FieryDog twitter
FieryDog Rss

BamBam looking for a big bang

Posted by Brutus | Posted in Democrats | Posted on 29-04-2009


Obama is pressuring passage of an addition to the hate crimes law. My guess is, when he commandeers the airwaves tonight, he wants to be able to smile and read from the teleprompter, “look what I did for you.”

Steve King (R-Iowa) says 
“Don’t believe what they say; read the bill. Think what happens. What’s their agenda? Their agenda is to shut down preaching of faith from the pulpit. Their agenda is to force public approval of the homosexual agenda. And destroying marriage nationally is the follow-up piece of this.”

While liberals say this is not the case, after reading the bill, I can see Mr. King’s concern.

In the Construction section of the bill, it states that the bill cannot prohibit free speech as long as that speech is constitutional. And whereas the bill also says association to groups cannot be used in prosecution to demonstrate motive “unless specifically related to the case,” it can be used to impeach the witness. Since the government will be the one who decides if something is motivated by prejudice, they can point to someone’s church affiliation as a reason to malign the witness. For example, let’s say Bill hits on John. John punches Bill. The prosecutor can say this was a hate crime and John’s attendance in church led him to hate homosexuals.

I oppose this bill on other grounds. The idea of “hate crimes” is abslutely ridiculous. It is offensive to liberty. First, by granting special protections to one group of people, the government automatically lowers everyone else. Why should a crime against me be less important simply because I am straight and white?

Second, hate crimes go beyond punishing a crime into punishing a thought. What makes killing a man for drug money less odious than killing a man for being gay? Are not both victims dead? The end result is the same, however, the government desires to control the minds of everyone, telling them what is acceptable thought and what is not. Need money? Okay, your crimes are bad. Think homosexuals are going to hell? Oh, we need to punish you extra hard for your opinion.

This legislation leaves prosecution in the hands of the state for the most part, however, it allows for the federal government to retry the person if it doesn’t like the outcome or punishment rendered. It says

`No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that– . . . (D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.

So much for double jeopardy and the Constitution.

On the current version the “findings” section is missing, so I’ll post it here. This, too, is ridiculous. It is their justification for violating the Constitution.

    Congress makes the following findings:


      (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem. (In 2007 there were 7,624 hate crime incidents reported. With just over 304 million people in the country, this breaks down to roughly 1 hate crime per every 40,000 people. That’s a serious national problem?  See some comparable statistics below) 
      (2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive. (And your ordinary murder, gang violence, kidnapping, rape, or child molestation doesn’t?) 
      (3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance. 
      (4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem. (solely because it lack the part about homosexuals…incidentally, 1,265 of these “hate crimes” were based on gender issues…roughly 1 for every 240,000 people. ) 
      (5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected. (How does that make it Federal business?) 
      (6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following: Here begins serious constituional abuse. By tangentially relating it to commerce, hate crimes become “constitutional” as INTERSTATE COMMERCE 
        (A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence. 
        (B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
         . .  (editing for length)   
        (E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce. 
      (7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, (who were the slaves after slavery ended?) through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude. (You cannot remove these things from people who were neither the perpetrators nor the victims.) 
       . . . (repeat of above point )
      (9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes. (This is unconstitutional) 
      (10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes. (look below for worse odds)


Odds of dying by:

Car Accident — 1 in 100
Suicide — 1 in 121
Falling down — 1 in 246
Drowning — 1 in 8,942
Airplane crash — 1 in 20,000

So, you have a better chance of dying in a plane crash than being a victim of a hate crime.

If we look at this by race, religion, gender, we see these odds.

Racially motivated (black only): 1 in 11,000 (3,275 crimes against blacks with 79 being black-on-black)
Gender, sexual orientation (We often hear 10% of population is gay, so for 30 million gays): 1 in 25,000 (1,203 crimes)

Write a comment

Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.8.1, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.