Jump to content


Mr. T

Recommended Posts



Wednesday night, while President Barack Obama held his televised press conference marking his first 100 days in office, the federal hate crimes bill -- HR 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 -- passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 249 to 175.


But not everyone believes this piece of legislation is a great idea. They are cautioning many supporters that such a law is a two-edged sword and may have unintended consequences that includes misuse by overzealous and politically motivated prosecutors.


Critics fear that this legislation would prosecute individuals not on the basis of their crimes but on their alleged motivations for committing those crimes. It requires law enforcement officials and prosecutors to gather evidence of the offender's thoughts rather than of his actions and his criminal intent.


Some of the provisions contained in HR 1913 include:


• Federalization of crimes that already are being effectively prosecuted by our States and local governments.

• The forcing of law enforcement officials and prosecutors to gather evidence of the offender's thoughts and words, regardless of the criminality of his actions.

• Blurring the line between violent belief, which is constitutionally protected, and violent action, which is not.


"This should strike us all as inherently dangerous," said a New York City police detective who asked for anonymity since the city's mayor favors such legislation.


"Now we'll have feds looking over our shoulders to make certain we arrest people based on their views regarding homosexuality and others who would be protected by a federal law enforced by federal bureaucrats," she added.


"The First Amendment of our Constitution was crafted because our Founding Fathers recognized that the freedom of thought and belief is the cornerstone of every other freedom. It is the foundation of liberty itself, because, without it, every other freedom, including the freedom of speech, becomes meaningless," warned Congressman Trent Franks of Texas during the debate on the House floor.


"[With all of the challenges that we have in our country, the wonderful reality is that we still hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and that they are all equal because they are all God's children," said the conservative lawmaker.




So when Miss California was hung-out-to-dry, after fielding one of the judges questions about what she thought about gay marriage.


She said 'live and let live', but that her personal opinion was that marriage was between a man and a woman.


She has received a biased media whipping over it.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can all of us tea parties' folks sue Obama et all for hate speech against them?


I think somebody who loves this stupid law is a lawyer.


Ditto on the "phooey"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberals are always showing how much they hate, they scream cry and call names at those who are pro life, pro family, pro constitution or anything else that has made our country great.


But this is only an attempt to stifle free speech by bullying good people. Liberals are hypocritical in what they want here by curbing free speech. they want to call it a hate crime because someone is against gay marriage. or because someone wants to see a defenseless baby from being murdered.


When did what is right turn out to be what is wrong? Has this turn in society been done since the Clintons were in office and slick Willy was given a free pass on the "I didn't have sexual relations scandal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is ridiculous.


LIberals start fights, insult people, then they run and cry "foul" when somebody


reflects their garbage back on them.


I believe alllllll of the personal attacks need to stop.


By everybody, regardless of what liberal side started it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



'Pedophile Protection Act': What's next for hate crimes?

On the fast track: Judiciary panel schedules hearing for bill Tuesday

Posted: May 10, 2009





U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider Tuesday a hate crimes bill already approved by the House that, critics say, provides special protections for pedophiles and others with alternative "gender identities" such as voyeurism and exhibitionism.


WND first reported on what has become widely known as "The Pedophile Protection Act" last week, raising nationwide alarm that has already generated more than 250,000 individual letters of protest to members of the U.S. Senate.


By special arrangement through WND, for only $10.95 members of the public can send 100 individually addressed letters to each senator by overnight mail. Each letter is individually "signed" by the sender. The letters ask for a written response and call for opposition to the bill, including by filibuster if necessary.


On Friday, Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said the only chance to defeat the legislation was for a massive outpouring of opposition from the American people.


"If you guys don't raise enough stink there's no chance of stopping it," U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert said last week on a radio program with WND columnist Janet Porter. She's the chief of the Faith2Action Christian ministry and has coordinated a campaign to allow citizens to send overnight letters to members of the U.S. Senate expressing opposition to the plan.


Already well over 2,500 people have utilized the procedures and more than 250,000 letters have been dispatched to members of the Senate.


"It's entirely in the hands of your listeners and people across the country," Gohmert told Porter. "If you guys put up a strong enough fight, that will give backbone enough to the 41 or 42 in the Senate to say we don't want to have our names on that."



WND has reported multiple times on the developing legislation – a plan that failed under President Bush when he determined it was unnecessary and most likely unconstitutional.


An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel, said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose "victims" were chosen based on an "actual or perceived ... sexual orientation, gender identity."


Gohmert warned Porter during the interview that even her introduction of him, and references to the different sexual orientations, could be restricted if the plan becomes law.


"You can't talk like that once this becomes law," he said.


He said the foundational problem with the bill is that it is based on lies: It assumes there's an epidemic of crimes in the United States – especially actions that cross state lines – that is targeting those alternative sexual lifestyles.


"When you base a law on lies, you're going to have a bad law," he said. "This 'Pedophilia Protection Act,' a 'hate crimes' bill, is based on the representation that there's a epidemic of crimes based on bias and prejudice. It turns out there are fewer crimes now than there were 10 years ago."


He said he fought in committee and in the House, where it was approved 249-175, to correct some of the failings, including his repeated requests for definitions in the bill for terms such as "sexual orientation."


Majority Democrats refused, he said. He said that leaves the definition up to a standard definition in the medical field, which includes hundreds of "philias" and "isms" and would be protected.


Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a "hate crimes" supporter, confirmed that worry, saying: "This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…"


President Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires. :unsure:


"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," he said.


But Gohmert pointed out that if an exhibitionist flashes a woman, and she responds by slapping him with her purse, he has probably committed a misdemeanor while she has committed a federal felony hate crime.


"That's how ludicrous this situation is," Gohmert said.


Akers' analysis said the bill would result in the federalization of "virtually every sexual crime in the United States." And he said it appears to be part of an agenda that would relegate pro-family and traditional marriage advocates into the ranks of "terrorists." Critics also have expressed alarm because in committee hearings Democrats admitted that a Christian pastor could be prosecuted under the law if he spoke biblically against homosexuality, someone heard the comments and then committed a crime.


"Under [the plan] the speech of a criminal defendant and the mere membership of the defendant in a given group may be used as evidence of his or her biased motive," Akers said.


He said there's already an effort afoot in the U.S. to list those pro-family organizations "alongside several neo-Nazi groups ... to create guilt by the artificial manufactured appearance of association."


During arguments in the House while the plan was being adopted, lawmakers pointed out the representatives were voting for protection for "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association."


Porter cited the amendment offering from Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, in committee that was very simple: "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia."


But majority Democrats refused to accept it.


"Having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words," explained Gohmert. "The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) ... it could include urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they've committed a misdemeanor, you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong."


Republicans in the House also attempted to amend the bill to offer hate crimes protection for U.S. military veterans who were attacked because of their service. Democrats unanimously rejected the amendment.


"I believe this action, organized by Janet Porter, has generated more personal letters to members of Congress faster than any other effort of its kind," said Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, which has facilitated the delivery through Fed Ex. "I don't think the U.S. Senate has ever received 250,000 individually addressed and individually signed letters in 72 hours before. It will be most interesting to watch the impact."


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republicans in the House also attempted to amend the bill to offer hate crimes protection for U.S. military veterans who were attacked because of their service. Democrats unanimously rejected the amendment.




Enough is enough with the corrupt self-serving liberals in Congress who are permanently


on a big lie - attack mode on everything American and that includes, lying about our soldiers Murtha style.


BTW, Murtha's son used his powerful father's name often in acquiring contracts.


The whole liberal Dem pie is rotten, and it's stinkin up the country.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...