Total Emergency Alert Hate Bill Going Forward In Senate

Now that we've established the fact the government no longer needs to pay shills to blast the pro freedom threads when they can get it done for free...

Listen up folks... We read the bill! We don't agree we need any new hate crimes legislation. We believe the only people that are usually charged with hate crimes are straight white men. There are already plenty of laws you can use to put the straight white guy in prison for years

Also notice in section 2 paragraph 8 the comment "real or perceived". So, if I for some reason get into a bar fight with a black man and kick his arse, I could be punished for my "perceived" racism. Never mind that I have friends of many colors and nationalities and gay & lesbian friends. I also have an Aunt that is half black and a cousin who is 1/4 black. None of my actual personal life would really matter. In court it would be that a white guy beat up a black guy so it must be a hate crime.

We have laws against violence. This one if passed will be open for interpretation - which means less freedoms. It opens the door to "thought crime" legislation which leads to laws against free speech.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by tallcool1]

Originally posted by tallcool1
reply to post by jfj123

 

Yes I have read the bill. It is clearly aimed at white hetero males in some sort of making up for slavery way. This isn't even hidden or secret. Section 2 paragraphs 7 & 8 state:

"(7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

And this just means that the goal is to, as much as possible, eliminate racially motivated crime. Is that a bad thing?

2(8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct ‘races’. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

So again I say that we have current laws against violent crimes to be punishable equally to all races, creeds, etc. This law is extra punishment for white hetero males.

This doesn't target white, heterosexual, males. Sorry but it just doesn't.

Now I do believe hate crimes are redundant and unnecessary as people don't commit crimes against people they like.

reply to post by tallcool1

Couldn't have said it better myself. If they don't get it now they never will.

The wording of the bill leaves to much open to interpretation. To add the word "perceived" to any bill is a joke and should be against the law.

The minorities are already well covered with the present hate crime legislation.
This law does nothing more than add another ten years in prison to a white guy who was "perceived" to have commited a hate crime.

Originally posted by jfj123

This doesn't target white, heterosexual, males. Sorry but it just doesn't.

Now I do believe hate crimes are redundant and unnecessary as people don't commit crimes against people they like.

It most certainly does not include crimes against whites just because they are white, now does it?

With the inclusion of the word "perceived", it leaves too much to interpretation. Since I'm white, I probably should not defend myself from a non white attacker. We already have laws to protect the attacker, now we'll add laws that make me defending myself punishable if I fight back in defense to a non white attacker. Sweet.

So we do agree then that this is unnecessary and redundant anyway, right?

reply to post by tallcool1


You are a 100% correct. There are so many 'issues' with a law such as this, it makes my head spin.

The "perceived" anything is so wide open; where to begin?

Ah, and to the beautiful Wylee........Yes, the PTB have paid shills, but with so many absolute id*ots running around it's easier than ever...............

I think the PTB give a 'here, here' for the no child left behind legislation!

Originally posted by Animal
I love how you guys needed to switch from S.909 to HR 1966 to try to prove how evil S.909 is.

Such a sad display of ignorance.

I'd really love to know how you know what bill the OP is even talking about. There are two hate crime bills that I've seen, there are probably more. And neither one was referenced in the source that the OP provided. So how have you picked out which one it actually is?

The status of both bills can be seen here:
www.govtrack.us...
www.govtrack.us...

Neither bill has information about the next step of processing, so where did you find the info that it's the native American bill, and can you source it please?

Originally posted by TornMind
reply to post by jfj123

 

by the very definition used in the bill a 'crime of violence' can be bent to mean just about anything. If you are part of a group which is targeted, or thrown in as a profile; if you are part of a group which is defined as targeting, or thrown in with that group, then they can construe that as aiding to threat of actual physical hands on violence......................however, the definition doesn't need hands on grabbing violence..............just the perceived threat of it.

Do your realize how many bills have vague definitions?

The bill says the following:

(1) the term ‘crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;

Here is the definition

The term “crime of violence” means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

This is not a new definition so either you must argue against this definition in all it's uses regarding criminal acts or it's acceptable.

Now here's the other definition:

(2) the term ‘hate crime’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note)

HATE CRIME- The term `hate crime' means a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or homeless status of any person.

So this bill is utilizing EXISTING legislative definitions from 1994.
Were you complaining about the 1994 legislation ?

reply to post by Lazyninja


I'm talking about them ALL. They are all out there. The US Govt. hasn't done anything productive, or helpful for anyone, but the corporations, and the Power Broker's behind them.

They operate through tactics such as divide, and conquer. We've got numerous instances where they added several hundred pages of addendum's to bills right before passage............. Then we've got the Patriot Act; which has effected most other countries that deal with the US........most have dealings with the US........... The Patriot Act was huge, and it was a fly by night bill.


People are already worried they're going to piggyback on of these laws with the many others; they have good cause to believe so.

It has everything to do with violence, but that violence is targeted at whatever they deem violent......Or which group the Power Broker's need to suppress.

reply to post by jfj123


Absolutely, I'm complaining about them all!!!!! Originally we had the Articles Of Confederation, still in effect; now we've got the Bill Of Rights.

Both the above were created off of Natural Rights, or rights given to anything which is living in this world. Put a christian spin on it should you feel better, but the enumeration of the Rights came from the overall Natural Rights that anything living has. All creations have protection through these Natural Rights.

All this legislation is for no other purpose than to bind ALL of us in oppression.....PERIOD.

You keep arguing all you want. The proof is in the very definitions you found. Those can be dissected down even further............. Just like Bill Clinton did during his impeachment. He's a professional, and the definition of words we consider trivial, does matter.

Oh, and for the record, I'm in the States now, but none of this means a hill of beans to me; because I have my habitation/residence out of the States. I'm only here because it matters.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by TornMind]

[edit on 14-7-2009 by TornMind]

reply to post by jfj123


White men are being charged with hate crimes for "threatening" to do something.

These people were not charged for a hate crime, though white men doing the same to a black couple most certainly would be charged. Hate crime bills will be used to prosecute white males first and foremost, just as they are now.

Early this year, a white couple was carjacked, tortured, raped, and murdered by a group of black thugs. Christopher Newsom (23) was gang-raped, shot and set on fire. There are unconfirmed reports that the killers cut off his penis while he was still alive. The going-to-straight-to-hell murderers made Channon Christian (21) watch, and then they gang-raped her over four days and left her to die. There are unconfirmed reports that her breasts were cut off while she was still alive. (Also see this story and the Wikipedia entry) newsbusters.org...

[edit on 14-7-2009 by wyleecoyote]

Originally posted by tallcool1

Originally posted by jfj123

This doesn't target white, heterosexual, males. Sorry but it just doesn't.

Now I do believe hate crimes are redundant and unnecessary as people don't commit crimes against people they like.

It most certainly does not include crimes against whites just because they are white, now does it?

With the inclusion of the word "perceived", it leaves too much to interpretation. Since I'm white, I probably should not defend myself from a non white attacker. We already have laws to protect the attacker, now we'll add laws that make me defending myself punishable if I fight back in defense to a non white attacker. Sweet.

So we do agree then that this is unnecessary and redundant anyway, right?

We most definitely agree that this bill is redundant and unnecessary.
I think our only disagreement is the interpretation of the bill.

What I don't understand is... why don't they (Feds) legalize marijuana then? This kind of bill wouldn't need to be passed if the majority of us (Americans) were stoners. I say that because I was remembering the "old" days and how if I were to imbibe in that, I couldn't hate a damn thing in the world. This bill is ridiculous, a violation of rights, and really unnecessary.

I'm truly sorry if someone's precious feelings ever got hurt over something that was said to them on the internet, or something they read. But I would be ashamed of myself if I were taking someone to court over something that they said to me. I'd feel like the biggest wuss in the world!

reply to post by wyleecoyote


Hey, now your just wrong. There was no Hate to that crime. Just inner city inequalities..... If those young people who committed those crimes had the advantage of being educated, and white they'd never have done that???

Nope, just kidding. I can see idiots, or shills making that arguement, but that has hate written all over it, and those murderers did it all with venomous hate, but the govt. says no hate crime......................... What a croc!!!

Originally posted by wyleecoyote
reply to post by jfj123

 

White men are being charged with hate crimes for "threatening" to do something.

Not just WHITE, MEN.

These people were not charged for a hate crime, though white men doing the same to a black couple most certainly would be charged.

Obviously you can't know that. Motivation would need to be proven or it would be a simple assault case.

Hate crime bills will be used to prosecute white males first and foremost, just as they are now.

And why would white politicians create bills that would potentially increase the chances that they would be prosecuted?

reply to post by TornMind


Perhaps they "leaned" it towards red-neckers because they KNEW they would support it -- and raise a stink. If that's the group of people that it takes to get this stopped -- then I'm all for it!

Lean it whichever way will make it work!

PS - Keep in mind that just because you vote in favor of something that red-neck Christian Republicans support doesn't mean you'll become one. It's not contagious -- yet.

Originally posted by sabrinaleena
What I don't understand is... why don't they (Feds) legalize marijuana then? This kind of bill wouldn't need to be passed if the majority of us (Americans) were stoners.

A little off-topic, but I have to comment. Maybe that should be the new Legalize Marijuana slogan:

Make us all stoners so we are more easily conditioned to allow all of this non-sense to continue. After all -- if the entire naiton is high there will be nobody left to fight or to be angry -- we'll all be too busy laughing and munching our way through life!

reply to post by jfj123


Your arguement doesn't hold water. No motive proven? No hate proven? What do you call the terror, and hate involved in gearing up the girlfriend by watching all that happen to her boyfriend?

As to the 'white' politicians? They are all for the most part bought, and paid for. They do as they are told, and promised gold at the end of the day.

They don't see themselves on the same level as the masses; which they consider POND SCUM.

reply to post by jfj123


If a black guy was the one who got his penis cut off by some white boys, I guarantee you this would have been a hate crime. Oh and if the guy who got his penis whacked was gay, the press would be having a huge party!

The only time the penis means absolutely nothing is when it belongs to some pigmently challenged white man.

I usually respect your opinion but today we REALLY disagree

Hey folks easy on the rednecks we all aint that bad ok some are but if this is what the bill is designed for well I guess kiss my rebel flag flying but goodbye but not with out a fight well I guess flying a rebel flag will be part of this so see yall in the FEMA camps