reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Let's focus on what we can do, like addressing organized crime. That's point 2 of the criminal code, according to the leader of the opposition.

All legislation restricts freedom for the common good. Our constitution balances rights with the common good. Legislators have a responsibility to restrict freedoms if someone's views on others' identities make their lives unsafe and cause deep discomfort.

I've uncovered a secret Justice Department memo outlining plans to target 12 new "perversions," including bestiality and pedophilia. This memo details strategies to undermine churches, pastors, and businesses that assert their religious freedom. The LGBT movement is just the beginning; they plan to expand to other perversions. So, you're saying you are aware of a Justice Department memo that says there will be an effort to legitimize bestiality, pedophilia, and other perversions? That's correct. They're coming down with twelve new perversions, expanding beyond the LGBT movement. Nothing surprises me anymore.

I've asked the DOJ where the line is regarding impeding or interfering with law enforcement. Some members of Congress are educating people on how to evade law enforcement, claiming they're educating about constitutional rights. But in reality, they're telling people who are in the country illegally, have committed crimes, and been ordered removed by a federal judge to not open their doors and hide from ICE. As a member of Congress, they should let us enforce the laws that have been enacted. If someone physically prevents an arrest, that's obstruction, but where's the line when it's just telling people to hide? I want to know where that crosses into impeding law enforcement, so I've asked the Department of Justice to define that line.

Well, there's free speech, but then there's also hate speech, and woe to those who engage in it because it's a crime. That's a lie, and it's a lie that denies the humanity of the people you're telling it about. And so any attempt to impose hate speech laws in this country, and trust me, there are a lot of people who would like them. There are a lot of people who'd like to codify their own beliefs by punishing those under The US code who disagree with their beliefs. Any attempt to do that is a denial of the humanity of American citizens and cannot be allowed under any circumstances. That's got to be the red line.

We acknowledge that our actions may infringe upon your fundamental rights, as stated in the charter. However, we will proceed with it regardless, exploiting a loophole that enables a majority to override the rights of a minority.

I’ve just been informed that I’m being removed from my committees. Last week, I introduced a bill to eliminate sanctuary state protections for pedophiles in California, which the Democrats opposed. They cut off my microphone, and now the speaker of the state assembly has removed me from my committee. However, I see this as a badge of honor. It signifies that I’m doing the right thing by advocating for the people of this state and protecting children from being victimized by illegal immigrants. I’m ready for whatever comes next.

The exchange centers on whether the person being spoken to is the author of a controversial social media post and on whether authorities should press for a response. The conversation begins with an attempt to verify the person’s identity: “Picture to make sure it's you. We're not sure.” The responding party, referred to as Speaker 0, declines to answer without his lawyer present, stating, “I refuse to answer questions without my lawyer present. So I really don't know how to answer that question either.” He emphasizes his stance with a nod to freedom of speech, saying, “Well, you're like I said, you're not gonna is freedom of speech. This is America. Right? Veteran. Alright. And I agree with you 100%.” The officers explain they are trying to identify the correct person to speak with and proceed with the inquiry. Speaker 1 presents the substance of the post in question: “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians tried to shut down a theater for showing a movie that hurt his feelings and refuses to stand up for the LGBTQ community in any way, Even leave the room when they vote and on related matters. Wants you to know that you're all welcome clown face clown face clown face.” They ask Speaker 0 if that post was authored by him. Speaker 0 again refuses to confirm, stating, “I’m not gonna answer whether that’s me or not.” The discussion shifts to the underlying concern. Speaker 1 clarifies that their goal is not to establish whether the post is true, but to prevent somebody else from being agitated or agreeing with the statement. They quote the line about “the guy who consistently calls for the death of all Palestinians” and note that such a post “can probably incite somebody to do something radical.” The purpose of the inquiry, they say, is to obtain Speaker 0’s side of the story and to address the potential impact of the post. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to refrain from posting statements like that because they could provoke actions. Speaker 0 expresses appreciation for the outreach, but reiterates that he will maintain his amendment rights to not answer the question. He concludes by acknowledging the interaction and affirming that the conversation ends there: “That is it. And we're gonna maintain my amendment rights to, not answer the question about whether or that's fine.” Both parties part on a courteous note, with Speaker 0 thanking them and wishing them well.

All legislation restricts freedom for the common good. Our constitution balances rights with the common good. If your views on others' identities make their lives unsafe and cause deep discomfort, it is our duty as legislators to restrict those freedoms.

My amendment aims to stop the Department of Homeland Security from collaborating with the State Department to establish safe mobility offices in foreign countries. This initiative facilitates the entry of migrants into the US, funded by taxpayers. Secretary Mayorkas is accused of aiding illegal immigration by setting up these offices and providing expedited refugee processing. This approach is criticized for burdening border patrol and disregarding the safety of American citizens. The speaker urges colleagues to support the amendment.

I respectfully disagree and move to adopt this. DEI is unconstitutional as it violates the US Constitution's protection clause, along with Title VI and Title VII regarding race. This is modeled after a similar prohibition on state funds, which was adopted by the entire appropriations committee last session. I respectfully request the adoption of this rider.

To the democrats in the senate and others considering supporting this proposal, I urge you to think twice. Supporting it means surrendering to right wing racism and even enabling it.

This proposal is a serious matter. People who register and vote illegally disenfranchise actual US citizens. The speaker objects to the suggestion that their motive is to disingenuously sow fear and uncertainty about election legitimacy, calling the accusation inaccurate and lacking proof. The speaker believes there is ample reason to bring the proposal forward and expresses deep disappointment that it cannot pass. It is not too much to ask to put teeth into existing laws stating that only US citizens can vote in US elections. The House passed it, and the Senate could pass it now. It is inexcusable not to.

It is wildly inappropriate to have any foreign-born individuals in Congress or the judiciary system, regardless of their politics. Foreign-born individuals should be banned from holding positions of power in the country, including Congress and the courts. America's institutions should be controlled by Americans whose identity, loyalty, and instincts are shaped in this country, not imported from somewhere else. Allowing foreigners to make decisions about our laws and leaders is national suicide and an open invitation to sabotage, infiltrate, and deliberately erode American sovereignty. It is like an American woman moving to India, becoming a citizen, and then trying to impeach their president and rewrite their constitution. Foreign-born individuals are controlling what happens in the country.

I was removed from my committees for proposing a bill to remove sanctuary state protection for pedophiles in California. The Democrats didn't like it. But I see it as a badge of honor. I'm fighting for the people and children victimized by illegal immigrants. Bring it on. More to come.

All legislation restricts freedom for the common good. Our constitution balances rights with the common good. If your views on others' identities make their lives unsafe and cause deep discomfort, it is our duty as legislators to restrict those freedoms for the common good.

To pass my amendment, the Senate must remove Democrat leaders blocking it. I propose a vote on whether American taxpayer money should be used to fly illegal immigrants from Venezuela and Haiti into the US. President Biden has secretly flown 320,000 illegal aliens into Blue City airports in 2023. Vote against me to stop this practice. Time has expired.

I propose a new immigration bill that addresses the difficulty we face in deporting foreign criminals. The bill, which will be presented to the Senate on November 6th, includes articles seven, eight, and nine. I urge the Senate majority and the majority in the National Assembly to vote in favor of these provisions. Currently, there are four thousand foreign criminals that I am unable to deport due to the restrictions imposed by article nine. These individuals cannot be expelled if they are married in France, have children in France, or arrived in the country before the age of thirteen, regardless of their criminal actions occurring after the age of eighteen.

A notification system alerts people to avoid areas due to potential ICE raids, which is claimed to be a violation of federal law (Title 8, US Code 1374) and an obstruction of justice. One speaker insists that individuals involved in creating and funding these alert systems should be arrested immediately. They believe this activity thwarts the will of the American people and is anti-democratic, and must be stopped. They intend to contact people to investigate the NGOs and their support.

All legislation restricts freedom for the common good. Our constitution balances rights with the common good. Legislators have a responsibility to restrict freedoms if someone's views on others' identities make their lives unsafe and cause deep discomfort.

I am not ashamed of the bill I drafted to address societal issues leading to violence. There are many individuals without proper upbringing who may become predators in the future if not helped now. It is crucial to focus on them to prevent future harm in our communities.

Could you define the far right? It's a political ideology, but a clear definition is elusive. You mentioned that only fringe commentators oppose your government's hate speech laws, yet 73% of public consultation replies were negative, and 65% oppose these laws according to the last poll. Isn't it your government that holds the fringe position? Public consultations over the past four years show a minority group in the country is targeted and victimized by hate speech and hate crimes. In Ireland, about 17,000 undocumented migrants, including 3,000 children, now have a pathway to regularization announced by Justice Minister Helen MacEntee. This means these individuals, who contribute to society and the economy, can now work towards citizenship.

Islamophobia is rising, particularly since October 7th, but it was already too high before then. Islamophobia is intolerable, can never be justified, and requires a zero-tolerance approach. More action is needed from the government, especially regarding online content. The speaker hopes to leverage the prosecutor's experience to develop strategies for taking action against those who break the law. Islamophobia significantly impacts people's lives, affecting their ability to move freely in their communities, workplaces, and streets. The impact is not low level.

Speaker 0: There's free speech and then there's hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society. Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action. We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything, and that's across the aisle.

It's common sense that we have many migrants here illegally who have committed crimes. It's hard to understand why anyone would defend allowing them to stay in the country. If someone is here illegally and engages in criminal activity, they should be removed. This issue was significant in the recent election. In the Senate, with 47 members, if we can't secure at least 7 votes on this matter, it reflects why we lost. This is one of the reasons for our defeat. Brett, consider that perspective; it's a crucial point being made.