Yesterday I told you about Canada's HRC, the Canadian "thought police". I also told you that this movement was migrating south to these United States. Given some of your claims that I'm paranoid, I'm sure some of you read that and said, "you're crazy, that will never happen here, we have a Constitution." Well, I didn't bother to recall for you the Japanese Internment Camps and the McCarthy years. I knew that you would, in all likelihood, write that off, because you don't understand it and it was too long ago for a 25 year old to even grasp.
But then, I had one reader write me an e-mail asking for what evidence I had of this migration of the "though police" to the U.S.; well, OK.
The "U.S." Senate Judiciary Committee put notice on their website that there is a proposal pending (S. 909) which will be the subject of a committee hearing on June 25, 2009. This bill was already passed in the House (249-175), which is basically a "hate crimes" amendment to this bill already moving through the legislature. The announcement on the website states that, "The Senate Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing entitled 'The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009' on Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building." Apparently Attorney General Eric Holder is the only listed witness.
Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst for Liberty Counsel states that the proposal is formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate. He says that the bill will create federal penalties against criminals if their "victims" were chosen because of an "actual or perceived . . . sexual orientation, gender identity."
I hate to quote this guy, but . . . Rush Limbaugh (I'm no fan, but I guess he and the ACLU will likely be meeting in the middle on this one) states, "Some people are going to be put in jail for things that they say." He continues, "Hate crime legislation. That's where they determine what's in your mind when you commit a crime. That's when they decide what you were thinking … If you were thinking unapproved thoughts, that would make the crime you committed even worse."
Given our most recent episode of Law & Order, Special Victims Unit, where a man claimed that he was a "proud and loud" pedophile, just non-practicing, I'm scared. This man claimed his sexual desires for young girls was his "sexual orientation". He claimed that this was how God had created him and that he was meant to be this way. He acknowledged that the law had not caught up him, and people like him, yet. It was SICK, but it was SCARY because this has been the position of the homosexual community for years. [It's silly, but I'm supposed to say here . . . "no offense against the gays/lesbians."] But, my point is not anti-gay/lesbian. My point is that this bill goes way too far in regulating thoughts and then fails to be definite enough for the court's to able to make a solid determination consistent with the very intent of the bill. There are too many attorneys that will argue loopholes, the varying definitions.
The amendment was actually moving forward without a hearing until the legislature received so many letters from the American people, that the Senators did not want to sign their name to something that had such a high disapproval rating from the general public.
This issue first came up during the amendment process in the House. The bill appears to have been nicknamed the "Pedophile Protection Act" when an amendment request was made by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa which read, "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia." This was viewed as unnecessary, because everybody knows that pedophilia is bad. Well friends, that is why "marriage" was never defined as between a man and a woman in the last several thousand years, because everybody knows what it is. [Again, I am not taking a position on this issue.] I am pointing out the obvious ignorance of the actual effect that will result from this legislation being enacted. I'm telling you, there will be a case against a Rabi for preaching against pedophilia.
The Democratic majority did not accept this reading by Rep. King. However, the Republican minority responded explaining that, "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," stated by Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas. Rep. Gohmert reinforced that whenever a clear definition does not exist, the courts are left to interpret the "plain meaning".
WOW. The Republican's seem to be standing up for the rights of the exhibitionist, the voyeurs and the necrophiliacs. You go girl!! Careful what we expand "sexual orientation" to include. In making his point, he is almost making these deviants mainstream.
What I'm explaining, if you have not picked up the logic yet, is that this bill considers a person's thoughts in committing crimes, "actual or perceived".
Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, has said that the this bill will require judges to determine what those accused of crimes were "thinking" and not just "intent" as to whether they meant to commit the crime or not. The analysis will now expand to "what was the motivation" or the "reason" for the crime. One answer will be punishable, the other will not. Currently, "motive" is only used to establish circumstantial evidence of guilt of the action, the motive is not a crime itself. That will change with this bill.
What will the result be? Mr. Land wrote that, "This could create a chilling effect on religious speech, connecting innocent expression of religious belief to acts of violence against individuals afforded special protections." He continues, "The criminalization of religious speech, such as speech against the practice of homosexuality, has already been seen in other countries with similar hate crimes legislation in place."
It seems to me that this bill would provide special protections for homosexuals, could provide special protections for pedophiles and will leave Christian ministers, Jewish Rabi's and Muslim leaders open to prosecution if they engage is teaching a theology against homosexuality, and by extension pedophiles, when a listener commits a crime against that group.
I champion the civil rights movement. It was a movement that overturned 100's of years of persecution and prejudice against a great race of people. However, there is NO epidemic of crimes against homosexuals or transgenders in our country. Certainly, there is no criminal epidemic that would require federal intervention, meaning the crimes occur across state lines. That is simply not true. In fact, the crimes have decreased over the past 10 years, from all sources that I have researched. So, why is this bill even on the table??
The urging motivation of the legislature for the passing of this bill is to protect all citizens' civil rights. However, they are seeking to protect us from each other's thoughts. Once our thoughts come into the mix, anything is possible. Even the McCarthy Days brought people under scrutiny for group speech in a time when such communist thought had resulted in WWII. It later turned into intense interrogations of people for their "thoughts" about communism and socialism, though. It took a dark turn.
So, if a man flashes a woman and she clocks him upside the head, what will the result be after this bill is passed? The man will have committed a misdemeanor. The woman will have committed a federal felony hate crime. Once again, when special interests take over the legislature, they do way more harm caring about their own agenda, than if we were caring about the agenda of us all.
.
But then, I had one reader write me an e-mail asking for what evidence I had of this migration of the "though police" to the U.S.; well, OK.
The "U.S." Senate Judiciary Committee put notice on their website that there is a proposal pending (S. 909) which will be the subject of a committee hearing on June 25, 2009. This bill was already passed in the House (249-175), which is basically a "hate crimes" amendment to this bill already moving through the legislature. The announcement on the website states that, "The Senate Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing entitled 'The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009' on Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building." Apparently Attorney General Eric Holder is the only listed witness.
Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst for Liberty Counsel states that the proposal is formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate. He says that the bill will create federal penalties against criminals if their "victims" were chosen because of an "actual or perceived . . . sexual orientation, gender identity."
I hate to quote this guy, but . . . Rush Limbaugh (I'm no fan, but I guess he and the ACLU will likely be meeting in the middle on this one) states, "Some people are going to be put in jail for things that they say." He continues, "Hate crime legislation. That's where they determine what's in your mind when you commit a crime. That's when they decide what you were thinking … If you were thinking unapproved thoughts, that would make the crime you committed even worse."
Given our most recent episode of Law & Order, Special Victims Unit, where a man claimed that he was a "proud and loud" pedophile, just non-practicing, I'm scared. This man claimed his sexual desires for young girls was his "sexual orientation". He claimed that this was how God had created him and that he was meant to be this way. He acknowledged that the law had not caught up him, and people like him, yet. It was SICK, but it was SCARY because this has been the position of the homosexual community for years. [It's silly, but I'm supposed to say here . . . "no offense against the gays/lesbians."] But, my point is not anti-gay/lesbian. My point is that this bill goes way too far in regulating thoughts and then fails to be definite enough for the court's to able to make a solid determination consistent with the very intent of the bill. There are too many attorneys that will argue loopholes, the varying definitions.
The amendment was actually moving forward without a hearing until the legislature received so many letters from the American people, that the Senators did not want to sign their name to something that had such a high disapproval rating from the general public.This issue first came up during the amendment process in the House. The bill appears to have been nicknamed the "Pedophile Protection Act" when an amendment request was made by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa which read, "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia." This was viewed as unnecessary, because everybody knows that pedophilia is bad. Well friends, that is why "marriage" was never defined as between a man and a woman in the last several thousand years, because everybody knows what it is. [Again, I am not taking a position on this issue.] I am pointing out the obvious ignorance of the actual effect that will result from this legislation being enacted. I'm telling you, there will be a case against a Rabi for preaching against pedophilia.
The Democratic majority did not accept this reading by Rep. King. However, the Republican minority responded explaining that, "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," stated by Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas. Rep. Gohmert reinforced that whenever a clear definition does not exist, the courts are left to interpret the "plain meaning".
WOW. The Republican's seem to be standing up for the rights of the exhibitionist, the voyeurs and the necrophiliacs. You go girl!! Careful what we expand "sexual orientation" to include. In making his point, he is almost making these deviants mainstream.
What I'm explaining, if you have not picked up the logic yet, is that this bill considers a person's thoughts in committing crimes, "actual or perceived".
Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, has said that the this bill will require judges to determine what those accused of crimes were "thinking" and not just "intent" as to whether they meant to commit the crime or not. The analysis will now expand to "what was the motivation" or the "reason" for the crime. One answer will be punishable, the other will not. Currently, "motive" is only used to establish circumstantial evidence of guilt of the action, the motive is not a crime itself. That will change with this bill.
What will the result be? Mr. Land wrote that, "This could create a chilling effect on religious speech, connecting innocent expression of religious belief to acts of violence against individuals afforded special protections." He continues, "The criminalization of religious speech, such as speech against the practice of homosexuality, has already been seen in other countries with similar hate crimes legislation in place."
It seems to me that this bill would provide special protections for homosexuals, could provide special protections for pedophiles and will leave Christian ministers, Jewish Rabi's and Muslim leaders open to prosecution if they engage is teaching a theology against homosexuality, and by extension pedophiles, when a listener commits a crime against that group.
I champion the civil rights movement. It was a movement that overturned 100's of years of persecution and prejudice against a great race of people. However, there is NO epidemic of crimes against homosexuals or transgenders in our country. Certainly, there is no criminal epidemic that would require federal intervention, meaning the crimes occur across state lines. That is simply not true. In fact, the crimes have decreased over the past 10 years, from all sources that I have researched. So, why is this bill even on the table??
The urging motivation of the legislature for the passing of this bill is to protect all citizens' civil rights. However, they are seeking to protect us from each other's thoughts. Once our thoughts come into the mix, anything is possible. Even the McCarthy Days brought people under scrutiny for group speech in a time when such communist thought had resulted in WWII. It later turned into intense interrogations of people for their "thoughts" about communism and socialism, though. It took a dark turn.
So, if a man flashes a woman and she clocks him upside the head, what will the result be after this bill is passed? The man will have committed a misdemeanor. The woman will have committed a federal felony hate crime. Once again, when special interests take over the legislature, they do way more harm caring about their own agenda, than if we were caring about the agenda of us all.
.
0 COMMENTS:
Post a Comment