CA liberals, who hate the Right, want to purge 'hate'
By: Billy Davis , Steve Jordahl
This is PC cancel culture taken to a ridiculous and ludicrous extreme. The secular progressive elites want to make belonging to the wrong political party and believing in its platform an offense one could be fired for. The American Family Association is right to call out this law it’s sponsor and the vile and wickedly evil people that are the SPLC for such beyond stupid labeling.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
California lawmakers claim they want to keep the bad guys from putting on a police uniform but a California-based religious liberty attorney says left-wing legislators should be forced to define “bad guy” since that defines everyone who is not a liberal.
Brad Dacus, who leads the Pacific Justice Institute , calls AB 655 a “modern-day witch trial” that is attempting to run off conservative Christians in the guise of purging police departments of law enforcement that is affiliated with a hate group.
The bill, introduced by Assembly Member Ash Kalra, is known as the California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act, or CLEAR Act.
The bill is scheduled to be debated in committee on April 6.
According to The Federalist, the bill defines hate speech as:
advocating or supporting the denial of constitutional rights of, the genocide of, or violence towards, any group of persons based upon race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.”
“You have a constitutional right to have racist and bigoted views,” Kalra said of his legislation. “You don’t have a constitutional right to be a police officer.”
According to The Federalist, the current platform of the California Republican Party states it supports traditional marriage and opposes the landmark Obergefell decision, which means a Republican-voting police officer who admits to that belief could be accused by a future state law of advocating to deny the constitutional rights of homosexuals, and thus be fired.
In fact, the problem with Assemblyman Karla's observation is that according to the Left, everyone is a racist bigot if they are not a Democrat who agrees with the latest views of the party’s leaders. From the floor of Congress to the cable news channels, the Left has relentlessly denounced their opponents as Nazis, fascists, racists, bigots, white supremacists, white nationalists, homophobic and transphobic, and xenophobic.
Greg Burt, who leads the California Family Council, told NBC News affiliate KCRA his group is opposing the bill because it will not stop with cops who are outed as members of actual hate groups.
“It actually goes after individual cops,” he warned, “who simply have conservative social views on issues like marriage.”
That view of marriage, however, is likely considered “homophobic” by a majority of California’s liberal legislators so most would presumably conclude there is no room for such a person on the payroll of a police department.
“This bill,” Dacus warns, “is for the purging of Christian police officers, and those who aren't purged, they want them silenced forever.”
There is also the issue of defining a “hate group” according to the Left’s definition.
American Family Association , the parent organization of One News Now, learned in 2013 that U.S. military soldiers were warned by an instructor not to affiliate with the Mississippi-based ministry or face punishment. AFA had been designated as a “domestic hate group,” the instructor said, because the group opposes homosexuality.
AFA only learned of the claim after a service member who was present photographed the slide show and shared it with AFA.
"This is the ugliest piece of legislation to purge people of faith," Dacus says, comparing it Soviet-era communist purges of wrong-thinking citizens.
And the conservatives want to purge------------------what?
That's true, but the state generally can't discriminate against people for exercising their 1st Amendment rights to free expression on matters of public concern on their own time. So this sounds like something that would probably be unconstitutional. It's also far more vague and over-broad than is required to address the necessary police reforms. We don't a new McCarthyism asking "are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican party?"
This looks like one of those "feel good" pieces of legislation (see: assault weapons ban) that purports to "do something" about the problem, but never gets around to addressing the real problems with policing.
We don't need cops who are good Democrats. We need cops who don't look at people of color and think "there goes a criminal." We need cops who don't think "two black guys in a car is probable cause." (and yes, I am quoting a real police officer)
We need cops who make it a priority to 1) not hurt the people they encounter, 2) leave their gun in their holster, and 3) to make sure the health of everyone in their custody is protected. Guns should come out as an absolute last resort - preferably when the suspect clearly has a gun and is using or obviously intending to use it. And no one should die in a police car or a jail.
The people cops encounter are all technically innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, so there is no grounds for punishing them yet as they interact with cops.