This evening on the Savage Nation, a New York Representative named Steve Israel wrote a Statement condemning Conservative Talk Show Hosts for Supposedly Politicizing the Swine Flu Pandemic.
Steve Israel claims that Conservative Talk Shows, like Savage, are blaming the Illegals for the Spread of the Swine Flu From Mexico. Rightly So...it's common sense. But according to Mr Israel what the Conservative Talk Shows are doing is the Reason why the House just voted on the Hate Crime Legislation. Mr. Israel is under the impression that the Hate Crimes Bill will Restrict Talks Shows from bringing up the Fact that the Flu that Began in Mexico is being Spread by infected Illegals crossing the Border. So just stating that Fact would be Considered a Crime after the Hate Crime Legislation is passed, according to Steve Israel. Also if someone would have gone out and Killed an Illegal then claimed that Savage said it was the Illegals helping to spread the Flu...then Savage would be Prosecuted as an accessory...This is nuts.
Laws are to Punish crimes, Murder is Murder...the reason for the Murder is called a Motive... if the Prosecutor can Prove Means, Motive and Opportunity beyond a reasonable Doubt, then there is a Conviction. But this Hate Crime Legislation turns Motive alone into a Crime, even if a Crime hasn't been committed...yet. Just suggesting something that someone may consider Hateful..will possibly be a Crime.
This Bill would also be able to prosecute Pastors for Preaching against Homo-Sexuality If a Crime is committed that can be linked back to their Teachings. In England there is similar Legislation. A Mother ,who's Son was Gay, was Fined after She had an argument with her Son over His sexual Preference. That was considered a Crime.....an Argument.
In a Free Country we are NOT going to like everything we hear. To create a Group or Groups that No One can Criticize without Possible Prosecution creates a Protected Class...and Goes against the First Amendment.
This Bill will probably be passed........since Congress is essentially a One Party Power.
So after it passes watch what you say......about anyone.
Because there is a Good chance you could get Fined...Or Jailed....
For Your Free Speech.....
To Read an Article On this Go To:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96595
.
11 comments:
Well, Patches, I've got to say that I'm impressed. It isn't that often that I get to read something that can manage to be that wrong about so much, from one end to the other. It's awe-inspiring. I'm not sure whether you're spreading the usual lies, or that pig-headedly ignorant on that many subjects, but you could fertilize an entire acre of ground with that post.
I hardly know where to start. I guess we could begin with saying that listening to Savage Nation is something like allowing your brain to be molested by a rabid gorilla, but since you're allowed to listen to whatever ignorant bile you want (that whole "free speech" thing), I think that we should move on.
You can calm down about "illegals are spreading the Swine Flu!" The first identified cases of swine flu weren't illegal aliens, but college kids coming back from Spring Break. What should we do, have a Collegiate Interdiction Squad patroling the border?
(Plus, current indications are that this particular strain isn't as virulent as people have been fearing. I'll assume that you are aware that we lose over thirty thousand people every year to ordinary flu, right?)
You also manage to completely misrepresent the truth about the current round of hate crime legislation. (OK, Steve Israel specifically lied about it, but you spread the lie, so you're equally culpable.)
Let's just go straight to the original legislation for that, OK?
(d) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness...
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the Constitution.So, while we appreciate your efforts to spread your opinion, overall, I think that we can safely say that your post made the baby Jesus cry.
Try to do better from now on, OK?
hahaha..nameless synic this is well written..I applaud you.
Anyway, as you have read in the post, it quotes Savage and what the Article in WND claims about the Legislation. I should have been more clear on that fact, I apologize.
But your Example supports me Just fine...the Section that reads-
evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial,unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.
You Proved my point for me..Thanks
It Means that it can't be introduced..UNLESS IT RELATES TO THE OFFENSE. So if someone Expressed that Homo Sexuality is Wrong and God Hates it ....and then someone Else does Harm to a Homo Sexual..then says he heard this Preacher say Homo-Sexuality was hateful to God..and That is why he did it.....woa.I guess that RELATES TO THE OFFENSE...So I Guess the Preacher Gets charged...According to YOUR QUOTE. Thanks..Nice Work.
I personally could care less who wants to marry who...none of my business. But when did we need a law that punishes someone for what they Think or Say?
If a man is Murdered, he is Dead. Doesn't matter why he was Killed, just the fact that he was Killed and a Law was Broken is important. Why do we need a Law that punishes someone more if they Kill a Gay Man over a Straight Man?
If the Laws for Murder are not Severe Enough should we not just increase the Punishment for All? Are we All Not equal? Is that not What gay Marriage is about? To Have the SAME Rights as everyone else...Not SPECIAL RIGHTS?
As far as the Swine Flu, the Difference between this Swine Flu and the normal Flu is that the Deaths that Occur from the normal Flu are caused by Complications, Like Dehydration..... And it usually occurs in Old People, Sickly People, or the very young.
The Swine Flu is Killing People not From Complications, but From Fast acting pneunomia. It is also Killing Healthy Young Adults and Adults. Very Similar to the 1917-18 Pandemic...that Killed 40 Million. I work in a Hospital..IF I told you everything they are telling me....you wouldn't leave your House. YOU AREN'T HEARING EVERYTHING...You are hearing what they want you To Believe...nice to see it's working on you.
As far as the Illegals...to say that Infected People from Mexico that are Coming Across the Border..without being Checked are NOT spreading the Flu is a BIG STRETCH. Of Course they are Helping to Spread the Flu....It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to See that...hell I have one Eye and I can See that.
12 Million Illegals didn't get here with a Visa..so Yes Seal the Border...Send them Home..make them stand in Line. It has been done before...look it up. The Name of that operation that took place had an unfortunate name..they called it operation WetBack. I kid you not...the Government Did it Before..they can Do it again.(Not the Name)
I usually am Blogging late at night...the only thing on the radio that late is Savage..the Left Wing Radio Hosts are non-existant. Who am I to Listen Too..? I can't hardly Stand any one else on the Radio..except Dave Glover.....but that is a Local Show...and it's not Political.
Cynic..If you start a Talk Show on Blogtalkradio..then I could Listen to you..and not Savage..then Maybe I could get some more Info..for my Research..You Have been Very Helpful.
Oh Like you Blog...btw..if Texas Leaves the union..No Bush can't come.
I love a Good Challange...Give me one next time.
Oy.
OK, one step at a time.
So if someone Expressed that Homo Sexuality is Wrong and God Hates it ....and then someone Else does Harm to a Homo Sexual..then says he heard this Preacher say Homo-Sexuality was hateful to God..and That is why he did it.....woa.I guess that RELATES TO THE OFFENSE...So I Guess the Preacher Gets charged...Not quite the way it works, I'm afraid. I know you probably don't support the ACLU, but they're big fans of Free Speech, and they've been able to support this legislation because it has a provision that specifically blocks evidence of speech and association that are not directly related to the crime.
On top of which, unless your hypothetical priest had said, "God wants you to go out and kill fags," it would really be difficult to prove culpability. Trust me on this one. If this wasn't one of the cornerstones of American jurisprudence, Hannity and Limbaugh would have been in prison years ago. (Particularly after the Church Gunman case a few months back.) You're wetting your pants over nothing.
This legislation doesn't make a specific, gay-only crime. Any stupid bigotry that drives idiots like the KKK is also covered. It's an attempt to combat the groups who decide that they are allowed to maim and kill based on ideological or ethnic differences. You know, to prevent fascists like Hitler, not to become like him.
Next piece of bad news: I also work in a hospital. I work, in fact, in the same suite as our epidemiologist. And no, the experts aren't panicking over this - the problem is the pinheads in the 24-hour news cycle, trying to make out as if this is the worst possible tragedy ever!!!
Look, if you're really worried about it, stay out of crowds, and wear a mask when you ride the bus. (You don't have to, incidentally. It's not airborne - the only danger is if somebody coughs in your face. The droplets only travel about 3-5 feet, and if you don't get them on your mucus membranes, they die off pretty quickly.)
What's the latest count? 20 dead worldwide? Unless you ask the Mexican government, anyway. (The WHO has already refuted the Mexican stats.)
.Send them Home..make them stand in Line. It has been done before...look it up. The Name of that operation that took place had an unfortunate name..they called it operation WetBack. I kid you not...the Government Did it Before..they can Do it again.Yeah. Operation Wetback worked so well, didn't it? Eisenhower should be so proud that he completely ended the illegal immigration of Mexicans... oh, wait...
The way to stop illegal immigration is not to attack the immigrants - it's to fine the people who hire them. If the companies get hit with strong enough fines every time their HR department brings in somebody with fake (or no) identification, they'll stop getting hired. When the pond dries up, the fish swim elsewhere.
Bush wasn't willing to do that, because he never met a mega-corporation that he didn't love. Maybe Obama will be more reasonable on the subject.
BTW, as much as I appreciate the suggestion that I start a show on blogtalkradio (and trust me, I have a face suited to radio), I don't see that happening in the near future. I have barely enough time to surf the net and annoy people with little doses of reality.
Cynic I appreciate your persistance and your Debate Format..it is refreshing. I'll Keep my sarcasim to a Minimum.
Let's Assume what you say is True about this piece of Legislation, The Fact that it is Unecessary is Obvious. Murder...Is Illegal. I have not Seen a Law that allows Anyone to go Killing Anyone Else Based upon ANYTHING(Except Self Defense but that is not considered Murder). There is no Law that says it's Ok to Kill Jews, Gays, Christians, or anyone else for that matter. So then Why is this Piece of Legislation Neccesary? We have laws that will stop someone like Hitler since Murder has already been made illegal....this legislation is attempting to make Motive or Thought/Belief a Crime along with the Act itself. Are we Not Allowed to hate/disagree with anyone we wish? This Law does not create Equality under the Law, it creates a Special Protected Class based on Thought.
As far as Hannity and Rush..Whoopee....I don't listen to either ...
There are Laws in Canada and England that are Very Similar. A woman just got fined in England for cussing out her Gay Son because she doesn't like his lifestyle. Gee..they said that law didn't quell Free Speech either...guess they were wrong.
The ACLU was started in the 1920s by Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman. Earl Browder was general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States from 1930 through its dissolution in 1944. When the party was reconstituted as the Communist Political Association later that year, Browder was chosen as its president. Browder proudly proclaimed that the ACLU functioned as "a transmission belt" for the party.
Sorry the ACLU is Communist in Nature and therefore Can not be Trusted to Protect anything Free...including Speech.
Good for you, you are apart of the Medical Field. Yes the Media is reporting a few inaccuraces, like how many are really infected or how many have died. They are only reporting Confirmed...not TOTAL.
I am on the ERT in the Largest Hospital in the Area. In case of a Terror Attack, Pandemic, or Natural Disaster we are mobilized....and No You are not Hearing everything. Keep an Eye on it...it's here to stay..and it will get uglier.
The Way to Stop Illegals is to Cut off the Jobs and SEAL THE BORDER. Bush was a Joke, for many, many Administrations the Policy of Global Government/North American Union has been Priority. The X-President of Mexico even disclosed in an inteview that Bush and He discussed a North American Currency...but that was after they created the North American Union. Obama is on the Same Globalist Team. He just handed over our Financial Sovereignty at the G20 by agreeing to force American based Financial Institutions to be subject to Global Regulations..If they are Considered Global....What is to be considered Global??. The IMF(International Monetary Fund)is reminding all of the Countries of the G20 to hurry up and don't Forget their Promise. That Agreement isn't Even a Treaty..or Legal. But since when has that stopped the Federal Government.
Oh while I'm teaching you something...Under Teddy Roosevelt there was a Strong Anti-Japanese sentiment in California. He requested that Japan Stop Sending Japanese to California since they were taking American Jobs..(Gee that sounds Familiar.) But the Japanese ignored the Suggestion. So Teddy Decided to take the "Great White Fleet" (unfortunate name again) around the World on a Tour. He just happend to Park the Fleet off Japan....and Asked again. Funny if they didn't listen that time. The Government Can Stop Illegal Immigration if they want...they don't want to...none of them do. Why do you think the Mexican Government was printing Maps so people could find their way hear as Safely as possible?
I will agree with you on one thing. The Federal Government loves to get in Bed with Greedy Corporations...Obama's Favorite is GE...I am sure he is probably getting his fair share of Haliburton as well....
There isn't a polotician in Washington that is Legit..they all have their Hands in our Cookie Jar.
I look forward to your next Comment...it does make my life more interesting.
Oh...I am not sure why you wouldn't start a radio Show...there aren't enough People with your point of View out there on the Air. Hey besides...it's Free.
hear..?? hahah ..here...sorry typo.
Cynic to help you find where this Law Punishes Thought, and since you love the Bill text so well, I Will include this:
"such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant"
Reasonable Cause to Believe...that is the Attempt to assume that the Law Enforcement Official can read the Defendants Mind. Or will it just be based on the Fact that one may be White and the Other Black? Or one is Straight and the Other Gay? Or one is a Christian and the other an Athiest?
This is Legislation that attempts to stifle free Thought and Yes Speech in an assumtion that a Person that commits a Hate Crime will only be someone wearing a Swaztika..that is not Reality. So we must assume that the Bill allows the Prosecutor to Read the Mind of the Defendant using no guidelines other than one is different than the other. The Law is Vauge and can be interpretated to Mean exactly what I stated before in my first response.
This Law is unecessary and needs to be Stopped.
And how does that remove the burden of proof from the officer's shoulders? If he's reading somebody's mind, he's unlikely to be able to convince a jury of the defendant's guilt (you remember juries, right? We still have them, unless you're picked up on terrorism charges, I guess).
We don't get to arrest on "suspicion of thought crime" charges. Hate to break this to you. There has to be some reasonably overwhelming evidence: you know, the defendant gets arrested for lynching a black man, it helps to have the Klan robes, the Nazi paraphernalia, maybe a copy of the "Turner Diaries."
Do you believe that hate crimes exist in the first place? If somebody is beaten by a crowd of people screaming "Kill the fag!" has a hate crime occurred? Would you agree to that or not?
I think we need to agree on the definition first.
The Fact that someone was beaten means a Crime was committed, why it was commited is called Motive. We have Crimes of passion, convinence, insanity, etc. Are we to make Laws that will Outlaw All Crime based Soley on Motive, on thought, or lack of it, and Emotion?
That is the Danger to this Legislation, there are already Laws on the Books to Punish a Crime committed on a Person, any person. To Create a Law to essentially Outlaw Motivation for a Crime opens the Door wide open to the interpretaion that the Law actually bans Thought/Belief perceived or real.
I do Not Know of any Place in the United States that allows a Crowd to Beat a Gay man. It is called Assault, if the Victim is Black, White, Man, Woman, Gay or Straight...it's Assault. There are already Laws on the Books for this Crime.
So then what is the True Motivation for this Law, if there are Already Laws that cover the Crime?
Obviously it is to do accomplish the same thing that has happened in other Countries with Similar Legislation. It will create a Law that doesn't Currnetly Exist. A Law Banning Free Speech, Thought, Emotion and Motive....instead of a Physical Crime.
So To answer your Question, No there are No hate Crimes....Just Crimes that are Committed because of Different Motives.
In order for a Hate Crime to exist.....you must First OutLaw Hate.
Again..forgive the typos...I hate Proof Reading and my Mind Works faster than my Fingers.
So have you heard about the Shenandoah, Pa., jury that ruled innocent the beating death of a Latino man named Luis Ramirez. Beaten for no other reason than his Hispanic heritage.
The Justice Department is reviewing the case to see if federal charges might be warranted:
Two Pennsylvania teens acquitted of the most serious state charges in the beating death of a Mexican immigrant could still face federal charges.
Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar says the civil rights division is reviewing evidence surrounding last summer's fatal fight between high school football players in Schuylkill County and 25-year-old Luis Ramirez.With the law as currently written, federal prosecutors would have to find that the killers committed a federal violation in order to act on this case. That would not be nearly the issue if the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act were already law.
One of the major facets of the LLEHCPA is that federal prosecutors can step in and file federal charges in cases like this one where the state and local prosecutions fail for whatever reason.
Now, before you claim that this brings us into "double jeopardy," Frederick Lawrence, dean of the GWU Law School, explained that this falls easily under the rubric of the doctrine of dual jurisdictions:
...there is no constitutional problem here. There is something called the "dual sovereignty doctrine" which permits state and federal prosecutions for the same crime without any issue of double jeopardy as a constitutional matter. This is true generally -- narcotics cases, organized crime cases, official corruption cases, etc. It is precisely to avoid the potential abuse of this constitutional permission that DOJ has its own strict guidelines, limiting their actual use of this authority. Simply put, this is an issue, but not a new issue, and not a hate crimes or a civil rights issue. It is a general criminal law issue under our federal system of government and it is one that has been satisfactorily addressed for decades in practice and policy.
So it's also a State Rights issue.
Not only is this a law that could be interpretated to suppress free thought/Speech, but will also increase the Federal Government's overreaching power to interfere in the State's Right to write it's own Laws and the severity of punishment.
The the Dean is forgeting one thing..... this "Dual Sovereignty Doctrine" has yet to be properly contested. It will be soon.
The State of Montana has just recently passed a Law that Nullifies the Federal Firearms Ban on any weapon, ammunition, or Firearm accessory that is made and kept in the state of Montana.
This Law will not only Challenge
the Commerce Clause but the Double Sovereignty Doctrine as well. This Doctrine was established by the Supreme Court during Prohibition and has not yet been properly challenged until now.
Considering that the Court Ruling was based on the Unconstitutional Law of Prohibition, it will not be to difficult to reverse when the Right case has been brought before the Surpeme Court. And that time is rapidly approaching.
Remember the Supreme Court has made UnConstitutional Rulings in the Past that later were overturned by Future Supreme Courts. Slavery, for example, at one time was declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court, only to be overturned later.
As more and more States ,like Texas, adopt a Law similar to Montana, the number of People Breaching Federeal Law, but not State Law, will skyrocket. This will force a Specific Challenge on the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine.
Now you may say that this has been challenged before with the law allowing Medical Cannibus in California, but you would be incorrect.
The Main Problem with the Law in California is that it's hard to argue that smoking Pot is a Consitutional Right since there is no Specific Amendemnt stating as such and the Chances of such a court case to be accepted by the Supreme Court is almost Nill due to the Social Disagreements across the Nation, that Problem does not exist with Firearms due to the Second Amendment and overwhemlming Public Support.
Also the 10th Amendment falls into Play and this issue will fail to be a Double Jeapordy issue and quickly fall into a State's Rights battle.
This law is a good example of the Continued attempt at Overreaching by the Federal Government and their attempt to Create UnConstitutional Powers to Supress those that disagree.
This also highlights the need to return to Constitutinal Law, instead of Case Precident. Too many times through History has an Unconstitutional Ruling been used as a Precident for the formation of Unconstitutinal Law, like the Hate Crimes Bill and Slavery.
If there are any True Constitutionalists left in the Supreme Court, instead of Progressives, you will see what I have described come to pass.
If not then it will Prove that the Tyranny that has long infected the two Party system and the Government as a whole has progressed to a Disturbing Degree.
Then I Fear our Debate will be unsettlingly different.
But the Fact remains, no matter the Reason the Creators of the Bill Give, it is still unecessary since there are already Laws on the books that Cover Physical Offenses against Citizens.
It's Unconstitutional in it's attempt to Outlaw Free thought and Speech by assuming that because an Assailant is different in race, religon, or Sexual Preference, "Real or imagined" than the victim that it constitutes a "Hate Crime". Which is non-existant without Outlawing the Emotion of Hate.
And it's a Blatent Violation of the 10the Amendment by assuming the Federal Government can create Seperate Punishments and Claim Jurisdiction over a State based Crime on an UnConstitutinal Court Precident.
Cynic, It appears you and I need to Start a Joint Blog so that we may both gain access and in order to continue this debate in a more appropriate setting. This Comment Section, I Feel, fails to do our Debate Justice and a Wider audience would be interested in our Discussion.
If you are interested, Please let me know and we can discuss it further.
Post a Comment