Posted on 09/15/2005 6:48:47 AM PDT by Antoninus
Because "hate crimes" are already considered crimes. Think about it, w/o hate crimes legislation, if you beat the crap out of a gay man, you are going to jail. IMNTBHO, all hate crimes legislation is just leftist congressional leaders trying to spread the myth among minorities that they aren't already being protected by current laws. Thus, those minorities will always vote for someone who "wants to protect them". It's all a bunch of fraud.
If you want on/off the ping list let me and little jeremiah know.
Unfortunately 5 of these 30 spineless Republicans came from Illinois. (and we only have 9 Republicans in total!) Biggert (sorry to say she's my rep), Kirk, LaHood, Shimkus, and Weller voted for this mess. I wonder if there was some pork in the bill form Illinois. Even it that were so, it still makes me sick!
Charlie Dent voted for this. We lost Toomey for this POS RINO.
The Christ also did not sup with every tax collector, he did not pick the first 12 people he came across, he vacationed at the med, he didn't let just any whore wash his feet, and he always knew when someone touched him to be healed. He was unable to hate, but he picked his people with divine wisdom and prudence.
We may be commanded to love but that doesn't mean we have to be friends with them. We are commanded to abhore sin, and homosexuality (not the person) is an abomination.
Curt Weldon voted for this?
Thats what i intend to do. Thank goodness my congressman had the good sense to vote No.
There is the matter of Constitutionality. American conservatism, if it has any meaning, is based on the concept that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of its framers. The powers of the Federal government are specifically delineated in the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8. None of the outlined powers deal with the protection of people who are the victims of crimes motivated by "hate." The Tenth Amendment states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The Fourteenth Amendment states that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent of this amendment was to prevent the legislatures of the Southern states, readmitted into the Union following the Civil War, from enforcing "black codes" that were intended to deny the newly freed slaves the same freedom to buy, own, and sell property, possess firearms, offer their labor to the highest bidder, etc., as was afforded to whites. However, the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to address discriminatory action on the part of state and local governments. It was not written to address discrimination by private individuals, as opposed to governments.
In summary, there is no Constitutional justification for "hate crimes" legislation of any sort, irrespective of the class of people protected.
The second argument is the general power of the state (by which I mean all levels of government: Federal, state, and local) vs. the individual. The greatest tragedy of the last century was the mass murder on the parts of governments, particularly Communist nations, but also Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, various fascist regimes, and the Tsarist and Ottoman Empires. Over 100 million people were killed by dictatorial regimes, with Mao tse-Tung alone responsible for over 20 million deaths. The lesson we must learn from the last century is the extreme danger from powerful and intrusive government.
Governments, even totalitarian ones, do not increase their power suddenly, but incrementally. Stalin's elimination of the Kulaks (landowning farmers) and Hitler's genocide against the Jews occurred well over a decade after Russia and Germany were taken over by the Communists and the Nazis, respectively. Preceding the mass extermination were various laws and regulations restricting the freedoms and rights of the Kulaks and the Jews. The state's propaganda organs fed the masses unremitting propaganda condemning the classes who would later be exterminated.
The "gay rights" movement is an outgrowth of the New Left of the 1960s, whose leadership was made up of the so-called red diaper babies whose parents were Communists or fellow travelers. The New Left ideology adopted the Marxist-Leninist strategy of class warfare to extend the idea of class struggle to include racial minorities, women, and sexual deviants. The intent was to use racial, gender, and sexual identity in North America and Western Europe in the same manner economic class was used in the Soviet Union and its satellites: to topple the old regime and traditional society and establish a centralized, socialist government and a society entirely dependent on that government from cradle to grave.
The homosexual rights advocates, along with black activists and feminists, are merely pawns in a game to destroy American society. As has occurred in Canada, Sweden, Britain, and elsewhere, relatively modest laws like ones to give crimes motivated by racial or other prejudice an extra measure of punishment are the first step in making opposition to radical egalitarianism in print, electronic form, or speech a criminal act. Ministers in Canada and Sweden have been subject to government persecution merely for preaching what the Bible teaches on homosexuality. In Britain, undercover police have gone to pubs and arrested people for making disparaging remarks against racial minorities in conversations on which they eavesdropped.
America is on a slippery slope toward a socialistic police state. Perhaps you may trust President Bush with the power of the Patriot Act, but in three and one half years, that power could be in the hands of Hillary Clinton or someone like her. Rest assured that those powers will be used against patriots and not against terrorists.
An aide answered and hung up on me.
Aide: Hello, Congressman Simmons' office.
Me: Did Congressman Simmons vote for that pro-homosexual legis....(CLICK)
REDIAL
Aide: Hello, Congressman Simmons' office.
ME: Did you just hang up on me?
Aide: I said Hello three times and no one was there.
ME: Look son, I know you've had a tough day and it's just begun. But don't make things worse by telling lies and insulting your boss's constituents. Now, this is XXX from Woodstock, CT calling and I want to know if your boss, whom I worked my butt off to get elected over Sam Gedjensen, voted for the pro-homosexual legislation contained in H.R. 3132 Ammendment 25 yesterday?
Aide: Um, what was that bill again?
Me: H.R. 3132 - Ammendment 25 about pro-homosexual legislation for hate crimes, giving homosexuals more protection under the law than other citizens. And your tone of voice tells me you are insulting my intelligence by pretending not to know what I am talking about.
Aide: Um, let me check on that.
Me: You do that Sonny-boy.
(On Hold for 2 minutes - I timed it)
Aid: Um. Hello, sir.
Me: Yes, Son.
Aide: Um, yes sir he did vote for it.
Me: Well, you tell Robbie-boy he just lost 5 votes and contributions in my family for his pathetic pandering to the homosexuals in New London and Groton. And you can expect more phone calls from everyone I talk to up here. Now you have a wonderful day Kiddo and don't insult any more of the people who pay your salary and hold the power of your job and your Boss's job in their voting fingers.
Me: Oh, and tell Robbie-boy to watch out when he comes begging for money up here again. Cause I will be waiting for him.
Hmm, and a certain Open Borders Rino treid to tell me yesterday that Tancredo voted for this abomination.
Ping.
For some districts, certainly, they should get nationally supported primaries. If it's one's own district, absolutely, every time. But in a lot of cases, you don't get a lot of bang for the buck sponsoring primary challenges, most of which are very tough to pull off. Best to concentrate efforts on Open Seat Primaries (best chance of making a difference), with the occasional primary to an incumbent, as well as targeting vulnerable liberal Dems.
I am disgusted that Mike Fitzpatrick voted for this piece of shiat legislation. He took a lot of heat in his campaign for being pro-life and pro-family, and was supposedly "too conservatuve" for this district. His special election opponent just dropped out of the 2004 race and the remaining Democrats are unknowns. Why did he think he needed to vote for this? It's not like there are hundreds of hate crimes against homos happening in Bucks County! And the homos around here aren't going to vote for him anyway. Jeeeeeez.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.