The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Jeremiah 17:9
"Taking time off from defending partial birth abortions, Congressman Sheila Jackson Lee, D. from Texas just introduced a 
bill that could make criticism of non-white individuals by whites a federal crime.
Lee, a nominal Seventh-day Adventist was allowed to address the audience at the 2015 GC Session in San Antonio. The woman is so blinded by racial hatred she should never be allowed near an Adventist meeting.
Lee was voted the meanest person in Congress several times (I wonder if that is now a hate crime?) More importantly, maybe her being mean to people is a hate crime? But back to H.R. 61, Lee’s latest congressional bill.
In what can only be called a convoluted mess, the H.R 61 bill proposes that a white person who “vilifies” any non-white person and has their words end up on social media, accessible by “persons who are predisposed to engaging in any action in furtherance of a white supremacy inspired hate crime,” would themselves be committing a federal crime.
The provision is so broad that you could drive a John Deere tractor through it. What is a “white supremacy-inspired hate crime” under this statute? How is “replacement theory” defined? Because what Democrats call “replacement theory” as a way to silence Republicans is often not replacement theory at all but is just a 
reiteration of Democrat-admitted aims to use immigration to influence elections.
Further, the use of “or” in section (B) is important because it leaves “vilifies” as a stand-alone qualifier. What is the limiting principle there? If I post on social media that Shelia Jackson Lee is an ignorant individual (who once said that the U.S. Constitution is 400 years old (it’s 235 years old)), and an abusive person who has a long history of treating her staff like dirt, does that mean I’ve “vilified” her under this proposed law? It would certainly seem so.
This law, if it were to pass, would be used to quash valid criticism against any non-white person or group (the Black Lives Matter organization, for example) because such criticism could leave those making it liable to federal charges. Forgetting that such would be a blatant breach of the First Amendment, it also exposes a wild totalitarian desire by Lee and those who think like her." Fulcrum7