posted on May 3, 2007 10:14:59 AM new
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
May 03, 2007
(1st Add: Includes comments from Focus on the Family and Reps. John Conyers and Lamar Smith.)
(CNSNews.com) -
[b]President Bush has promised to veto a "hate crimes" bill under debate in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday if it is approved by
Congress[/b].
Conservatives quickly responded by thanking the president for upholding "our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law."
"The administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion or national origin," according to a statement released Wednesday by the White House.
"However, the administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable," the release stated. "If H.R. 1592 were presented to the president, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
"State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new federal crime defined in section 7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties (including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed language in H.R. 1592," the statement said.
In addition, "state and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively."
"There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government," the office said.
"In addition, almost every state in the country can actively prosecute hate crimes under the state's own hate crimes law."
Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues with the conservative group Concerned Women for America, was quick to praise the statement and Bush's intention to veto the bill.
"We thank President Bush for honoring our nation's constitutional tradition of equal protection under the law," said Barber in a statement.
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson also welcomed the president's undertaking.
"We applaud the president's courage in standing up for the constitution and the principle of equal protection under the law," he said in a statement.
"The American justice system should never create second-class victims and it is a first-class act of wisdom and fairness for the president to pledge to veto this unnecessary bill."
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, the House is debating the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 1592), which would "provide federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes" involving "actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability."
The bill was first introduced on March 20 by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.).
He told the House Thursday that "there are no First Amendment disabilities about this measure in any way. As a personal advocate of the First Amendment I can assure you that that would be the last thing that would be allowed to be in this bill."
Conyers said a vote for the bill would not be "a vote in favor of any particular sexual belief or characteristic.
It's a vote, rather, to provide basic rights and protections for individuals so they are protected from assaults based on their sexual orientation."
Of reported hate crimes, Conyers told the House, 54 percent are based on race, 17 on "religious bias" and 14 percent on "sexual orientation bias."
Opposing the measure, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the bill would result in disproportionate justice for victims of certain crimes.
"All violent crimes must be vigorously prosecuted. However this bill, no matter how well intended, undermines basic principles of our criminal justice system. Under this bill justice will no longer be equal but depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim," he said.
"For example, criminals who kill a homosexual or a transsexual will be punished more harshly than criminals who kill a police officer, members of the military, a child, a senior citizen or any other person."
Smith also voiced concern that the measure would have a "chilling effect" on religious leaders and groups "who express their constitutionally protected beliefs."
He also argued that it was unconstitutional and would likely be struck down by the courts.
Other classes would be without special status
According to the White House release, "H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim's race, color, religion or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.
"The administration notes that the bill would leave other classes (such as the elderly, members of the military, police officers and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status," the release said. "The administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly."
Also, the bill "raises constitutional concerns" because "federalization of criminal law concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power granted to the federal government, such as the power to protect federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce or to enforce equal protection of the laws," the statement said.
Therefore, "it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592," the release added.
posted on May 3, 2007 02:12:07 PM new
Total hypocrite. She doesn't think freedom of speech applies when hate speech is involved but now she is in favor of not passing a law that provides protection from hate crimes. So you can't use hate speech but you can use hate as a factor when you commit a crime. That makes a lot of sense
If you are as religious as you claim, you would be for passage of this bill. After all Jesus taught that it was not good to hate people.
As far as this proposed federal law duplicating state hate crime laws: Today there are more than three thousand federal crimes on the books. Hardly any crime, no matter how local in nature, is beyond the jurisdiction of federal law enforcement authorities. Federal crimes now range from serious but purely local offenses such as car jacking and church burning to trivial matters such as disrupting a rodeo or damaging a livestock facility. In 1994, one crime bill alone created two dozen new federal offenses.
As you can see there have been more and more federal laws that have duplicated state laws but no one seemed to matter then.
The task force found several reasons why the federalization of crime has taken place. Because crime, particularly violent or street crime, concerns virtually every citizen, congressional candidates and officeholders find such legislation politically popular. Likewise, Congress frequently criminalizes crimes after notorious incidents that have received extensive media attention. This type of “feel-good” legislation often causes the public to feel that “something is being done” and creates the illusion of greater crime control.
Once a new crime statute is introduced, it is often considered politically unwise to vote against it even if it is misguided, unnecessary, and even harmful. No politician wants to be accused by an opponent as being “soft on crime.”
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 3, 2007 03:54:44 PM new
Linda states, I'm sure as an atheists you'd never be willing to post what I said IN FULL. Of course not.
Of course I will, Linda. You should know that I don't refer to statements that I can't back up.
Linda_K
posted on September 15, 2001 05:29:45 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where to start?
"I believe I am a Christian. I accepted Christ into my life at a very young age. I do not attend church nor identify with any organized religion. I believe I have a personal relationship with my God."
"I call my 'God' "heavenly father"." "I agree with simco, my heavenly father is a loving God, not a vengeful one. I am always surprised when I hear people question why God did this or that, or allowed this or that to happen. I have never question HIS love this way."
"I believe when the day of reckoning comes, my heavenly father will not tell anyone they worshiped the 'wrong God'. (ie: another religions God.) It will be our 'intent' that will matter. How hard we tried to live a decent life."
posted on May 3, 2007 04:18:24 PM new
But I will add, helen, that AS an atheist you're probably the QUEEN of the RT for quoting BIBLE VERSES...when trying to bash Christians about how you don't see their behavior as being at all Christian.
LD's CLAIMS to be a Christian too. Least he did at one time.
His vile, vulgar hatefilled posts sure don't allow me to agree with him though.
NOW, helen....would you CARE to address the topic issue????
posted on May 3, 2007 04:23:32 PM new
I made no attempt to bash Christians. I simply was surprised that you objected so vociferously to Logansdad's statement that you claim to be religious.
From my viewpoint you have claimed to be religious.
I did copy the entire statement as anyone can see by using the link. Actually I was pleasantly surprised at your unusually thoughtful statement in conclusion.
Your thoughtful statement...."I believe when the day of reckoning comes, my heavenly father will not tell anyone they worshiped the 'wrong God'. (ie: another religions God.) It will be our 'intent' that will matter. How hard we tried to live a decent life."
posted on May 3, 2007 04:36:18 PM new
Where your DISHONESTY and lack of intergity comes into play helen....is in that you only post ONE thread of probably hundreds we've had discussing religion.
But I do notice that you NEVER attack/confront those who also say THEY are Christians....when they're lefties.
And as far as bashing Christians....oh you have many times. Don't lie about that too.
Imo, how YOU form your opinions/views is because I DO support our constitutional rights to practice any religion FREELY. And you can't handle that.
Imo, you also can't handle that when the liberal left tries to SILENCE free speech, by calling it 'hate speech', it infringes on the const. rights of other Americans.
But that's okay with you because you are an atheist and have no care that the rights of the religious ARE being trampled upon by groups like the aclu/etc/ who constantly work to take those freedoms away.
Because I strongly support their religious freedoms....you make FALSE ASSUMPTIONS.
Twist everything around.
And you can't deny that YOU'VE certainly posted MORE BIBLE verses here than an Christian ever has.
posted on May 3, 2007 06:00:06 PM new
Now, kiara or helen....maybe AFTER some here have read kiara's link. ....you'd like to ALSO shared the link where our CONFUSED KD says that SHE believes SHE IS GOD.
I thought that was a fantastic change of the 'god' KD believes in - it's like a LIVING position lol.
[like the living, EVER CHANGING constitution the libs so support]
posted on May 3, 2007 08:38:32 PM new
I stand by my claim. It would appear Linda is not the Christian she claims she is.
How can you justify being against hate speech but then be for a bill that does not protect hate crimes? You are a total hypocrite.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 3, 2007 08:45:09 PM newLD's CLAIMS to be a Christian too. Least he did at one time.
His vile, vulgar hatefilled posts sure don't allow me to agree with him though
Get off your Christian high horse Linda. You are just as vile and vulgar as any other poster on this boards. Your total disdan for anyone that does not share your values and views and beliefs is down right sickening. You are not an example of what a Christian is. If you were alive in Jesus' time you would be in the group that would be calling for his crucifiction.
Furthermore, you are the one that constantly is bring up your morals and how "right" they are compared to the rest of society. It is not me that is claiming to be the moral one.
Your anger over this post is PROOF that you are hypocrite over what you post and believe in. You have been caught in your lies once again.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 3, 2007 10:34:49 PM new
Again, ld, you prove to all that you can't tell the difference between being sarcastic and vile/vulgar/hateful/LIAR.
I am none of those...but you are.
Not willing to admit you've said on these threads you're a Christian????
figures.
But clean up your own house before you worry about mine.
And I'm all for freedom of speech....which this bill will NOT allow to continue.
I am THANKFUL we have a moral man in the WH who can see that and also doesn't wish to restrict speech. Let each state do what they want/what their own value systems call for. NOT on a federal level.
NOT increasing MORE BIG BROTHER type of laws.
You'll never limit my free speech. IF calling you a liar, and a very vulgar person is hate speech....which I don't think it is....but if that law were to pass...I'd fight it all the way to the USSC.
Because YOU don't like something that is said....is YOUR problem.
Your group is NOT any more 'special' than any other American citizen. Although I know gays think differently than that. You're WRONG.
And all your 'rights' are already protected by already establised laws.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on May 4, 2007 05:23:51 AM newAgain, ld, you prove to all that you can't tell the difference between being sarcastic and vile/vulgar/hateful/LIAR.
Shut up Linda. No matter what anyone says on this board, you TWIST their words, you believe what you want to believe, and you give your own meanings to words. You posts are just as vile and vulgar as others. Continue to believe you are an angel, but you are from being the model Christian that you claim to be.
I am THANKFUL we have a moral man in the WH who can see that and also doesn't wish to restrict speech.
I doubt many people claim Bush is a moral man. Men with moral look at the intelligence before going to war. They do not use spotty intelligence as justification to start a war.
Let each state do what they want/what their own value systems call for. NOT on a federal level. NOT increasing MORE BIG BROTHER type of laws.
That hasn't stopped the government before when they have created laws that HAVE DUPLICATED WHAT THE STATES PROVIDE.
You're against this law because it provides "protection" to a class of people you do not like. Your homophobia is showing again. You will be going to hell for your Anti-Christian ways.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 4, 2007 08:03:34 AM new
I'm 100% against "hate speech" because it is the left wing bs of you can only ban "bad stuff" and then supplies the accompanying twit to define "bad".
The imbecility of "hate crimes" is that we have to now make killing a gay guy, for example, "special" after spending a couple hundred years doing the "justice for all" schtick.
It just another left wing, "pander to everyone" and speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time issue.
posted on May 4, 2007 08:56:09 AM new
Boy the liberal "shut up" crowd is increasing.
Just goes to show how VERY tolerant of opposing positions/opinions they REALLY are. LOL LOL LOL
ld said: "Continue to believe you are an angel, but you are from being the model Christian that you claim to be."
See...proof positive that you can't READ nor comprehend the written word. tsk tsk tsk
Never claimed to be an angel.....never claimed to be a 'model' Christian.
That's why I asked YOU, not helen to give us examples of me ever claiming any such nonsense...because I KNEW you couldn't.
What I HAVE ACTUALLY claimed for those that CAN read and comprehend is QUITE the opposite.
I would NEVER expect YOU to 'get' [comprehend truth] that though. tsk tsk
Oh...and on your "You will be going to hell for your Anti-Christian ways."
Are you so delusional now that you're beginning to think you're Christ....and that come judgement day, YOU will be deciding who enters Heaven and who doesn't????
CLUE PHONE is ringing for you ld:
You're NOT.
=========
Agreed all this bill is - is payback to another of the lefts special interest groups.
posted on May 4, 2007 12:12:25 PM new
And for the FWIW file:
The House passed 237-180 a bill that would expand federal "hate-crimes" legislation to include acts of violence motivated by sexual disorientation and gender bias. A similar bill was offered by Teddy Kennedy (D-Chappaquiddick) in the Senate.
Homosexual-rights activists and liberals across the board have been calling for this type of legislation for years because they believe their very way of life is under attack in America. However, FBI crime statistics reveal that of the 862,947 "hate crimes" committed in 2005, only 177 were motivated by the victim's sexual disorientation.
President Bush has vowed to veto the legislation, because it treats one class of crime victims differently from others:
"The administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly."
The only thing this bill is likely to accomplish is legalizing liberals belief that a homosexual victim is the most important kind.
If you don't believe they could be so callous, consider these amendments that were introduced to add pregnant women, members of the military, babies in the womb and senior citizens to those classes of people who are protected under "hate-crime" legislation.
Each and every one of those amendments was defeated by the Demo majority.
posted on May 4, 2007 03:20:43 PM newAre you so delusional now that you're beginning to think you're Christ....and that come judgment day, YOU will be deciding who enters Heaven and who doesn't????
It will not be me that decides who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, but keep your evil and hateful ways and you will spending eternity with Dahmer, Bundy and the rest of the serial killers
President Bush has vowed to veto the legislation, because it treats one class of crime victims differently from others
Just another excuse by Bush to show how he is soft on crime.
However, FBI crime statistics reveal that of the 862,947 "hate crimes" committed in 2005, only 177 were motivated by the victim's sexual disorientation.
So then how in the world would this bill protect a special class anyway when so few of the hate crimes are based on s/o. But again you fail to see the big picture in your disorientated world. There were over 860,00 hate crimes in the country and you want to do nothing to protect them. You don't want the bill because of the protection it gives to 177 that were victims because of their sexual orientation.
As I stated before you rather outlaw "free speech" because of hate - WHICH DOES NOT HARM ANYONE. But you are against a bill that protects people from a hate crime.
This is pathetic Linda. It shows how screwed up your priorities are.
I suppose if the bill made killing active military men/women when they are not in combat a hate crime, you would have no problem with this bill.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on May 5, 2007 06:23:08 AM newYou're a total WASTE of time to respond to.
But you keep responding anyway. So who is the bigger fool.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
Of course not.