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.
Yes, and Atty. Gen. Holder damn well knows it. This move is just more meat for the trial lawyers and race baiters like Sharpton, Jackson and well, Obama.
A) Wake up the heretofore apolitical, ignorant and apathetic masses, and
B) Hastens the onset of the inevitable coming massive civil unrest.
The crazier these people talk, the more America cleans their guns.
Not only does the violate the 1st Amendment (free exercise of religion), but it violates the 14th - Equal Protection clause!
Rush is talking about this right now.
And this is why I enjoy spending quality time at the gun range.
I have no intention of being a “victim” of any crime..
Heya do you know what Rush said about this? How long he spent on it? Anything you have, even stuff from snerdly, much appreciated!
Of course, we know there has never been a tradition of violence against Christians. Just ask anyone who knows the history of Rome, or Islam, or the French Revolution.
I don’t know how long he spent on it. That was right before a news break and I left the office right after I posted that. I was out for about ten minutes and he was on something else by the time I got back.
Cool, thank you. Anyone else who knows what Rush said about this on his show will have my gratitude :)
Thank you for bringing the FACTS to light. Whites are the victims of hate crimes every day. Your evidence proves it—five fold.
This one supposedly up for vote in Senate on Wed. July 15th. Melt the phone lines! E-mail and Fax your Senators!! You can bet those who want this travesty passed will be doing just that!!
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.