 Below please find a special message from one of our advertisers, ExposeObama.com. From time to time, we receive opportunities we believe you as a valued customer may want to know about. Please note that the following message does not necessarily reflect the editorial positions of Human Events. |
  On Wednesday, Democrats in the House passed so-called hate crimes legislation and the bill is now on the fast track to the Senate. It must be stopped, now, before liberals succeed in sneaking it through the Senate! Proponents of this so-called hate crimes legislation tell you that it cannot be used to stifle speech or thought. But others know better and have been sounding the alarm. Kevin Theriot with the Alliance Defense Fund said it best: "So-called 'hate crime' laws actually serve only one purpose: The criminalization of citizens based on whatever thoughts, beliefs, and emotions they have that are not considered to be 'politically correct.' No one should fall for the idea that this bill does anything to bring about greater justice for Americans." Mathew Staver with the Liberty Council claims: "In and of itself this law can be applied to speech. The nature of assault - putting someone in fear of their safety - what will that mean for someone preaching against homosexuality?" Connie Hair with Human Events called the House passage of this bill, "yet another Democrat move toward the doubleplusungood Orwellian state" and even President George W. Bush fought this legislation on the grounds that it could be used to prosecute those whose views are out of line with those of the radical gay movement. Make no mistake, this horrendous piece of legislation is nothing more than long overdue political payback for the RADICAL homosexual groups that have supported liberals in Congress for years. Congressman Louie Gohmert, a former judge, told Human Events about the radical nature of this so-called hate crimes bill and what happened when House Republicans tried to amend the bill so it did NOT OFFER PROTECTION TO PEDOPHILES. Take the time to read it... the sheer absurdity of what Gohmert describes will make your skin crawl. "'When we tried to get the term sexual orientation narrowed down to where it didn't include something like a pedophile... that was voted down on party lines... there are about 30 different types of sexual orientations, and they can include exhibitionism and voyeurism or things that are so offensive such as pedophilia or necrophilia. The problem is that the supporters of this bill did not want to exclude any of those and even voted down the amendment that would have excluded pedophilia.'" "Gohmert pointed out the absurdity of the legislation as written which would warrant the prosecution of a woman under the federal hate crimes statues if she hits a flasher with her purse after he exposed himself to her. Exhibitionism is a protected sexual orientation under this bill. "'The one who did the flashing committed a local misdemeanor,' Gohmert said. 'The one who hit with the purse singled him out because he's an exhibitionist, and therefore she has now committed a federal hate crime and is looking at felony time.'" Time is short. If we don't act today, we may be unable to stop this Orwellian legislation from becoming law. Barack Obama will most certainly sign it. In 2000, a conservative clergyman sat in the Supreme Court gallery, listening as opposing sides argued a New Jersey case challenging the Boy Scouts of America's exclusion of homosexuals. Thinking the clergyman who was sitting nearby was a fellow liberal, Bill Clinton's liaison to the homosexual community leaned over and whispered: "We're not going to win this case, but that's OK. Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the books, we're going to go after the [Boy] Scouts and all the other bigots." Now, 9 years later, the radical gay rights movement is very close to getting that wish. Congressman John Conyers quietly and slyly slipped the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 into the pipeline several weeks ago. And just a few days ago, the Nancy Pelosi controlled House of Representatives passed it and sent it to the Senate! And you can be certain this legislation has NOTHING TO DO WITH DIMINISHING CRIME and will - in actuality - lay the foundation for the persecution of any and all people who simply oppose the radical gay agenda or believe that marriage is between one man and one woman... orthodox clergy, scientists concerned about infectious diseases and people of faith. And what does that mean? It means you better learn to keep your mouth shut. Because affirming your beliefs is about to become very, very dangerous. Don't let them put one over on you! Don't let them make the public defense of traditional morality, or the mere thought that marriage is between one man and one woman, a crime. "Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the books, we're going to go after the [Boy] Scouts and all the other bigots." The stated purpose of HR 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 is to "provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes." And HR 1913 prescribes penalties for any person who, "willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person." So what's the big deal? Hate is a bad thing, isn't it? Willfully causing bodily injury to another is already a crime, isn't it? What would cause a radical homosexual rights activist to gleefully proclaim; "Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the books, we're going to go after the [Boy] Scouts and all the other bigots." ? It sounds like much ado over nothing... or does it? Ask Ake Green, a 63-year-old minister and pastor of a small church in the southern town of Borgholm, Sweden who simply stated in a sermon that homosexuality was "a deep cancerous tumor in the entire society" and denounced the government's plan to promote domestic partnerships. He was hauled into court, indicted, convicted, and sentenced to 30 days in jail. The prosecution asked for six months. While reporting the on the Ake Green incident, CBN News made an interesting observation: "The hate speech law used to convict Green was first intended to protect Jews and other ethnic minorities from Nazi sympathizers. But in more recent times the law was amended to also protect 'sexual orientation.'" Can you say slipper-slope? John Whitehead, writing for Dakota Voice, spells it out when it comes to this so-called hate crimes bill: "In other words it opens the door for federal law enforcement officials (whether it be agents from the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and so on) to crack down on undesirable behavior wherever it occurs. The problem, which few want to acknowledge for fear of being labeled politically incorrect, or worse homophobic, is that in order to crack down on hateful behavior, hateful thoughts and expression must also be targeted..." Whitehead adds: "On the whole, hate crime laws unnecessarily blur the distinction between what might be constitutionally protected, albeit deplorable, speech and criminal behavior. Eventually, this will spill over into criminalizing any kind of speech that any official in the echelons of government deems to be hateful or distasteful. Thus, hate crime laws... open the door for a whole new realm of prosecutions, namely thought crimes." And perhaps that explains why Bill Clinton's liaison to the homosexual community so gleefully proclaimed: "Once we get 'hate crime' laws on the books, we're going to go after the [Boy] Scouts and all the other bigots." Remember The Philadelphia 11? Make no mistake, the leaders of the radical gay rights movement know that this so-called hate crimes bill is really a stepping-stone. If this sick bill becomes law, American society will see an unprecedented uprising of militant homosexuals, demanding that anyone who speaks against their agenda be hauled off to jail and charged with a "hate crime." Opposition to the radical gay agenda will be criminalized. The federal government will have endorsed and put a stamp of approval on homosexual conduct. Lest you think we exaggerate, it has already happened. Whitehead recounts the strange case of the Philadelphia 11: "Protesters exercising their free speech rights by carrying signs have been charged with felonies for the messages on their signs, which have been interpreted as 'hate speech.' In one instance, a group of Christians were prosecuted under a state hate crime law for 'singing hymns' and peacefully 'carrying signs' while attending a homosexual fair in Pennsylvania. Because the signs challenged the morality of homosexuality, these Christians were charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors and faced 47 years in prison for attempting to preach at a homosexual street fair. Incredibly, a state judge determined that the prosecutions could go forward. His rationale was that the Christians' speech constituted so-called "fighting words." Bob Knight - one of the nation's leading authorities on the radical gay rights movement - put it this way: "Homosexual activists have redefined any opposition to homosexuality as 'hate speech.' Laws already criminalize speech that incites violence. It's easy to imagine a scenario in which any incident involving a homosexual can be blamed on people who have publicly opposed homosexual activism." Jennifer Riley, writing for the Christian Post, says: "Critics of the hate crimes legislation fear that if passed, the legislation would inhibit pastors from speaking about homosexuality as a biblical sin and be interpreted in a way that bars speech... Christian leaders have pointed to hate crime laws in England, Sweden and Canada, where Christians have been prosecuted for breaking these laws." But not to worry! Congressman Barney Frank says the bill "does not infringe on free speech in any way." Do you believe Barney Frank? Standing Falsely Accused... According to the FBI only 1,460 out of 1.5 million violent crimes reported in the United States in 2007 were REPORTEDLY based on sexual orientation - that's under one-tenth of one percent. And yet, there is a compelling reason to believe that the mere existence of hate crimes legislation actually generates bogus reports - in most cases, by individuals desperate to become victims or self-righteous ideologues hoping to promote "change." If you build it, the allegations will come. A Family Research Council report cites just a few examples of phony attacks: "In Houston, a homosexual mugging victim was left for dead in a traditionally 'straight' section of town. The press initially covered it as a hate crime, but investigators soon found that the man had been assaulted elsewhere and transported there, 'to make it look like a hate crime.'" "In Salt Lake City, a homosexual teacher at first thought bias offenders had put signs in her yard to intimidate her, but some of her own homosexual students later confessed to doing it." "In South Carolina, a lesbian was charged with giving false information to a police officer for saying that she was beaten; police contend she hired a man to beat her and then she reported it as a hate crime." John Leo, a columnist for U. S. News and World Report, has reported on bogus hate crimes for years. Here are several examples: "Jerry Kennedy, a gay resident assistant at the University of Georgia, reported he had been the target of nine hate crimes over a period of three years, including three acts of arson. But during questioning, Kennedy admitted that he had set the fires." "Two weeks after the murder of Matthew Shepard, a lesbian student at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota said two men shouted antigay slurs at her and then slashed her face. Outraged students raised nearly $12,000 as a reward for information about her attackers. Then the student confessed she had made up the story and cut her own face." "[A] lesbian student at Eastern New Mexico University said she had been attacked after her name was included with the names of seven professors on an antigay 'hit list' posted at a local Laundromat. Police arrested her after a surveillance camera at the Laundromat showed her posting the list." Is it Really An Epidemic? In spite of the evidence, radical gay rights activists and their supporters in Congress still wildly and outrageously claim that there's an epidemic of attacks that only federal law can address. According to HR 1913; "The incidence of violence... poses a serious national problem." Just how serious? According to HR 1913: (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. (C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence. No specifics. No statistics. Just vague, alarmist descriptions. Does anyone really believe that vast hoards of people are moving to other states to avoid the hostility of hate-driven townsfolk with pitchforks? Or that these same townsfolk are crossing state lines in hot pursuit. Or that anyone is preventing people from shopping in the local grocery store? All this claptrap is thrown into the bill for one reason only: to justify federal intervention. Barack Hussein Obama said on his website he would extend federal hate crimes protection to sexual orientation. If no epidemic exists... then why?
ExposeObama.com |
| UNSUBSCRIBE: From time to time we find special opportunities we believe you as a valued customer may want to see. This email was sent to maimperl@yahoo.com because you are subscribed to Eagle Publishing's Carefully Selected Offers from 3rd Parties email list. Click here to update your email preferences or unsubscribe. Please do not attempt to respond to this message as your reply will route to an unattended email box. If you have questions, please send them to CustomerService@HumanEventsOnline.com. Human Events | One Massachusetts Ave., N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001 You were added to the system November 11, 2005. For more information click here. |
No comments:
Post a Comment