Congress Passes 'Pedophile Protection Act'

World Net Daily ^ | October 22, 2009 | Bob Unruh

[conservativegramma]

Bully for them.

I notice they never ‘quote’ the hate crime against Sarah Palin’s church in Wasilla when it was torched in an attempt to kill all those inside.

I also notice they never ‘quote’ or ‘comment’ on attacks by gays against Christians. They never rule those attacks hate crimes do they?

BTW: I still stand by my quote. So you Christian haters and bashers out there reading this quote THIS:

Some gay will go after a Pastor and a sermon he’s preaching on a particular Bible passage. This legislation opens the door to these attacks. Look how they went after Carrie Prejean even BEFORE this legislation passed! And it will come down to a defense of the 1st amendment. Either it (the 1st amendment) will stand or fall. And if the courts rule that free speech and free religious expression falls to ‘hate crime’ statutes then the rest of the amendments will fall as well and its goodbye liberty. It won’t be hate crimes legislation per se that causes Civil War II - it will be the attack on freedom and liberty to which unconstitutional hate crimes legislation is just the first salvo.

Personally I think a winning issue in 2010 or 2012 is a campaign that promises to add an amendment to this legislation to which it is also classified a hate crime to attack a Pastor’s free speech or a Christian’s religious beliefs, or - torch a church.

No one opposes legislation that protects people from violent attacks - we already have laws against assault & battery and murder. What hate crimes legislation does is elevate one segment of society to protected status and gives that segment of society free reign to persecute and suppress the constitutional rights of the other segment without consequence. If that’s not unconstitutional I don’t know what is!

[Syncro]

: > )

[JLLH]

Sorry, but you must have much more faith in this government and their willingness to follow the law than I am! I absolutely believe it will be stretched and contorted to protect any pervert they choose, and no, I don’t think that all one has to do to stay out of jail is just not to physically attack anyone in this new protected class. There are simply too many historical examples to the contrary regarding laws of this nature and how they have been used beyond their supposed original intent. Finally, this bill still creates a specialized protected class of citizens with stiffer penalties for perceived violations of political correctness and violates the equal protection clause. That’s really all one needs to know about it. We already have laws against violence - but this creates a group of people who will be deemed more worthy of protection than others. I can’t imagine any American thinking this is fine and dandy. It is truly Orwellian in nature.

[lentulusgracchus]

Sorry, but when it comes to a question between the Ku Klux Klan and the Southern Poverty Law Center, I will stand with the latter.

Oh, please. Read the post again. The point was, that the SPLC has sued the Klan into oblivion, and they're about to do it to lots of other people. Religionists, for one, with the passage of this "thought crimes" law.

The correct answer, as between the Klan and the SPLC is, may a chunky interplanetary bolide strike both their houses at astrophysical velocities.

[lentulusgracchus]

Instead, under current law, people who attack gays should be convicted of assault and tossed in prison where they are sure to receive a certain type of sensitivity training from fellow inmates who are doing a long stretch in prison.

So, if someone gets thrown into prison for "assaulting" gays (and that's going to be easier and easier), he deserves to be raped? On what basis do you confer this kind of extrajudicial sentence?

I'm starting to think you're homering for the homosexuals.

Oh, and Jesse Dirkhising still hasn't gotten his Newsweek cover. And he's still dead, murdered by a pair of ephebophile homosexuals.

[trumandogz]

I absolutely believe it will be stretched and contorted to protect any pervert they choose, and no, I don’t think that all one has to do to stay out of jail is just not to physically attack anyone in this new protected class.

Again, I am opposed to hate crimes legislation.

Now, you say that you believe that hate crimes laws will be manipulated so that a person would be convicted of a hate crime law violation by simply uttering words against a homosexual.

That being your thesis, could you please point to a case where a person was convicted of violating the 1994 Hate Crime Act of 1994 by simply using words and not violence against a person due to their race, religion, gender, ethnicity or national origin?

[trumandogz]

So, if someone gets thrown into prison for "assaulting" gays (and that's going to be easier and easier), he deserves to be raped? On what basis do you confer this kind of extrajudicial sentence.

First of all, I never said that someone deserves to be raped in prison.

Second, if person physically assaults another person, he should be tossed in prison and I don't care if the victim is a nun or a cross-dressing drag queen.

[JLLH]

I know of cases (you can google them as I don’t have the time now, sorry) where attempted prosecutions have taken place. I have not followed the cases, but does it really matter?? It’s a very small step from a law such as this one to “You incited violence with your words and caused someone to commit a hate crime with your words” - and yes, we are already there and have been for some time!!

[trumandogz]

“You incited violence with your words and caused someone to commit a hate crime with your words” - and yes, we are already there and have been for some time!!

By inciting violence do you mean actions such as falsely Shouting fire in a crowded theater?

Words that are likely incite violence are not protected by the First Amendment and have little to do with any hate crimes legislation.

[JLLH]

No, I’m talking about Christians speaking out according to their beliefs. As I recall there was a gay-pride rally in Philadelphia and their local hate crimes law was tried on some Christian protesters.... until the charges were dropped (for the most part). That was in 2004...

[reader25]

This is no longer a government by the people, for the people. It is now a government for the privileged, perverse and non Christian.

Attaching such legislation to a defense spending bill is pretty low in my book. There should be a law that each bill and amendment has to stand on its own. If it cannot, it dies like it should. Who sponsored this anti-American amendment?

[conservativegramma]

Who sponsored this anti-American amendment?

Its had more than one. Initially it was Teddy Kennedy who authored the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909). This bill - (S. 1390 Fiscal 2010 Defense Authorization bill) in its final passed form contains the actual text of S. 909 which Kennedy authored. This bill was also conferenced in with H.R. 2647 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010).

Though S. 1390 was initially sponsored by Levin (D - MI) it was Patrick Leahy (D - VT) who actually included Kennedy's S. 909 text which is the final amendment which ultimately passed and Obama signed on October 28th.

The text of the bill can be found here

Pay particular attention to Division E of the bill beginning with Section 4701 - Here "DIVISION E--MATTHEW SHEPARD HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT" which is virtually verbatim from Kennedy's S. 909.

S. 1390 Status:
7/2/2009: Introduced
7/2/2009: Referred to Senate Armed Services Committee
7/2/2009: Reported to Senate
7/15/2009: Amended by the Senate
7/16/2009: Amended by the Senate
7/20/2009: Amended by the Senate
7/21/2009: Amended by the Senate
7/22/2009: Amended by the Senate
7/23/2009: Amended by the Senate
7/23/2009: Senate Passage
10/28/2009: Signed by Obama