posted May 18, 2009 07:15 PM         

You are simply not literate in the law, in legal procedures, in legislative history, legislative intent, the Constitution or even definitions.

Sexual orientation is a behavioral issue acoustic. Yet you deny Behavioral Scientists would have legal standing as "expert witnesses" to testify in courts that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation". Yet, that's exactly what the APA says about pedophilia. The Bill doesn't lay out any definitions for "sexual orientation" so, courts would use expert witnesses from the behavioral sciences...psychiatrists who would define pedophilia as a "sexual orientation". Someone hitting a pedophile would be subject to additional time if convicted under the hate crimes legislation as it's written now.

posted May 18, 2009 07:31 PM         

quote:

---

You are simply not literate in the law, in legal procedures, in legislative history, legislative intent, the Constitution or even definitions.

---

I see a lot of talking, but not a lot of proving. That's disquieting for your argument.

quote:

---

Sexual orientation is a behavioral issue acoustic.

---

Under the law, "sexual orientation" merely refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality, or both. These are the only behaviors covered under the term.

quote:

---

Yet you deny Behavioral Scientists would have legal standing as "expert witnesses" to testify in courts that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation".

---

I deny that they'd get the chance in the first place, and then I additionally deny that even if they went along with what you want them to say that a judge and jury would disagree with that assessment thereby making such counsel null.

quote:

---

The Bill doesn't lay out any definitions for "sexual orientation" so, courts would use expert witnesses from the behavioral sciences

---

No, they wouldn't. They'd consult a dictionary, and they'd consult legal precedents including the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. One would only consult a psychiatrist if they were trying to broaden the definition of "sexual orientation," which I don't see happening in any reasonable scenario.

quote:

---

Someone hitting a pedophile would be subject to additional time if convicted under the hate crimes legislation as it's written now.

---

posted May 18, 2009 07:51 PM         

this bill really doesn't give any special protections because it is an attempt to legally include ANY group one might want to persecute. it does give special PUNISHMENT for hate crimes, which are qualitatively different than others because they single out a whole group of people.

posted May 18, 2009 08:24 PM         

AG is challenging the verbiage and who is inclusive. no one wants pedophiles to get special protection. no one.
i can totally see both sides on this one. no one likes jwhops use of the label he gave it. Ag says the day will never come, or highly unlikely.

gays and lesbians believe they fall under hate crime laws because there are documented cases of hate crimes against them.

hate crimes bills do nothing EXCEPT this. cause division over interpretation of them. oh, and of course sensationalize incidents such as posted.

my honest opinion of the whole thing is all crimes should be treated alike whether to a gay person, a christiain, a muslim or any other individual. making it about a group is political ******** and another reason to divide us against ourselves. bottom line, my opinion.

posted May 19, 2009 12:54 PM         

You also appear to believe there would be no prosecutions for hitting a pedophile who molested a child. Wrong. There's a story posted on this thread about a prosecutor charging a guy with a hate crime for pushing a homosexual...even when the homosexual had committed a battery on the guy who was charged and committed battery first. The fact the hate crime aspect of the charges were dropped...in exchange for a guilty plea is immaterial. This guy should not have been charged...and required to hire an attorney to defend him in the first place. The homosexual guy should have been charged with assault and battery.

So, your notion that a prosecutor would not charge and a jury would not convict someone charged with a hate crime for hitting a pedophile is not compelling. Nor is it OK that anyone so charged would have to spend a small fortune on attorney fees to defend him/herself.

All the prosecution need do is show a prima facie case to have a defendant bound over for a hate crimes trial. Did he/she strike a pedophile? Yes. Is pedophilia a sexual orientation under the hate crimes bill? Yes

posted May 19, 2009 02:47 PM         

quote:

---

Under the law, "sexual orientation" merely refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality, or both. These are the only behaviors covered under the term...acoustic

---

Show me...under the laws of the federal government of the United States..the legal definition of "sexual orientation".

Do not attempt to use the definitions states have adopted for equal employment opportunity acts under state statutes. This is PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION covering ALL philias.

I want the "legal definition" of "sexual orientation" as it's used in the United States Code....or, as the "legal term" has been defined/used in actual court cases where "sexual orientation" has been the subject matter in a federal court case.

posted May 19, 2009 02:53 PM         

Oh, I forgot. I already did fill your request previously in this thread (though it wasn't asked for at the time). Look at the links I've provided until you find the Hate Crimes Statistics Act.

quote:

---

Just for your information acoustic, pedophilia refers to both homosexuality and heterosexuality.

---

posted May 19, 2009 04:18 PM         

The fact check site posted images of what they called O'Bomber's "Birth Certificate". Fact Check is a liar. The image they posted is not a "Birth Certificate" but rather a "Certificate of Live Birth". The State of Hawaii issued both "Birth Certificates" and "Certificates of Live Birth". A Certificate of Live Birth is NOT a short form "Birth Certificate". It's an acknowledgement that the person exists and their birth...whereever that was...is being registered in the State of Hawaii.

This is the image Fact Check posted on their own site...and called it a "Birth Certificate". Look at the heading at the top of the page and you will see it says..."Certificate of Live Birth. It DOES NOT SAY...BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Fact Check is engaging in lying again. That's the reason almost no one with 2 brain cells to rub together ever attempts to use Fact Check as an authoratative sourse for anything at all.

posted May 19, 2009 04:46 PM         

It's true Factcheck has proven via multiple reliable means that Obama was born in Hawaii...not just by the birth certificate, which is exactly what that is. If you want to say an entity is lying, usually you'll want to back your assessment up with proof of your position. Anyone can call any entity a liar. It's only the ones who prove it that get listened to.

quote:

---

The question is, why does acoustic use Fact Check? Answer, they're lying in the direction acoustic is going...to the far drooling left.

---

Oh that's hilarious. So calling factcheck liars without substantiating your claim is the set-up for your latest attempt at putting me down. Well, I am amused.

posted May 19, 2009 04:49 PM         

A Certificate of Live Birth is not a Birth Certificate. If it were, there would be no need for both. It merely says the birth was "Registered" in the State. Usually, and in the case of Hawaii at the time, a birth certificate from the country of birth or an affidavit by witnesses who witnessed the birth in another jurisdiction are necessary to "Register" the birth in Hawaii. Certificates of Live Birth are/were used in Hawaii for babies not born in a hospital by a medical doctor...like those born at home with the assistance of a "midwife".

posted May 19, 2009 04:53 PM         

Now, where's that "legal definition" of "sexual orientation" you say you posted?

posted May 19, 2009 05:04 PM         

"I wouldn't deny that this bill has the potential to protect pedophiles in a future case.

However, I think the presence of this bill is meant to underline what is currently being prepared: the release of Gitmo prisoners on American soil.

Any takers?"

posted May 19, 2009 05:40 PM         

quote:

---

Now, where's that "legal definition" of "sexual orientation" you say you posted?

---

In the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, where I said it was.

I thought this was interesting in the FBI's Training Guide for Hate Crime Data Collection:

And yet, there are those who are victimized, sometimes subtly and other times very overtly, for no reason other than the color of their skin, the religion they profess, the heritage of their parents, the disability they possess, or their sexual orientation. It is most unsettling to the victims because there is nothing they can do to alter the situation, nor is there anything that they should be expected to change. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/traingd99.pdf

Now why do you suppose an FBI Training manual on Hate Crimes would say that when referring to criminal activity (if we're under the presumption that pedophilia is covered under the term "sexual orientation")? Kind of baffling, isn't it? That is, unless pedophilia isn't isn't considered to to be a sexual orientation covered by the term "sexual orientation." Fascinating, huh?

Learning Module Two:

The student will be able to define: Bias/Hate Crime; Ethnicity/National Origin Bias; Hate Group; Racial Bias; Disability Bias; Sexual-Orientation Bias; Bisexual; Gay; Heterosexual; Homosexual; Lesbian; Religious Bias; Responding Officer; and Second Level Judgment Officer/Unit.

Hmmm...somehow pedophilia didn't make the list, even while Sexual-Orientation Bias, Bisexual, Gay, Heterosexual, and Lesbian all made the list. Why not define pedophilia if that's understood to fall under the category of "sexual orientation" protection?

Sexual-Orientation Bias - A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group
of persons based on their sexual attraction toward, and responsiveness to, members of their own sex or members of the opposite sex, e.g., gays, lesbians, heterosexuals, etc.

Pedophilia...not mentioned again. What is this a conspiracy, Jwhop? Is the FBI trying to mess with you?

This individual has been chosen from the rest of the population to be victimized for no other reason than his/her race, religion, disability, ethnicity/national origin, or sexual orientation. There is nothing this person can do; indeed, there is nothing he/she ought to do to change his/her race, religion, disability, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

You still think they're talking about pedophilia here?

Was the victim engaged in activities promoting his/her race, religion, disability, ethnicity/
national origin, or sexual orientation? For example, the victim is a member of the
NAACP, participates in gay rights demonstrations, etc.

NAACP. Not NAMBLA. What do you make of that?

posted May 19, 2009 07:08 PM         

You're even futher gone than I supposed.

Now, where in the United States Federal Statutes as represented by the USC..United States Code or USCC..United States Criminal Code..do you find a "legal definition" for "sexual orientation"?

All I needed to prove about fact check was proved by their own site...where they identified a Certificate of Live Birth and lyingly called it a "Birth Certificate".

The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller

posted May 19, 2009 07:27 PM         

Yeah, I posted a training guide. A training guide that had the Act with a legal definition of "sexual orientation" contained in it. You obviously didn't read it if you think otherwise. Is that the only protest you can muster as to the fact that pedophilia clearly isn't considered a Bias/Hate Crime group of people?

quote:

---

Now, where in the United States Federal Statutes as represented by the USC..United States Code or USCC..United States Criminal Code..do you find a "legal definition" for "sexual orientation"?

---

I've already stated where three times now.

When are you going to find me a precedent from anywhere in the country, or even out of the country if you prefer, where a court of law has decided that pedophilia was covered under the term "sexual orientation"? You can sit there and posture forever, but I don't think you're likely to win over any minds without getting to some proving of your supposed, alleged points.

You think that factcheck providing a Certificate of Live Birth with a birthplace of Honolulu County, Island of Oahu is proof that factcheck is lying? How's that now?

posted May 19, 2009 08:06 PM         

I'm against the release of terrorist-trained detainees on U.S. soil.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but when I thought about the legislation discussed in this thread, the closing of Gitmo and the release of its prisoners seemed to stand out the most in my thinking.

posted May 20, 2009 05:55 AM         

jwhops - start a thread for the certificate of live birth thing. seriously though the paper ran the announcement, the certificate is a legal document.

posted May 21, 2009 10:31 AM         

If that were to happen, we would have to scrap current methods because the NY Times and other soft on terrorist news organizations would immediately print it on the front pages. Demands would be made by defense attorneys that informants be brought into court to testify against the defendants and informants would then be tracked down and murdered.

I had never thought along the lines of this Hate Crimes Bill being instituted to protect terrorists on the basis they are a "religious group". However, your reasoning is easy to follow in this respect because they would fall under the umbrella of those who have become "untouchables".

Cpn, of course a "Certificate of Live Birth" is an official document. So is a driver's license. That doesn't mean O'Bomber was actually born in Hawaii...because of the rules which existed in Hawaii at the time to register foreign births.

I note that O'Bomber has spent upwards of a million dollars to keep his long form "Birth Certificate" SEALED and hidden from view. I note O'Bomber has had all his university records SEALED...including his admission applications..and hidden from view. I note O'Bomber has had his Passport records SEALED and hidden from view.

At any time, O'Bomber could have notified the Hawaii Bureau of Vital Statistics and released his actual "Birth Certificate". O'Bomber could at any time release his admissions applications and grade transcripts and release his Passport records. If O'Bomber had done any of that, there wouldn't be any issue.

The Constitutional burden of proof to prove O'Bomber is a "Natural Born Citizen of the United States" falls squarely on Barack Hussein O'Bomber and no one else.

So far, O'Bomber has resisted every effort to provide that proof and spent a lot of money doing so.

posted May 22, 2009 01:34 PM         

"Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va, said on a Sunday talk show that he opposes the release into the United States of 17 Chinese Uighurs who were captured in Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2001. The prisoners, de-listed as enemy combatants by a federal court that deemed them not a danger to the U.S., are eligible for release.

The administration is considering releasing them in Northern Virginia, something Webb vehemently opposes. Webb's language left the door open to an even broader opposition to any Gitmo detainees being released in the United States."

And, these are just the captured terrorists we know about whom O'Bomber is considering releasing into the general population of the United States.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/20/obama-tries-order-democrats-gitmo/

The rules for getting a "Certificate of Live Birth" issued in Hawaii at the time of O'Bomber's supposed birth there were such that a foreign birth would qualify if....one of the parents was a resident of Hawaii. The problem is that O'Bomber's mother could not automatically confer American citizenship on O'Bomber because she had not established legal residency..AS AN ADULT for the prescribed period of time.

O'Bomber could make all this go away IF...he simply released his long form birth certificate, released his university admission and grade transcripts records and released his Passport records.

What's O'Bomber hiding?

The burden of proof of Constitutional eligibility to be President falls squarely on Barack Hussein O'Bomber to prove he is a natural born citizen of the United States.