Posted on 04/26/2007 1:34:30 AM PDT by Man50D
Edited on 04/26/2007 2:08:18 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
A fast-tracked congressional plan to add special protections for homosexuals to federal law would turn "thoughts, feelings, and beliefs" into criminal offenses and put Christians in the bull's-eye, according to opponents.
"H.R. 1592 is a discriminatory measure that criminalizes thoughts, feelings, and beliefs [and] has the potential of interfering with religious liberty and freedom of speech," according to a white paper submitted by Glen Lavy, of the Alliance Defense Fund.
As James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter observed in Hate Crimes, Criminal Law, and Identity Politics, 'It would appear that the only additional purpose [for enhancing punishment of bias crimes] is to provide extra punishment based on the offender's politically incorrect opinions and viewpoints,'" said Lavy.
The proposal has been endorsed by majority Democrats on the committee, and already has 137 sponsors in the full House, making it possible it could be voted on in a matter of days or weeks.
"This is a terrible thing, to criminalize thought or emotion or even speech," Lavy told WND, referring to H.R. 1592, now pending at the committee level in the U.S. House. Democrats there have been turning back amendments that would strip it of its worst provisions, according to an observer.
Bishop Harry Jackson, chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, said the plan, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Protection Act of 2007, is no more than "a surreptitious attempt by some in Congress to strip the nation of religious freedom and the ability to preach the gospel from our church pulpits."
"It will stamp all over our doctrine and practice of our faith," he said. "We believe what the Bible says. If you start there we've got a major problem."
*******
H. R. 1592 Sponsors an Full Text
*******
Congressman Darrell Issa, Republican from California, offered a clarifying amendment concerning unborn babies which failed.
Republicans also tried to get the definition of “sexual orientation” or “gender orientation” added to the bill, but Democrats refused putting it in. That means that speaking out against ANY type of perversion could be “hate crime”.
Republican Congressman Randy Forbes from Virginia said that since it has been proven that our military are targets of hate and physical attack, he offered an amendment to also include military personnel as a protected class and thus to attack them would also be a hate crime. It was defeated.
The same thing was said about McCain-Feingold.
Citzens had free speech in Canada before similar legislation was passed.
Never underestimate the willingness of activist judges to do what is necessary to uphold their leftist agenda.
I reviewed the 1952 bill. Can someone point out to me where it states that thought or speech (regarding the mentioned subjects) would be considered a hate crime? Thx
You'll find multi hundred, likely thousand post long threads supporting that position here on FR, simply go back to the threads on the troll who was posting "kill the Jews, kill to N*****s" to selected Freepers. As I pointed out at the time, ever Freepers support hate crime laws when their ox is being gored.
That's the law as we speak, irrespective of HR 1592, though the incitement would have to be more direct, as in homosexuals should be beaten, and the act relatively soon after the event.
I never did understand why he did that. He violated his oath of office, IMO.
Carolyn
I suspect it ain’t gonna be pretty.
Memo to self: Buy more ammo.
Done long ago under civil rights legislation. Deprivation of civil rights is a federal crime, distinct from state charges of murder.
just read Times and a number of left blogs. there is almost unbridled fear that RG will be nominated by the GOP.
the response to his speech Tuesday night resonates with their cries alleging every conceivable crime one can imagine that RG has committed.
one interesting take is from CBN - confirming that the CW about RG being unpalatable to their audience may not be correct. Basically the article says that members are looking beyond narrow issues and focusing on two items:
1. who can best keep us safe
2. who will best keep the economy going
There was a conserva-pretender,
A mayor of dubious gender,
..Who’d agree, if you do,
..To allow you to view
His remarkable double pudenda.
Christians are still around... Rome isn't! Jesus has a way of winning over, or winning over, those who oppose Him.
Yup, have to admit it's creative. And they spend some money, which is always a good thing.
More “thought crimes” from the totalitarians.
DING! DING! DING! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! This is their goal.
Yeah, just like CFR din't stand a prayer in the courts...
Doesn't address speech, only hate motivated violent crime.
More Anti-Rudy
Conasan is left of left. Put it in file to attack RG in the primaries.
April 12, 2007
Rudy Giuliani’s Dubious Leadership
By Joe Conason
Before Rudolph W. Giuliani started to run for president, he specialized in writing books and delivering inspirational lectures on the topic of “leadership,” which is the theme for his campaign. He is telling America that in a time of war and terror, he is the leader we need. And he seems to be saying that the determination of “the leader” matters more than where the leader wants to take us or whether he knows where he is going.
If that sounds like the same primitive mind-set behind our current disaster, then consider yourself forewarned. Giuliani is a fervent admirer of George W. Bush — whose election he considers a result of “divine guidance” — and a dauntless supporter of the war in Iraq, which resulted from exactly the kind of leadership he advocates. Despite that highly unpopular position, the former New York City mayor leads the Republican presidential field in many polls.
Much of the Giuliani appeal is based on his admirable performance in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He has profited personally and politically from the real leadership he provided then. But his ambitions demand a dispassionate examination of his ideas and his record.
Giuliani’s fundamental argument is that 9/11 endowed him with special qualifications for the job he is seeking. “What they say in Washington is not going to affect the fact that there are terrorists around the world that are planning to come here and kill us,” he told voters in Iowa. “It is something I understand better than anyone else running for president.”
What exactly does he mean? If he is suggesting that he should be trusted to make critical judgments about national security and foreign policy, there is plenty of contrary evidence.
During the months and years leading up to 9/11 — as reporters Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins proved in “Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11,” their superb book debunking much of the “America’s Mayor” mythology — he made decisions as mayor that would later prove disastrous.
Against the advice of real experts, he stubbornly insisted on placing his immensely expensive emergency command center in a World Trade Center building, although terrorists had struck there already and were determined to do so again. The command center went down with the rest of Ground Zero, leaving the mayor and his aides to wander downtown as the buildings fell.
Their frantic efforts to cope with the disaster were lethally hindered by faulty communications equipment purchased by the Giuliani administration — also against the advice of experts who knew better. Such fateful errors are more troubling when viewed against the backdrop of political and financial influences that probably distorted the decision-making process.
Yet while Giuliani is often wrong, he is never uncertain. That same attitude prevailed in his promotion of the dubious Bernard Kerik to police commissioner. By the time Giuliani appointed him to head the New York Police Department in 2000, evidence of Kerik’s ties with a mob-connected construction company had emerged in a background investigation. Kerik had obtained jobs for his brother and his best friend with that company, and interceded with city authorities on the firm’s behalf. Moreover, federal prosecutors had indicted Kerik’s friend, Lawrence Ray, along with a reputed Gambino crime-family figure.
In testimony before a Bronx grand jury investigating Kerik last year, Giuliani didn’t deny that he had been briefed on those issues before promoting his former bodyguard to the office of police commissioner. But he insisted that he didn’t remember that briefing — and noted that his investigators had “cleared” Kerik.
No doubt Giuliani’s dim recall allowed him to enthusiastically recommend Kerik to President Bush as a suitable candidate for secretary of Homeland Security in late 2004. That ruinous choice was averted only because New York newspapers published timely exposes of Kerik’s embarrassing past. Giuliani now says he “assumed responsibility” for the “mistake” of recommending his old friend and business partner.
There is a persistent flaw in Giuliani that makes such errors inevitable. He promoted Kerik because he preferred the loyal sycophant to William Bratton, the smart, independent and competent police commissioner whom he had fired. He ignored the threat of terrorism until it was too late, and arrogantly rejected the advice of those who knew more than he did.
Over the past six years, this brand of leadership has become all too familiar. We don’t need it anymore. In fact, we never did.
Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/rudy_giulianis_dubious_leaders.html at April 26, 2007 - 09:49:03 AM CDT
More Anti-Rudy
Conasan is left of left. Put it in file to attack RG in the primaries.
April 12, 2007
Rudy Giuliani’s Dubious Leadership
By Joe Conason
Before Rudolph W. Giuliani started to run for president, he specialized in writing books and delivering inspirational lectures on the topic of “leadership,” which is the theme for his campaign. He is telling America that in a time of war and terror, he is the leader we need. And he seems to be saying that the determination of “the leader” matters more than where the leader wants to take us or whether he knows where he is going.
If that sounds like the same primitive mind-set behind our current disaster, then consider yourself forewarned. Giuliani is a fervent admirer of George W. Bush — whose election he considers a result of “divine guidance” — and a dauntless supporter of the war in Iraq, which resulted from exactly the kind of leadership he advocates. Despite that highly unpopular position, the former New York City mayor leads the Republican presidential field in many polls.
Much of the Giuliani appeal is based on his admirable performance in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He has profited personally and politically from the real leadership he provided then. But his ambitions demand a dispassionate examination of his ideas and his record.
Giuliani’s fundamental argument is that 9/11 endowed him with special qualifications for the job he is seeking. “What they say in Washington is not going to affect the fact that there are terrorists around the world that are planning to come here and kill us,” he told voters in Iowa. “It is something I understand better than anyone else running for president.”
What exactly does he mean? If he is suggesting that he should be trusted to make critical judgments about national security and foreign policy, there is plenty of contrary evidence.
During the months and years leading up to 9/11 — as reporters Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins proved in “Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11,” their superb book debunking much of the “America’s Mayor” mythology — he made decisions as mayor that would later prove disastrous.
Against the advice of real experts, he stubbornly insisted on placing his immensely expensive emergency command center in a World Trade Center building, although terrorists had struck there already and were determined to do so again. The command center went down with the rest of Ground Zero, leaving the mayor and his aides to wander downtown as the buildings fell.
Their frantic efforts to cope with the disaster were lethally hindered by faulty communications equipment purchased by the Giuliani administration — also against the advice of experts who knew better. Such fateful errors are more troubling when viewed against the backdrop of political and financial influences that probably distorted the decision-making process.
Yet while Giuliani is often wrong, he is never uncertain. That same attitude prevailed in his promotion of the dubious Bernard Kerik to police commissioner. By the time Giuliani appointed him to head the New York Police Department in 2000, evidence of Kerik’s ties with a mob-connected construction company had emerged in a background investigation. Kerik had obtained jobs for his brother and his best friend with that company, and interceded with city authorities on the firm’s behalf. Moreover, federal prosecutors had indicted Kerik’s friend, Lawrence Ray, along with a reputed Gambino crime-family figure.
In testimony before a Bronx grand jury investigating Kerik last year, Giuliani didn’t deny that he had been briefed on those issues before promoting his former bodyguard to the office of police commissioner. But he insisted that he didn’t remember that briefing — and noted that his investigators had “cleared” Kerik.
No doubt Giuliani’s dim recall allowed him to enthusiastically recommend Kerik to President Bush as a suitable candidate for secretary of Homeland Security in late 2004. That ruinous choice was averted only because New York newspapers published timely exposes of Kerik’s embarrassing past. Giuliani now says he “assumed responsibility” for the “mistake” of recommending his old friend and business partner.
There is a persistent flaw in Giuliani that makes such errors inevitable. He promoted Kerik because he preferred the loyal sycophant to William Bratton, the smart, independent and competent police commissioner whom he had fired. He ignored the threat of terrorism until it was too late, and arrogantly rejected the advice of those who knew more than he did.
Over the past six years, this brand of leadership has become all too familiar. We don’t need it anymore. In fact, we never did.
Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/rudy_giulianis_dubious_leaders.html at April 26, 2007 - 09:49:03 AM CDT
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.