states, right? Obviously not if practice is our guide. At some point there is a limit where the states retain control over their respective borders. A further restraint on the ability of the federal government and Congress to simply take over land.
Yes, it is ALSO in the constitution. And YES, it has been ignored. Article 1 Section 8 clearly sets forth a manner under which the federal government may acquire and control property.
“To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; ..”
People make resolutions (which they‘ll most likely break before February 1st).
Another session of Congress prepares to ramp up in the midst of a government “shutdown”.
The democrats give President Trump more posturing and obstructionism because…well, illegal aliens (and Americans on the public dole) matter significantly more to them than the safety of the people who actually put them in office in the first place.
We’ve been here before – recently – how we respond will make a difference.
Since Christmas 2016, I’ve posted a grand total of three opinion pieces on this site, which is a very far cry from my usual pace; blame the weird hours of my current work schedule. The interesting thing about working “dawn patrol” is that I get to spend a great deal of time paying attention to my newsfeed. Many credible political pundits, whom I follow on that newsfeed, are referring to last week’s elections outcome as a “split decision” on a national scale. Fair enough. But here in the “Great Lake Effect State” (lots of snow on the ground last weekend), we’re armpit deep in something that isn’t snow.
The Michigan Republican Party seems to be the structurally weakest it’s been since the immediate aftermath of the Milliken Administration (circa 1983), a “rule of empathy” majority now holds the state’s Supreme Court, and an underinformed electorate has just enshrined systemic election fraud into the state’s constitution. Oh, and just in case it matters, the Libertarian Party of Michigan promptly lost their brand-new “major party” status, due to election underperformance. As with the other time something similar happened this century, the key question ought not so much be, “What happened?” as it ought to be, “What are we going to do about it?” . . . because that second question is the one that we must answer if we’re going to accomplish anything constructive going forward.
So in the midst of all of the post-election analysis, we’ve heard the “experts” from other outlets drone on about why the 2018 Election went the way it did.
We’ve heard them tell us that this is the vaunted “Blue Wave” sweeping across America. Despite the rash of ballots “miraculously” showing up in places like Florida (and apparently now here) along with Arizona, democrats still only control the House.
We’ve been told that this is the year of the woman. Yet, I’m waiting to hear why superior candidates like Lang and Epstein didn’t benefit from this?
Finally, the media (or infotainment complex…take your pick), dredges up their favorite rationale for last Tuesday Night’s results: It’s all President Trump’s fault.
Six Liberty Reasons to Vote Against Recreational Marijuana
A raft of myths props up Proposal 18-1, the Michigan ballot initiative for recreational marijuana. Freedom thrives when truth is spoken, so from a health policy nurse, here are the facts about the most common myths in the mitten.
Myth #1: Prop 1 will improve access to medical marijuana and help sick people.
Fact: The most common argument is also the least supported by fact. Proposal language specifically excludes any impact upon medical marijuana, which Michigan legalized in 2008. Informed voters will discount medical arguments as irrelevant to the MI Nov 6, 2018 ballot.
Myth 2: Liberty means doing whatever we want, whenever we want.
Fact: The libertine argument in no way supports liberty. Lacking medical purpose, only escapism and substance abuse remain as reasons for recreational drugs. Freedom to become a pothead is not freedom at all, but self-destruction.
In a move that I heard rumblings about them for some time now, but felt they had slightly more of a chance of existing than, say, The Nain Rouge, Dogman, The Little Blue Man or even Luke The Spook, The Detroit News reported today that a group calling themselves “Republicans and Independents for Whitmer” have finally made their existence known.
Yes, the name is exactly what is says, although the “republicans” in the aforementioned name aren’t even on the radar when it comes to promoting anything even remotely close to Conservative Values.
Calling them RINO’s would actually be a complement to them.
I’m a little pressed for time today and have to keep this short, but will share one quick quite from Sen. Shirkey and Rep. Chatfield on these knuckleheads before I have to run.
“Anyone claiming to be a ‘Republican for Whitmer’ is someone opposed to lower taxes, limited government and fiscal responsibility.”
I will be touching on that glaringly obvious problem within the Michigan GOP and expanding on this post a little later.