HR 1444 HR 1388 Criminal Statutes and Ramifications

[rolfocale]

Excellent funny eye catching and makes its points concisely. Kudos

[MyFreedomChannel]

Great video! Thanks for sharing!

[burnmetodeath]

H.R. 1444 is a stillborn piece of legislation. It is born dead, because the 13th amendment nullifies it. The stupidity and constitutional illiteracy of our "representatives" never ceases to astound me. Everyone who voted for this piece of shit should be charged with conspiracy to kidnap.

[GaGirlie777]

You are so right. Here is a related video that you might find interesting.

/watch?v=54CdvB6JYNU

Get the word out to Moms and Dads across the country.

[Vorpalbite]

Why did you fail to mention the same rules for Political expression also apply to Religious expression - - - - U also forgot to mention the MANDITORY Schip

[jboyko3]

That's the reason I post links that are relevant to the topic of discussion with my videos. So ever-vigilant people like you can pick up on things I miss. I do my videos with the intention of giving you a basic run down of the issue and then give you the resources to determine for yourself whether or not I'm on or off target. That way, if it comes off like I'm force-feeding my point of view, you have the means to contradict it.

[KingOfAllMorons]

Couple of problems...hr 1444 doesn't violate the constitution because it only calls for a commission into some sort of mandatory service... Just like you can create a commission to look at the voting age, or prohibition etc., (or any potential amendment). As for H R 1388, the 125 provisions are there b/c in the past, Americorps was accused of engaging in political acts USING PUBLIC FUNDS...doesn't mean they can or can't engage in activity off hours. Just don't use government funds...

[KingOfAllMorons]

Color of law doesn't enter because there is no abuse of power or the law if in fact it's the letter of the law. I believe the precedent dates back to the 1960s and the Peace Corp, when a Peace Corp member was not allowed to protest the government of Chile while on the job. I do agree that its not an easy issue but the principle of not having our tax dollars abused for political rallies or by some faith-based group to "preach" seems sensible.

[burnmetodeath]

Right, and a bill proposing that a panel look into how we might go about depriving blacks of the right to vote would qualify as perfectly compatible with the constitution, in your mind? It wouldn't be the ACTUAL piece of legislation taking away their right to vote, so it would be perfectly constitutional? No violation there? This is conspiracy to commit a crime.

[ranger480X]

I think you can reasonably expect your employees to portray your companies public image, and this can be abused

My own experience has seen me told to keep certain ideas to myself while others talked about their own issues, since they were PC. I've been pressured to wear a diversity pin, participate in "walk for diversity" on Saturday [my day off] and even give money to a charity I oppose, implying refusing would make me a poor team player, and thus get a bad review. You are lucky you are boss

[jboyko3]

I don't know where it was you worked at, but I can assure you that if you were forced or even coerced into volunteering your time without pay on your day off under threat of reprimand, or giving money to a cause you might not support, you should have contacted a lawyer immediately. Or at the very least contacted your states labor board. With a lawyer you may have ended up with a fairly lucrative settlement. With the labor board, you might have at least sparked an investigation. Its called ethics

[burnmetodeath]

There will be nothing reasonable about it when that "employer" is forcing people into involuntary servitude with his "company". Anyone forced to "volunteer" at that point can and should say whatever the fuck is on their mind, and not give a rat's ass about helping out the image of the company that has, at that point, effectively kidnapped them. It's no different than what anyone in the movie "Swing Kids" ought to have done. So, take your Obama apologetics and go to hell.

[ranger480X]

This was proposed as a civilian security force, The famous quote "we cannot rely JUST on our military"

Even so, domestic employees do not have freedom of speech when on the clock. You speak out at work, you can face discipline. Domestic employment comes with a contract. Only difference, you go home at nite

The contract these volunteers will take on will be more restrictive, and not likely to pause on evenings and weekends, or even after their term, if retained as trained inactives or reserves

[jboyko3]

Employers are not allowed to fire you because of your political affiliation, religious beliefs, or because you support a union. Because there are certain laws in place protecting employees from these things. Getting fired for willful misconduct is much different than getting fired for supporting a political ideology. The point I was making is that, by law, ANY contract that has provisions written into it that violate your civil rights are not valid according to the statute. Work or otherwise.

[ranger480X]

This is true of course. However what looks one way on paper is often different in actual practice. For example, if I am a cashier at MacDonalds and wish to wear a NAZI pin on my lapel I doubt I would last long, while others are allowed wear pro-gay or diversity pins quite often

[jboyko3]

I agree that there is a double standard but if you chose to do so you could file a petition with the ACLU explaining your grievance. I'll give you another example. I operate a small business with a dozen employees. Now just because they work for me, does that mean that I can now put anything I want in that contract? Of course not. If I put something in the employee handbook like "All employees who work on election day may not vote." The ACLU would slap a lawsuit on me so fast my head would spin.

[KingOfAllMorons]

The reason why your voting analogy would violate the law is because you are forcing your business rules and regulations on your workers during their offhours. But if you say "you can't vote while on company time", that's perfectly legal. It's your property and you set the rules. People choose to work and agree to your rules. Just like people free to enter volunteerism given the rules set by the legislation.

[jboyko3]

I agree that there are reasonable restrictions that need to be in place in order to run an efficient business. And yes you can't as an employer place restrictions on what people do on their own time. The reason I used the voting analogy is because most people work 9 to 5 jobs. Will volunteerism be 12hrs, 24,hrs 3 continuous months. The standards are vague. Also employers are still limited. I for instance can't tell someone they may not go to jury duty if it conflicts with their work schedule.

[burnmetodeath]

Completely irrelevant. With your employer, you are CHOOSING to be there, and you are making an agreement that you will voluntary withhold your free speech in exchange for money. It is an at-will employment and you can leave any time you want if the two of you don't see eye to eye. Liberal organizations deciding what constitutes acceptable political or religious speech on the part of the people forced to work for them is a bunch of fucking crap. How dumb do you think we are?!

[shipwreck66]

thank you . your good at what your doing there are so many page's to this socialite bullshit they are pushing thur. the people , ya'll need to wake up.

[ranger480X]

This will not matter, because these volunteers will have "volunteered"

They will have become defacto military in a sense. This means that their right to free expression is limited, perhaps indefinitely, if they are considered reservists from then on. Also their rights under the 4th amendment

I believe you are really getting to the point in all this. Not only controlling the minds of the young, tapping the entire network of of them, but putting a lock on them at the same time. Quite brilliant

[jboyko3]

The way I understand the legislation is that the people who join will be civilian volunteers. Now whether or not they volunteer doesn't change the fact that they are still citizens who are protected under the authority of domestic law. The statute that I refer to is very plain in its language. It states that nobody (including entities within our government) may deprive any citizen of their basic rights. Telling people they may not protest if they volunteer is in violation of the 1st amendment.

[youratm]

You are so right, Cut that TV off. Read and Compare.

[doucmpuppiespn]

Great info!  Thanks!