Author Topic: Hate Bill Passes-Erodes Civil Liberties and Undermines Constitutional Safeguards  (Read 10027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

nofakenews

  • Guest
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday approved an expansion of federal "hate crime" laws -- an effort that former Republican President George W. Bush had opposed.

On a vote of 249-175, the House passed and sent to the Senate a bill backed by the new Democratic White House to broaden such laws by classifying as "hate crimes" those attacks based on a victim's sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability.

The current law, enacted four decades ago, limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to assaults based on race, color, religion or national origin.

The bill would lift a requirement that a victim had to be attacked while engaged in a federally protected activity, like attending school, for it to be a federal hate crime.

House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer urged passage of the Federal Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

"Hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and identity or disability not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our nation's social fabric," Hoyer said.

Bush had helped stop such a bill in the last Congress, arguing existing state and federal laws were adequate. But President Barack Obama asked Congress to send it to him to sign into law.

"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," Obama said in a statement before the vote.

Conviction of a hate crime carries stepped up punishment, above and beyond that meted out for the attack. The bill would allow the federal government to help state and local authorities investigate hate crimes.

Representative Lamar Smith, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, helped lead the charge against the bill, arguing it was misdirected and discriminatory.

"All violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted," Smith said. "Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles of our criminal justice system -- 'equal justice for all.'"

"Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim," Smith said. "It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime."

Earlier this year, Congress passed two other major bills derailed during the Bush administration.

One, vetoed by Bush, would have expanded a federal health insurance program for children. The other, blocked by Bush's fellow Republicans in the Senate, would have reversed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to make it easier to sue for discrimination in the workplace.

With Democrats having won the White House and expanded their control of Congress in the 2008 election, both measures were among the party's top 2009 legislative priorities. And they became among the first bills Obama signed into law.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090429/pl_nm/us_usa_congress_hate;_ylt=A0wNcwvzzfhJOLUAzQRZ.3QA
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=17915.0

Offline Irobot

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,212
  • SHOW HOST WANTED!
    • 12160 SOCIAL NETWORK
Re: U.S. House passes "hate crime" bill that Bush opposed
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2009, 06:39:23 pm »
Freedom is slavery
12160  "Destroying the NWO"
Check out the blogs, videos, and discussions!!
http://12160.info/

RADIO HOST WANTED!!! 
Trolls R People 2

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: U.S. House passes "hate crime" bill that Bush opposed
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2009, 06:46:51 pm »
Federal Hate Crimes Bill Will Erode Civil Liberties and Undermine Constitutional Safeguards Against Double Jeopardy
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2009/04/29/federal-hate-crimes-bill-will-erode-civil-liberties-and-undermine-constitutional-safeguards-against-double-jeopardy/
Originally written by Hans Bader. April 29, 2009

On April 23, the House Judiciary Committee voted 15-to-12 to approve a dramatic expansion of the federal hate-crimes law. The bill, H.R. 1913, would add gender, sexual orientation, and transgender characteristics to a law originally designed to protect racial minorities. It also greatly expands the law’s reach over local offenses typically handled by state prosecutors, by eliminating many jurisdictional limits.

The bill would allow people who have been found innocent of a hate crime in state court to be reprosecuted in federal court. Many supporters of the federal hate crimes bill want to allow people who have been found innocent of a hate crime in state court to be reprosecuted in federal court. As one supporter put it, “the federal hate crimes bill serves as a vital safety valve in case a state hate-crimes prosecution fails.” The claim that the justice system has “failed” when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict is truly scary and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury.

But it is a view widely shared among supporters of the hate-crimes bill. Syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum pointed out in 1998 that Janet Reno, Clinton’s Attorney General, backed the bill as a way of providing a federal “forum” for prosecution if prosecutors fail to obtain a conviction “in the state court.”

As Sullum noted, the federal hate crimes bill exploits a loophole in constitutional protections against double jeopardy, known as the “dual sovereignty” doctrine. The Supreme Court created this loophole in its 5-to-4 Bartkus decision.

Supporters of the hate crimes bill also see it as a way to prosecute people even in cases where the evidence is so weak that state prosecutors have decided not to prosecute. Attorney General Eric Holder has pushed for the hate crimes bill as a way to prosecute people whom state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. To justify broadening federal hate-crimes law, he cited three examples where state prosecutors refused to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence. In each, a federal jury acquitted the accused, finding them not guilty.

Advocates of a broader federal hate-crimes law have pointed to the Duke lacrosse case as an example of where federal prosecutors should have stepped in and prosecuted the accused players — even though the state prosecution in that case was dropped because the defendants were actually innocent, as North Carolina’s attorney general conceded, and were falsely accused of rape by a woman with a history of violence (including trying to run over someone with her car) and making false accusations.

Civil libertarians like Wendy Kaminer have criticized the federal hate-crimes bill for taking advantage of a loophole in constitutional double-jeopardy protections. Law professor Gail Heriot, a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, has also criticized the bill for circumventing protections against double-jeopardy.

I wrote earlier about how the federal hate-crimes bill backed by Obama and Congressional leaders would violate constitutional federalism safeguards, such as the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Morrison (2000), and how it would allow people found innocent in state court to be retried in federal court.

Supporters of the hate-crimes bill have all sorts of lame rationalizations for disregarding not-guilty verdicts. Hate-crimes activist Brian Levin, who testified before Congress, claims reprosecutions are needed because local jury pools are biased. NOW Legal Defense Fund told Congress that reprosecutions are appropriate if local prosecutors had “inadequate resources” or were of “questionable effectiveness.” (These rationalizations make no sense and have no principled limits: there is no evidence that state juries are more biased than the federal juries that would hear federal hate-crimes cases, or that they are typically biased; and even well-funded prosecutors have complained of having inadequate resources).

Given the politically-charged nature of many hate-crimes trials, Kimberly Potter of New York University was probably right when she told Congress back in 1998 that if the federal hate crimes bill is enacted, “the acquittal of [hate-crimes] defendants in state court will frequently trigger demands for federal prosecution.”
The bill’s sponsors seldom talk about that controversial aspect of the bill, however, when addressing the general public. Instead, they trumpet the fact that the hate-crimes bill would include gays, lesbians, and transgendered people among the classes of people it covers.

The bill’s supporters, such as the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU, claim the law is needed because of the case of Angie Zapata. Zapata is a transgender woman whose lover killed her when he found out she was biologically a man. But this argument makes little sense, given that Zapata’s killer was swiftly convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole by a Colorado state court, which found the killer guilty of both murder and hate crimes.

(The federal hate crimes bill does not provide for the death penalty, and its maximum penalty is the same one that Zapata’s killer got: life without parole).

The bill’s Senate sponsors named the 2008 version of the bill after Matthew Shepard, a young gay man who was killed in Wyoming. That was a cynically clever strategy. Hate-crimes laws are fairly popular: 45 states have hate crimes laws, and most of them ban hate-crimes based on sexual orientation.

But precisely for that reason, a federal hate-crimes law is duplicative and unnecessary. Moreover, even the few states that don’t have hate-crimes laws, like Wyoming, still punish hate criminals under their laws against murder and assault. The killers of Matthew Shepard were given life sentences, which is the maximum penalty available under the federal hate-crimes bill. (Ironically, the Wyoming prosecutor wanted them to get the death penalty, while liberal groups like Lambda Legal, which supports the federal hate-crimes bill, oppose the death penalty in all cases). There is no evidence that any state gives people who commit hate crimes lesser sentences on average than people who commit similarly violent crimes not motivated by bias.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose the federal hate crimes bill, which is known as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. But since it was used as a political wedge issue in the 2008 election by both the Democratic Party and President Obama, who support it, there is little doubt that it will pass Congress and be signed into law by the President.

The ACLU long opposed the loophole in Constitutional double-jeopardy protections that the bill is designed to exploit. But it switched its longstanding position in order to back the federal hate crimes bill, apparently believing that civil-liberties must be sacrificed in order to fight hate.

The ACLU’s support for the federal hate-crimes bill is hypocritical for another reason: the bill seeks to circumvent double-jeopardy protections recognized by a treaty called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the U.S. ratified in 1992. The ACLU has also long argued that the United States should not only comply with that treaty but give it a very expansive interpretation.

Article 14 of the treaty specifically prohibits double jeopardy, without any exception for the loophole relied on by supporters of the federal hate crimes bill, mandating that “No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted.”

But the ACLU conveniently ignores the treaty when it comes to the federal hate-crimes bill, even though the ACLU has sought to stretch the treaty’s language to achieve a host of liberal political goals, such as mandating “affirmative action” in the U.S. The ACLU also has argued for an expansive interpretation of the treaty to require benefits for illegal aliens. For example, the ACLU criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Hoffman Plastics case, which refused to award illegal aliens backpay against employers who fired them. The ACLU’s bizarre interpretations of the treaty conflict not only with its language, but also with the longstanding practices of most ICCPR signatory countries, which neither practice affirmative action nor give benefits to illegal aliens.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,842
Oppose H.R.1913, to Federalize the Prosecution of So-called Hate Crimes

What does the bill do?

Makes hate crimes (a crime in which the victim is intentionally selected based on his or her race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc.) a federal offense.

Adds "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as protected classes to the U.S. criminal code (Title 18).

Mandates federal criminal prosecution for stateoffenses, with the possibility of life imprisonment, for crimes motivated by the "actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person."

What is wrong with all of this?

H.R. 1913 is a dangerous and unprecedented proposal, which will transform the criminal justice system and threaten religious liberty. It is both unnecessary and unconstitutional!

Why is this bill unconstitutional?

Violates both the 1st and 14th Amendments by infringing upon these constitutional guarantees:

Freedom of speech—aims to silence and punish all opposing viewpoints

For example, this bill requires criminal investigations to probe if a crime occurred "because of" bias towards a protected group, and opens the door to criminal investigations of a suspect's philosophical beliefs, politics, biases, religion, activities, and past statements (i.e. saying that you may disagree with homosexuality)

Equal Protection Under the Law—grants more government protection to certain classes of people

Creates unequal treatment of victims by treating crimes against protected groups more seriously than non-protected groups (e.g. the murder of a homosexual victim will be treated more seriously than a heterosexual victim) .

Religious Expression—targets faith groups, specifically Christians, who hold traditional beliefs on homosexuality

Threatens religious leaders and groups with a criminal prosecution and investigations into a suspect's thoughts, beliefs and statements.

For example, if a minister were to give a sermon, stating that homosexuality is morally wrong, and a member of that congregation later goes out and murders a gay person, the motivation for that murder could be traced back to the minister's remarks.

Why is it unnecessary?

The underlying offense (whether it be murder, assault, etc.) is already fully and aggressively prosecuted in all 50 states.

FBI statistics show that the incidence of hate crimes has actually decreased over the last ten years. Less than 17% of all law enforcement agencies reported a single hate crime in 2005.

Where does Congress get the Constitutional authority for this nonsense?

http://www3.capwiz.com/afanet/home/

Offline scarecrow2009

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Perhaps the most troubling part of this law is the fact that people who commit atrocities will be prosecuted for their actions and their thoughts. This opens the door for the thought police. Remember Orwell's 1984?

Offline Ready4truth

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
URGENT: When the F is Alex going to have Ted Pike on?
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2009, 10:51:32 am »
Hate Crimes Bill, HR 1913 - PASSED

If Alex gives a hoot about free speech he had better get moving on this. Has he talked about this at ALL? What gives? Excuse me for saying it but I'm highly suspicious of anyone who hasn't had Pike on to discuss this. Pike is the expert on this and his message NEEDS to be heard.

Severe attention needs to be given to this bill and phone calls need to be made.
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Galatians 4:16

Offline Modzilla_Kicker

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 596
  • V for Victory
Re: URGENT: When the F is Alex going to have Ted Pike on?
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2009, 11:02:42 am »
I'd suggest Alex delays having him on so that ppl would not swear their way into having Alex address a particular detail of a particular detail of a particular issue. The whole show tries to cover all encroachment on free speech, and I find it repulsive that s.o. should use authoritative rhetotic if any particular issue is being missed or unreported. Be more courteous next time, and a little more appreciative of the massive amount of work Alex has on his schedule.
Awareness. Resistance. Victory.

Offline Ready4truth

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
Re: URGENT: When the F is Alex going to have Ted Pike on?
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2009, 11:16:35 am »
I'd suggest Alex delays having him on so that ppl would not swear their way into having Alex address a particular detail of a particular detail of a particular issue. The whole show tries to cover all encroachment on free speech, and I find it repulsive that s.o. should use authoritative rhetotic if any particular issue is being missed or unreported. Be more courteous next time, and a little more appreciative of the massive amount of work Alex has on his schedule.

Are you kidding me? Seriously? That's totally lame, I mean that is just pathetic. So your saying that Alex should avoid discussing one of the most important topics of our time and having a guest on because I swore, because I have passion about free speech?

wtf?
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Galatians 4:16

Offline Ready4truth

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
Re: URGENT: When the F is Alex going to have Ted Pike on?
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2009, 11:24:23 am »
Let me remind you that this fight we are in is not about a person or egos, it's about moving the truth forward and  preserving prescious liberties. I will not be a suck-up to ego's nor do I believe in the whole cult of personality. Alex is just a person who has skills to be the messenger for higher things. The movement is not about Alex.
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Galatians 4:16

Offline pacemaker

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
Re: URGENT: When the F is Alex going to have Ted Pike on?
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2009, 11:28:22 am »
Alex is the lord and saviour.

Offline Livefreeordie

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,524
  • ~ Matthew 5:11,12 ~
    • Seek and Ye shall find!
Re: URGENT: When the F is Alex going to have Ted Pike on?
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2009, 11:31:54 am »
That would be cool...considering this hate crime bill has resurfaced recently...this topic should be talked about.

This is EPIC important, our first amendment is in jeapordy!

How convinient for them to get this bill rolling in the middle of this "H1N1...Flu Pandemic."  ::)

Unreal!
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" ~ {2 Corinthians 6:14}

Offline Livefreeordie

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,524
  • ~ Matthew 5:11,12 ~
    • Seek and Ye shall find!
Re: URGENT: When the F is Alex going to have Ted Pike on?
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2009, 11:32:51 am »
I'd suggest Alex delays having him on so that ppl would not swear their way into having Alex address a particular detail of a particular detail of a particular issue. The whole show tries to cover all encroachment on free speech, and I find it repulsive that s.o. should use authoritative rhetotic if any particular issue is being missed or unreported. Be more courteous next time, and a little more appreciative of the massive amount of work Alex has on his schedule.

WTF  ???  ???  ???  ???

Whatever!  ::)
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" ~ {2 Corinthians 6:14}

Offline Ready4truth

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
Re: URGENT: When the F is Alex going to have Ted Pike on?
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2009, 11:34:36 am »
WTF  ???  ???  ???  ???

Whatever!  ::)

Thanks, I thought it was just me. That was a crazy reply.
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Galatians 4:16

Offline Ready4truth

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
Re: URGENT: When the F is Alex going to have Ted Pike on?
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2009, 11:35:01 am »
Alex is the lord and saviour.


And so said Jim Jones followers.

So pathetic.

Not one so far has gotten past Alex Jones rather than the point.

Alex NEEDS to have PIke on in the name of protecting FREE SPEECH.

So I reiterate: That is the point of this topic, it's not about your 'lord and savior' Alex. He's just a man.
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Galatians 4:16

Offline Q

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 707
Re: URGENT: When the F is Alex going to have Ted Pike on?
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2009, 11:35:36 am »
Rense had Ted Pike a couple of times in the last few days - I agree this is extremely important. You can find the audio here:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4875326 - Hour 3 - but listen to Hour 1 & 2 also because it totally breaks down Swine Flu!

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4874773 - Hour 2 after Rifat.

PatAndrews

  • Guest
Re: URGENT: When the F is Alex going to have Ted Pike on?
« Reply #15 on: May 01, 2009, 11:39:31 am »
And so said Jim Jones followers.

So pathetic.

Not one so far has gotten past Alex Jones rather than the point.

Alex NEEDS to have PIke on in the name of protecting FREE SPEECH.

So I reiterate: That is the point of this topic, it's not about your 'lord and savior' Alex. He's just a man.


+100 Free speech is under attack and it needs to be covered.

Ty for the links Q

Offline Ready4truth

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
Re: URGENT: When the F is Alex going to have Ted Pike on?
« Reply #16 on: May 01, 2009, 11:42:11 am »
Rense had Ted Pike a couple of times in the last few days - I agree this is extremely important. You can find the audio here:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4875326 - Hour 3 - but listen to Hour 1 & 2 also because it totally breaks down Swine Flu!

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4874773 - Hour 2 after Rifat.

Thanks! These definitely need to be spread around.
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Galatians 4:16

Offline TheHouseMan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,837
Re: URGENT: When the F is Alex going to have Ted Pike on?
« Reply #17 on: May 01, 2009, 12:19:31 pm »
This is a disgusting thing to do. "Hate crimes" bill... Who the hell decides what a hate crime is? This guy?! These people are obsessed with opposing the Constitution. They should be impeached.

Offline Ready4truth

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
Re: URGENT: When the F is Alex going to have Ted Pike on?
« Reply #18 on: May 01, 2009, 12:50:06 pm »
This is a disgusting thing to do. "Hate crimes" bill... Who the hell decides what a hate crime is? This guy?! These people are obsessed with opposing the Constitution. They should be impeached.

Primarily the ADL, make no mistake about it. They are the driving force behind it.
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Galatians 4:16

Offline heavyhebrew

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,986
  • Laughter is the best medicine.
All violent crimes are hate crimes.
Passage of this bill setting up one group before others is simply another ploy to keep the populace infighting, to enhance government intrusion into people's privacy and to condition people to accept authority telling them what is and what is not.

Whatever happened to being able to say whatever you wanted to say as long as you understood that what you say may get your ass kicked?
Oh yea, 30+ years of well intention idiot bubblewrap social engineering.
We work jobs we hate to pay for stuff we don't need to impress people we don't like. Am I the crazy one here?

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
(strengthened new laws against all sorts of)

"Hate crimes motivated by race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and identity or disability not only injure individual victims, but also terrorize entire segments of our population and tear at our nation's social fabric," Hoyer said.

Tory-Anglican KKK Nazi war-criminalBush had helped stop such a bill in the last Congress, arguing existing state and federal laws were adequate. But President Barack Obama asked Congress to send it to him to sign into law.

<clip>

(KKK)Representative Lamar Smith, ranking Republican (KKKer) on the House anti-Judiciary Committee, helped lead the charge against the bill, arguing it was misdirected and discriminatory (ROTFLMAO!!).

"All violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted," Smith said. "Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles of our criminal justice system -- 'equal justice for all.'"

"Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status(or dare we mention Islamic religious status?) of the victim," Smith said. "It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime."


Unfortunately this will not have much affect on the racially motivated so-called 'judeo-christian' fascist non-enforcement of laws against anti-racial and anti-religious torture of Arabs and those of the Islamic faith, or wouldn't it?!

As to "equal justice for all" that concept means an equal opportunity to defend oneself from criminal convictions, and equal applicability of ALL laws to Presidents and penniless immigrants alike, by unbiased judges, (LOL) fair access to equal legal counsel (LOL) and fair and unbiased prosecutors (LOL) and has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WHATSOEVER with more recalcitrant or heinously offensive, deliberate, violent or abusive criminals being guaranteed a right to winning absolutely the same, same-old 'standard" sentence as those lesser sentences given to casual, inadvertent or first offenders convicted of THE SAME TYPE OF CRIME!!!

Trial justice and sentencing are two separate court cases!

In fact this fantastic new law adds a new charge against the persecution of minorities (and  one could argue also against hate-torture cases) to the actual criminal charges against such hatefully motivated assailants even if they are just first offenders!

Surely no crime is more a hate-crime than those committed by the CIA Mafia and the US Administrations against POW's of the Iraq and Afghanistan conquests? ?


Offline Ready4truth

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
If people only knew how much the ADL wants to strip you of your rights to free speech...

The ADL is rejoicing

http://jta.org/news/article-print/2009/04/29/1004784/hate-crimes-legislation-passes-house?TB_iframe=true&width=750&height=500

Hate-crimes legislation passes House
April 29, 2009

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Jewish groups are hailing House passage of hate-crimes legislation.

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act by a vote of 249-175.

The legislation would permit greater federal involvement in investigating hate crimes and expand the federal definition of such crimes to include those motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability.

The Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Council for Public Affairs and Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism all lauded the vote. In a statement, ADL national director Abraham Foxman and national chair Glen Lewy said it was an "essential and necessary step forward in the national effort to counter hate crimes."

Supporters, including many Jewish groups, have been pushing the measure for a decade. Majorities in both houses of Congress have approved the bill in previous years, but it has been eliminated in conference committees when attached to larger bills -- under the threat of a possible veto by former President George W. Bush.

President Obama backed the legislation, however, enhancing its chances for final passage.

Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Galatians 4:16

Offline Ready4truth

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
Know the truth about the ADL, the driving force behind Hate Crimes Legislation.

http://www.hourofthetime.com/adltruth.htm

For further info, visit truthtellers.org
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Galatians 4:16

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
Know the truth about the ADL, the driving force behind Hate Crimes Legislation.

http://www.hourofthetime.com/adltruth.htm

For further info, visit truthtellers.org

So your ONLY BASIS for opposing this excellent and specific new anti-hate motivated-crime law is that the Anti Defamation League (quite rightly and correctly) SUPPORTS IT?

Might I add that such a law would add increased penalties and extra charges to be leveled against Gun Grabbers (who demonstrate against gun owners whom they hate) and Anti-Constitutionalists who commit DOS crimes motivated by hatred to shut down Constitutionalists' websites like infowars.com, and so-called 'christian' anti-abortionists who deface, trespass on and bomb doctors offices motivated by hatred instead of LOVINGLY contributing to and opening Free Christian Maternity Insurance Programs and Adoption Bounty-Reward Free-Family-Placement Agencies - and CIA Mafiosi and Administration war criminals who commit hate-motivated torture and Habeus Corpus crimes against POW's......


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
QUICK!!!!!!

ARREST DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Mexican Separatists" are targeted by Homeland Security as a terrorist threat.

"Black Power" is targeted by Homeland Security as a terrorist threat. 

"Black nationalists" are targeted by Homeland Security as a terrorist threat. 

"Nordic practitioners" are targeted by Homeland Security as a terrorist threat. 

Who are the racists now?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


New Homeland Security memo lists Mexican separatists, black power, shaved-head Doc Marten wearers as ‘extremist threats’
http://rawstory.com/08/blog/2009/05/01/new-homeland-security-memo-lists-black-power-shaved-head-doc-marten-wearers-extremist-threats/
Published: May 1, 2009



It’s not just right-wing “radical” groups on the Department of Homeland Security’s black list anymore.

Another embarrassing Homeland Security memo (pdf here) detailing those the agency believes are extremists has leaked. The first was sent to police and warned of radical groups on the right; the second is sure to offend an even broader array of those involved in activism.

The memo, dated March 26, 2009, is titled “Domestic Extremism Lexicon,” and came after the original memo fingering right-wing groups as a threat.

Those now listed as dangerous extremists include: Mexican separatists, “black power” advocates, “racial Nordic mysticism” practitioners and black nationalists.

Homeland Security told The Daily Beast’s Benjamin Sarlin, who posted the Lexicon, that the memo had been recalled almost as soon as it had been sent out.

Notably, Sardin says the memo includes no mention of Muslim extremism.

Perhaps the most amusing item is the document’s loose definition of “skinhead,” which appears to encompass anyone who shaves their heads and wears Doc Martens. Even those skinheads who merely preach “group unity” are worrisome, the memo says.

Skinheads are “a subculture composed primarily of working-class, white youth who embrace shaved heads for males, substance abuse, and violence,” the Lexicon states. “Skinheads can be categorized as racist, antiracist, or ‘traditional,’ which emphasizes group unity based on fashion, music, and lifestyle rather than political ideology. Dress often includes a shaved head or very short hair, jeans, thin suspenders, combat boots or Doc Martens, and a bomber jacket.”

On the opposite side, the Lexicon explains “black power” as a troubling “term used by black separatists to describe their pride in and the perceived superiority of the black race.”

And “black nationalism”? “A term used by black separatists to promote the unification and separate identity of persons of black or African-American descent and who advocate the establishment of a separate nation within the United States.”

And what about racial Nordic mysticism, described as “an ideology adopted by many white supremacist prison gangs who embrace a Norse mythological religion, such as Odinism or Asatru.”

Even those on the right are sure to be displeased. The memo also identifies as a threat “anti-immigration extremism.”

Such extremism encompasses “a movement of groups or individuals who are vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along the U.S. Southwest border with Mexico, and who have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism to advance their extremist goals,” the memo says. “They are highly critical of the U.S. government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend ‘rights’ to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education.”
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline TheCaliKid

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,570
  • What can we do about it, really?
Homeland Security is targeted by Homeland Security as a terrorist threat.....should be, anyways.
Better to beg for forgiveness, than to ask for permission

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
QUICK!!!!!!

ARREST THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMEMOTHERLAND INSECURITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Fear is the poison that destroys mens hearts...

Offline heavyhebrew

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,986
  • Laughter is the best medicine.
QUICK!!!!!!

ARREST DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Mexican Separatists" are targeted by Homeland Security as a terrorist threat.

"Black Power" is targeted by Homeland Security as a terrorist threat. 

"Black nationalists" are targeted by Homeland Security as a terrorist threat. 

"Nordic practitioners" are targeted by Homeland Security as a terrorist threat. 

Who are the racists now?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



The same racists that we have had from the beginning of all time. The government.
We work jobs we hate to pay for stuff we don't need to impress people we don't like. Am I the crazy one here?

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
The same racists that we have had from the beginning of all time. The government.

The topic of this thread is deceptive distorted and totally and categotrically inaccurate!

As to "equal justice for all" that concept means an equal opportunity to defend oneself from criminal convictions, and equal applicability of ALL LAWS (LOL) to Presidents and homeless vagrants alike, (LOL) by unbiased judges, (LOL) fair access to equal legal counsel (LOL) fair policing, (LOL) and fair and unbiased prosecutors (LOL) and has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WHATSOEVER with more recalcitrant or heinously offensive, deliberate, violent or abusive criminals being guaranteed a right to winning absolutely the same, same-old 'standard" sentence as those lesser sentences given to casual, inadvertent or first offenders convicted of THE SAME TYPE OF CRIME!!!

Trial justice and sentencing are two separate court cases! An added conviction under this law for a "HATEFULLY MOTIVATED" criminal act (no matter it's type) removes the injustice of a judge being able to set aside the motivations and character of the criminal and add to the discrimination the victims suffer by letting him off lightly!

Offline aerborne

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
And what of prosecutors who use hate crime laws when the crime wasn't racially motivated, simply because the people involved weren't of the same ethnicity or sexual orientation?

Hate crime laws criminalize free speech, much the same way "Possession of criminal tools" makes cellphones illegal "if it was used in the commission of a crime"

If "hate speech" was used in the commission of the crime it becomes a "hate crime." And we know full well the extent that prosecutors and police can twist words in court to get a conviction.

Try defending yourself when a prosecutor accuses you of racism.

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
And what of prosecutors who use hate crime laws when the crime wasn't racially motivated, simply because the people involved weren't of the same ethnicity or sexual orientation?

Hate crime laws criminalize free speech, much the same way "Possession of criminal tools" makes cellphones illegal "if it was used in the commission of a crime"

If "hate speech" was used in the commission of the crime it becomes a "hate crime." And we know full well the extent that prosecutors and police can twist words in court to get a conviction.

Try defending yourself when a prosecutor accuses you of racism.


But it also makes it possible to sue, charge and swear out complaints against racist or biased cops or prosecutors who fail to also-charge perpetrators and enforce it, and who maliciously ignore the obvious and deliberate persecution of minorities!

Not being able to defend oneself is another whole different "equal justice for all" issue that has nothing to do with criminal laws themselves, it is due to a total lack of Constitutional Law and Order that let's Presidents attack and bomb occupied American office towers to start wars for their buddies to profit on based upon secret unconstitutional criminal decisions made about secret disinformation put forward by unconstitutional secret cabals in secret.

And Constitutional lawlessness that prevents everyone from equally retaining themselves an OJ Simpson Dream Team to 'get them off'....

Offline aerborne

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
But it also makes it possible to sue, charge and swear out complaints against racist or biased cops or prosecutors who fail to also-charge perpetrators and enforce it, and who maliciously ignore the obvious and deliberate persecution of minorities!
No it doesn't. It simply makes "hate crimes" worse then the actual crime. We can already do these things without extended sentences and crime upgrades.

Quote
Not being able to defend oneself is another whole different "equal justice for all" issue that has nothing to do with criminal laws themselves, it is due to a total lack of Constitutional Law and Order that let's Presidents attack and bomb occupied American office towers to start wars for their buddies to profit on based upon secret unconstitutional criminal decisions made about secret disinformation put forward by unconstitutional secret cabals in secret.

And Constitutional lawlessness that prevents everyone from equally retaining themselves an OJ Simpson Dream Team to 'get them off'....
Having to defend yourself in court against accusations of racism erodes your 1st AND 5th amendment rights. Not only do you have to defend that you didn't commit the crime, but you also have to defend that you aren't racists without incriminating yourself, IE) IF you didn't do it, how can then defend that it wasn't a hate crime without the assumption that you DID do it, but not out of racial hate?

"I didn't do it, but if i did, it wasn't cause he was gay/black/whatever."