Act now or prepare for jail

From Commentary by Janet Folger at WorldNetDaily...

Robbing someone outside a convenience store is a Class-B felony in New Hampshire, which typically carries a sentence of three and a half to seven years in state prison along with a $4,000 fine. But according to Assistant County Attorney Roger Chadwick, if convicted of a "hate crime" (shouting an anti-homosexual name), the sentence becomes "enhanced" by 23-26 1/2 years – turning a three-year sentence into a 30-year sentence.

Oh, and it's not a hypothetical. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, John Guimond, 23, faced those charges. He was charged with stealing a cell phone from a homosexual man, 24, and his underage "male partner" (a statutory rape violation), after approaching them in a parking lot.

Stealing is a bad thing to do. But keep in mind, no weapon was used, no injury sustained. Just that mean name – something far, far worse. Think about it for a minute. If saying a mean anti-homosexual word adds an additional 23-26 ½ years to a sentence, and people live to around 80, that penalty is one-fourth of your life for the words you say. And while this was in addition to a robbery penalty, how much of a jump would it really be to penalize the speech "infraction" alone? And just what constitutes an "anti-gay epithet"? Would an "anti-gay epithet" be to say, "Homosexuality is a sin," or "Homosexuals should repent"? What if you informed someone that "Homosexuality is harmful to your health"? If I were you, I wouldn't try it in New Hampshire.

So, if speech in turns a three-year sentence into a 30-year sentence for a state "hate crime" violation, just what might H.R. 1592 do on the federal level? As Rep. (and former Judge) Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, pointed out on the House Judiciary Subcommittee, if passed, H.R. 1592 is going to put pastors in prison. Pointing to Title 18 of the US Criminal Code, Section 2 (a):

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. –18 USC Sec. 2

Pastor? Have you ever counseled from a biblical perspective or read from Roman 1? I Corinthians 6? Genesis 19? Leviticus 18 or 20? Then, if H.R. 1592 becomes law and someone who has attended your church, read your materials or heard your broadcast commits a crime – such as pushing away a cross-dresser's unwelcome advances – you are "punishable as a principal," as someone who "counsels" and "induces" the now-illegal belief that homosexual behavior is a sin.

 I found the text of the bill ad I'd like to comment on it. I'll excerpt portions over the next few days and add my thoughts about those sections. (The text can also be found here and here) [brackets and red denote my comments]

Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 1592 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1592

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 20, 2007

[Pretty much a roll call of Liberal Democrats] Mr. CONYERS  (for himself, Mr. KIRK, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. SHAYS, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. NADLER, Mrs. BONO, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. BACA, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. BECERRA, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CARNAHAN, Ms. CARSON, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. COHEN, Mr. COSTA, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. FARR, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GERLACH, Ms. GIFFORDS, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. HODES, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. KAGEN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KIND, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Ms. LEE, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. LOEBSACK, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. LYNCH, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr. MARKEY, Ms. MATSUI, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. MILLER of North Carolina, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. NORTON, Mr. OLVER, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SIRES, Mr. SKELTON, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. STARK, Ms. SUTTON, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. TIERNEY, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. WEINER, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. WU, and Mr. WYNN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

 

A BILL

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem. 
 
[Really? When a man shouting anti-Christian rantings shoots up a church in Fort Worth, killing 9 church members, it's not considered a hate crime. However when a woman throws an asparagus at tow homosexual men while shouting "Faggots" it is considered a hate crime. 
 
When self-professed satanists burned down several churches across Alabama, authorities refused to call it a hate crime, but when a high school student accidentally leaves a ham sandwich on a table that Moslem students use next, it's considered a hate crime and the student is suspended.
 
If it's a serious national problem, why isn't it treated that way when the victims are Christians?]   

(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.
 
[No, the chicken littles who cry "hate crime" at the drop of a hat disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.] 

(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.
 
[No state agency becomes more efficient with Federal "assistance". Federal assistance almost always shifts the focus away from helping the people, to rationalizing more Federal money.]  

(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.
 
[Right. Gimme a break. We have more than enough laws to deal with criminals, what we need are ways to stop judges, prosecutors, police and even Congressmen from abusing the laws and twisting them to serve their own purposes.] 

(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.
 
[That would be after the convenient club it provides special interest groups to beat down those who would interfere with their agenda. It's been well established that Mathew Shephard's murder was motivated by greed, not hate, yet that doesn't stop hatefilled Liberals from all but accusing Conservatives of holding him down while the cretins that killed him did it. The mantra of "hate crime" does more to spread hate that the KKK could ever have hoped to have accomplished.]  

(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:

(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.
 
[Bull. The paranoia of groups that buy into Liberal hate-mongering is encouraged by idiotic legislation like this]  

(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
 
[What planet are these guys from?] 

(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.
 
[The focus on "state lines" is because the Constitution forbids the Federal government from interfering in matters that are only within a state, so they have to invent a way why they can ignore the Constitution.]  

(7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.
 
[Then why are even the white-washed (no pun intended) stats of hate crimes show that Blacks are almost twice as likely to commit hate-crimes as whites?]  

(8) Both at the time when the 13th [Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865], 14th [Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.], and 15th [Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.] amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races'. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
 
[It's been over 130 some odd years. I think we've changed a bit since then. Although I'm not sure the Democrat party has gotten over it's deep seated racism.]

(9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.
 
[Or ignore them as seems to be the case when Christians or Conservatives are the victims. As long as law enforcement do not take seriously what they are calling "hate crimes" why should they be encouraged to abuse it even further?]

(10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.
 
[Hardly. There has been no proof that the ridiculous way "hate crimes" have been addresses has actually done anything to prevent them. There is evidence that it has increased them, by turning law enforcement into collaborators in violating the law against groups they hate.  
 
Here are some examples...
 
After jailing Christians for holding signs with Bible verses during a "Gay Games" Police could not get one single witness to come to court to testify against the arrested. Jailing the people was obviously the intent all along, not for any real crime, but to simply silence them. False imprisonment is a crime. The bias is obvious.
 
Police ticket abortion protester on public sidewalk for "Defiant Trespass". Case thrown out, but any charge, arrest or ticket that requires time and legal expense carries with it a de facto punishment, simply by virtue of the harassment of the individual. The case was thrown out, but not without legal expense to the unfairly ticketed.
 
Police illegally silenced two preachers in a public park, speaking out against a nearby "PrideFest" "celebrating" homosexuality. Their rights infringed, the preacher won in court, but the crime of infringing on their speech was still committed when they were silenced.
 
On July 21, 2004, Michael Marcavage attended the regularly scheduled Lansdowne Borough Council meeting. During the open comment period mandated by state law, Mr. Marcavage rose to speak to discuss comments made by council member Kevin Lee to the Philadelphia Gay News. Although he had not exceeded any set time limits, Norman Council, the then Council President, told Mr. Marcavage that his time was up and that he would not be permitted to read from the Bible as it would be tantamount to engaging in hate speech. When Mr. Marcavage insisted that he had the right to speak, the Council unanimously adjourned the meeting. Mr. Marcavage was then forcefully removed and charged criminally with disrupting a public meeting and disorderly conduct. The criminal charges were ultimately dismissed as being without merit by the Delaware County District Attorney's Office. Subsequently, a federal lawsuit was filed to challenge the Borough Council’s unconstitutional actions. In February 2006, the Borough Council has agreed to settle the case by entering into a Consent Decree, which admits that Mr. Marcavage was “denied a full and fair opportunity to address the Council,” and affirms that Mr. Marcavage and all citizens have a constitutionally protected right to address the Borough Council. The Borough has also agreed to pay $25,000 in attorney’s fees. 
 
There are lots and lots of stories like that of police, prosecutors, judges even legislators using their position to commit crimes of bias against those they disagree with. Yet these are rarely if ever even noted as crimes, let alone hate crimes.]

Posted by Danny Carlton at April 24, 2007 8:11 AM