“Hate crimes” part 12
“‘I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest….’” Isaiah 62: 6 (NIV)
Tuesday, I posted a dissenting view presented by members of the House of Representatives when H.B. 1913 was being considered in the House. Tonight, I am posting a few comments about the dissenting view which hopefully have not been covered in previous posts. I also received one comment which I will briefly discuss tonight.
1) “The bill itself is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts.”
There is no question in my mind that the bill is unconstitutional based upon any clear reading and understanding of the Constitution. Unfortunately, as I’ve repeatedly stated over the last five years, the courts in our system have repeatedly ignored the Constitution and precedent when it suited their purposes and have reached decisions by judicial fiat rewriting the Constitution to suit their own sense of morality or lack thereof. Consequently, it does little good to rely upon the position that the bill is unconstitutional. The bill should be defeated in Congress so that the courts have no opportunity to hear the issue.
2) “Such a law criminalizes acts that have long been regulated primarily by the states.”
True and in almost all instances exclusively by the States. Again, Congress is trying to encroach more and more upon areas that they have no constitutional authority to deal with and historically have NOT dealt with. As Congress has lost more and more power to the courts, their response has NOT been to prevent the courts from this encroachment but rather to increase their dwindling power at the expense of the States. The courts grab power from Congress and in return Congress grabs power from the States to fill the vacuum. And all too often (too often because it should not be allowed) the courts allow Congress to do so so that the courts then have even more power areas to control.
3) “STATISTICS SHOW THAT HATE CRIMES HAVE DECLINED OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS”
As I’ve said before, “hate crimes” is an artificially created monstrosity of legislative bodies. But, even as this artificial category is going down, Congress feels compelled to act! They are acting for two reasons primarily—to reward homosexual activists for their political support and as a test case to pass even more contentious, contemptible legislation in relation to PROTECTING and PROMOTING homosexual behavior.
4) “In protecting limited categories of groups, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, the Majority rejected our attempts to add other equally meritorious groups such as current and former members of the Armed Forces, senior citizens, and pregnant women. We can see no reason to distinguish among these groups—all of them deserve heightened protection against hate-motivated crimes. Despite the evidence of crimes targeting these members of these groups, the Majority has made its priorities clear, and has done a disservice to our Armed Forces, senior citizens, and pregnant women.”
This in and of itself is proof of the motivation behind this so-called “hate crimes” bill. The Democratic Majority has simply admitted by their lack of concern for other victimized groups that this bill is intended to PROTECT and PROMOTE the immorality of homosexual behavior. These suggested additions, of course, were a method used by the Minority to demonstrate the true motives of the Democratic Majority.
5) “Unborn Children
Partial birth abortion is a barbaric procedure that cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. During this procedure, a partially-born, living infant is literally ripped from his mother’s womb and stabbed in the back of the head. As Senator Moynihan stated so poignantly, ‘this is just too close to infanticide. A child has been born and it has exited the uterus and, what on Earth is this procedure?’
On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S.Ct. 1610 (2007), ruled constitutional the Federal law banning partial birth abortions, finding that the ban on partial birth abortions does not place an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion because there are alternative conventional abortion procedures that can be used if necessary. Id. at 1632.
During consideration of H.R. 1913, Mr. Jordan of Ohio offered an amendment to include unborn children killed by a partial birth abortion as a class of protected persons under the hate crimes statute. Unfortunately, the chair ruled the amendment non-germane based on the erroneous rationalization that unborn children are not ‘persons’ for the purposes of the hate crimes law.”
The Democrats have to define unborn children as “non-persons.” If they ever admitted that an unborn child is a person then the very linchpin of their preposterous argument that a woman has a “right” to MURDER her unborn baby would be destroyed since the Court in it’s abhorrent decision allowing such MURDERS admitted that if an unborn child was a person then, of course, the mother could NOT MURDER that child. Thus, unborn children CAN NOT be people in the eyes of Democrats who support the MURDER of unborn children.
I received a comment in relation to the dissenting opinion on the “hate crimes” bill. The comment was from “anonymous.” It said exactly the following:
“There a certain amount of irony in the ex soldiers as a protected class since one of the groups protesting at military funerals was the homophobic westboro Baptist church.”
My comments: I’m not going to comment on the irony statement. When I was writing my first book (now published) the English teacher who was editing the book said I didn’t know what irony is. That may be true. The use of the “soldiers” example, of course, was to point out the motives of the Democrats in protecting homosexual behavior and not protecting other groups.
However, what I find interesting about this comment is that it demonstrates the problems of a bill that tries to determine the “thoughts” of the perpetrator(s) of a crime. The author identifies the Baptist group as “homophobic.” How does he/she know that? Is he/she capable of reading people’s thoughts? Did the Baptists declare that they are “homophobic?” Is anyone who believes, for whatever reason, that homosexual behavior is immoral automatically “homophobic?” Is GOD “homophobic” since HE destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins including the sin of homosexual behavior? Is JESUS, the SON of GOD, Isaiah, and Paul all “homophobic” because they each supported the truthfulness of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Would JESUS, Isaiah, and Paul possibly be prosecuted under this proposed legislation for stating that homosexual behavior is a sin and that GOD punished homosexuals by destroying these two cities? Would the Bible be condemned and burned as a “hate” book? Who among us has the ability to read minds and determine the “thoughts” of individuals?
THIS IS A DANGEROUS BILL THAT PROTECTS AND PROMOTES IMMORAL BEHAVIOR AND SHOULD NOT BE PASSED! Do some members of Congress believe that the ruling bodies of this nation possess the authority and/or ability to shun GOD’S MORAL LAWS and PRINCIPLES with impunity? Do they even know GOD’S MORAL LAWS and PRINCIPLES?
“‘I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest….’” Isaiah 62: 6 (NIV)
Tuesday, I posted a dissenting view presented by members of the House of Representatives when H.B. 1913 was being considered in the House. Tonight, I am posting a few comments about the dissenting view which hopefully have not been covered in previous posts. I also received one comment which I will briefly discuss tonight.
1) “The bill itself is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts.”
There is no question in my mind that the bill is unconstitutional based upon any clear reading and understanding of the Constitution. Unfortunately, as I’ve repeatedly stated over the last five years, the courts in our system have repeatedly ignored the Constitution and precedent when it suited their purposes and have reached decisions by judicial fiat rewriting the Constitution to suit their own sense of morality or lack thereof. Consequently, it does little good to rely upon the position that the bill is unconstitutional. The bill should be defeated in Congress so that the courts have no opportunity to hear the issue.
2) “Such a law criminalizes acts that have long been regulated primarily by the states.”
True and in almost all instances exclusively by the States. Again, Congress is trying to encroach more and more upon areas that they have no constitutional authority to deal with and historically have NOT dealt with. As Congress has lost more and more power to the courts, their response has NOT been to prevent the courts from this encroachment but rather to increase their dwindling power at the expense of the States. The courts grab power from Congress and in return Congress grabs power from the States to fill the vacuum. And all too often (too often because it should not be allowed) the courts allow Congress to do so so that the courts then have even more power areas to control.
3) “STATISTICS SHOW THAT HATE CRIMES HAVE DECLINED OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS”
As I’ve said before, “hate crimes” is an artificially created monstrosity of legislative bodies. But, even as this artificial category is going down, Congress feels compelled to act! They are acting for two reasons primarily—to reward homosexual activists for their political support and as a test case to pass even more contentious, contemptible legislation in relation to PROTECTING and PROMOTING homosexual behavior.
4) “In protecting limited categories of groups, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, the Majority rejected our attempts to add other equally meritorious groups such as current and former members of the Armed Forces, senior citizens, and pregnant women. We can see no reason to distinguish among these groups—all of them deserve heightened protection against hate-motivated crimes. Despite the evidence of crimes targeting these members of these groups, the Majority has made its priorities clear, and has done a disservice to our Armed Forces, senior citizens, and pregnant women.”
This in and of itself is proof of the motivation behind this so-called “hate crimes” bill. The Democratic Majority has simply admitted by their lack of concern for other victimized groups that this bill is intended to PROTECT and PROMOTE the immorality of homosexual behavior. These suggested additions, of course, were a method used by the Minority to demonstrate the true motives of the Democratic Majority.
5) “Unborn Children
Partial birth abortion is a barbaric procedure that cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. During this procedure, a partially-born, living infant is literally ripped from his mother’s womb and stabbed in the back of the head. As Senator Moynihan stated so poignantly, ‘this is just too close to infanticide. A child has been born and it has exited the uterus and, what on Earth is this procedure?’
On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S.Ct. 1610 (2007), ruled constitutional the Federal law banning partial birth abortions, finding that the ban on partial birth abortions does not place an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion because there are alternative conventional abortion procedures that can be used if necessary. Id. at 1632.
During consideration of H.R. 1913, Mr. Jordan of Ohio offered an amendment to include unborn children killed by a partial birth abortion as a class of protected persons under the hate crimes statute. Unfortunately, the chair ruled the amendment non-germane based on the erroneous rationalization that unborn children are not ‘persons’ for the purposes of the hate crimes law.”
The Democrats have to define unborn children as “non-persons.” If they ever admitted that an unborn child is a person then the very linchpin of their preposterous argument that a woman has a “right” to MURDER her unborn baby would be destroyed since the Court in it’s abhorrent decision allowing such MURDERS admitted that if an unborn child was a person then, of course, the mother could NOT MURDER that child. Thus, unborn children CAN NOT be people in the eyes of Democrats who support the MURDER of unborn children.
I received a comment in relation to the dissenting opinion on the “hate crimes” bill. The comment was from “anonymous.” It said exactly the following:
“There a certain amount of irony in the ex soldiers as a protected class since one of the groups protesting at military funerals was the homophobic westboro Baptist church.”
My comments: I’m not going to comment on the irony statement. When I was writing my first book (now published) the English teacher who was editing the book said I didn’t know what irony is. That may be true. The use of the “soldiers” example, of course, was to point out the motives of the Democrats in protecting homosexual behavior and not protecting other groups.
However, what I find interesting about this comment is that it demonstrates the problems of a bill that tries to determine the “thoughts” of the perpetrator(s) of a crime. The author identifies the Baptist group as “homophobic.” How does he/she know that? Is he/she capable of reading people’s thoughts? Did the Baptists declare that they are “homophobic?” Is anyone who believes, for whatever reason, that homosexual behavior is immoral automatically “homophobic?” Is GOD “homophobic” since HE destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins including the sin of homosexual behavior? Is JESUS, the SON of GOD, Isaiah, and Paul all “homophobic” because they each supported the truthfulness of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Would JESUS, Isaiah, and Paul possibly be prosecuted under this proposed legislation for stating that homosexual behavior is a sin and that GOD punished homosexuals by destroying these two cities? Would the Bible be condemned and burned as a “hate” book? Who among us has the ability to read minds and determine the “thoughts” of individuals?
THIS IS A DANGEROUS BILL THAT PROTECTS AND PROMOTES IMMORAL BEHAVIOR AND SHOULD NOT BE PASSED! Do some members of Congress believe that the ruling bodies of this nation possess the authority and/or ability to shun GOD’S MORAL LAWS and PRINCIPLES with impunity? Do they even know GOD’S MORAL LAWS and PRINCIPLES?
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 4:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home