Hate Bill Passes, Senate Stabs America!

Hate Bill passes Senate

www.truthtellers.org

By Rev. Ted Pike
27 Sep 07


By a vote of 60 to 39 this morning, Sens. Kennedy and Smith’s hate crimes amendment was attached to the defense authorization act. After three days of virtual silence, several Republican senators spoke against the bill within the two hours of debate. Sen. Lindsey Graham briefly argued that, if passed, the President will veto the hate bill and arms bill together, jeopardizing timely support of our troops

(visit the link for the full news article)





[edit on 27-9-2007 by dntwastetime]

I cannot believe the arrogance of these traitors to America in the Senate building. These Scum have only so much time left.

The Constitution will NEVER die! Americans can be Mind Controlled about many things, but freedom of speech is the freedom everyone will fight for.


It is real simple. Just because they say it is a law means nothing to me. I am a born Soverign, protected under the US Constitution. I will say anything I choose, anyone can say anything they choose , and try to arrest me for hate speech, we will both go through the Stargate.

DWT

www.truthtellers.org
(visit the link for the full news article)







[edit on 27-9-2007 by dntwastetime]

Ok so uh.. what does the hate bill say? What does it do? I'm a little stumped here.

Is this the same Rev. Ted Pike that wrote gems like:

THE JEWS BEHIND DA VINCI CODE

It may be a valid topic but with sources like NPN and Ted Pike.
Sort of makes is all a moot point.

Here is a more clear, less biased explanation of the story:

Basicaly it say you are not allowed to "SAY" certain words. I never thought I would see the day. Hate Speech will start with 1 kind of people , then it will go to all kinds of people. Then you will have to not say anything to anyone or you go to World Court to face a no jury judgement on you. HAHAHAHA try me.
DWT

[edit on 28-9-2007 by dntwastetime]

Originally posted by Techsnow
Ok so uh.. what does the hate bill say? What does it do? I'm a little stumped here.

Well for clarification's sake, this is the text of H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, better known as the "Hate Crimes Bill".

Looks like it is pretty clearly confined to bodily injury.

While I am opposed to pretty much all hate-crime legislation, it doesn't appear that this concerns speech.

If someone can find where it does, please point it out.

I do not believe hate crimes should be treated any differently than any other crime. If somebody murders another person because they "hate" their race, religion, or whatever, or if they just hate the person and they murder them, what's the difference, it's still murder!

Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007

b) Grants-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

Why should hate crimes get "grants", if somebody is murdered, the end result is the same, somebody killed them. So, the US government would be more willing to spend more money to solve the murder of a person on their "hate" crimes watch list than they would for an ordinary US citizen?
Is solving one of those murders more important than solving the other one?

That's not right. That's just wrong!

The "gender identity" bits are pretty funny. They're going to waste time and money trying to determine if it was a hate-crime based on "gender identity."

"So did he actually believe he was a woman or did he just like to wear women's underwear and makeup?"

I'd hate to be the detective in those cases.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

-Martin Niemöller

The freedom of speech is guaranteed in the constitution. The freedom to Hate is NOT!

Originally posted by redbarron626
The freedom of speech is guaranteed in the constitution. The freedom to Hate is NOT!

Actually this is not true. Hate speech is protected under the Constitution, as long as it doesn't pose any immediate danger of violence or other illegal activity.

But this really isn't about speech -- it's about having a higher tier of punishment for people based on simply why it is thought they committed the crime. Personally I think every violent crime is a hate crime and I don't see any need to have different punishments based on if the motive is thought to have something to do with the victim's race/religion/sexual orientation/whatever else.

[edit on 10/3/2007 by djohnsto77]

"But this really isn't about speech -- it's about having a higher tier of punishment for people based on simply why it is thought they committed the crime. Personally I think every violent crime is a hate crime and I don't see any need to have different punishments based on if the motive is thought to have something to do with the victim's race/religion/sexual orientation/whatever else."

I could not agree more with you djohnsto77. And you are correct about all speech being protected constitutionally. I just find it all very purile. Violence is hate and hate is in itself violent by definition. I will be more careful in future posts.

You know what? Freedom of speech needs restrictions; there, I said it. I understand why our founding fathers put it there just to contrast the monarchies in other countries.

But today is today, to advance in society we need to eliminate racism.

I really would feel nothing but joy if the government rounded up all the Neo-Nazis and KKK and locked them up or heck even killed them.

Yeah, I guess that is extremist, but those people disgust me that much.

Ah... round up and kill everyone you don't like.

I think someone tried that before. If I recall correctly, it didn't end well.

The "Hate Bill" is intended to stop violent crimes from being used to induce fear or terrorize people that the crime acted against, be it homosexuals, African Americans, Muslims, or any other group of people.

That being said, when a violent crime occurs in your neighborhood, that usually always produces fear or terrorizes the neighborhood.

To me there is no difference the crimes should be treated the same.

reply to post by Keyhole


You misunderstand the difference between a hate crime and a "regular" crime.

Let's say there are two murders.
One person is a cheating husband who got shot by his wife
The other is a guy who was killed by a skinhead for being Jewish.

The end result is the same - there are two people, both equally human, and both equally dead. That's not the issue, nobody is saying that one is "more important" than the other. The victims of the crime are not the issue at hand - it's the murderers.

The wife who got cheated on had a personal, specific reason for killing her husband, and is not at all likely to be a repeat offender. She gets her 25 years, with a chance of parole, and that's pretty much it.

The skinhead, on the other hand... he probably would have killed any Jewish person. And he's likely to do so again. He calls for a stiffer sentence because of this.

That's the key. Perpetrators o the hate crimes outlined in this bill tend to be repeat and indiscriminate (I know, ironic) offenders who are a danger to a large group of people for no reason other than one trait common to that group.

WF, great explanation, thank you. There are groups of people who are more prone to be hated on than others and I think they need protection from serial haters/killers.

my OPINION is that a murderer is a murderer, regardless if it is a woman that kills her abusve husband an a skinhead that kills a jew/black/brown whatever. they both killed, they boh get the same sentence period end of story.

reply to post by icybreeze


Luckily, your opinion has no bearings an these things called "facts". Perpetrators of hate crimes - those defined in this bill - are proven threats to entire communities. They are, in fact, a type of terrorist. I've read your posts, and I'm prtty sure that you're of the "opinion" that the terrorists we currently have locked up shouldn't be looking at probation after five years, correct?