Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, November 02, 2009
Star Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
New hate crimes law is a mistake
by Star Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



President Barack Obama has signed into law the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Actually, he signed into law the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act tacked onto which was the hate crimes legislation.

Sen. Harry Reid, our brave Democratic majority leader, slipped the hate crimes bill into the defense authorization bill to avoid having to have our senators consider the controversial hate crimes bill on its own.

It's for good reason that our Democratic legislators wanted to hide under a rock while passing this terrible piece of legislation. It may help them with the far left wing of their party. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate crime law does.

Arguing with Idiots By Glenn Beck

The bill adds extra penalties to violent crimes when they are deemed motivated by gender, sexual orientation, or disabilities. It's the first major expansion of hate crimes legislation originally passed in 1968, targeted then to crimes aimed at race, color, religion, and national origin.

After signing this new law, Obama celebrated it by saying that in this nation we should "embrace our differences."

But law isn't about embracing our differences. It is about providing equal and non-arbitrary protection to all citizens.

Equal protection for every individual American under the law is what the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, passed after the Civil War, guarantees. That this nation takes this guarantee seriously -- that there are no classes of individuals treated differently under the law -- has been a justifiable obsession of blacks.

A society in which all life is not valued the same, where murder of one citizen is not the same as the murder of another citizen, is a horror that black Americans have known too well.

So it is a particular irony that this major expansion of the politicization of our law has been signed by our first black president.

What could it possibly mean that the penalty for the same act of violence -- for murder -- may be different depending on what might be deemed to be the motivation?

Can you imagine a football game where the penalty for roughing the passer is 20 yards rather than 15 yards if the referee concludes that the violence perpetrated was motivated because the quarterback was homosexual?

Is it not a sign of our own pathology that we now have codified that it is worse to murder a homosexual than someone who has committed adultery, even with your husband or wife, or who has slandered or robbed? Isn't the point murder?

Can we really believe that someone capable of murder is less likely to do so if the victim is a homosexual and the penalties are greater?

It should be clear that hate crime law has nothing to do with improving our law but rather with creating favored political classes. It is something that should be hateful to everyone who cares about a free society, and particularly hateful to those, such as blacks, who have been victimized by politicization of law.

How about the sad and pathetic recent murder of a 16-year-old Christian black honor student in Chicago by four teenage thugs, also black?

A hate crime?

Black on black homicides are tearing up our inner cities. Hate crimes?

The social breakdown that produces the disproportionate violence in black America is the product of the same moral relativism and politicization of law that has produced hate crime bills.

We already have a source, which instructs against murder and to love your neighbor as yourself.

But this has been banned from our schools and our public spaces.

So once again, in what is becoming our Godless nation, we mistake the disease for the cure.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Coalition for Urban Renewal & Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Hate Crime Bill
Right on! Great job with insight and wisdom, from we know who!

hate crimes
First of all, I thought all crimes were hate crimes? And them, how exactly does a courtroom prove intent? No one can say exactly what is on a persons mind when he(or she) commits a crime! But now, the very courtrooms of this country and its lawyers are saying that they can read the minds of perpetrators to reveal their true intents! Bull! It won't be long now before the Thought Police are here to arrest us in our homes for supposed crimes against the Government, because they themselves know better what we are thinking than we do! Nazi Germany, Here WE Come!

bad albino bob az
the "trolls" you encountered in the daily beast arent trolls. they are mainstream citizens of the beast. its like this. the daily beast is located UNDER the bridge, where slimy disgusting things live. townhall is located ON the bridge, where the slimy and disgusting things visit, but are not welcome.

Gayle
"I certainly hate the idea that anyone would be murdered because of their homosexuality.

But no more than I hate the fact that someone would be murdered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Let's see. Wrong Place, Wrong Time vs. Wrong Sexual Identity.

I cannot see that one death is worse than the other death. They are both unjust and they should be punished at the same level."

First, let me say I am not a big supporter of hate crime laws. I don't feel strongly either way about them but if they are going to exist for some groups, I do think sexual orientation is a legitimate inclusion.

With regard to your post, let me elaborate:

Let's say you live in a neighborhood with 5000 other people and a man kills his wife two blocks away from you. It is a tragedy, yes, but will you feel personally threatened by this killing? It is doubtful because this wasn't a random killing and it was also not meant to be a lesson for others in the community to "watch out!".

Let's say in this same neighborhood a man kills another man simply because he is gay and in the process he uses gay slurs and there is no other evidence that he killed this gay man because of any other reason except that he is gay and he is sending word out that gays in his neighborhood better also be scared. This is essentially terrorism, a criminal act meant to threaten others in the community with the same characteristics of the victim. This is a hate crime and this is how it compares to other groups that are already protected. This would be similar to arson of a local church (in past times and current) or lynching of a black man (fortunately, just in earlier times).

Are both types of crime tragic? Certainly. Are they both crimes that you hate equally? Sure. Are they different in significant ways? Yes.

Football analogy
The NFL and NCAA are constantly changing the rules so that referee discretion will have less of an effect on game outcomes. If there had been instant replay the Oilers wold probably have one of the Steelers' super bowl trophies. The liberals have just placed more discretion in the hands of the referees, who at this time are mostly liberal. This isn't about helping people, it is about solidifying an advantage.

Retired Geek
You said, "Thinking patterns are very hard to hide".

Sophie definitely has a pattern that's very hard to hide - but I certainly wouldn't call her pattern anything that involves any "thinking". I seriously question whether this is an activity that's within her capabilities.

I took a quick look over at Doug Giles' thread and saw Awlhattin O'Kaddle's posts to Sophie in the last few minutes. They gave me a good chuckle.

Curmudgeon Writes:
betty tx
It so grieves me that in the remote past some evil whites may according to you have murdered innocent blacks for whistling at white women.
========================
Now the feminist will hang any man for whistling at women. (Clarence Thomas)

I hate it when black kids get killed for their tennis shoes, drive bys, being an honor student (too white)

Gang banging murders in the turf wars over drug corners and prostitution or die in the rutting season.

I hate it when Homos impregnate each other with the aids virus and other STDs.

These special interest groups are destroying each other.

love/hate just like on the Jerry Springer show.

I could go on but it’s late.

standhisground
you are dreaming. your idea is already in effect, in that members of certain preferred hate groups will not convict a fellow member, but most nonmembers or preferred hate groups are to begin with weak specimens without much in the way of common sense or a sense of justice, let alone any concept of what is not allowed by our constitution, unless liberal judges decree otherwise. the jurors are selected for the fact that they are idle, because if they had anything important to do, they would find a way to not be on the jury. most of the jurors had to lie to be on the jury to begin with, because if they were honest about their prejudices, they would be dismissed. so the final jury is selected for indolence, dishonesty, and probably has an axe to grind. you think anyone is going to get justice from such a group? not likely.

The black poseur from Kenya
How come Odumbo lived in an upscale white neighborhood (along with his sick racist preacher and terrorist pal Ayres) and sends his kids to a privledged white private school?
Talk about a lying poseur!
He is nothing but a black puppet being manipulated and used by the far radical left. He has little brains but knows how to step and fetchit when told. The lefties have total control over thier black robot.

Standshisground - Anne - Denise et al

Sophie also used my handle on an article by Chapman.

Liberals are such children.


Standshisground
Sophie looks suspicious to me in this imposter fiasco with Saint-Denis and now you!

Who has credibility and influence?
Who kicks the living crap out of liberals using facts and reason? They can't beat these arguments fairly and squarely so they go underground and hide in caves. Just like Al-Queda. They can't wear a uniform to reveal their identity much less show their face. AQ uses mosques and human sheilds to accomplish their goals. The imposters on TH are using Saint-Denis to accomplish what they cannot accopmlish with their own limited intellect and abilities.

It is so insidious it is beyond words.



Coveting is hate
Coveting the neighbor’s goods should be a hate crime.

Maybe we could all get along a little better if that were the case.

But the world is upside down.

It’s a hate crime to speak out against the covetous.

betty tx
it so grieves me that in the remote past some evil whites may according to you have murdered innocent blacks for whistling at white women. most of the lynchings i have read about from reliable sources (not you) involved at least the suspicion of real crimes, and a lot of the lynching victims were guilty as sin, although inevitably some of them werent. however, that is a very old grievance, and the perpetrators have already died, and it isnt happening anymore. what is happening is an extreme crime wave involving members of preferred hate groups robbing and murdering, and the victims are usually not members of preferred groups. try living in the present.

AKA Charlie

I try to NOT communicate with Liberals because it is like debating with the Town drunk in a bar.

They just continue to spew nonsense that means nothing to anyone but them.

Sometimes, I can't help myself.

Pomerol, Stands, Anne et al

Thinking patterns are very hard to hide.

I worked as a 'Computer Forensics' expert for a few years helping Law Enforcement.

Patterns are one of the many tools I used to track down hackers and thieves.

The more they do, the more certain one can become.


Anne
THANKS!

Oh, Vey!

Whoever is that impostor is going to have another person to pretend to be: Awlhattin O'Kaddle. He just gave it to "Sophie" (if that is who it is).

Retired Geek
About your 9:59 pm post: what exactly do you think that you’re doing? Do you enjoy tormenting the less fortunate? Stop teasing the liberals with logic before someone calls the SPCI (the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Idiots) on you. I suppose that you also enjoy beating up on people in wheelchairs and pulling the wings off of flies. Man and they say that I’m cruel when I use dynamite to fish.

Ok enough fooling around. Do please keep it up. You are fast becoming one of my heroes on TH. Anyone who can mess with the liberals’ minds is all right in my book. I do wonder though, just how do you mess with their minds? I mean do you use a microscope and tweezers or something?

it is soooooooooo uplifting to know
that if i am murdered by a member of one of the preferred hate groups, the perpetrator will be out in a year or two. if, on the other hand, i am successful in preventing my murder by a member of a preferred hate group, i will get life in prison for a "hate" crime. so much for equal protection under the law. we were such morons to ever let them decree from on high that the death penalty applied to those who murder police, but not to those who just murder a shopkeeper. why dont they just man up and pass a law that anyone that annoys a liberal gets the death penalty, but anyone that murders a conservative gets a government pension? a little honesty would be refreshing.

Standshisground

Yes, their writing patterns are their DNA. I have had the same problem. It is aggravating, but says much about the cowardice of the more intellectually-challenged posters.

Remember when Obama made the joke about the Special Olympics? The athletes are not "retarded". These trolls are.

Stands: Done! :-)
.

Retired Geek & Pomerol
If I had to bet the farm on who St. Denis' (and now, apparently, MY) imposter is, I'd put it all on Sophie, also.

She's had more post names on this site than Carter has pills - and as Retired Geek noted, written speech has unique characteristics like fingerprints. And Sophie can't hide her "fingerprints". Any more than Betty could which caused me to instantly recognize her when she stopped using the post name PlanoBlue and starting calling herself Patty - and then abandoned the name Patty for Betty.

This is EXACTLY the kind of childish prank Sophie would think is funny.

If Hal Donahue stopped posting on this site under that name and chose another name that was totally unlike that one, I'll guarantee that almost all of us would STILL recognize him as Hal almost immediately.

You know what they say about a leopard and his spots.

Clinton Mediates Truce?

Either the White House is surrendering to Fox News, or Hillary Clinton is "going rogue." The Secretary of State will be appearing "On the Record" tonight with Greta Van Susteren. She will be discussing Afghanistan, Pakistan and the ongoing overseas contingency operation War on Terror.

I'm amazed the administration would send Secretary Clinton to appear on FNC since it's "not a legitimate news network."

Since when does a Secretary of State mediate a "war" between the WH & a news network? I know that Obama named Czars to oversee all of the world's hotspots, but really!

Anne

I know. I have read the legislation. The legislation is about much more than crime as we have known it. It aims directly at the heart of the 1st Amendment. Hate speech will soon be hate crimes. It is conceivable that pastors, who teach the Bible, will be charged with a hate crime even though he is not engaging in hate. Thought and opinion may well become crimes punishable by imprisonment. I don't believe that I have seen a more dangerous piece of legislation in a very long time and, quite possibly, in my entire career.

Stands: Check the Town Hall magazine
advertisement on the right side of the column.

It should have your name, address, and email, as you provided it.

If the email isn't correct, you can change it.


Pomerol: There's ven MORE to it than

that... read my post

Anne Location: PA
Reply # 121
Date: Nov 2, 2009 - 1:17 PM EST
Has anyone actually READ S.909???

S.909 Authorizes the Attorney General to:


Anne from PA et al

If the murder-rape of the white couple in Knoxville, TN by blacks is NOT a hate crime there is NO SUCH THING.

Standshisground

My money is on Sophie.

MellorSJ2

Where is your tolerance - I thought you viewed 'Tolerance' as a virtue?

If Tolerance itself is a virtue, (a commendable quality or trait) then it follows that tolerance of those who oppose Homosexuality is just as commendable as tolerance of Homosexuality.

If tolerance is NOT a virtue, then why should Homosexuality be tolerated any more than those who oppose Homosexuality?


Anne, you stated:
"Ya suppose these liberal morons are in denial?"

Modern liberalism metastisizes in the emotional areas of the brain. Excruciating pain occurs when the affliction migrates into the mental reasoning sections of the mind. Liberalism and truth are like oil and vinegar. Reality is very painful for an obamabot.

Betty
I certainly hate the idea that anyone would be murdered because of their homosexuality.

But no more than I hate the fact that someone would be murdered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Let's see. Wrong Place, Wrong Time vs. Wrong Sexual Identity.

I cannot see that one death is worse than the other death. They are both unjust and they should be punished at the same level.




What MOST people don't know is ....

At the EXACT same time that the Duke LAX guys were being indicted. there was a very similar case going on in GA or Ky (I don't recall exactly what state) EXCEPT, it was black athletes on a white victim crime.

Hardly a peep about that one!




Ste. Denis

After reading the posts by your impostor, I am 90% sure it is Mod Mark's best friend 'Sophie'.

Written speech has unique characteristics like fingerprints - 90% Sophie.

Anne

The reasoning behind the so-called need for this legislation was that a deterrent was needed. Who really thinks that a sentence enhancer or an additional charge in Federal court would have stopped Tiller’s killer, the Arkansas recruiting center shooter and the von Brunns of the world from committing murders when that piddly old first degree murder capital offense with the death penalty couldn’t. Okay, I want to be completely honest, the District of Columbia does not have the death penalty, but it certainly has life in prison available for the offense of premeditated murder. Both Kansas and Arkansas, the locations of the other two heinous crimes, do indeed have the death penalty for such offenses. What exactly does Eric Holder think the "hate crimes" he is demagoguing about are going to do for deterrence that the death penalty or life in prison won’t?

There Otta be a Bounty On Em'
Surely there must be something that can be done about this? Whats to stop any POS Commie from just trashing any site they chose to?
If anyone needed any more evidence of the moral bankruptcy at the core of a Liberal, this is it.

Cambermeister writes
"Retired Geek says: (yet another untruth)

It needed to be repeated."

And if it's repetition you want, Geek is your man. Unless, it's cambermeister, of course.

Anne
To the best of my recollection, I did provide my actual e-mail address when I registered on this site, so I'll be looking for Chris to contact me on my e-mail address.

Stands: I'll let Chris know...
If you provided your real email address on your account, he'll contact you.



Denise: Actually, Clara Harris left her

home IMMEDIATELY after she received the call from the PI.

Supposedly, she had enough time to "calm down" between the time she left her home immediately after the phone call and the time she arrived at the "scene" or so they say.


But that's NOT the point!



Anne in PA
No, I haven't contacted Chris yet.

Since I've never had this issue before, I confess I'm not up to speed on what's required. Please advise me on how to bring this matter to Chris' attention.

Betty
You can if you’re willing to expend the energy hate anything or anyone, acting on it is a different thing.

I’m being flippant with the word hate, but I do for the most part hate what liberals are and what they’re trying to do too this country, I’ve done my best in life not to hate but in times like this it becomes difficult.

You should ask yourself if the idea of socialism/communism taking root among a free people is hate for your fellow man.

My niece is a liberal; I love her but hate who she is.

Stands: That's the trouble with allowing

more than one account to have an already existing "screen name."

It happened to me a year or so ago...

We'll watch out for the impostor.

Did you let Chris know?



Anne

While Clara Harris' motivation was partly based on passion, she had enough time between the telephone call from her PI until she killed her husband to have formulated intent. Further, she was convicted in Harris County, which has sent more people to death row than probably every other county in Texas. Her behavior was premeditated. A crime of passion is generally where a spouse stumbles open his/her spouse in bed, picks up a gun, and kills the spouse or both.

Granted, it depends on how a DA proceeds and what a jury decides.

Betty
"In one case they are dead because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. In another case, they are dead because they are homosexual." You forget my particular favorite-- someone who gets off for child rape and is then shot by an irate parent-- someone who is dead because they so richly need to be.

Cambermeister: And as brilliant as Ret

Geek is (probably off the paper) he's actually dumbed it down enough for any moron to understand....

Yet, they don't get it.

Ya suppose these liberal morons are in denial?


Retired Geek, Anne, gayle, St. Denis
Guess what, all?

It looks like Saint-Denis's imposter is now doing the same thing to ME.

If you'll go to Doug Giles' thread, you'll see a post at 9:00pm PURPORTING to be from me: it ISN'T.

Georgetwin opined on Giles' thread that St. Denis' imposter might be Sophie. Judging by the language her imposter used, and looking at my imposter's 9:00pm post, I think he might be right.

Since Sophie or whoever this imposter is isn't as clever as he/she/it THINKS he/she/it is, I'm trusting that you'll all be able to tell from the language of any post with the post name Standshisground whether it sounds like the genuine article or whether it's my imposter.

If this imposter IS Sophie, guess it goes to show what a lifetime of cocaine usage, streetwalking, and who knows WHAT other kinds of debauchery does to one's mind.

Ret Geek: I've read that too...

And there is some truth to that... no doubt.

On the other hand, by NOT confronting these morons (liberals) it's giving them permission to continue to have their way with our wonderful and great country.


ObamaSpeak 2009

ObamaSpeak 2009, 'Necessity' now means wanting some one elses money, 'Greed' now means wanting to keep your own money, 'Compassion' now means Barack Obama stealing your money and giving it to someone else, 'Hate' now means disagreeing with a Liberal, 'Racist' now means not doing exactly what Barack Obama wants.

I don't know what other terms Barack Obama will develop into ObamaSpeak in 2010.

Retired Geek says:
"Homosexuals already have the 'EXACT' same rights under the Constitution that every legal American Citizen has - NO amount of rationalization will change that."

It needed to be repeated. Simplemindedness often requires repetition. Many a liberal fails to understand reality and the Retired Geek.

To All:

I am abandoning both handles "St. Denis IORA" and "Saint-Denis" because of the total nutcase that has stolen both. Just take a look at the Giles' thread to see how insane he/she is and you will understand my reasons. Anyway, I will be using another name. If you recognize me, please do not use my name; otherwise, this will begin anew.

Sorry.

Pomerol: You're right about a "Crime of

Passion."

However, while it's the "law" it's not always equal.

I recall a few years ago when a women in Texas, Clara Harris, who had a PI follow her husband as she suspected he was cheeating on her.

Sure enough, the PI called to tell her that her husband was at some hotel with his mistress. She immediately got into her Mercedes, drove to where the PI said he husband was, and as he was walking outside, she drove over him FIVE TIMES!!!

THAT was a crime of passion!

She's now doing time in the "Big House!"

Likewise, many years ago, some mother (I seem to recall her name was Ellie? something) in Calif., who walked into a courtroom and shot the pervert who had molested her son in the back of the head!

THAT was a crime of passion!

She also did time in the "Big House" although I believe she has since had cancer and passed away.

Unfortunately, the law will now be even MORE unequal.


Ad MellorSJ2. (2)
"Pity you are unwilling to share your rationale for denying rights to people because of their sexual orientation."

I'm afraid that discussion would be much too time-consuming for both of us. Further, I'm not really sure that this is the proper forum in which to debate it. Nonetheless, perhaps we'll broach it at another time, and another place. Either way, it is always a pleasure to debate you.

Saint-Denis
Regarding your impersonator. It's been said that "impersonation is the sincerist form of flattery."

I'm guessing you are not feeling flattered by this situation.

Well, it is a way for a person to gain unearned credibility and admiration. I would guess that this person chose you because of those features as opposed to choosing someone like Hal Doofus or Unbalanced. The person rightly chose to gain credibility and admiration instead of derision and ridicule. At least it shows a modicum of rational thinking, if that's any consequence to you.

Seriously, I can't imagine how upsetting the situation must be.

Anne from PA et al

I don't know who said this, I read it somewhere a few years ago:

'When you argue with a Moron (Liberal) they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.'

gayle
gayle
Location: CO
Reply # 4
Date: Nov 2, 2009 - 9:12 PM EST Betty
Hate Crime/Crime of Passion. Result: Victim is dead in both cases.They are dead for different reasons. In one case they are dead because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. In another case, they are dead because they are homosexual.



Premeditation
One of the people I worked with in prison (as a psychologist, not as a prisoner, trolls) was convicted of 1st degree murder because of premeditation because of a four or five second delay between the provocation and the murder. Of course, carving up his wife and putting her in the freezer for a week before turning himself in probably had something to do with it, too.

RetGeek: YES, they do! But we know that

is NOT what this is about!

Never was.


Y99
Betty TX
Yes, it would just be a more compassionate and understanding form of hate.

*************************************

And yet it would still be hate. Please define compassionate understanding hate for those of us who cannot connect love of one's children with the idea of hate.

Crimes Of Passion

For a murder to be considered a crime of passion, a manslaughter, it must happen extremely close in time to the incident giving rise to the motivation; otherwise, it would be second or even first degree. Premeditation can be formed in seconds under most theories of murder law in the US.

All Addicts Believe

All Addicts Believe that they cannot live without continuing their addiction and life would be meaningless without the source of their addiction.

Alcoholics, Drug Addicts, Sex Addicts and Homosexuals are firmly embedded, or a constituent of that thinking.

That assumption is NOT true and is perpetuated by other addicts and well meaning weak people, who have found it is easier to condone behavior, than attempting to change behavior.

The basic false premise that Addicts, their supporters and apologists operate by is: 'The addict needs their addiction to live', the truth about addictions are really: 'The addict lives for their addictions'.

Jesus Christ stated very succinctly, that He came to bring life that is more abundant and fulfilling.

When one center his or her life on Jesus Christ, 'old things pass away and all things become new'.

This is the 'Hope' of a human being, not that some government may condone or NOT condone certain behaviors, thereby giving them a false sense of self esteem.


Betty
Hate Crime/Crime of Passion. Result: Victim is dead in both cases.

Your description of Passion is weak. "Passion= the man won't give me his money or his car so I have to kill him." Because the perpetrator really "hates" the fact that the victim is being uncooperative? And the perpetrator really "hates" being without the drugs he needs to feed his addiction? And, the perpetrator really "hates" the idea of having to work for the money or the car that he wants the victim to give up? I could go on and on. Bottom line, passion, hate, the victim is still dead.

Again, your argument is really weak and it's next to impossible for a jury to determine what is in the mind of the perpetrator.

Try again.

Homosexuals

Homosexuals already have the 'EXACT' same rights under the Constitution that every legal American Citizen has - NO amount of rationalization will change that.

Betty TX
Yes, it would just be a more compassionate and understanding form of hate.

Anne, BAB et al

Wee Willy probably would try and advise Einstein if he was still alive.

Arrogance = An obnoxious display of real or imagined superiority, in Wee Willies case it is imagined.

Mellor
"Pity you are unwilling to share your rationale for denying rights to people because of their sexual orientation." No conservative would ever deny a right to anybody. What we deny are privileges and imagined rights not found in the Constitution, nature, or simple reason.

Don't thank me. I'm happy to clear this up for you. It's what I'm here for.

Y99
Y99
Location: WA
Reply # 4
Date: Nov 2, 2009 - 8:41 PM EST WOW
Well, I hate all liberals equally, am I safe from this BS law?

Why do you hate all liberals? What if your daughter or son grows up to be a liberal (which happened to one of my conservative friends).....would you hate her/him equally?

Seth
Thanks for the education. I had forgotten about the XIXth. (!)

Pity you are unwilling to share your rationale for denying rights to people because of their sexual orientation.

Dear Star
Murdering someone who had sex with your wife is a crime of passion. Murdering someone whose liftstyle, skin color, religion or lack thereof, is a crime of hatred.

Do you think that black men who were hanged in the south because they whistled at white women were murdered because a bunch of white men couldn't control themselves or were they hanged because a bunch of white men hunted them down and hung them because they were black?

Hate crimes = taking violent action against others due to hatred for skin color, sexual orientation, race, gender. Passion = the man won't give me his money or his car so I have to kill him.

FROG claims
"That statement can only be understood to mean that you disagreed Ms. Parker because you felt her position was hypocritical. Later posts were made defending your position, not clarifying any misperceptions."

BS. To assert that someone is being hypocritical in way makes any statement about the argument being made. In any event, as you can read in post #2, I said " Every word is true...
... though the antepenultimate paragraph is questionable."

What part of that don't you understand?

WOW
Well, I hate all liberals equally, am I safe from this BS law?

Bad Albino Bob: Well, there you go...

Somebody who tells you WHAT YOU BELIEVE and WHAT YOU THINK!

What MORE could you ask for???

Saves all that time and energy that you would otherwise be wasting. Ooops, and you did, getting you education.

Dammit! Where was Wonderful willie BEFORE you spent all that time and money and energy.

Wonderful willie, sure is wonderful, no doubt.

If you'd only known wonderful willie before. :-(

But, when you stop to think about it, that's the "culture" Wonderful willie comes from... somebody probably told him what to think and what to believe...

It's that liberal thing. They don't have a thought among them.



patriotic voting
When will the American people realize, you get what you vote for. This country has voted in the most far left administration ever, and what's happening is somehow suprising? They are destroying our liberities and rights every day. Hopefully this will wake up most Americans to never waste their vote again electing America haters who want to fundamentally change our counrty. Do your homework before casting your vote so everyone will make informed and wise choices that will take back our country and save it from people who seem to love commumism and socialism.

Saint-Denis (the REAL Saint-Denis)
I posted this on Giles' thread, and so I'll now post it here.

I said in my 12:03am and 12:36am posts on Giles' thread that a lot of the libs who come onto this site do so because they're so empty inside that coming here to insult conservatives seems to be about the only way they have to still convince themselves they're alive.

Your imposter PERFECTLY demonstrates my point.

THIS phony is so empty that he/she/it can't even come onto this site with an identity of his/her/its own, this phony has to try to appropriate YOUR identity and is reduced to living vicariously through YOU. Now how pathetic is THAT?

St. Denis Consider This
St. Denis writes: "I still believe that SCOTUS would be leery to allow an acquitted murder defendant to once again face trial, but on a Federal charge. It should and I hope that it would prevent same."
**************
What happens if you are found not guilty of murder in a state court but then the Feds file charges of violating civil rights under the hate crimes legislation that is likely to follow on the coat tails of this little sneaky trick? You wind up having to defend yourself against an unlimited bank account of the federal prosecutors under a law that may be so vague and broad to imply mind reading to determine what you were really thinking when you committed the act.

Then of course there is the question as to whether or not this is going to be fairly applied. Since the violent crime rate of black on black is about 5 times that of white on white and black on white is about 4 times higher than white on black, how is this going to be dealt with under this new legislation? Will we now read tha minds of everyone who commits a violent crime against anyone who is not of the same gender, color, national origin or crede as the perp?

It appears to me that this has the potential to become a can of worms that once you open the lid you may never get all the worms back in the can.

Anne - Willie is Wonderful
Just ask him. He tells me what Arizona law is although he doesn't live here, he tells St. Denis what Constitutional law is, and he tells me what I believe and what I think. Then he tells me all about theology and church history. He knows EVERYTHING! Truly a hero in his own mind.

William
"I believe it likely that State law would forbid the complete denial of a business license to at least two of the groups you mention." Your belief doesn't accord with reality then. But don't worry. We'll recommend that you site them across from your house. As for your silliness at the end, any citizen who is moderately persuasive and willing to do the hard work of organizing will have an influence in their community regardless of its size. Your sense of helplessness is due to laziness.

Willie_WAWA: Oh Pa-lease! "your post

suggests an inflated sense of yourself, one hand on your pistol, the other on your Bible, back against the wall, the little woman filling jars with water, cutting bandage materials. All in order to keep the known world just your size."

Give us a break! That was just inane and truly stupid.


Joycey: And don't forget the New Black

Panthers (see above) and Obozo's "domestic army" (or whatever it is he's calling it!) that is planned to be bigger and as well equipped as our military.... etc.

Obozo is really covering all the possible bases... IMO.


BAB. I am not entirely an
expert on Arizona law but I believe it likely that State law would forbid the complete denial of a business license to at least two of the groups you mention. I understand that city or town codes could require certain conditions and that your town might be too small to allow the siting of certain businesses.

Again, your post suggests an inflated sense of yourself, one hand on your pistol, the other on your Bible, back against the wall, the little woman filling jars with water, cutting bandage materials. All in order to keep the known world just your size.

Dual Sovereignty

The real issue is not double jeopardy (the same jurisdiction tries a defendant twice), but the problems associated with the dual sovereignty doctrine(pertains to two jurisdictions). Such reprosecutions are, sadly, allowed under a Constitutional loophole known as the “dual sovereignty” doctrine, which says that state and federal governments are different sovereigns, and that double jeopardy only applies when you are prosecuted twice by the same sovereign. (This loophole was established in the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 Bartkus v. Illinois decision, over a stinging dissent by Justice Black).

I still believe that SCOTUS would be leery to allow an acquitted murder defendant to once again face trial, but on a Federal charge. It should and I hope that it would prevent same.

Bartkus:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_1_2

Anne
I hadn't thought of that. And I suppose this will provide more $$work$$ for the too many lawyers in this country.

The Peasants Are Revolting!
At least they are over on the Daily Beast, where I was slumming today. It was wall to wall liberals and an incredible proportion of trolls that never argued anything but just called names-- worse than ours. ONLY TWO PEOPLE EVEN TRIED TO ARGUE THE FACTS-- and they were both abusive, too. How compassionate and rational liberals are!

I brought up Dave Mendell, a counselor in Maine who has received awards and was nominated for Teacher of the Year. The gay activists have been trying to get him fired because he is against gay marriage. They all agreed he should be fired for doing that. (No pro gay marriage teacher has been so threatened.) They also threatened to sue me and get my counselor's certification lifted (as if!) because I disagreed with gay marriage.

So tell me again how gay marriage is perfectly values free and won't affect me in any way. I always like a good joke. And if I ever look depressed, tell me how liberals are rational, scientific, and compassionate-- that should bring anyone back from the depths of despond.

And, guess who visited White House...

Malik Zulu Shabazz, national chairman of the New Black Panther.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114727

Remember the New Black Panthers who stood in front of a polling place last Nov., and were ultimately convicted of voter intimidation??

Remember Holder, without Constitutional or legal authority, threw out the conviction??

"Shabazz's NBPP is a controversial black extremist party whose leaders are notorious for their racist statements and for leading anti-white activism. Shabazz has given scores of speeches condemning 'white men' and Jews.

"Asked by WND to confirm or deny he had visited the White House, Shabazz replied by e-mail 'no comment on that one.'"



Joycey: Yeah, but it also Authorizes the
Attorney General to:

(1) provide state, local, or tribal law enforcement agencies with technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the investigation or prosecution of violent crimes and hate crimes; and

(2) award grants to assist such agencies with the extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Authorizes the Office of Justice Programs to award grants to state, local, or tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.
Authorizes appropriations to the Department of Justice (DOJ), including the Community Relations Service, for FY2010-FY2012 to prevent and respond to hate crime acts. Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit willfully...

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/show

It's MORE than "thought police."

It allows for the DoJ.. the Attorney General... that would be the FED GOV. to automatically get involved in state issues!!!


More federal govt intrusion into the states!

Nobody seems to be getting the implication!



US Civil Rights Comm. Is Against This 2
As civil libertarians have noted, the hate-crimes bill’s supporters want to allow people who have been found not guilty in state court to be reprosecuted all over again in federal court. A recent example is a commentary by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights on May 5 blog entitled, “Pennsylvania Teenagers Acquitted of Hate Crime; Federal Law Needed.”

Many supporters of the hate crimes bill want to allow those found innocent to be reprosecuted in federal court. As one supporter put it, “the federal hate crimes bill serves as a vital safety valve in case a state hate-crimes prosecution fails.” The claim that the justice system has “failed” when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict is truly scary and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury.

http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-SCOTUS-Examiner~y2009m6d1 8-Civil-Rights-Commission-opposes-federal-hatecrimes-bill-c iting-doublejeopardy-issues

US Civil Rights Comm. Is Against This 1
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has decided to oppose the federal hate-crimes bill. The Commission calls the bill a “menace to civil liberties” because “its most important effect will be to allow federal authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of defendants who have already been acquitted by state juries.” Thus, it will erode protections against double jeopardy.

In deciding to oppose the bill, the full Commission agreed with the position earlier taken by four individual Civil Rights Commissioners, who sent a letter to House leaders on April 29 opposing the bill. The House approved the hate-crimes bill on a partisan 249-to-175 vote.

Earlier, the Washington Blade and Christian Science Monitor reported that the Senate would likely approve the hate-crimes bill this week, by attaching it to a totally unrelated bill, the Travel Promotion Act. That was a strange legislative tactic, designed to keep Senators concerned about the broad reach of the hate-crimes bill from even having the opportunity to amend its provisions or fix its flaws.


Hey
It is your choice. You don't have to choose to be a homosexual.

William
"You can keep gamblers out of your private club and out of your church." Tell you what, Scooter. We're not giving a license to any casino that wants to move into our community either. We're also not giving a license to an adult bookstore or a nude dancing bar. We have the right and we will exercise it. That's our right. All of those businesses degrade a community, bring a higher level of crime and are generally undesirable. Like it or lump it.

"Beyond that you not needed as a keeper of your brother." Odd you should say that. This is what Cain said to God after he had killed his brother: "Am I my brother's keeper?". God's answer was yes. With characters having your morality around, we need a lot more people to be their brothers' keeper.

A little hint-- don't quote the Bible unless you want to hear the whole quote.

The only purpose for this legislation
is to "shut up" opposition to the homosexual agenda. Those that worship homosexuality do not believe it is right for others not to worship homosexuality. So the opposition to homosexuality must be silenced. Good bye free speech. Stomp, Stomp, Stomp all over the Bill of Rights.

anderson----. Evidently you can give
a reference for one or more cases of the kind you assert to have occurred?

BAB: "simple decency and social utility"
do not equate with "ethics". You strike out at the world with platitudes. It is not your business whether any one who is your equal under the law can exercise legal freedoms. You can keep gamblers out of your private club and out of your church.

Beyond that you not needed as a keeper of your brother.

Should justice
be politicized?

William
Let me see if I can parse your post. You say that wanting to ban gambling casinos from a community is the same as banning Hawaiians from going topless, that casino owners are as likely to go bankrupt as the players, and that ethics has no relation to anything you understand. You also mention Mormons. First, if gambling casinos bankrupt the owners, how do they keep going? I guess they're in the business for charitable purposes. I don't particularly care for Mormons or what they do in East Desert Hole, NV or elsewhere. It has no meaning. That pretty much applies to everything you post here. Superficial and sophomoric cleverness do not an argument make.

Virginia
Whatyou write is true:

"Is it true that a local jury could find a killer innocent, but then the Feds could re-try him on a hate-crimes indictment"

Comment: Yes. They use "civil rights" violations to try people now that have been found innocent in a state court.


BAB. You will have much trouble
getting "simple decency and social utility" to mean "ethics". What you are saying, old timer, is similar to what the missionaries said when they met the Hawaiian royalty: Our people do not believe that your people can go topless.

In fact, if Donald Trump can be an example, casino owners are as likely to bankrupt as any player.

BTW: Do you have any idea what part of the Mesquite, NV business comes from the Mormon community? A clue: it's a goodly amount.

Virginia
"Is it true that a local jury could find a killer innocent, but then the Feds could re-try him on a hate-crimes indictment?"

It absolutely is a concern that this type of legislation will expose defendants. The issue will be whether the Feds indict just for hate crimes or, in your case, indict for murder with a hate crimes enhancer. The first is most likely to be held to be constitutional. The second should never be and, if such happens, then our entire criminal law system will be turned on its head.

Liberals Hate and Despise Morality

Liberals believe that Morals should be determined by situations and NOT by any Morals that has produced great Humans and Great Societies.

Liberals believe that 'Morality' is determined by 'Motive' and since 'Motive' is Subjective (especially to a Liberal) therefore 'Morality is Subjective' to a Liberal.

This 'Moral Relativism' practiced by Liberals is NOT Rational, but rather Rationalization of actions and and is diametrically opposed to the concept that passions must be evaluated by reason and controlled by will - Plato and Aristotle called this virtue self-control.

Liberals 'Hate and Despise' any mention of 'Morals or Morality', because the underlying principle is 'Self-Control', which by definition makes Individuals 'Responsible' for decisions and subsequent actions.

Liberals believe that any decision or action they take is the Responsibility of someone else.

This is Liberalism in a 'Nut Shell' - someone else should pay for (emotionally or with currency) anything they choose to do in their lives.

Intent of the heart…

‘So once again, in what is becoming our Godless nation, we mistake the disease for the cure’. –Star Parker


Jesus compared the Pharisees to white washed sepulchers, meaning those who appeared clean on the outside, but were full of all corruption on the inside.

Law has no power over the inner man; law is for the restraint of his outward behavior. Though the Law of God comes the knowledge of sin; this is what drives a man to the Gospel. Since sin is of the heart, the laws of autonomous man will only stir up increased lawlessness.

Now with the hate crimes law, men will attempt to judge the intent of other men. The Bible tells us clearly the intent of the heart…

‘the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually’ [Genesis 6:5].

Let us properly identify the Pharisees of our day. We agree that their doctrine is ‘moral relativism and politicization of law’; this keeps them busy at making moral judgments for other people.

In rejecting the authority of Christ, they reject His moral law. At the subsequent breakdown of the culture, they are quick to impose their own morality. Using the force of arbitrary law, they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

They are vigilant to guard against child abuse while advocating for tax supported abortion, the ultimate child abuse and the license for the neglect and abuse of older children. They restrict what children may eat and drink at school while exposing them to immorality and perversion as alternative lifestyles.

Let’s be clear who they are. The moralizing, moral relativists are the anti-theists who insist on a vain philosophy as the national religion based on the religious practice of radical naturalism with its beliefs of an impersonal beginning of a world without design and therefore without purpose...


Allen
"But I will resist every effort by any religious group or its adherents to impose their religious doctrine on Americans through governmental mandate . . . " Good man! So will I. Religious dogma has absolutely no place in law. If anyone proposed a law that said that Christ was the Savior, I would oppose it, even though I believe it devoutly.

Fortunately, we aren't talking about dogma, which concerns itself entirely with the nature of God, the Scriptures, and so on. We are talking about ethics, which can be derived from many sources. Religious believers of whatever denomination have every right to have their ethics considered with the same respect, or lack of respect, as every other citizen-- no more and no less. For example, I don't think gambling casinos are a good thing for the community. Bankruptcies and virtually every form of social problem increase when a casino is put in. We don't need more families thrown out of a home and old people gambling away their pensions. My religion informs that view, but it is not a matter of dogma, but of simple decency and social utility.

My brother,
who is sa long-time contributor to the ACLU and a member of the Democratic-Socialist or maybe it's the Socialist-Labor Party, says he is against this legislation because it allows for double jeopardy.

Is it true that a local jury could find a killer innocent, but then the Feds could re-try him on a hate-crimes indictment?

I haven't seen anyone mention this in any of the posts so maybe the law was cleaned up and double jeopardy was made impossible. I thought the original hate crimes laws DID allow for the Feds to re-try the defendant.

Anybody?

Hate crimes Bill
Now Blacks nd Homosexuals have become A " PROTECTED SPECIES". Don't even think that you will come out on top in a court of law.

Ad Allen. (2)
"But I will resist every effort by any religious group or its adherents to impose their religious doctrine on Americans through governmental mandate, including any such effort by my own Christian denomination."

I'd be willing to bet that very few of those who oppose hate crimes legislation are actually guilty of this. Indeed, the very nature of hate crimes legislation is effectively a way to punish those who don't agree with, or hold to, a particular weltanschauung--one which isn't even religious in nature.

"Our Bill of Rights and our national understanding of individual liberty and equality are not based on religious doctrine, but on philosophical principles of natural law and human dignity and inherent rights that were developed in the beautiful expansion of human wisdom of the Enlightenment..."

These are some highly debatable assertions.

"...and I will not allow these principles to be gainsaid by the arbitrary, unprovable pronouncements of any faith."

So, any pronouncement of faith is automatically "arbitrary" and "unprovable"? Why? Because you say so? That sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

"My God deserves my faith, but my government and my fellow Americans deserve my reason."

First, you're creating a false dichotomy. Second, if "[your] God" can't even tell you what he(?) deserves, how is such a being anything more than a figment of your own imagination that serves to do little more than give a false sense of gravitas to your own pronouncements? Your ontology is effectively bloated: you've added God into your mix when you really have no reason to do so.

Finally, I'm not really sure if your ad hominem attacks were directed at me, or at some nameless strawmen; hence, I didn't bother to give a fuller answer to them.

HYPOCRITE
What a hypocrite. I am sure she does NOT have a problem with the original law when it included RACE, COLOR, or religion.

Ad MellorSJ2.
"Please educate me. Where, specifically, does the Constitution protect gender? Didn't the Equal Rights Amendment fail?

And where, specifically, does the Constitution protect ethnicity? If you say the XIVth, I'd say that covers gays too."

Regarding gender being constitutionally protected: I'd argue that both the 14th and 19th amendments effectively serve to categorically protect gender. Now, I'm well aware that the 19th only applies to voting. However, in the context of which it was passed, giving women the franchise was effectively protecting their rights--as individuals--to have a say in the goings on of the country. In essence, it made them equal to their male counterparts when it came to matters that would shape the society in which both would live. No longer could they be barred from the process simply because they were of the female gender.

Regarding ethnicity being constitutionally protected: I'd argue that both the 14th and the 15th amendments do so. Granted: the 15th amendment uses the term "race," but I am meaning to use the term "ethnicity" as a synonym for what the Constitution calls "race."

"And your rationale?"

My rationale on why various sexual behaviors should not necessarily be constitutionally protected would open up a larger can of worms than would be profitable to deal with at this point. However, I will say this: it is a matter of ethics on which I suspect we would have profound disagreements.

I wonder
How long will it be before they have hate speech legislation, like they do in Canada and Europe?

Mellor, @ 12:50am ...
you wrote:

"But if Star really believes what she writes, will she also campaign against enhanced sentences for killing a cop?

When she does, I'll believe her."

That statement can only be understood to mean that you disagreed Ms. Parker because you felt her position was hypocritical. Later posts were made defending your position, not clarifying any misperceptions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I may disagree with some of your personal choices (BTW,I could say the same thing about my kids and many of my friends and family), but I've always thought you to be one who came down on the side of being just. It appears today by your post at 4:17, that your pulling an Emily Latella and saying, "OH! Nevermind!"

I'm sure my opinions have as much value to you as a box of rocks, but I'm disappointed in the way you played this one today.

Tod Kozeluh
Lexington, KY

Regardless of Sexual Preference

All Legal American Citizens already have the same civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution - no amount of rationalization can or will change that.

SVARA @ 4:04p
I think it all started with the definition of sexual harrassment. As near as I can tell, the feminists wanted/want sexual harrassment to be defined by anything that makes a woman feel uncomfortable. Tell a co worker that you like her dress? Harrassment. Ask her to go for a beer after work? Harrassment.

SNL had a great skit a few years ago where anytime the dweeby guy in the office so much as asked to borrow a stapler, he got slammed with harrasment charges. But the cool guy, played by Tom Brady, Patriots QB, showed up in his underwear making over sexual comments and everything was A-okay.

Tod Kozeluh
Lexington, KY

You people can't read.
In my first post, I agreed with Ms Parker.

I also raised the possibility that "hate crime" laws and other "enhanced sentence" laws were punishing the thought or the possibility of a crime, rather than the crime itself. Not a direct criticism of Ms Parker but a suggestion that her _real_ problem is with gays.

Later, I said that hate-crime laws could be (weasel-wording selected especially because I cannot know what, if anything, is on a legislator's mind) an attempt to stifle free speech, but could not be seen as an attack on religion specifically.

If you can't read (and half of you can't write either), why are you here?

Mellor, as far as I know, ...
even the ridiculously biggoted and marginalized Fred Phelps doesn't advocate violence against gays. And even if he did, there are laws on the books against inciting violence.

Any instance of violence against anybody is already a crime. There is no other way to view the position of favoring the hate crimes bill other than someone seeking greater protection under the law.

Your position is becoming clearer with each post. It appears that you like free speech as long that speech is in agreement with yours. Your devolving sense of justice is a sad thing to witness.

Tod Kozeluh
Lexington, KY

LD35

Mellor is a fiscal conservative. He has been very open about this, as well as his homosexuality. But for homosexuality and religion, the two of you would probably agree more than you would disagree.

It appears--
It appears to me and many people I know that the current administration and one previous to that have been working on making law abiding citizens afraid to say or do anything that "might" offend someone or group. Many have stated that our freedom of speech and eventually "thought" are under full frontal attack. Many of us are not afraid and never will be. Vote these types who are trying to stifle us out of office now!!!!

You see, Mellor, it's like I said...
I'd give you more credit than that. You're as reactionary about homosexuality as those you on the religious right that you speak out agianst. How's the mud?

Tod Kozeluh
Lexington,KY

Melor 2
I have read you posts and i have to say you are lying when you say you are a Conservative. You can't pull that crap on us, kid.

The "hate crime" bs is an erosion on free speech.

William in WA @ 12:02pm
How much do you want to bet that:
1) Those "white Christian fellers" were not really following Christ, and
2) Those "white Christian fellers" were Democrats?

Tod Kozeluh
Lexington, KY

Seth writes
"Rather, it is simply her recognizance of the fact that gender, ethnicity, and religion are constitutionally protected, while sexual behavior is not"

Please educate me. Where, specifically, does the Constitution protect gender? Didn't the Equal Rights Amendment fail?

And where, specifically, does the Constitution protect ethnicity? If you say the XIVth, I'd say that covers gays too.

"--nor should it be."

And your rationale?


Well said, Allen!
"I am not a leftist by any means. I am a politically conservative Republican who is sick that my political party has been coopted by hyper-religious statists who think their personal religious beliefs ought to trump traditional American ideals of equality and liberty."

Mary writes
"Let's face it, the whole purpose of this
legislation was to silence those who have moral or religious problems with homosexuality, and to throw yet another bone to a constituency of the Democratic Party."

Let's try a Gedanken experiment. A religion, islam say, claims that a certain race, Jews say, is evil for some reason, and encourages its adherents to kill Jews. Would it be OK to silence the preachers of this hate? Would it be OK to enhance the sentences of those who followed through on that hate?

Now let's say that a bunch of bozos say the same thing. Would it be OK then?

There is no difference between these two cases. Hate-crime legislation is not an attempt to silence religious adherents. It could well be an attempt to silence those who encourage hate. You don't get a free pass if you label your hate 'moral' or 'religious.'

For extra points, work out my answers to my own questions.

FROG writes
"A criminal who demonstrates the brazenness of killing a cop, is the most dangerous of all criminals."

So being brazen is now enough for an enhanced sentence?

"Knowing that police officers carry weapons and are highly trained in their use, the wanton disregard that is displayed by the criminal who kills a cop is so egregious in nature that their punishment MUST be greater."

And now it's being stupid!

"In no way does this make the killed officer's life more valuable."

That's not how I read it. And it's certainly not how it was portrayed when these laws were passed.

"It is a recognition of the fact that the perpetrator is that much more dangerous to the rest of society."

Possibly. But then how is that not already taken into account in sentencing laws?

Want to try to take on the drug seller near a school?

ca
I believe you are bringing your own prejudices to this fight. The quote you provide to "prove" Ms. Parker thinks hate crimes "protecting" blacks are AOK proves no such thing:

"'A society in which all life is not valued the same, where murder of one citizen is not the same as the murder of another citizen, is a horror that black Americans have known too well.' (In Parker's mind, of course, if black Americans have known inequality under the law, there's no way any other group could experience the same)"

Your interpretation is very odd, and that you would infer her acceptance of, perhaps even appreciation for hate crimes legislation "protecting" blacks says more about you than it does about her.

You're right, though, she should have entitled her column "New Hate Crimes Law Is, Just as Past Hate Crimes Laws Were, a Mistake." That way NO ONE could misinterpret it. On the other hand, she would then have had to expend a couple of paragraphs describing why the old laws were bad, too.

You're assuming anyone who mentions that blacks have been victimized in the past MUST agree that hate crimes legislation will make it all better. Not.


Anne from PA et al

It is irrelevant but interesting that the term 'Hate Crime' came into being in 1984.

George Orwell somehow knew what was coming.

willie_WAWA: What you call Ret Geek's

rant is actually spot on!

Unfortunately, being the liberal you are, you just ignore the facts as they're VERY CLEAR.


Allen
If you're saying that the new hate crimes act is a civil-lawsuit-enhancement bill, yeah, I could believe that. On the other hand, how many rich people have you heard of committing "hate crimes," or anything that could be somehow found to BE "hate crimes"?

Rather I think hate crime legislation is merely an attempt to convince blacks and gays that the Dems reallyreally care about them. Who cares if it ever stops a crime or if the punishment is really any heavier than a regular (love?) crime? The Dems have PROVEN they care more than the heartless, racist, homophobic Republicans and/or conservatives, virtually all of whom would commit anti-black and anti-gay hate crimes were it not for this noble legislation.


Did America
think to ask God to turn off the lights on His way out?

I've Been Slumming
I went over to the Daily Beast to a thread on the Maine referendum on gay marriage. I had so much fun. I posted a dozen or so carefully reasoned posts on homosexuality quoting various surveys and studies and received back many times over that in insults, screeching, and exactly TWO responses that had anything to do with what I actually posted. Although I never mentioned religion, lots called me a religious bigot. Although I specifically said I didn't want homosexual behavior to be illegal, I was accused of secretly wanting it-- all sorts of accusations of what I said that had a tiny problem-- I never said them.

I thought our trolls were especially bad. I stand corrected.

Hate Crime is Thought Crime
Next we need thought police who are liberals who are sensitive to the point of clairvoyancy to determine who needs to go to jail for their thoughts, which can generally be determined by their appearance, ie; someone they don't like.

Supreme Court cases can now be determined on feelings and we can get rid of the pesky old Bill or Rights and the Constitution and the law according the United States of America, and we will be the 57 all Democrat United States of Obama.

After Watching Abortion, PP Dir. Quits!
After eight years working at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas, including two years as its director, Abby Johnson suddenly decided that she could no longer participate in abortions. What pushed Johnson out was both an ultrasound of an abortion and a renewed emphasis on the cash-generating business in the failing economy. After being told to deemphasize prevention and market for abortions, Johnson finally had enough:

According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it’s business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.

“It seemed like maybe that’s not what a lot of people were believing any more because that’s not where the money was. The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,” said Johnson.

Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions, something the Episcopalian church goer recently became convicted about. …

Johnson now supports the Coalition For Life, the pro-life group with a building down the street from Planned Parenthood. Coalition volunteers can regularly be seen praying on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood. Johnson has been meeting with the coalition’s executive director, Shawn Carney, and has prayed with volunteers outside Planned Parenthood.

The television station has video of Johnson’s interview at the link, so be sure to watch it.

What was the reaction of Planned Parenthood? They sued Johnson and the Coalition for Life and filed restraining orders against both.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/02/planned-parenthood-di rector-quits-after-watching-abortion-ultrasound/

Retired G. The area around
Salt Lake City, UT posts a higher than average number of teen-aged suicides. Also a higher than average number of registered sex offenders.

Do your statistics explain these findings?

St Denis. I believe that we are
talking about the same thing. If there is evidence of a "hate" crime as well as a murder, evidence will be produced to prove it. The original poster set it up so it could be decided by a coin toss.

My Opinion on Homosexuality

My opinion on Homosexuality is that Homosexuality is dangerous to the health and well being of the individual.

Common sexual practices among Homosexual men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population.

Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs.

In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.

It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among Homosexuals and lesbians.

This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S.

Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems.

The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.

A Homosexual tax would help defray the costs the rest of us have to pay because of their 'Chosen Lifestyle'.

This money should be escrowed to help poor families buy health insurance and life insurance which has skyrocketed because of the poor decisions made by those 'Choosing a Homosexual' lifestyle.

Is my opinion 'Hate Speech'?

Wee Willy Wonka Of WaWa
"the parts of the issue that can be labeled "hate crime" will be brought forth with evidence or not."

OK, so we are going to convict people without even evidence of a crime, eh?

"The jury will exercise its conscience."

Juries are supposed to base their decisions only on the evidence introduced; otherwise, there will be jury nullification.

Retired G. No, your issues
are not hate crimes. They are sophomoric rants. However, if you followed "I hate you because you are a homosexual" with a fist to the mouth, a different issue is present.

And if you followed me home, stating at regular intervals the same theme, I might be able to get a protective order. Against a stalker.

Tom in Texas. It is never a bad
idea to ask if conservatives believe in the law; believe in evidence; believe in the concept innocent until proven guilty.

And at least in some areas of Texas, peers must include conservatives, liberals, gays, and Christians (which label might apply to any of the peer group).

So, Tom, if the prosecutor and the defense attorney are competent, the parts of the issue that can be labeled "hate crime" will be brought forth with evidence or not. The jury will exercise its conscience. And a just answer will be rendered.


Vikings--
My Viking ancestors were correct. Why, because they were equal opportunity executioners. Too bad they aren't here anymore to "disicpline" many in our Govt.
Good column and some good posts.

Liberals Explain Hate Speech to us?

If a person says to another person "I hate you", that is NOT considered 'Hate Speech'.

If a person says to another person "I hate you because You are White", that is NOT considered 'Hate Speech'.

If a person says to another person "I hate you because You are Black", that IS considered 'Hate Speech'.

If a person says to another person "I hate you because You are Heterosexual", that is NOT considered 'Hate Speech'.

If a person says to another person "I hate you because You are Homosexual", that IS considered 'Hate Speech'.

Would you Liberals explain these 'Liberal Feelings' to the rest of us?

Barack Obama and Race

"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black? He's got a feisty wife."
Barack Obama

"They're going to try to say that I'm a risky guy, they're going to try to say, 'Well, you know, he's got a funny name and he doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills and the five dollar bills."
Barack Obama

Can it be used as a defense
If a gay fellow is on trial for killing a devout christian with anti-gay beliefs. If proved that the VICTIM was guilty of hate would a jury of peers (gay or at least liberal) acquit said gay murderer with the justification hate crime legislation?

Or would they murdering gay man be convicted of a hate crime?

Taft...

I guess he left before I finished my research but here is what he was asking for:

NAACP leader Julian Bond - Bush administration officials supported confederate slavery.

Jesse Jackson - calling New York City “Hymietown.”

Mary Frances Berry - "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them,"

Billy McKinney - In support of his daughters, Billy McKinney, re-election bid said "This is all about the Jews"

Howard Dean - "Republicans the “white party.”"

Senator Joe Biden - "You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."

Senator Hillary Clinton - Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."

Neil Rogers - "Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?"

Mike Wallace - Blacks and Hispanics are "too busy eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write."

California State Senator Diane Watson - "He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black."

Charles Barron, a New York city councilman - "I want to go up to the closest white person and say: 'You can't understand this, it's a black thing' and then slap him, just for my mental health."

Donna Brazile - (I) "will not let the white boys win in this election."

USA Today columnist Julienne Malveaux - "There's no great, white bigot; there's just about 200 million little white bigots out there."

Rev. Al Sharpton - "White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it."

Susan Sontag - "The white race is the cancer of human history."

Has anyone actually READ S.909???

S.909 Authorizes the Attorney General to:

(1) provide state, local, or tribal law enforcement agencies with technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the investigation or prosecution of violent crimes and hate crimes; and

(2) award grants to assist such agencies with the extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Authorizes the Office of Justice Programs to award grants to state, local, or tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.
Authorizes appropriations to the Department of Justice (DOJ), including the Community Relations Service, for FY2010-FY2012 to prevent and respond to hate crime acts. Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit willfully...

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s909/show

It's MORE than "thought police."

It allows for the DoJ.. the Attorney General... that would be the FED GOV. to automatically get involved in state issues!!!


Hellooooooo. More federal govt intrusion into the states!




Taft

Thanks. Have a nice day.

Georgetwin
What if the gold rush were 20 years later?

Taft asks DA:
"Well, which then, of the political leaders of the left, promote Wedge issues"? Not your interpretation but as a hard cold fact."
-----

Sorry to butt in, but that's an easy one.

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton & Louis Farrakhan - to name just three.

Libs Voted Black Man -Cons Vote Best Man
Taft offers, " Also, being something different, would give one occasion to bring it up, perhaps, like Palin, as a woman, bringing up regularly femininity. The talk about being a soccer mom, etc"

Now, you are being silly. Being a soccer mom is not an accident of birth. Palin was not whining about a birth mark. Being a soccer mom was a life choice that she bragged about.

So, what does that have to do with Obama bringing up his race/color as a point of contention that would be introduced by his opponents? Read any of his stump speeches. Read his Berlin speech. All included gatuitus invented attacks on his color.

He ran on race. Over 90% of blacks voted for him. Nearly every person that voted for him, sees an attack on Obama as an attack on his race - no matter the topic. So, which side is counting? Which side voted by color?

St. D
I'm running out of time, but your posts have been very good today, (not saying I agree necessarily), thanks. Have a nice day all.

RichD in PA. See yourself slipping
down a slope there. You are getting into a spot by imagining a relationship which may belong to you but not to a gay quarterback.

Larstella brought that up just because it is a bit of a wedge. Conservatives go off on a story of their own and do not ask Larstella for evidence.

But she did get in her favorite card. The "no prayer in school" bit. She forgets every time that anyone can pray in any school. But no one can be required to say the prayer that Larstella wrote.

Taft is Correct
I misattributed the Tyler quote to you. My apologies.

Tyler, you ol' overachiever! Three lies in one sentence.

Rich D.
Every team except the 49ers ;)!

Taft

Believe it or not, but the percentage on whether the US has moved to a post-racial environment are about the same as they were 40 years ago. The only difference is that Archie Bunker is black. In fact, polls have shown that blacks believe that America is even more racially polarized than before Obama was elected, a feat that he could not have done without white voters.

A homosexual quarterback?
He'd have trouble finding a willing center.

;-)

To Liberals, The King Obama Has Clothes
Taft offers, "Don't you think, when Fox's biggest star, Beck, says he believes Obama has a "deep seated hatred for white people",

Beck is not FOX's biggest star. Try not to make your argument more factual by distorting your truths. It tends to lessen your credibility.

Separately, it is my understanding that Beck did not blurt this out without a line of logic that lead him to the conclusion -- that he shared, and you have conveniently omitted. Your line of argument that it is divisive to recognize hate or racism, seems a bit absurd, expecially coming from a guy that is trying to make the case that FOX is the culprit.

You Liberals see Obama as this fine King with flowing regal robes. We Conservatives see a blantant purveyor of naked hate and racism. I can see why you guys want us marginalized.

MM
I don't recall Obama injecting his race in so many, or most, of his campaign speeches. Maybe I didn't notice and I'm not going to spend hours to check on it. Could you name one of them though, the date, so I can see what you mean? Also, being something different, would give one occasion to bring it up, perhaps, like Palin, as a woman, bringing up regularly femininity. The talk about being a soccer mom, etc...

PURE AND SIMPLE


Wake up people! The issue is not about hate crimes it’s about thought control. Just how would a jury determine if a crime was motivated by hate? A crime is a crime, a victim is a victim and a perpetrator is a perpetrator. Any differences that exist between the victim and perpetrator are irrelevant.

Taft

I guess it depends on one's definition of "honorable" doesn't it?

Did I lie about your occupation? Or that the frequency of your presence here would rightly demonstrate that your employment is irregular?

Did I lie about your history of broad generalizations?

Are you not a proud liberal?


You then provide quotes without citing your source.

Could it be because the source is of questionable repute - perhaps Wikipedia, the MSM or a liberal blog?

I'm sorry if, in your view, my behavior toward the liberal trolls who infest Townhall has become more abrupt. But since the coronati.... er, inauguration of Obama, I have never felt more worry and concern for my country, and I grow weary of dispelling the straw man arguments and deflections that prevent any meaningful debate on the substance of the articles.

As to childishness, a random sampling of the usual leftist contributions on Townhall will demonstrate that I am merely fighting fire with like-fire.

Go Cavs!

Good Point! 10:38

Would a 'Cat Fight' between Gays be a Hate Crime?

It could be argued that Gays commit Hate Crimes against each other on a regular basis.

Obama, Race-Baiter In Cheif
Taft asks, "Well, which then, of the political leaders of the left, promote Wedge issues"?

Let's start with your Leader, President Obama. In every major speech that he delivered, Obama injected his race as a point of contention that would be leveled against him. Of course, none of his opponents in the primaries are the general election ever mentioned his color.

Heck, that didn't stop Obama from using race as a prop to invent an imaginary argument. Even in his Berlin speech, Obama managed to bring his race up as something that imaginary others would attack. Again, it never happened, but to haters, accusation is more powerful than fact.

Like all Liberals, Obama is just another hater, that exploits race and hate for votes. It worked. Liberals thrive on hate and race. Combined, Liberals are at their nirvanna.

MM
Don't you think, when Fox's biggest star, Beck, says he believes Obama has a "deep seated hatred for white people", it is creating a "wedge" between the races? Many people take his views to heart. Why is it too, that Obama gets 400% more death threats than Bush ever did?

AMEN
And AMEN again.

Akagi
I appreciate how consistent you are even though I often disagree with you:

"New hate crime...
All hate crime laws are a mistake, new or old."

Inventing Truths Is Not Helpful
Taft offers, "Here is an example of why I think Fox News promotes racism."

You point to an opinion article by an unkown third party as the basis of your opinion???

You sound like a 3rd grader, "(Taft) beleives this because ... everybody says so!" Grow up.

Take some ownership of your ignorance. Just say that you don't like fox because they tend to hurt your feelings.

Wee Willy Wonka Of WaWa

Don't be such a soshokukei danshi!

BAB
Too true, I am a bad speller, but the quote you gave, wasn't one of mine.

Polly - #2
Just look at Parker's title:
"New hate crimes law is a mistake"

Not "Hate Crimes Law is a Mistake" but "NEW Hate Crimes Law..."

She is perfectly happy with the one that puts her in a special class because of her skin color and religious choice.

Taft
"GOP: If you hate gays, minorities, liberals, hate all you want, and if you committ a crime at the same time, we support you." Three lies and a misspelling in one sentence. Taft, you ol' overachiever you!

DS
Well, which then, of the political leaders of the left, promote Wedge issues"? Not your interpretation but as a hard cold fact.

Polly
"I suspect Ms. Parker disapproves of hate-crimes laws that "protect" blacks, too. She's principled."

Really? I didn't get that at all from this column. I certainly think there are valid reasons to disapprove (and reverse) all hate crime laws, but from the following quotes, I think Parker makes it clear she is against hate crime laws for some groups but perfectly fine with it for others. She is a hypocrite.

Parker: "A society in which all life is not valued the same, where murder of one citizen is not the same as the murder of another citizen, is a horror that black Americans have known too well." (In Parker's mind, of course, if black Americans have known inequality under the law, there's no way any other group could experience the same)

"It should be clear that hate crime law has nothing to do with improving our law but rather with creating favored political classes. It is something that should be hateful to everyone who cares about a free society, and particularly hateful to those, such as blacks, who have been victimized by politicization of law." (again, blacks are a totaly justified class that should be offended that there are other classes that could be victimized)

I suppose it is possible Parker is against all hate crime laws but she certainly doesn't go out of her way to promote that idea.



Larstella Irby was 12 years old
when white Christian fellers were blowing up churches in which there were black children; when white Christian fellers were wrapping young Northerners in chains and dropping them into a backwater grave.

And a referee might determine that the line backer hated the quarterback for being homosexual rather than because he wore the Minnesota uniform because he yelled "effing gay custard" instead of the customary sob when linebacker shoulder meets qbs belly.

Racism Is A Denizen Of The Liberal Left
Taft offers, "... Don't you think a wedge occurs when Fox News and Rush openly promote racism?"

Of course, but then, they would be called Liberals, not Conservatives. Conservatives do not isolate, categorize, quantify, measure or count races, Liberals do that. Racism is at home in Liberal land.

Liberals have tried to co-opt racism as those that do not measure performance or quality by race.

So, if you are looking for race wedges, check out the View, Mathews, Olbermann and other famous Lefties. Their racism and hate is rampant is so rampant that they wear it proudly. It just does not happen on Consevative radio or TV.

Call it what it is
Thought Crimes.

Brought to you by your buddies at the Anti-Degamation League
http://www.adl.org/combating_hate/

Taft...
Ailes is not Fox News, they can and do think for themselves, he has nothing to do with Rush. If you want to do comparisons about the lefts comments on race and the rights then we can do that. It is however, self defeating as a nation, we should concentrate on everyone being Americans and not hyphenated Americans. Your comments are deflective of the real issue.

Judith
Your welcome!

Taft
Thanks for your response. From most people's perspective, defining it is pretty darn hard.


Primus
At one point I considered you honorable.

I'm always open to opposing vies, or to being wrong, just calling me a liar, or insulting me, is childish.

Here is an example of why I think Fox News promotes racism.


"Before being tapped by Rupert Murdoch to create Fox News in 1996, Ailes spent the better part of his career working as a Republican media consultant, during which time he became known for appealing to racial fears and biases for political gain. Examples include:

· As Nixon campaign consultant, Ailes reportedly looked for a "Wallaceite cab-driver" to bring up race at televised town hall meetings.

· Ailes on 1988 strategy against Dukakis: "The only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it."

· Ailes' 1989 attacks on Dinkins for Giuliani "prey[ed] upon the fears of the Jewish community."

Looking at it philsophically,
exactly how does one define a "hate crime". What some liberal on the west coast thinks it is may be entirely different from a conservative in Colorado. Is BO trying to muzzle us?

I don't know what the board thinks but I am so sick of this pathetic piece of protoplasm that, that, that...oh dear, I am about to commit a hate crime.

Judith
I don't agree with a hate crime bill.


Taft "opines":
"Don't you think a wedge occurs when Fox News and Rush openly promote racism?"
-----

Once again - and for what seems like the thousandth time - Taft plops out a generalization totally unsubstantiated by references or links and are little more than "conclusions" provided him from the usual lying, out-of-context enemies of conservatism.

Taft has no "first-hand" knowledge of that which he spews. It is clear that he neither listens to Rush nor watches Fox News with any regularity.

What is REALLY scary is that "Taft" is a California public school teacher.

Fortunately, he is a "substitute" teacher who cannot affect his students long-term.

He also doesn't seem to work much.

A misunderstanding
Polly,

If you read my first post, you know that I believe that some people oppose hate crimes on the misplaced belief that they are akin to affirmative action, which has nothing to do with homophobia.

There does seem to be a misunderstanding by some here, such as happy jake, as to the nature and scope of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection vis-a-vis crime victims. The criminal action is a vindication of hte state's interest in deterring and punishing crime. It actually has nothing to do with vindicating the personal interest of the victim.

Crime victims' rights to equal protection lies in a civil action against the criminal, in which the victim may recover a judgment for all provable damages resulting from the criminal act, although collecting on such judgments is often sadly impossible. Provable damages vary from victim to victim, but this is not discrimination, it is reality. A man who is injured such that he cannot continue to work at his $100,000 a year job will receive more damages than a man who cannot continue to work at a $25,000 job, who will recover more damages than a man who does not work.

On the other hand, the state has a legitimate interest in two things which justify hate crmes enhancements: 1. making the penalty stiffer because there are more victims; and 2. making the penalty stiffer against crimes which chill the exercise of fundamental rights and participation in free society. Initially, hate crimes legislation was also designed to allow federal prosecution of criminals whose crimes would go unpunished due to a consonance of prejudice between the criminals and the local law enforcement and prosecutors, but this phenomenon has faded substantially due to the ability of modern media and especially the internet to nationalize local issues almost immediately.

GOP: Hate is ok
GOP: If you hate gays, minorities, liberals, hate all you want, and if you committ a crime at the same time, we support you.

New hate crime...
All hate crime laws are a mistake, new or old.


Taft
So you're saying that sneaking a hate crime bill in with something that will pass is ok? Exactly where will you come to the end of your rope with BO?

I don't expend much hatred on anyone or anything as it isn't worth the time or effort. Answering your post is one of those moments. But I really want to know just how far liberals will go in reaming America which was just fine before liberals started their rampage.


Allen Still Wrong pt2
It is so nice to meet yet another self-professed conservative who speaks and sounds like a liberal. Why is it that almost every liberal troll who comes here claims to be a conservative or Republican who is just sick at heart over what has happened to the party they love?

If you liberals think that making such a claim lends credence to your position you couldn’t be more wrong. We recognize you for what you are and treat you accordingly.

My recollection is that the policy makers have repeatedly violated the Constitution by taking over private industry and the courts have violated the Constitution and common sense by saying that it is ok to kill unborn babies and to take private property in order to build a Wal-Mart. Hardly people that I would consider reliable sources for what is correct and what isn’t.

So read this and try to understand. It is illegal to murder, rape, assault, or otherwise harm another human being no matter what your race or sexual orientation. Making the punishment for committing those crimes against someone based on their race or sexual orientation is prejudice not the other way around.

As long as you call Star a homophobe I will call you a racist.