Skip to comments.Holder: Whites and Ministers will not be protected by proposed hate crimes legislation.
Posted on 07/02/2009 7:43:35 AM PDT by mudblood
Holder: Whites and Ministers will not be protected by proposed hate crimes legislation. Attorney General Eric Holder testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 25 and gave startling testimony that means Christian ministers and whites will not be protected under the hate crimes statute proposed by the Department of Justice. Holder says that the proposed statute would only protect traditional victims of hate crimes, and then he goes on to name a series of Democratic Party constituencies.
You can either launch the video here or click the webstream link here to see his testimony for yourself.
Senator Sessions asks Holder about the scope of the protected classes. (Beginning at 58:43 running through 60:09) Sessions presents a hypothetical where a minister gives a sermon, quotes the Bible about homosexuality and is thereafter attacked by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what scripture says about homosexuality.
Holder: Well the statute would not necessarily cover that. On the other hand, I think the concern that actually has been expressed is if the action was reversed. . . . We are talking about, if in fact the person, we are talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of their skin color, sexual orientation, that is what this legislation is designed to cover. The fact that someone might strike somebody as a result of pure speech, again, . . . we dont have the indication that somebody was motivated to strike at somebody because they were in one of these protected classes. That would not be covered by the statute.
Later, Senator Tom Coburn asks Holder if the muslim radical who killed army recruiter Pvt. Long committed a hate crime. Holders equivocation was disturbing. There is a certain element of hate in that, I suppose. He would suppose. You can see him suppose at minute 73:00.
Then Holder goes on to list the only groups intended to be protected by the proposed law. This is racial identity politics taking a sinister turn. Holder explicitly says the proposed law only protects classes where there is a history of violence against those groups. What we are looking for here in terms of expansion of the statute are instances where there is a historic basis. See, groups of people who are singled out for violence perpetrated against them because of who they are. I dont know if we have the same historical record to say members of our military have been targeted in the same way that people who are African American, people who are Jewish, people who are gay, have been targeted over the many years. (minute 73:00-74:00)
Based on Holders testimony, it is clear that the law would not protect white victims who were attacked because of their race by racial minorities. Holders testimony explicitly excluded prosecution of the gay activist who attacks a Christian minister or priest because of his sermon on homosexuality, but the legislation protects the gay activist when he is attacked. This is a dangerous development to our laws and our nation. One of the most fundamental principles in the founding of this nation was that all are created equal. A bloody Civil War was fought to sustain it. No group enjoys privileged status over the other. Once the Department can decide to protect certain individuals for crimes, and not others, those not protected will lose faith in the system. Loss of faith in the system is more than a simple inconvenience. Confidence that laws are enforced fairly and equally preserves peace and prosperity. Lawlessness ensues when the law is perceived as a weapon against certain groups for the benefit of other groups. It is not enough to simply point to a bundle of statistics or history, or to Matthew Sheppard, to justify unfairness in the law.
Oops, I do believe I meant the 14th amendment!
White are the victims of hate crimes frequently, at the hands of blacks and “hispanics.”
Holder is a liar and a worthless sack of crap.
Forget him being fired.....he should be in prison.
Despicable ! Racists in the DOJ.
Well, the thing is, other than this site (muffledoar and the links in the article to the testimony), Holder’s testimony has gone almost completely ignored. Its simply stunning. So yes, we should all “bring this up in public”. Hammer Scrotomayor about it and see what her wise-Latino opinion is.
I was going to post, “rape, rob and then rap about it”
“Equal protection under the law.”
Since the "natural-born citizen" clause seems to be irrelevant, it would stand to reason the rest of it is, too.
I don’t look forward to it, but, like a trip to the dentist for a bad tooth, it’s gotta be done.
The list, ping
Rule 10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”
Rule 13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
If the Birthers can’t move him out of the White House, he may well be the catalyst for another (un)civil war.
Hey wow, that’s a great site! I’m going to send it around to my own list of folks.
Whites will not be given any jobs either!
Thanks, glad you like it. I appreciate the support.
... Then I’m sure you’ll appreciate the $20 I just donated. I think we have to support sites like yours in the biggest way. I’m also a monthly subscriber, paid, to PJTV.com.
Keep on keepin’ on!
And another may come to restore it.
I think you are right....SCOUTS OUT!!!
By the way, just posted this to the site...
Washington Post sells access, $25,000+
“Holder explicitly says the proposed law only protects classes where there is a history of violence against those groups. What we are looking for here in terms of expansion of the statute are instances where there is a historic basis. See, groups of people who are singled out for violence perpetrated against them because of who they are.”
Okay, fine, Eric. Here’s some HISTORY for you from YOUR justice dept.
FACTS!!! They sure do get it the way!
Take a look at the line for white on black crime at the bottom of the following chart.
Also, note the other charts at the link........during republican administrations, black crime
went down and went up under democrats!
White on black crime is nearly zero, but nearly 20% for black on white!
In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites
Homicides are more likely to cross racial lines than those that involve friends or acquaintances
For homicides committed by —
* a friend or acquaintance of the victim, less than one-tenth (8%) were interracial
* a stranger to the victim, one-quarter were interracial
To view data, click on the chart.
Excellent facts that support an excellent point: hate crime is actually more the other way around. Or rather, “violent” crime against a population identifiable by a particular race, in this case ‘white’.
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.