Police Abuse

Utah Woman Charged With Hate Crime for Stomping on 'Back the Blue' Sign

The case is yet another instance of law enforcement using hate crime enhancements to punish people for criticizing them.


A 19-year-old Utah woman has been charged with a hate crime for allegedly stomping on a "Back the Blue" sign in front of a police officer, the Salt Lake Tribune reports.

According to an affidavit obtained by the Tribune, a Garfield County Sheriff's deputy was conducting a traffic stop at a gas station in Panguitch, Utah, on Wednesday when he saw the woman "stomping on a 'Back the Blue' sign next to where the traffic stop was conducted, crumble it up in a destructive manner and throw it into a trash can all while smirking in an intimidating manner towards me."

The Tribune reports:

"Due to [the woman] destroying property that did not belong to her in a manner to attempt to intimidate law enforcement, I placed her under arrest," the affidavit says.

According to the affidavit, the allegations are being treated as a "hate crime enhanced allegation" due to "the demeanor displayed by [the woman] in attempts to intimidate law enforcement while destroying a 'Pro Law Enforcement' sign."

Local news outlet KSL.com reports that the woman has been charged with criminal mischief with a hate crime enhancement, as well as disorderly conduct.

The incident is just the latest in a string of instances of police using hate crime statutes to retaliate against citizens for criticizing or disparaging them.

Louisiana became the first state in the U.S. to make police a protected class under hate-crime laws when the governor signed the legislation into law in 2016. A New Orleans man was the first person to be charged under the law for allegedly shouting racial and sexist slurs at police.

In 2018, police officers in Crafton, Pennsylvania charged a black man with "ethnic intimidation" for calling them Nazis while he was being arrested. The Appeal reported that Pennsylvania law enforcement had charged at least three other residents with hate crimes for making offensive statements to police.

As Reason's Robby Soave wrote, such prosecutions are "good evidence that we ought to be skeptical of hate crime laws. Although intended to protect the underprivileged from bigotry and racism, they often permit the government to quell speech that is critical of authority."

It's not just hate crime laws, though. Police have employed a wide variety of laws against people exercising their protected First Amendment rights. Take for example the San Diego Police Department, which issued more than 80 tickets over the last decade for "seditious language" under an unconstitutional World War I–era law. The Voice of San Diego reported that the majority of the tickets were issued to minorities for allegedly using vulgarities.

There's a wide body of case law upholding the First Amendment right to flip off or otherwise offend police officers, but despite this, arrests and tickets are still meted out to people who hurt cops' feelings.

In January, law enforcement agencies in Tennessee investigated and arrested Joshua Garton on charges of harassment for posting a photoshopped picture on Facebook of two men urinating on a dead police officer's grave. The picture Garton posted was in fact a doctored photo of the cover of "Pissing on Your Grave," a single by The Rites, which originally depicted two people urinating on the tombstone of punk legend GG Allin.

The charges were dismissed. Garton filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in April alleging malicious prosecution, false arrest, and First Amendment retaliation for his arrest.

An Iowa man won a lawsuit in 2019 after he was charged with third-degree harassment for saying online that a sheriff's deputy was a "stupid sum bitch" and "butthurt."

Another Tennessee resident was arrested in 2017 after he wrote "Erin's police chief is a bitch" in white paint on the back of his car.

The Garfield County Sheriff's Office and the Garfield County Attorney's Office were not immediately available for comment.

NEXT: American Cities Big and Small Still Ruffling Feathers of Backyard Chicken Owners

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. all while smirking in an intimidating manner towards me

    The officer actually wrote that down in his official report? LOL

    1. Are you really surprised more people are employing leftist tactics?

        1. Making money online more than 15OOO$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
          on this page…..VISIT HERE

          1. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and ecarning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks…..Earn Profit.

      1. Do you think it is an exclusively ‘leftist tactic’ to make up weaksauce rationalizations to justify bad behavior?

        1. At no point did VM state it was exclusive, you decided to argue against that imaginary point for nothing.

          1. Then why call it a “leftist tactic” as opposed to just a simple “tactic”?

            1. Because it is used by the left quite a bit. See the earlier thread of you and sarcsmic.

            2. Well, because you’re using it right here.

              1. But (a) I’m not a leftist and (b) even if I were, it wouldn’t invalidate my point.

                1. Yes you are, and yes it stops your simpleton defense of the left.

                  1. Making money online more than 15OOO$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings vdc are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                    on this page……. Home Profit System

                2. You’re a leftist, and a collectivist.

                  1. Hate crime = Thought crime.

        2. Here comes Lefty Jeffy to defend the left!

        3. Was it really the right that invented
          hate crime legislation jeffy?

          1. I’m not referring to hate crimes legislation.
            I’m referring to the supposed “initimidating smirking” as a weaksauce rationale by the cop to justify arresting a person who made him mad.

            1. Are you disappointed with the world you created?
              So sad.

              1. So you think creating weak rationales to justify bad behavior is “leftist” then?

                1. I just admire the beautiful absurdity of it all. At some point an actual nazi party member is going to sue someone for calling him a nazi. Again, try to accept responsibility for once in your life.

                2. Certainly. Just watch that video of that dumb blm cunt in Chicago saying looting Gucci n Louis stores was justified last summer cuz people gotta eat. Like black people dine on tanned leather and 800 thread cotton.

                  1. They don’t?

                  2. Well, with cotton, it could be reparations.

                3. The cop could have say that the smirk “triggered” him.

                4. So you think creating weak rationales to justify bad behavior is “leftist” then?

                  yes. suck a lemon if you don’t like it.

            2. That is the excuse used to activate the hate-crime legislation the left created.

              That’s the leftist tactic – use a pretext to trip hate crime enhancements.

              1. So once again, “using a weak pretext to justify a bad law” is now a “leftist tactic”, as opposed to just a “tactic”? Do you think the right never does this? Do you think *people generally* never do this same sort of thing?

                Why is it so necessary to condemn “the left”, or “the right”, for universal human traits?

                1. Once again, you’re a lying piece of lefty shit.

                2. Because the people that employ these tactics in a context like this are largely leftists. That’s why. A lot of people, gravitate to leftist ideology because it does not require accountability. Eschews morality and ethics in favor of a fluid leftist dogma, and rewards dishonesty.

                  Given these facts, it is no shock that you are a leftist, despite your protestations to the contrary. It’s the perfect environment for bad people.

        4. I’m at the point where when someone starts spouting off about leftist this and leftist that I just ignore them for the butthurt Trump supporters that they are.

          1. Yup.

            1. This is how we know you’re all socks. You only ever post in clusters around each other and 90% of your posts are replying to or defending the same 3 people, Jeff, scarc, and whitebread retard.

              1. Well, at this point I could see that being a side effect of being muted by quite a few other commenters, as well as the, ah, somewhat hostile nature of many of the comments directed towards them. That would tend to motivate grouping.

                I don’t think they actually are socks, or at least sarc and chem have been around long enough for me to think that. (Which isn’t to say that they necessarily don’t *have* socks, I don’t spend enough time here to say anything about that one way or the other.) There are certainly enough people in the world that it’s not impossible for multiple individuals to have ended up here.

                *shrug* Basically what I’m saying is that I don’t consider this particular behavior to be strong evidence of socking. Humans tend to cluster when attacked or perceive that they are attacked.

                1. Which isn’t to say that they necessarily don’t *have* socks…

                  I wear sandals. No socks. I’m not a fucking hippie.

                  1. Fuckin’ hippie. Take a bath.

                    1. I wish. Haven’t taken a bath since my dad lived in this place with one of those ancient cast iron tubs with animal feet. Could totally stretch out in that thing. That was nice. One of these days when I’m not paying child support out my nose and can afford a mortgage I’m getting one of those things.

                    2. Realizing I should count my blessings on this one. Have had the good fortune to have access to great bath tubs pretty much my whole life.

                      There’s a Heinlein quote, which I cannot find googling, about the proper measure of civilization being the frequency of hot baths.

              2. That’s really stupid logic. The same person using multiple accounts to have a conversation with themselves only to invite nastiness and hatred from people like you? Gimme a break.

          2. Man, the irony of your comment. You did exactly what you said you “are srarting” to do for over 2 years. Lol.

            You, Mike, and Jeff should have a good BBQ next time you save up enough for an air bnb though.

            1. They will rent a $500,000 house and build strawmen uppers that can fit on the strawmen lowers they already own.

              1. He’s still going on about that? Jeez. What a loser.

                1. Lol. Multiple people are. We aren’t the ones bragging about air bnb weekends to show we have friends. Lol.

                  Please list out your mute list again

                2. Yeah, show us your current enemies list. Or do you have a website for that? Hihn did, before he died. I had three entries there. Under the same name.

                  How many entries do I get on your list?

              2. He’s just jealous that when I get together with my friends we build guns, cook meat over fire, and blow shit up. While all he does with his friends is talk about me.

                1. Tannerite?

                  1. Soooo satisfying…..

                2. Man, someone sure is self centered. Victim, check. Undeserved pride, check. Estranged family, check. Online only friends you meat once every 5 years, check.

                  Yeap. Alcoholic.

                  1. I’m skeptical anyone would endure his company for a whole weekend. And certainly not cool dudes who own HALF million dollar lake houses.

                3. Sure, but when Call of Duty and Haegemonia are done, everyone turns off your respective Xbox and just like that your friends are gone.

                  Just kidding…. you’re always here, so I don’t think “friends” is what you think it means.

          3. How wonderfully droll.

          4. Except right here, of course.

          5. Because you are a far left jackass

        5. You and sarsmic just spent half your morning doing the same on the earlier thread today.

          So mostly?

        6. Exclusively – no.

          Overwhelmingly predominantly – absolutely.

      2. a) what is leftist about it?
        b) chemjeff isn’t a lefitst

        1. I like it when you agree with the voices in your head Jeff.

        2. Does the left do it?

          And yes he is. He is literally defending the left job. He does so constantly. When has he ever defended the right? He said a conservative protestor deserved to be shot in the head for trespassing for fucks sake. He said Tucker was wrong to let it be known the NSA unmasked him.

          How is he not a leftist?

        3. Jeff does seem further left than “left.”

          1. Jeff and other libertarians are definitely to the left of the Daily Stormer types that love Trump.

            Again, a Left/Right lesson for you Peanuts.

            Left – more egalitarian, equal rights.
            Right – a favored race, ethnic group, religion, or national identity.

            And no, Nazis killing Jews is not “equal rights” for them but it is certainly Aryan Supremacy (right wing).

            1. National socialism was the beta version of CRT. Explain to me how race hating is libertarian then explain how collectivism is libertarian.

              1. What the fuck are you babbling about?

                There is no shame being to the left of Nazis, Neo-Nazis and other far right groups.

                So when a libertarian says he supports equal rights/civil liberties you attempt to paint that libertarian as a “national socialist”?

                If so, you’re an idiot.

                I support gay marriage (even better get the state out of marriage). And I support capitalism.

                Only a Trump-tard idiot would call me a “national socialist”.

                1. You are giving OBL a run for best parody account. Keep up the good work!

                2. National socialism tolerated both capitalism and even lesbians if they served the state.

                3. Only a retarded would call Joe biden a moderate at this point, which you do constantly.

            2. If you stop the kid porn thing maybe you’ll get invited to the next sarcasmic retreat.

            3. Buttplug, you haven’t seen a lot of the left lately, huh?

              1. yeah, “the left” is a wide spectrum but I have admitted many times here that Bernie Sanders is worse than Trump.

                They both are protectionist Big Government Deficit Spending fools.

                Obama was a fiscal hawk compared to both. Trump ran the deficit up six times higher than where Obama left it.

                1. How is the current POTUS doing regarding spending?

                  1. Biden sucks on spending. He is just as bad as Trump was.

                    1. Can you share the “just as bad” math?

                    2. So 8 trillion Biden dollars equals 2 trillion Trump dollars.

                      One seems worse than the other, to me.

                  2. “So 8 trillion Biden dollars equals 2 trillion Trump dollars.”

                    Well, in terms of buying power…

            4. Hahahahahahahahahaha.

            5. Again, a Left/Right lesson for you Peanuts.

              Left – more egalitarian, equal rights.
              Right – a favored race, ethnic group, religion, or national identity.

              It’s funny how left wingers hang on to the past to defend themselves. In reality the left believes equal rights are racist and openly favor a racial hierarchy.

              1. In a world full of foolish definitions of the left / right divide, this one *is* particularly foolish.

            6. Left – CRT, antifa is ‘just an idea’, mostly peaceful protests, masks & lockdowns, green new deal, identity politics, free childcare is infrastructure, men are women, and now selling your house is a capital gain, which we tax double now.

              Right – none of that crap above, but a lot of them are kinda religious prudes.

              BOTH SIDES!

            7. How does your pedophilia fit in?

      3. if they were employing righist tactics they’d burn the cop and his family, steal all their stuff, and live the rest of their lives off handouts.
        weird how the conservative states are poor and dependent, living off the tax money of the rich liberal states.

        1. None of that is actually true. You must be one of those low information idiots that believes all the discredited nonsense that the democrats claim. I’ll bet you also think that after civili rights passed in the 60’s that republicans and democrats all switched parties too.

          1. Southern conservative voters slowly switched from voting dem to voting gop.

            Storm Thurmond switched parties. Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were GOP.

      4. You have that right. All you have to do is to ask yourself what if it was a BLM sign?

      5. Pretty much this. Literally 400 posts. That’s a lot of blabber for “enjoy living in the unfree, idiotic world you created.”

    2. Just like the hate filled monster did to the brave Native American veteran?

      1. Bingo!

    3. Detectives are searching through her house to see of she owned any fire extinguishers.

      1. And Lego. She might have been using Lego to plan crime.

    4. Jeff, you’re right. “She smirked at me” is a hilariously weak excuse for this.

      Point is this – the political types are so hypocritical and short thinking that they are simply amazed when discretion they favor giving the government to punish the opposition is used against their side. In this case it’s the left and hate crime enhancements.

      Both sides are incredulous when the monster they released attack them.

    5. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h… Read More

    6. In this thread: fatjeff, echospinner, and white Mike (as usual) confirm they are nothing but sycophants for the totalitarian left and will aid in any corruption coming from that source.

    7. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h… Read More

    8. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h… Read More

  2. Didn’t the same thing happen to someone that squealed their tires on a BLM or LGBTQ painting on a crosswalk?

    1. Yeah, but that was totally different. It’s to be expected that leftists will use such tactics, but we expect the right to be more honorable than that and not stoop to the level of using the left’s own tactics against them.

      1. Both sides in WW1 thought that way before they got desperate. That’s the nature of any kind of war.

        1. Germany invaded neutral Belgium and England invaded neutral Greece.

    2. The DA in Portland just dropped charges on an antifa “reporter” who punched a cop while charging the cop instead. Antifa initiated the assault.

      1. But it was a peaceful assault so it doesn’t count.

        1. Maybe the DA will charge the cop with a hate crime.

          1. Smirking with intent to intimidate?

            Holy crap, I just remembered that’s almost exactly what they accused the Covington kid of! There was all sorts of uproar about his “smirk”.

  3. Well, that is different. The headline should have read, “Over-entitled, childish Karen earns a hate crime charge and embarrasses her family”.

  4. Let’s not jump to conclusions… is she shite?

      1. She could be both shite and white. It tends to get that way when nutrients are drained from the body.

      2. Maybe she is white, shite and Shiite.

  5. A lot of utah women hooking up with brothers and stomping on signs. Or getting killed, hard to keep track.

  6. How much you wanna bet the pig is Mormon?

    Mormons shouldn’t be allowed to be pigs. They obviously have horrible judgment. They worship a discredited con artist pervert.

    1. Muhammad?

      1. KARen is blowing Muslims in addition to Mormons for rent money, now?

        I suppose that at a quarter a pop, he probably needs to have quite the volume of clients.

        1. What’s your deal dude?

          Are you like mad at me or something?

          What’d I do?

      2. Pig is a slang term for cop.

        1. Thank you House of Pain.

          1. I mean, I suppose it’s a step up from the dime handies to hobos on skid row for gutter smack…

            1. What’s “gutter smack?”

              Is it like smack, but really bad?

              Also what’s your problem dude?

          2. I don’t get the reference Gumby…
            You’ve been whiffing on your jokes the past few days.

            Everything ok?

            If you ever need someone to talk to…

            1. “I never eat a pig because a pig is a cop or better yet a Terminator like Arnold Schwarzenegger.” House of Pain. Jump Around. Was providing a social reference to the term. I get it was around before that but the song was fairly mainstream.

              1. Thanks for the explanation!

              2. I’m pretty sure KAR is like 19, so any song reference from ’07 or earlier is going to be completely lost on him.

                1. I think it may be younger.

                  1. Yeah I’m thinking closer to 13.

                    1. That’s pretty young to be sucking down loads for a quarter each. Does Buttplug know?

                    2. What’s your problem man?

                2. Not even close.

                  I’m old enough where I lie about my age.

  7. Nothing else could be as hateful (except a reason article or two).
    She should get life.

  8. ‘The case is yet another instance of law enforcement using hate crime enhancements to punish people for criticizing them.’ It’s a better example of stupid and repressive laws being used against people in ways that they were not intended, as many folks here have pointed out is often the case. Typically some asshat passes a somebody must do something feel-good law punishing the out-group, protecting helpless minorities from mean opinions, or the like. And within a year the same horrific law is being used, as was warned, against minorities and activists. Rinse and repeat.

  9. “Local news outlet KSL.com reports that the woman has been charged with criminal mischief with a hate crime enhancement, as well as disorderly conduct.”

    Criminal mischief is typically things like vandalism or the destruction of property, like defacing it, without actually stealing it. If the defendant destroyed a sign that did not belong to her, then the charge of criminal mischief is probably appropriate. There isn’t anything about the First Amendment that protects the right to destroy other people’s property.

    It should be noted that defacing a synagogue with Nazi symbols or rhetoric is also probably criminal mischief with a hate crime enhancement. If you have a problem with the whole concept of hate crime–because the government has no business policing and prosecuting us for our thoughts and feelings–that’s one thing.

    If there’s a problem with the hate crime enhancement, apart from that, it’s that the police shouldn’t qualify because they’re not a race, creed, color, sex, orientation, or national origin. Hating the police is protected by the First Amendment, and all those progressives out there, who spend so much time hating on the First Amendment, should probably have their faced rubbed in this story for that reason.

    1. 175 words to restate the obvious point of the articel

      1. articel?

        1. It’s how incels spell article.

          1. I thought that was Picasso during his blue period.

      2. You counted the words?

        Dude, you need another hobby.

        1. She cawnted the words.

  10. That poor brave cop. She *smirked* at him. Smirked! He could have died from that case of acute butthurt!

    Destruction of property? Sure. “Hate crime”? “Intimidation”? If the cop finds someone crumpling paper intimidating, he might be in the wrong line of work.

    1. you say insurrection, I say intimidation – – – – – –

  11. As a left-libertarian, I believe cops* are a bunch of out-of-control violent racists who put bullets in Black bodies for no reason — even when they’re in the #HandsUpDontShoot position. Therefore #BackTheBlue is an inherently problematic message.

    * — Except for the heroic Capitol Police, who deserve our respect, and billions in additional funding.

    1. It’s quite true. Only racist cops should have guns.

      1. Noted libertarian scholar Michael Hihn certainly thought so. Also that left + Q = purple.

        1. Any stupidity I exhibit I come by honestly.

        2. *snickers*

    2. “Black”. I saw what you did there.

  12. A New Orleans man was the first person to be charged under the law for allegedly shouting racial and sexist slurs at police.

    I guess Louisiana didn’t get the news about the USSC decision in Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 1972.

    1. As long as cops and prosecutors see no consequences for false arrest and malicious prosecution, they’re gonna keep on doing it.

      1. As long as people aren’t charged for resisting arrest they will keep doing it.

        This is a fun tautology game you’ve set up.

  13. Utah Woman Charged With Hate Crime for Stomping on ‘Back the Blue’ Sign”

    Was this Dee? Is ‘White Mike’ going to disappear for a while/

  14. Pretty rich that a guy who assaults people for a living feels intimidated by a smirk.

    1. I know, right? The supposed ‘battle-hardened warrior cop’ melted at the sight of an unflattering facial gesture.

      1. Many cops have a victimhood mentality. That’s why they adopt the tactics of the left.

        1. Some people see literally everything through a political lens, and have to label it left or right. I call them losers.

          1. I know, right? Like trying to assign a negative *human* quality, such as constructing weak rationalizations for one’s bad behavior, to one political tribe or the other.

            Both left-wingers and right-wingers can be awful people, and both left-wingers and right-wingers can also be good people.

            1. I think you made a breakthrough jeffy!

            2. You two could be the most self unaware people on the planet. You claim to not have a side but bet you couldn’t post 3 negative things you’ve said about the current DNC. Double difficulty, don’t link a both sides argument.

          2. You did that for 2 years. I mean fuck, 3 weeks ago you blamed the current schooling issues on Bush.

          3. Actually, it’s the both sides libertarians like yourself who keep losing elections.

            Whenever libertarians realize they’ll get more of their goals accomplished working with Republicans and against democrats, especially the radical ones from the coasts and the jihadis in the upper mid west, they’ll start getting more libertarian leaning laws passed and winning more elections.

            Let’s not forget, many major “libertarian” positions of years past are now embraced by post Republicans. Recent polling shows over 60% of Republicans favor weed legalization/decriminalization and gay marriage. There really aren’t many “zinger” positions libertarians can take anymore to draw separation from Republicans in the mind of voters. Most of the issues we might have distinction from Republicans on are issues that aren’t at the forefront, like work licensing, or privatizing govt industries.

            That’s why we’re better off working with them, instead of ignoring the big issues we agree on so we can constantly search for less and less important issues to try and demarcate ourselves from Republicans, which in turn gives us less and less relevance.

            Libertarianisms best shot at power is to co-opt the republican party and then steer it our way, the same way the Marxists did it with the democrats. Bernies Democrat socialists are just as weak as the libertarians. But they figured this out sooner, and like a parasite, have had more time to infect their host party.

            1. As much as I dislike this notion, I think it’s probably accurate. But maybe I just like the “edgy” factor of calling myself a libertarian rather than a republican.

              Still, I dialled myself back to “libertarian” from “anarchist” because I thought libertarian was actually achievable. Maybe going to “republican” is the way to actually achieve libertarian.

              Kind of yucky, but well, if that’s what it takes. “By any means necessary”… 😉

              1. Anarchy is a temporary state between different groups of violent assholes charging money for “protection.”

            2. I voted Republican until they nominated a lifelong Democrat who hosts game shows and tried to trademark “You’re fired.” That was the end for me.

              1. Here’s sarc admitting he chooses principals over principles.

                1. “How dare people think outside the box and vote against the establishment caste!”

        2. They see “good guys” and “bad guys.”

          1. And they think they’re the good guys. That always gives me a chuckle.

            1. They probably do. There are good cops. And they probably think they are the good guys as well.
              Have had that “good guys/bad guys” conversation a few times. Understanding the basic position helps get one out of a lot of victimless traffic violations.

              1. I had a conversation with a cop today. My kid keyed the neighbor’s car. When I started putting ten bucks a week into a bank account for her I thought I’d use it to buy her something, not to pay for her vandalism.

                1. Ouch! That sucks. For you and I imagine she’s in a bit of trouble too. Did you explain to her where the money to repair the car is coming from?

                  1. Sure did. Hit her where it hurts.

                    1. I’m not telling you how to parent; if it were my kid and they did that and they had a smart phone I paid for they wouldn’t have a smart phone after that.

                    2. She’s only 11. Definitely lost YouTube and Netflix for a while.

                    3. Lol. You used the phrase “hit her” given your past. Wow.

                    4. You would have a cunty daughter.

                    5. Have you ever given thought to the idea that you would be a better parent if you weren’t such a horrible human being?

                    6. Talking shit about someone’s kid. Classy. And Mute worthy.

                    7. We see this as more about your abject failure as a person, as opposed to the child herself.

                2. Acorn doesn’t fall far it seems.

                3. I’m super shocked that sarc’s kid keyed a car.

                  1. As a fake libritarian he doesn’t care about respecting properties

                4. Just curious: was there some provocation by the neighbor?

            2. Lol. So self unaware.

      2. I’m actually surprised he didn’t charge her for assaulting his fists with her face.

        1. And here sarcasmic once again proved a cop is fucking his ex wife.

          1. She wanted something bigger than a snubnose

            1. Some chicks dig magnums.

              1. My magnum is 2.75 inches. And shiny.

                1. So you polish your 2.75 inches often? Wait. TMI. 😉

                  1. Only after heavy use.

                    1. *cue Jesse with a snarky comment*

                    2. He’s not snarky. Snarky is entertaining. He’s just a mean spirited bully.

                    3. Lol. I’m a bully for calling put your bullshit? What was your behavior the last few years then cupcake?

                    4. I see he’s dropped some turds on my comments. No doubt more lies about stuff I never said nor did, and probably something nasty about my family.

                      I wish he’s talk his shit to someone’s face. He wouldn’t be commenting for a while because he’d be in the hospital.

                    5. I’m hurt by your mean comments and bullying. How as I as a man am ever able to survive.

                      You’ve done this same bullshit on attacking others for years you self unaware ass. You retreat it into “it was just a joke” when exposed. Now you act as a bigger victim than jeff. Which is impressive given his obese girth.

                    6. And sarcasmic, feel free to let me know wher you live and I will gladly do so live to your face.

                      Lol. You really threatened assault online? Holy shit man. Hilarious.

                    7. “Just use it for blanks, eh?”

                      “Haven’t been to the range for a few years, huh.”

                      “Dry firing doesn’t count.”

                      Or some comment about lubing it.

                      Needz moar snark.

                    8. Almost funny. I expected something about the 2.75 inches. Disappointed.

                    9. That was already addressed in “snub nose” above.

                    10. 2.75″ was in response to snub nose. Unless you’re referring to his comments. All I see is grey.

                    11. Maybe a padded holster?

                      Add a laser sight so it looks bigger?

                      Enh, Chumby’s were better. :-\

                    12. The 2.75” was after but snub nose was already used. The craft involves not repeating.

                    13. I do have a ‘special’ cloth that’s only for stroking those 2.75 inches. It’s kinda greasy though.

                    14. I’ve got several grips for it too. Wood… Rubber…

                    15. And a lambskin holster. Er, I meant cowhide.

                    16. C’mon guys! I’m so setting you up!

                    17. Damn. Looks like your next air bnb is going to be light in the friends department. Ouch.

                    18. I said “guys,” not “muted trolls.”

                    19. Snarky is often mean spirited. Most everyone here can be snarky funny. Even chipper. Well maybe chipper.

                    20. How does this thread happen when half the thread is from someone that’s muted the other half of the thread?

                      It’s almost like sarc is completely full of shit.

                    21. I wish he’s talk his shit to someone’s face. He wouldn’t be commenting for a while because he’d be in the hospital.

                      Just like Tulpa was when he challenged you to a fight and you pussied out like a pathetic little faggot bitch and tried to invite him to a Ministry concert to fuck you instead? Like that, sarcasmic?

                      And why are you lying about the kids you already admitted you lost custody of during the divorce? Maybe you shouldn’t have raped the poor fucking girl during her entire childhood, she might not have turned out as fucked up as you are.

                    22. Then again it’s not like the girl was drawing from the deepest gene pool: you and some poor pathetic wretch of a woman who had so many emotional problems she actually let you jam your microchode into her for 35 seconds.

                    23. Snarky is often mean spirited.

                      There is a line, however, between “mean-spirited snarkiness” and just plain old mean. “Ha ha look at you who only has friends online” is one thing. But then there’s “you’re a horrible person who murders puppies”. That’s not snarky funny, that is just mean. There is too much of the latter rather than the former around here.

                    24. Thanks Jeff. Know I’m not muted now. Lol.

                    25. There is a line, however, between “mean-spirited snarkiness” and just plain old mean.

                      Talking shit about someone’s family isn’t snark. When JesseAz, R Mac, Tulpa’s sock of the day, and others call me a pedophile, that’s not snark. That’s keyboard cowards safely spouting off what would under any other circumstance earn them a long stay in the hospital.

                    26. Like after Jeffy comes for a visit?

      3. Lol. You two fucks are the first to call a cop when you’re being victimized. Like virtually all leftists.

        1. You love Joe Arpio but hate the capitol police…

          1. You raped your daughter and now you’re trying to play tough guy on the internet after you very publicly pussied out of a fight like the pathetic little faggot bellycrawling worm bitch you are, sarcasmic.

            1. Don’t know why he thinks anyone is scared of a 55 year old alcoholic beta male.

              1. Keep thinking I’m Sarc

  15. If anyone gets charged with a hate crime, then she should.

    Better to not have hate crime laws at all. Motivation should be irrelevant.

    1. Wrongthink must be punished.

  16. Canada adds 3 U.S.-based right-wing extremist entities to terror list

    Canada on Friday added four new groups or individuals to its criminal code of terrorist entities, three of which are based in the United States and associated with an extremist, far-right ideology.

    The banned groups include the Three Percenters and Aryan Strikeforce, which the Canadian government called “ideologically motivated violent extremist groups.” The third banned entity was James Mason – who the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as a neo-Nazi – who “provided ideological and tactical instruction on how to operate a terrorist group.”

    A fourth group, a Daesh affiliate with ties to the Islamic State in the Democratic Republic of Congo, was also added to the country’s list of terrorist entities.

    “Recent events should remove any doubts about the serious threat posed by ideologically-motivated violent extremism,” Bill Blair, Canada’s Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, wrote in a statement. “Intolerance and hate have no place in our society and the Government of Canada will continue to do all we can to keep Canadians safe from all threats, including terrorism and violent extremism.”


    I know we have some hockey pucks who post here (Mothers Lament for example) who might want to clear their browser history.

    1. So you want to ban churches. Tell us something new.

      1. Stalin taught him that religion is the opiate of the masses.

        1. He’s more concerned about procuring the opioids of the masses.

      2. I’ve never said that.

        Religion should die off on its own – like astrology will. The Age of Reason and the Enlightenment are still young.

        1. I think you’re the best parody account buttplug.

          1. Because atheist/capitalist types like me don’t really exist?

            For real?

            OH. Silly me.

            It is because I don’t suck Trump dick.

            1. You actually seem to think about his privates a lot

              1. Which is odd considering Trump is an adult.

              2. He talked about his privates on a presidential debate stage.

                And you voted for that.

            2. You’re not a fucking capitalist.

        2. The “age of reason “ apparently means: “there are no differences between men and women.”
          You should run with that bro.

    2. Any time your gloating bs depends on SPLC, a for-profit ‘non-profit’ whose bias determines the groups they label as extremist groups, your argument fails.

    3. James Mason was a fine actor. I’m shocked to hear he’s a political extremist. It’s even more remarkable, considering he’s been dead for decades.

  17. OKay Peanuts, as a classic liberal I want to talk about a problem you guys love to bitch about.

    That problem in CHICAGO! Or the inordinate about of black violent crime happening.

    What is our solution?

    Gun bans/confiscation? No, Impractical and unconstitutional.

    Stop and frisk? No. Same as above.

    I say do nothing. More laws will only make the situation worse.

    For you bitching about it (or gloating) – what do you say?

    1. The difference between Chicago today and during Prohibition is the skin color of the gangsters and what they’re selling. The solution is obvious.

      1. Actually the Mafia meticulously avoided killing or wounding innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire. Their executions were planned to avoid antagonizing the general population. The idiots in Chicago now are shooting babies for crissake.

        1. Was just going to say that. It wasn’t until the 80s and using bombs became a thing that innocent people became constantly caught up in mob violence.

          Today it’s just emotionally underdeveloped, immature, entitled, city school educated morons thatll shoot someone over any transgressions because theyre so emotional and mentally underdeveloped.

          Let’s face it, our Democrat run public city schools have led to entire neighborhoods, mainly minorities, being filled with people that have the average educational aptitude of a 8th grader (Pittsburgh public under 15% graduate aptitude in English, under 5% in math. 48% of Detroit residents being deemed functionally illiterate) and the average emotional aptitude of a 10 year old.

        2. That doesn’t take away from my point. We’re talking about people using violence to protect their illegal market. The difference is skin color and the prohibited chemicals.

    2. Lol you are a parody!

      1. So you want to ban guns!

        I see why you think I am a parody.

        1. Dummy is so dumb he can’t even detect sarcasm. Are you really drunk on aristocrat already?

          1. But you’re not funny.

            1. You ARE a dummy though.

        2. Ask sarcasmic. He didnt say one bad thing against Biden for wanting to ban guns. In fact biden is open about this. Yet you call him a moderate and sarcasmic ignores it.

          Thats the difference here. Those you call trump cultists actually said trumps bump stock regs were wrong. You can’t do that because you’re pot committed to Biden being better than Trump. A fight you’ll lose 100 out of 100 times.

          1. Trump was terrible on guns. He just happened to be better than the opposition.

            1. Exactly. New York roots.

    3. Accept that Constitutional carry is legal and allow people to defend themselves. Prosecute criminals. Sunset wellfare programs. Subsidizing criminals doesn’t help anyone. Encourage companies like Nike to shift production of shoes from child labor factories in Asia to places like Chicago. Woke actions speak louder than woke messages. Lower carbon footprint if shoes aren’t traveling across the Pacific.

      1. Well, the thugs aren’t thriving on food stamps – which pay about $100 month per person.

        1- “Legalize drugs” would hurt them financially.

        1. How do you live on 100$ a month?

          1. Badly, but he’s not far off the mark. In New Mexico, for a single adult getting the maximum amount, it’s $216 per month. I don’t know how benefits vary from state to state, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was about the same in Illinois.

            Legalization of drugs wouldn’t help the income problem, but it might help the violence.

            1. Ending the welfare state would be a big help as well. The current system only helps moms who ditch dad. So you’ve got kids growing up on the dole without fathers. That’s not a recipe for personal responsibility.

              1. And yet you’re a self-confessed homeless drug addict and alcoholic who has been on welfare for 2 decades.

          2. Buttplug lowballed it then chaffed/redirected by just focusing food stamps. There are other “benies” by sitting at home, expanding the population and voting blue. Free healthcare and housing assistance to name a couple.

        2. Knew a cocaine dealer that lived in his grandmother’s basement. Not all of them are Pablo Escobar. And knew a professional thief that got a host of govt freebies so he had time to visit working people’s houses during the day.
          Absolutely agree on drug decriminalization.

          1. About the only thing I miss about working in restaurants was access to drugs. There’s always a dishwasher slinging weed and a waiter with nose candy.

            1. Lol. God damn. Just so much ammo from you lately.

              1. Remember this post the next time I call him a self-confessed drug addict and alcoholic and he claims he’s never said any such thing in his life. Then when you show him this post, the netsec expert and professional computer scientist can you tell all about how his account got “hacked”.

                1. He will deny he said it.

    4. Classical liberal. Hahahahahahahahahaha

    5. Put up cameras and charge a subscription fee to watch the retards kill eachother

    6. Maybe you could join an outreach organization that works with you boys there. That sounds like something you would enjoy.

      Although it would be like a horror movie for the kids.

  18. BDS…BDS…I find it very amusing when libs who have attacked certain groups with the media cheering on for decades then get attacked themselves…ha ha ha

    “hate crimes” are subjective that is the problem…we have laws on assault and murder and destruction of private property..don’t need “hate crimes” laws…if the crime is based on “hate” well the jury can take that into account on the recommended punishment.

    1. “Intimidating smirk” should be listed in the sentencing guidelines as an adder…

    2. Being “subjective” is the whole point.

  19. Anybody else paying attention to the story about Hunter Biden selling his paintings for $500,000 each?

    I never thought a kid from a powerful family would outdo the Jerry Springer worthy antics of Michael Kennedy, who while awaiting trial for statutory rape–for boinking the babysitter–he famously (and hilariously) died taking a header into a tree while playing drunken football on skis.

    Hunter Biden makes Michael Kennedy look like an amateur. Kicked out of the military for cocaine, he has a drug addled relationship with his brother’s widow?! If that weren’t weird enough, add the shady shit at MBNA with his father’s largest donors, being paid $50,000 a month to do nothing at Burisma, and now nakedly taking bribes for shitty art to the tune of $500,000 a painting, he’s set the bar really high.


    Joe Biden’s solution was to make sure the buyer’s identities are never revealed, but that just makes it look like the White House was in on the cover-up if and when someone pays a million dollars for a couple of paintings in lieu of a bribe. It’s a fuckin’ comedy.

    People keep talking about how they’re afraid Putin or Emperor Xi will will take advantage of Joe Biden’s cognitive decline at some point in the future, but it looks to me like Hunter Biden may be taking advantage of his old man already. Nobody in their right mind should want the White House involved in this. All it takes for Hunter Biden to find out who bought his paintings is to for the buyer to take a picture of himself and tag Hunter Biden with it on Instagram. If I were Putin, I’d have an anonymous bid in on that artwork already!

    1. How dare you question the artistic integrity of a known crackhead!

    2. There’s a great headline for you.

      Vladimir Putin posts a picture of himself on social media standing in front of one of Hunter Biden’s $500,000 paintings. Putin’s account tags “the artist” and the caption reads, “Thanks to your dad for all the help, Hunter. You’re the best!”

      1. “Hunter putin a good word for Vlad.”

        1. Damn, dude, you are *on* today! 😀

          1. Maybe we shouldn’t be russian to any conclusions.

      2. “Next on the block is a piece the artist titled, ‘Fucking My Dead Brother’s Widow”. Do I hear $300,000?”

        1. Soon to be followed by “Molestimg my dead brother’s underage daughter since she was 13”. Buttplug would be in the running for that one.

    3. I mean, I suppose it’s possible that it’s *really* great art… 😉

    4. Holy fuckballs. For all of the shit-flinging that goes on here, we’re practically the Mensa Debate Club compared to the comments over there. It’s worse than YouTube. Hell, it’s worse than *4chan*.

    5. So what is the proper solution here?

      At the end of the day, Hunter Biden is an adult who has the right to sell whatever art he wants to sell to anyone he wishes for whatever price they agree upon.

      (And YES the exact same arrangement is/was/ought to be the case for Trump’s kids to conduct their own business transactions while Trump was President.)

      So what ought to be the solution?

      Should Hunter Biden be forbidden to be able to sell his art, because his dad is President? That seems like a violation of his rights.

      Should Hunter Biden be forced to accept a lowball offer for his art, because his dad is President? That seems like a punishment for Hunter due to no fault of his own.

      What do you want to see happen here, other than you just bitching and moaning and making vague accusations of bribery about it?

      The arrangement that was worked out, where Hunter Biden doesn’t know who bought his artwork or for how much, actually sounds rather reasonable. It can’t be bribery if Hunter Biden doesn’t even know who the briber is, can it? If you don’t think this arrangement is sufficient, then please suggest one that would perhaps work better, that also doesn’t violate Hunter’s rights or punish him for the ‘crime’ of being the president’s son.

      And the article author’s main complaint – by the way, in an editorial, not in a straight news piece – is that the Biden White House shouldn’t even be getting involved in an art sale that seems so fishy. But, wasn’t one of the complaints about Hunter Biden working at Burisma was that the Obama White House didn’t do enough to prevent the obvious conflict of interest that his employment at Burisma presented? You can’t really have it both ways. Either the WH should try to intervene in order to try to minimize the potential conflicts of interests, or it should stay away and let the chips fall where they may. But pick one.

      If I were Putin, I’d have an anonymous bid in on that artwork already!

      Why? Do you really think Joe Biden can be easily bribed by $500k from Putin to start serving Russia’s interests?

      And BY THE WAY. When Trump was president, all his kids got more or less free rein to do whatever they wanted. I don’t recall any similar bitching or ‘concern’ about whether some foreign power would try to influence government policy via bribery of Trump’s kids. In fact, in a related issue – the issue of emoluments – I do recall you were rather disdainful of that entire argument. I mean, sure, the Saudis would rent out entire floors of Trump Tower or Trump Hotel or some such but, hey, nothing to see there, right?

      1. Yes the presidents son should sell his crappy art. For the normal amount regarded to a failure artist of his magnitude.

        For half a million? You’re fucking insane if you think that is market value. That is buy my Dad value, and you know it.

        But you don’t care, because he’s not Trump’s son and you can ignore it like a good lap dog.

        Fuck you fatty. Fuck you to hell and back.

        1. He’s never had a show before!

          No on e has ever shown his paintings before, much less bought them from a gallery–and they’re worth $500,000 a piece?

          Here’s list of paintings by “Old Masters” that Christies auctioned off a few days ago.


          350,000 British pounds is about $500,000 US. You can buy works from the 16th, 17th, and 18th century by old masters for less than how they’re pricing Hunter Biden.

          1. You completely avoided chemjeff’s question, which is what do you think should be done?

            1. How about the Biden’s stop selling their office?

              1. They might be doing just that, but there isn’t any solid evidence pointing to Joe. Maybe that just means he’s good at covering his tracks and being discreet.

                Yes, Hunter Biden has clearly done well trading on his family name.
                He’s gotten a board position he was not qualified and is now selling mediocre art for outlandish prices. That’s scummy, but it’s on him; there isn’t good evidence tying any of it to dad.

                1. No, he’s not good at a covering his tracks. He owns the federal government, and has the media in his pocket. This whole thing, and so many others are incredibly blatant.

        2. For half a million? You’re fucking insane if you think that is market value.

          The “market value” is whatever a willing buyer and willing seller agree upon.

          For all the times I get called something other than a libertarian, it’s funny that I understand these basic libertarian concepts than you all do.

          1. So you really can’t admit that overvalued art is a way to commit crimes or influence? There is a reason the art world is a favorite of money laundered.

            You claim to not be a lefty but defend open corruption.

            Most art critics describe his work as hotel art work, which means a few thousand at most.

            But you think he is actually worth more than a Warhol.

            Youre such a fucking idiot.

          2. Paying over than value for an item is a classic way to hide illegal transfer of funds. Also, given that Hunter is suddenly an ‘artist,’ it seems likely that people would be trying to gain something other than a shitty painting by another loser rich kid. These should be concerns, but somehow are not, as the narrative cascades from WH through press sources.

            1. Paying over than value for an item is a classic way to hide illegal transfer of funds.

              From the art buyer to Hunter Biden? What is, or ought to be, illegal about that?

              From Hunter Biden to Joe Biden? What is, or ought to be, illegal about that?

            2. It is still a baseless allegation. Art can be used to launder money but this would be a dumb way to do it. You can do it with legit high end art bought on auction.

              1. “You can do it with legit high end art bought on auction.”

                This doesn’t make any sense.

                The question is why HUNTER BIDEN wants to launder money that he’s getting in exchange for peddling influence.

                Because drug dealers use the art market to launder money doesn’t mean they’ll buy art from Hunter Biden just to launder their drug money. Because the art market is a great way to launder money, it is also a great a conduit for bribes to Hunter Biden. And that is not hard to understand–unless you don’t want to understand.

                Your thought processes are leading you to say some really stupid shit.

              2. It’s not baseless at all, goose stepper.

            3. The other reason it would be stupid is this is way too public even with the anonymity clause. A bribe or money laundering scheme would be done quietly. Hunter may not be the sharpest crayon in the box but presumably someone on the other end would be.

              1. He’s already tried that. It didn’t work.

                “Hunter Biden raked in $6m over nine months from his Chinese business dealings according to a timeline of his affairs which goes into unprecedented detail.

                Joe Biden’s son was involved with a series of transactions which were flagged for ‘potential financial criminal activity’, a Senate report has revealed.

                The money included a $5m payment from a Chinese energy company with ties to the Communist party and $1m for work with an associate who was later jailed for bribery. . . .

                According to Politico, federal prosecutors in Washington and New York are also looking into possible securities fraud and money laundering by the troubled 50-year-old, who has battled drug and alcohol addiction.

                —-Daily Mail, December 10, 2020


                Yeah, so the way he was going about processing payments from the shady, bribey people he usually deals with wasn’t working out so well. If the art thing doesn’t work out, maybe he should issue his own anonymous cryptocurrency–HunterCoin!


                Do you really have no idea what is going on with Hunter Biden, or are you just out of the loop because you only read news that isn’t critical of him–because the people who are reporting it are pro-Trump? Maybe there’s some other explanation!

                Whatever the explanation is, you don’t seem to know about some really basic stuff. This all should have been common knowledge by the time the election was over.

                1. They’ve made their conclusion, and anything short of signed affidavits that say “We’re the Biden’s and we take bribes for favors” isn’t going to make them see what’s clear as day to anyone not invested in defending Democrats.

                  1. They deny facts that don’t support their favorite theories, and that’s at the heart of a lot of their stupidity, I know. They compound that error, however, when they do that in favor of Hunter Biden, the shit-eating, scumbag son of a lifelong politician.

                    You’d think they were defending the character of Mother Theresa or Greta Thunberg.

      2. So what is the proper solution here?

        Voting out corrupt politicians. It’s interesting all your flailing
        never lands on this obvious choice. It’s almost like you avoided this option because you need to pretend there’s no resolution to protect Team Blue.

        1. In fact it goes deeper. We want politicians not to have the power to hand out so many favors in the first place. Small government limited to specific things!

        2. As if the real problem were limited to particular individuals.

          Elvis is right, the problem is systemic. Power corrupts, and all that. Even if Captain America were in charge, you would still run into the problem of people trying to “bribe” him via purchasing his children’s artwork.

          But potentially corrupt individuals is definitely a problem. I support fully looking into every individual seeking power within any level of government. That includes not just presidents but Supreme Court justices. Sound good to you?

          1. Other people are corrupt so its fine and dandy Joe biden is. What the fuck is wrong with you.

      3. Hey remember how you spent 4 years saying that the emoluments clause meant that Trump’s entire family had to divest themselves of their businesses in order to avoid even the possibility of impropriety?

        Hey, how about this? Instead of passing special legislation to protect the buyers of Hunter Biden’s beautiful art pieces from ever being made public, we actually register their names and keep an eye on them to see if they receive any benefits from their purchase. After all, you spent 4 years in a constant state of apoplectic raging about “quid pro quo”, right?

        Or how about we just require that Hunter Biden list his pieces anonymously. Certainly if $500,000 is the market value of the paintings created by a such a master craftsman then no one in the art community should have any problem selecting his unique and masterful style without the benefit of his name being attached to it, and that would eliminate any suggestion that his paintings are being purchased by anonymous donors in exchange for favors.

        Or hey, we could just allow private slush funds because Democrats are holy and sacred, and you could continue being a cocksucking totalitarian bootlicker. That’s probably the way we’ll actually go.

        1. Or how about we just require that Hunter Biden list his pieces anonymously.

          That’s actually a reasonable suggestion in your otherwise turd of a comment.

        2. I can’t see a libertarian argument against rich and famous people trading in on the family name. The Trumps, Kennedy’s, Kardashians, Bush’s, heck they all do it and always have. Reagan’s son got a $5 mil book deal. Do you think it was because he is such an awesome writer?

          Hunter may be a sleaze but there is at least one in every family.

          1. Hunter’s method is ripe for fuckery. That cannot be said of Reagan’s kid and the book deal. The son was more often in opposition to dad than supportive, which has quite a bit to do with him getting the deal in the first place. Same with all the others. Hunter’s art is a billowing red flag of influence peddling waiting to happen. Or of it being covered up.

            1. Anything he does has that potential. He doesn’t even need to sell anything. Just walk into a room and sit down with someone. So any deal he makes he is going to be accused of that. Ripe for fuckery is just hyperbole without evidence of said fuckery.

              1. Truly pathetic.

          2. Even Jimmy Carter, our most moral president, had Billy and Billy Beer.

          3. This is an apropos place to bring up the fun trivia that on that infamous phone call where Ambassador Sondland was taking with Trump about military aid to the Ukraine, a good deal of the conversation was about getting a rapper out of trouble as a favor to the Kardashians:


            “During the course of the phone call from the restaurant, Sondland also consulted with Trump on another matter of importance to the president at the time: efforts to free the American rapper A$AP Rocky from jail in Sweden at the request of reality television star Kim Kardashian.”

        3. Actually the anonymity is to prevent Joe Biden and Hunter from being accused of corruption so it works both ways. It can’t be called a bribe if you don’t know who paid it.

          1. ‘It can’t be called a bribe if you don’t know who paid it,’ may qualify as the most ignorant thing written in this thread. If one believes that the buyer information will not be available to the Bidens, one is truly foolish.

            1. I believe that was the deal. The gallery is not going to make that available. If you are suggesting that it will secretly be known, well that is true of anything. Why not just hand Hunter a suitcase full of cash instead of this fuss? Really so far as I know there is no buyer and you know the sleuths out there will be on this if there is so kind of dumb way to pay a bribe.

              1. “Why not just hand Hunter a suitcase full of cash instead of this fuss?”

                Because depositing all that cash would require the bank to report it and flag it as suspicious–which is what’s happened to Hunter Biden in the past with some of his other shady transactions.

                Does the terms “money laundering” mean nothing to you?

                With an art sale, Hunter can do this in broad daylight and deny that he even knew who was buying the painting. And he’s not the first person to think of using the art market that way.

                “Billions of dollars of art changes hands every year with little or no public scrutiny. Buyers typically have no idea where the work they are purchasing is coming from. Sellers are similarly in the dark about where a work is going. And none of the purchasing requires the filing of paperwork that would allow regulators to easily track art sales or profits, a distinct difference from the way the government can review the transfer of other substantial assets, like stocks or real estate . . . .

                “Secrecy, anonymity and a lack of regulation create an environment ripe for laundering money and evading sanctions,” the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said in a report last July in support of increased scrutiny.”

                —-New York Times, June 19, 2021

                “As Money Launderers Buy Dalís, U.S. Looks at Lifting the Veil on Art Sales”


                1. It is still baseless allegation. Any time Hunter Biden receives money for any reason it could be a scheme or bribe then.

                  I don’t go for this conspiracy crap.

                  1. That this scheme is an excellent conduit for bribing Hunter Biden is not a baseless accusation–especially considering that Hunter is being investigated for money laundering and widely accused of influence peddling.

                    The observation that the White House must either be out of their minds, stupid, or in cahoots for insisting that the buyers remain anonymous isn’t a baseless accusation either.

                    And calling it a conspiracy theory changes nothing.

                    I once saw the suggestion that Covid-19 may have escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

                    I once heard that the NSA tracking the emails and phone calls of hundreds of millions of Americans without a warrant was a conspiracy theory.

                    Hunter Biden’s art selling scheme is an excellent conduit for bribery, and the White House’s complicity in demanding the sellers remain anonymous is either stupid, crazy, or nefarious. And calling that a conspiracy theory doesn’t change anything about it. The statements are true or false–no matter what names you call them.

            2. So what is your proposed solution?

              So Hunter Biden wants to sell some artwork. How should that be accomplished, according to you?

          2. Problem is it’s dubious the purchases can truly be kept anonymous. If one of these anonymously-purchased paintings shows up on the wall of a restaurant or in some socialite’s den, it will be obvious who purchased it.

      4. He should be serving a minimum 10-year sentence for his 4473 falsification, compounded with one for his drug use while in possession of a firearm, and every other dumb law he broke while his daddy has been shoving them down our throats.

        Then we’ll talk about his rights as a regular Joe citizen.

        1. But I thought drug laws and gun control laws were bullshit.

          1. Libertarian rules do not apply to the opposition.

            1. Who the fuck cares now, you goose stepping little imbecile?
              Your life doesn’t matter.

      5. When Trump was president, all his kids got more or less free rein to do whatever they wanted.

        Like what? What were his kids doing while Trump was in office that they were not doing before? Most of them worked for the family business. And someone renting out hotel floors is right there in the open for people to see and scrutinize. Meanwhile, Hunter’s buyers are kept anonymous? Sure, totally the same things.

        1. What were his kids doing while Trump was in office that they were not doing before?

          Oh I don’t know, running around the right-wing media circuit running interference for their dad?

          Who around here was saying “Trump Jr. was only booked on Fox News because Rupert Murdoch is trying to purchase influence from the Trump White House”? Anyone?

          Neither Trump Jr. nor any of his siblings should be punished because their dad was president. If you believe this, then you must also apply it to Hunter Biden when his dad is president.

          Meanwhile, Hunter’s buyers are kept anonymous?

          The idea is that he won’t be able to know who is supposedly “bribing” him, so it can’t be a bribe.

          What do you want? If he sells his artwork openly, you’ll call it “naked influence peddling”. If he sells his artwork anonymously, you’ll say “but what is he hiding? we deserve to know!!!” I’m getting the feeling that you just don’t think he should be allowed to do anything at all just because his dad is president, due to a fear of an appearance of corruption.

        2. Go back and read why they are being kept anonymous. It is a (admittedly lame) attempt at keeping the art sales _more_ ethical.

    6. Naked corruption officially endorsed by the Biden white house. Wow.

      1. There was no good reason for the White House to get involved.

        They’re just inventing a scandal for themselves. That’s why the left news organizations are reporting on this. I think they’re hoping to head off where this is going. If Joe Biden’s mental acuity wasn’t deteriorating, he might have said no.

        What good can come of this for the White House? Why is the White House sticking its neck out over this?

    7. Want to look at prices for contemporary art by established artists?

      Here’s a work by Banksy you can buy for 150,000 British pounds–that’s about $210,000 US.


      Hunter Biden–whose work has never been sold on the market and is an unknown artist–is selling his art for $500,000 a piece?!

      Hunter Biden is a corrupt piece of shit, and the White House writing guidelines to protect the anonymity of the buyers isn’t meant to protect Hunter Biden from accusations of corruption. It’s meant to protect the people who are bribing the Bidens from public scrutiny.

      1. He is just trading on the family name as happens in other rich and famous families including the Trump family. Do you think Kim Kardashians clothing line or Ivanka’s are really worth that much? They all do it.

        It is a status symbol. If he gets a buyer they are paying for the signature on the bottom as a collectors item.

        It is sleazy but hardly unique.

        1. Ivanka Trump has been making the cover of various fashion and lifestyle magazines since 2007, when she was on the cover of Seventeen–years before Trump ever ran for president. Other than being kicked out of the military for cocaine, what has Hunter Biden ever done that wasn’t associated with his father’s political office?

          Ivanka Trump was selling her branded merchandise through major department stores, like Macy’s, before her dad started running for president. She was selling jewelry, clothes, and other merchandise associated with her brand image to retail consumers through those department stores. Hunter Biden is selling paintings to anonymous donors–by order of the White House. You don’t see the difference?

          Oh, and this isn’t the first time Hunter Biden has been accused of selling political influence on behalf of his father.

          “At the time Hunter Biden was receiving consulting payments from MBNA, he also was a Washington lobbyist at a firm he had co-founded . . . . MBNA employees have poured more than $200,000 into Biden’s Senate campaigns over the past two decades, making donors working for the credit card company the senator’s largest source of campaign money.

          —-CBS News, August 25, 2008

          “MBNA Paid Biden’s Son As Biden Backed Bill”


          Do we need to go through Joe Biden’s extraordinary efforts to kill an investigation into his son’s activities at Burisma, where he was supposedly in charge of compliance and corporate governance?

          LOL. The obvious intent of putting Hunter in that position was so that prosecutors would hopefully be dissuaded from prosecuting Burisma for fear of needing to prosecute Joe Biden’s son, too. Burisma only needed to pay $50,000 a month for that protection, and what Joe Biden did to save them was worth a hell of a lot more than that. Anyone who says Hunter Biden and Joe Biden didn’t know why Hunter was being paid that much by Burisma must think that both of them are stupid!

          And how does that in any way compare to Ivanka Trump selling merchandise to retail customers through Macy’s?

          Do we need to go through the details of what’s in Hunter Biden’s laptop again, or Hunter Biden introducing his shady business partners to his father in person?

          Even Democrat outlets like CNN and The Washington Post are running stories about how this art sale obviously sinks of corruption! They don’t want to see Hunter Biden ruin Biden’s presidency. But Ivanka selling merchandise through Macy’s makes the whataboutism legitimate in your mind?

          What you’re saying doesn’t make sense.

          1. “Whataboutism . . . is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent’s position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.”



            The answer to the question of whether Hunter Biden’s art sale is an obvious conduit for bribery is yes, and nothing Ivanka Trump has done in the past or will do in the future can change that.

            1. The answer is maybe, not yes. Like his position on the Burisma board, the answer is yes to his trading on the family name, but fuzzier and unproven that it goes any further or has ties to his father.

            2. Look I have no love for the Bidens and Hunter is a sleaze. Pretty much every president has been accused of something. Mostly unjustly. This is just another much ado about nothing.

            3. Actually I am not sure how it would work as money laundering. What generally happens is if I have 10mil in drug money I buy a high end art piece. I sell it anonymously to someone who picks it up and pays me 10 mil. Now I have legit money.

              In this case Hunter puts in crappy art and gets overpaid. It could be a bribe if he secretly knows the buyer and influences his father in some way but we have no evidence of that. Same could be said anytime he gets money for something.

              1. The point is that he can pretend he doesn’t know who paid him. He can pretend he doesn’t know where the money came from. That’s what laundering the money does for Hunter Biden. It lets him spend money he couldn’t even accept otherwise.

                1. It is nothing but another allegation without evidence. I am just tired of these conspiracy theories and they didn’t start here.

                  1. “It is nothing but another allegation without evidence. I am just tired of these conspiracy theories and they didn’t start here.”

                    The reason you insist there isn’t any evidence is because you’re ignorant, and the reason you call them conspiracy theories is because you’re stupid.

                    1. Ignorant and stupid.

                      In polemics you just lost the debate.

                      Did you think you could trigger me?

                    2. Not understanding the difference between conclusive evidence and evidence is fundamentally ignorant–whether I think so or not.

                      And dismissing a pile of evidence (because you called it a conspiracy theory) is fundamentally stupid, maybe even more than stupid after recent revelations about the origin of Covid-19.

                      An actor is someone who acts. A swimmer is someone who is swimming. An ignorant and stupid person is someone who engages in ignorant and stupid behavior, Forrest.

                2. So, is your partial answer to chemjeff’s question of what you want done about it that you think the White House ethics panel’s idea of making the sales anonymous should not be done?

                3. Anyway so far as I know the art is still hanging in the gallery. He may not get any buyers at those prices. The art is really not bad. He is a legit artist. It is just overpriced.

          2. Yes but she was also trading on the family brand. The shoes were OK according to my wife but way overpriced. Nothing wrong with it but that is how the rich get richer. It is not whattaboutism it is an observation of something we all know and happens all the time. There is simply no evidence that Hunter is doing anything wrong other than trying to sucker someone into paying too much for mediocre artwork.

            1. I’m not convinced that Ivanka Trump was selling jewelry and apparel to 20-something girls through Macy’s because those 20-something girls wanted to be like Donald Trump.

              Regardless, selling yourself as a lifestyle brand to consumers and peddling political influence to shady characters in eastern Europe and China are not comparable.

              There’s nothing wrong with selling yourself as a brand. There is something very wrong with selling political influence. And if you can’t see the difference between them clearly, it’s because you don’t want to see it.

              Why don’t you want to see it?

              1. Because there is no evidence of political influence. That is an allegation without evidence. Just because he did business overseas is not evidence of anything.

                You want me to see something that isn’t there.

                1. There is plenty of evidence.

                  There’s evidence that the sun orbits the earth. It’s risen in the east and set in the west every day of recorded history.

                  That isn’t conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.

                  And there is plenty of evidence that Hunter Biden has been peddling influence to MBNA, the Chinese Communist Party, and Burisma–I’ve linked it those three in this thread. That doesn’t even include all the evidence of influence peddling that was found on his laptop.

                  You can pretend there’s no evidence, but there’s evidence of Hunter Biden’s corruption aplenty anyway. And situations that would explain Hunter Biden’s activities as all being innocent–despite all the evidence of his corruption–are becoming increasingly improbable. They may have topped the practically impossible meter already.

                  Anyone who says there isn’t any evidence of Hunter Biden’s corruption is either completely ignorant of the facts or being willfully blind. And considering all the evidence of Hunter Biden’s influence peddling, it is entirely reasonable to suspect that the reason he set up an excellent conduit for bribery is because he wants an excellent conduit for accepting bribes.

                  P.S. Hillary Clinton used to accept donations from foreign countries to the Clinton Foundation while she was the Secretary of State–even if they had arms sales pending that required her personal approval.

                  1. Just for the record:

                    “In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.”

                    —-Mother Jones, May 28, 2015


                    The Clinton Foundation itself reported the donations in broad daylight–like it was a sale of one of Hunter Biden’s art pieces.

                    Progressives are incredibly corrupt people.

                    1. All legal, reported and investigated. The US is the largest exporter of arms in the world. So the foundation cannot accept donations from anyone we sell weapons to? What about Israel, Norway, Australia, Switzerland, would those be OK.

                    2. Besides libertarians are generally in favor of arms sales and charitable foundations.

                    3. Now you’re defending Hillary Clinton’s naked corruption?

                      Procedures were followed?!

                      That’s pathetic.

                      Shit like that is the reason Trump won and she lost.

                    4. Shit like these baseless conspiracy theories and constant whining are why Trump lost and Biden won. Thanks.

                    5. “Shit like these baseless conspiracy theories and constant whining”

                      If the Secretary of State accepting money from foreign governments–that have pending military hardware transactions waiting for her approval–is an example of a “baseless conspiracy theory” in your mind, then you have a tiny mind.

                      In your bity mind, does that even count as evidence of corruption?

                  2. Nobody is saying he’s innocent: he clearly trades on his family name. What has not been proven is any ties to his father.

              2. I said before there is nothing wrong with branding

                1. “I said before there is nothing wrong with branding”

                  But you still won’t admit that has nothing to do with Hunter Biden peddling influence–like an idiot?

              3. “Regardless, selling yourself as a lifestyle brand to consumers and peddling political influence to shady characters in eastern Europe and China are not comparable.”

                No, but being a consultant and executive in one of your dad’s companies is comparable. And selling one’s shoe brand and one’s artwork are comparable, too. There are a lot of parallels between Hunter and Ivanka.

                Hell, let’s not even go into how much Hunter and Don, Jr. look alike, and both appear coked out a lot of the time.

              4. 20 something girls don’t want to be like Donald Trump but the Trump name is built on luxury, and glamor. It gives her name recognition. She did nothing wrong she deserves credit for her accomplishments, and built up a nice company.

                1. And yet this has nothing to do with the fact that Ivanka Trump selling jewelry and apparel to consumers through Macy’s is not comparable to Hunter Biden selling political influence to rent seekers in Delaware, corrupt companies in Ukraine, and the Chinese Communist Party. This is just whataboutism nonsense.

                  Some people are ignorant of the facts, but they were all cited for you in this thread–so, that’s not an excuse.

                  Bringing up Ivanka in this context was fundamentally irrational on your part, per the link I gave you, and if you still don’t understand why the tu quoque fallacy is irrational–even after it was explained to you–that strongly suggests you may be stupid.

                  1. Those are all your allegations. The Ukraine connection was investigated by Congress and they found nothing. His connection was with China based BHR partners, a private equity fund with international investments, is something Hunter has been very successful and knowledgeable in. He is a partner in a law practice and cofounder of a venture capitol and a consulting firm specializing in foreign markets. There is not a shred of evidence that it was anything but a normal business relationship.

                    All of this is made up crap. Release the Kraken!

                    The only thing on him is he is being investigated for tax issues. Which, is a big deal because why?

                    Oh and he has drug and alcohol issues which any libertarian can tell you is unforgivable.

                    When you find something let me know. My argument is wrong because I am stupid. That sounds like the kid in third grade before he runs off the playground to cry in his bedroom.

                    1. “The Ukraine connection was investigated by Congress and they found nothing.”


                      “The Justice Department is investigating the work of a consulting firm linked to the president’s son for potential illegal lobbying, four people familiar with the probe told POLITICO . . . .

                      The Delaware U.S. Attorney’s Office is involved in the probe, and is coordinating with lawyers in the National Security Division at DOJ’s Washington headquarters, the sources said. The Delaware office is also investigating Hunter Biden for potential tax violations.

                      The existence of the federal probe into Blue Star Strategies has not been previously reported. There has been grand jury activity in connection to the probe, two of the people said.”

                      —-Politico, June 3, 2021

                      “Sources: Dem lobbying firm under federal investigation for Burisma work”


                      You seem to know more about the state of the investigation into Hunter Biden, Burisma, and their lobbying firm than the Justice Department. When Joe Biden replaced all the U.S. attorneys that had been working under Trump, he felt compelled to leave the one in place that was investigating Hunter Biden.

                      Evidence of Hunter Biden’s corruption is evidence of his corruption regardless of how it’s characterized by Congress. Since when were they elevated to the Ministry of Truth?

                      That investigation into Hunter Biden is ongoing–no matter what Congress said they didn’t find according to you.

                    2. “His connection was with China based BHR partners, a private equity fund with international investments, is something Hunter has been very successful and knowledgeable in.”


                      Hunter Biden’s knowledge seems to be more about who he knows rather than what he knows, and it’s who he knows that seems to have made him successful.

                      “Hunter Biden raked in $6m over nine months from his Chinese business dealings according to a timeline of his affairs which goes into unprecedented detail.

                      Joe Biden’s son was involved with a series of transactions which were flagged for ‘potential financial criminal activity’, a Senate report has revealed.

                      The money included a $5m payment from a Chinese energy company with ties to the Communist party and $1m for work with an associate who was later jailed for bribery. . . .

                      According to Politico, federal prosecutors in Washington and New York are also looking into possible securities fraud and money laundering by the troubled 50-year-old, who has battled drug and alcohol addiction.

                      —-Daily Mail, December 10, 2020


                      It would be wrong to say there’s no evidence that Hunter Biden took money from people associated with the Chinese Communist Party by way of someone who’s been convicted of bribery.

                      And it would be wrong to say that this is a mere allegation. According to the story, those are facts to be found in the Senate report you seem to be saying exonerates him of wrongdoing.

                      Are you starting to see a pattern here?

                    3. “The only thing on him is he is being investigated for tax issues. Which, is a big deal because why?”

                      Because people who take bribes have a funny way of declaring them as income and paying taxes on them. Al Capone had the same problem.

                      Maybe Al Capone should have started offering his art for sale. Somebody paid me half a million dollars each for these drawings of mine–can you believe it?!

                    4. “Because people who take bribes have a funny way of [NOT] declaring them as income and paying taxes on them. Al Capone had the same problem.”

                      —-Ken Shultz


                  2. No Ken you are distorting my statement. Let me restate it. Families of rich and famous people often trade on the family brand, at least in part, to advance their ventures. Kardashians, Biden, Kennedys, Bush family, Trump family, when you are born into that it is the natural outcome. You are in the lucky sperm club. That is the similarity.

                    I see nothing wrong with that. You are off on a tangent you created.

                    1. I do see something wrong with it, but also see the point that doing something about it may stomp all over their rights.

                    2. “Families of rich and famous people often trade on the family brand, at least in part, to advance their ventures . . . . I see nothing wrong with that. You are off on a tangent you created.”

                      Actually, that’s a strawman you created.

                      I never said there was anything wrong with trading on your name–that’s bullshit you made up.

                      I said there was a problem with peddling political influence, and all the evidence suggests that’s exactly what Hunter Biden has done.

          3. You’ve got to be fucking kidding me, Ken. At least Hunter painted something. Ivanka stood there and looked like a Trump with acres of plastic surgery. Yeah big bright red moral dividing line.

        2. Fucking idiot, you can’t honestly compare Ivanka to Hunter Biden and you know that

          1. She’s much stupider.

    8. Obviously, Michael Kennedy died because the tree was a Republican and refused to jump out of his way.

    9. A great cover for dark money (that proggies claim to oppose).

  20. I truly love this fall of Rome part of our decline.

    1. All caused by a fire extinguisher.

      1. Bear spray, incited by that orange guy, but pre-planned with Legos. Then pounced on by Republicans, and ‘smirked’ at by some kid from Covington HS. Seriously though, if the country is truly in the ‘Fall of the Roman Empire’ phase, I wish it would get on with it. I have some shit to do, this lingering horseshit is unseemly.

        1. Washington can’t do anything efficiently and that includes collapsing.

        2. It’s not planning if LEGO is used in the planning.

          Got it.

  21. Hunter is such a wonderful talented human being…he is a victim of right wing bigots..he deserves his lifestyle…public monies should be spent on this unbelievable human being..hell he should be appointed as head of the CFR and the Fed…

    1. It’s hilarious that this is literally cytotoxic’s argument here. I thought it was great when he said that Mexicans deserve welfare more than Americans. It’s been fun watching him turn into a lolcow apologist for multi-millionaire trust fund babies engaged in open and unreserved political corruption for money.

    2. At the very least , given the job of Sect. of State like Hillary.
      Both of them have the same qualifications; 0

  22. Hate crime laws will never be removed until they become a threat to allies of those who enact them. So….good to see. Step one accomplished.

  23. This is ridiculous. It’s not like she laid a patch on a rainbow crosswalk. What’s the world coming to?

  24. Any excuse to generate that sweet revenue.

  25. I like that we’re focusing on the “hate crime” aspect rather than the fact that she stole and then destroyed someone else’s private property. I thought private property was so sacred that its molestation justified summary execution. I guess this bitch is lucky she only destroyed prole property, right cytotoxic and sarcasmic?

    1. I guess this bitch is lucky she only destroyed prole property,

      You are heavily invested in the class warfare narrative, aren’t you?

    2. The state enhancing punishments in order to salve the sensibilities of a newly formed protected class – its own armed agents – is something that cannot be tolerated by any civil libertarian.

      I don’t think anyone is defending the initial infraction, just the government’s reaction to it.

    3. If I wanted to hear rationalizations for every shitty cop power trip I’d not be on a libertarian website.

    4. Yes, this is the real question. Who’s sign was it? But who ever said anything about justifying summary execution? Exaggerate much? The punishment should fit the crime.

  26. The case is yet another instance of law enforcement using hate crime enhancements to punish people for criticizing them.

    No, this is another instance of people getting exactly what they asked for. Don’t blame law enforcement, you dishonest hack. These laws are passed by the political class, and cops are then ordered to enforce them. Cops may be happy to do it, BUT they would not have that avenue if not for politicians.

    1. Legislators don’t create this in a vacuum. Law enforcement’s own lobbyists hold a lot of sway. There is plenty of blame to go around.

      1. Fair enough. Yet, the author seems unaware of that.

  27. Personally, I can’t wait until we criminalize hate itself. Then we can lock up people simply for feelings of animosity, no physical actions required.

  28. In DC, hate crimes can also be because of political affiliation. The Washington Post should be careful of the libel laws.

  29. I’m happy the BLM cunt is being charged.

  30. You don’t have a free speech right to destroy signs that don’t belong to you. The hate crime addition is giving the left a taste of its own medicine.

    1. So principled.

  31. On a cheerier note, thousands of people in Havana are protesting against the Cuban commie dictatorship. Let’s hope it’s finally Ceaucescu time for Castro’s successors. Pity it didn’t happen to either of the Castro brothers, though.


  32. You have to admit, protecting cops from free speech is kinda fascist.

  33. This is perfect. If you wanted to demonstrate the absurdity of hate crime laws, you could not have a better example.

    Unfortunately, it is the particular prosecutor and this particular law and this particular prosecution that people will object to. Nobody is going to be able to see that this is the same as prosecuting someone for doing the same thing to a pride flag, a BLM flag, heck, probably even a Kamala Harris for President sign.

    Either all speech is free, or none of it is free.

    1. There certainly was plenty of it when Trump was running for president. Lots of Youtube videos of people destroying Trump fro president signs.
      The funny video was when a protestor attempted to urinate on one of those signs. He was promptly electrocuted as the sign was wired up to shock anyone who touched it.
      Must have been a shocking experience to say the least.
      The other day a video surfaced of a little boy ripping out a U.S. flag from the ground and tossing it down in full view of his mother….at least I think she is his mother. The woman (sic) said or did nothing to stop him. It’s almost as if she was encouraging him.
      This is what is being taught in public schools.
      Just wait until Critical Race Theory kicks in.

  34. Hate crime legislation is stupid in general. Its hard to think of anyone committing a crime where animosity towards the target isn’t a prerequisite. These laws were always about unequal protection/punishment under the law and that’s exactly what they are. It was only a matter of time before they would be twisted in a new direction and used against the very same people who support this kind of legislation and assume it gave them immunity. In this case there’s some destruction of property, which actually makes this a crime, beyond the act of being mean at a cop. This stupid 19yo is probably power tripping after a few freshman level sociology courses. Unfortunately for her, in very rural Panguitch Utah, she’s about to meet a jury that’s none too sympathetic to her side of the story.

    1. Agreed. Hate can speak to motive, but should not be a criminal or civil crime.

      1. My point is “hate” is the motive of just about any crime with an actual victim. “Hate” itself shouldn’t be an enhancing factor to a crime because a) hate is the motive just about any crime, b) the way “hate” is used to characterize specific crimes for added punishment is an inherent unequal protection/punishment under the law (unconstitutional) and c) adding extra punishment for someone’s motive in committing a crime is basically government criminalizing wrong-think and should be seen as a first amendment violation (again, unconstitutional). Hate crimes essentially say, you harboring personal negative feelings towards a specific group (whether it be race, sex, or in this case employment) essentially means the government can tell you what to think or feel about specific groups. That’s outside the purview of what the government, under any circumstances, should do. If there’s an actual crime (in this case vandalism) that should be the only issue for a court to consider, and not interpretations about whether a person had any more “hate” than the usual person aggressing against their fellow man.

  35. Oh, the irony of it all. The left has been pushing for all sorts of hate speech and hate crime laws to be used against their enemies when all else fails; you know, by using smear and other semi-literate tactics, not by countering someone’s arguments with reasonable arguments of their own. No, are you kidding? Only by using smear and other childish attempts. Name calling, personal attacks, you know the rest.
    So much for public education.

    So, instead, they have switched to the use of “hate speech” in order they may silence their opposition.
    Now it has turned on them. Yes, the monster they created has turned on them.
    Isn’t it nice to see such things happen.
    Hopefully this will continue to happen, to a never more deserving lot than the liberals.

  36. It’s not a hate crime, on the other hand I don’t recall Siskel and Ebert stomping on posters during At the Movies so let’s not call it “criticism” either. It’s a non-criminal expression of antipathy.

  37. With an enhancement for aggravated smirking

  38. Leftist tactics are stupid. Using them in response does not make them any smarter. Just like the courts need to dismiss about 99% of the ‘police brutality’ charges, they need to dismiss this nonsense too. I think all ‘hate crime’ statutes are inane. If person A kills person B, does the motive make the victim any more or less dead? The idea of punishing someone more because of what they were thinking at the time is a.) impossible to prove and b.) irrelevant to the damage inflicted on the victim. Assault is assault, and murder is murder.

  39. To have a reasonable idea of how law-enforcers will perform their job, one must understand what underlying nature/desire motivated them to their profession to start with. I believe that many, if not most, ‘law-enforcers’ — be they private-property security, community police, prison guards or heavily-armed rapid-response police units — have targeted/acquired such authoritative fields of employment for ‘power’ reasons, albeit perhaps subconsciously.

    Society, including me, undoubtedly needs law-enforcers, especially to protect the law-abiding and most vulnerable people. Still, should we ignore the fact that it’s a profession in which they might get to, for example, storm into suspects’ homes, screaming, with fully-automatic machineguns or handguns drawn, at the homes’ occupants (to “face down!”), all of whom, including infants, can be permanently traumatized from the experience. Occasionally the law-enforcers force their way into the wrong home, altogether; that is when open-fire can and does occur, followed by wrongful deaths to be ‘impartially’ investigated.

  40. Back the Blue yard signs to show law enforcement and others that you support our men and women in blue.
    The blue center line represents law enforcement, the bottom stripe represents the criminals and the top black stripe represents the public. Displaying a Thin Blue Line flag is a great way to show your support for the police and other law enforcement officers who protect us on a daily basishausverwalter leipzig

  41. America’s InJustice system in action? Given more time will the SCOTUS implement procedures that will allow them to ‘rewrite’ the Constitution?

    Is it wise to vote for anyone from either main party?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.