posted May 06, 2009 09:59 AM         

There is new Hate Crimes Legislation pending. Already passed in the House, this bill awaits Senate passage.

Now, I know these democrat congressional members are lame brained idiots and mostly attorneys but it's becoming more obvious every day none of these airhead chair warming attorneys has ever read the United States Constitution.

They are now attempting to give "Special protection" to Pedophiles and other sexual deviants which flies full in the face of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution..which says, in part...

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Got that? It's the EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

So, as a result of democrat bowing and scraping to homosexuals, if a pedophile sexually assaults your little boy and you smack the hell out of him, you will have committed...not a simple battery in the worst case but a crime elevated to Hate Crime status to which "special punishment" attaches.

All members of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association should be Soooo proud and so should all those who voted these reckless, corrupt, airhead democrat congressional members into office.

Republicans attempted by amendment to specifically exclude pedophiles from these "special protections" but every single democrat on the committee rejected/voted against the amendment. These airheads think some people are more "EQUAL" than others in our society...especially homosexual predators on little children.

So, where are stories about this legislation in the so called Main Stream Media? You know, the press, the people who self appointed themselves as the standard bearers of "THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KNOW". This should have been front page news in every newspaper in the United States...but, the "in the bag for O'Bomber press" knows O'Bomber is panting, longing and awaiting the passage of this corrupt legislation so he can sign it into law. So, there's no coverage in the MSM.

Congratulations democrats.

posted May 06, 2009 11:39 AM         

pedipohile protection act? PEDIPHILE PROTECTION ACT? there should be a PARENTS FIGHT BACK AGAINST PEDIPHILES ACT, that excludes parents (and grandparents) from any actions taken against the creep that dared touch thier child.

some things are worth going to prison over jwhops.

i decided a long time ago that i would fight to the death over someone hurting me or my children or trying to take anything from me that i have worked for. some things are worth prison or whatever penalty they dish out and i would do the time associated with the crime when it comes to protecting what is mine.

hopefully decent representation and a fair minded, like minded jury would go easy on someone who broke laws protecting thier own and would be smart enough to know the difference between self defense and a hate crime. that is what i would hope for. leniency.

i am quite sure there is no fitting punishment for the wonman in FLA who assaulted with objects and then murdered that beautiful little girl. prison isn't enough. the parents should have shot her straight to hell and saved the taxpayers a few bucks. instead they have to see her stupid face crying on tv about how bad a thing she did. screw her and any feelings she has, that little girl probobly cried too. probobly begged for her life.

sometimes vigilante actions are necessary. clint eastwood style. dun.

this act DISGUSTS me.

posted May 06, 2009 11:53 AM         

seriously jwhops.

the issue - terrible.
the blame game - a bit old.

bills are flying through the whitehouse quicker than spidey can change his outfit to fight crime..

maybe he does stay up nights?

maybe they have been sitting on these bills waiting for a democratic president so then they can pull them all out of thier butts at once bog down the feeble minded representaitves and pass thier agendas through. all your little "special" groups.

i say blame all the groups with acronyms for names. it is usually thier agenda to protect the scumbags..

posted May 06, 2009 12:10 PM         

free speech is still legal as far as i know.

At the very least the scumbags will know you are watching them with your good eye.

from what i understand there is no effective rehabilition for these kinds.

posted May 06, 2009 12:31 PM         

there is no doubt NOTHING in the bill about an enraged victim's parent slapping a pedophile in the face in her anger. but there might be something which would preclude the harrassment, stoning, outright vendett-ing of people convicted of nasty crimes. i haven't read it(the actual bill) and i doubt jwhop has either.

to put thoughts in obama's head and imply he can't sleep at night for dreaming up ways to pervert justice is an indication of the author's paranoid state of mind.

posted May 06, 2009 01:20 PM         

O'Bomber's White House Chief of Staff is Rahm Emanuel. Rahm Emanuel is the guy who gave up his House Seat recently to become "Chief of Staff to O'Bomber. This is the guy who is hardwired into the federal legislature...House and Senate of the United States. There is nothing in any of these Bills which is not known and approved by the White House...Barack Hussein O'Bomber.

So, how about giving the excuse making for O'Bomber a rest. He is all for this Bill and is pushing to get it passed so he can sign it into law.

Further, the Bill does exactly what I said it does...give special hate crimes protection to Pedophiles who make a practice of sexually assaulting and then sometimes killing children.

posted May 06, 2009 01:58 PM         

and really i had no idea that you had access to obama's bedroom so you could report on the veracity of the accusation that he goes without sleep night after night dreaming up ways of perverting the constitution!!

have to agree with you that this bill sounds superfluous, on the face of it, but as i said i haven't read it or even a precis of it.

it would be nice if these things could be concisely reworded for laymen to see the salient points included. but while it would be preferable to stop unnecessary bills being passed in the first place, they are not irrevocable if they turn out to be useless or harmful to our civil liberties...

posted May 06, 2009 03:31 PM         

"jwhop. which part of the bill gives those special protections to paedophiles?"

posted May 06, 2009 03:55 PM         

you know, it does seem to me that certain things are shoved right down our throats. i feel like i get looked down upon becasue i believe in god and that isn't popular anymore, never have i tried to make anyone believe what i believe, just want to live my life. and follow my path to enlightenment, which includes god.

whatever law they pass will not affect my actions in certain scenarios.

why should pedophiles be protected from hate crimes? the started it with thier own crime against a child. a child that can not defend him or herself. they deserve whatever they get.

you know, you do what you have to do and deal wtih the consequences. i know two wrongs don't make a right, but to take one out is one or more less children that have to suffer at thier hands, and i can sleep at night knowing that, if it ever came to it.

posted May 06, 2009 04:02 PM         

the other side does the same thing. everything is against their first amendment rights, blah blah blah.

no one realizes we are all getting f-ed.

bend over, now its your turn. jwhops, grab your ankles, you next...line up conservatives first, then the liberals.

posted May 06, 2009 04:25 PM         

as to why protect pedophiles from hate crimes, there's ONLY ONE reason. taking the law into your own hands is basically negating the rule of law. i have no time for pedophiles. they actually disgust me. but there's a difference between vigilance and vigilantes.

but as jwhop has pointed out it shouldn't be necessary to create a whole new bill to protect victims of hate crimes. assault is assault and EVERYONE is supposed to have equal protection under the law.

maybe if we legalized marijuana there would be room and money to keep these guys locked up instead of sending them back out to worry everyone...

posted May 06, 2009 05:01 PM         

GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY

Text of H.R. 1913: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

""‘Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

‘(a) In General-

‘(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

‘(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

‘(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

‘(i) death results from the offense; or

‘(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

‘(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-

‘(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerouse weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--

‘(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

‘(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

‘(I) death results from the offense; or

‘(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

‘(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

‘(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--

‘(I) across a State line or national border; or

‘(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

‘(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);

‘(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or

‘(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

‘(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

‘(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

‘(3) ADDITIONAL FEDERAL NEXUS FOR OFFENSE- Whoever, in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or in Indian country, engages in conduct described in paragraph (1) or in paragraph (2)(A) (without regard to whether that conduct occurred in a circumstance described in paragraph (2)(B)) shall be subject to the same penalties as those provided for offenses under those paragraphs.

‘(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--

‘(1) 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; and

‘(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--

‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;

‘(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

‘(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or

‘(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.

Notice, even if acquitted in a state court...and the feds don't like that verdict then they can pursue in the federal courts.

posted May 06, 2009 05:31 PM         

gender identity and sexual orientation are about your choices and tastes regarding sex and gender. they are not about specific crimes. if i want to state the opinion that ten year old spanish boys are achingly beautiful does that give you the right to thrash me? you don't have to like me. you could call me a pervert in YOUR OPINION. but it doesn't give you the right to ACT on that opinion anymore than i have the right to invite said 10 year olds to my house for a little hankypanky.

THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION BY THE WAY JWHOP SO PLEASE, NO LYNCH MOB!! for the record the last time i was attracted to a 10 yr old was when i was about 8!

as you said in the first place, this bill really shouldn't be necessary. EVERYONE should be protected against hate crimes, taking the law into your own hands. but that doesn't mean it offers special protection to pedos.

posted May 06, 2009 05:42 PM         

Beating the hell out of that molester is slated to become a "hate crime" with additional jail time..over and above a conviction for battery because...it will be a hate crime.

posted May 06, 2009 06:05 PM         

quote:

---

but that doesn't mean it offers special protection to pedos...katatonic

---

It does mean special protection under the law is being given to Pedophiles katatonic. They are now an untouchable segment of the US population.

The drain brained in the Congress don't understand what "Equal Protection Under the Laws" means.

posted May 06, 2009 08:18 PM         

which is why i agree with you jwhop that it is a basically pointless law that repeats what is already on the books.

it is the detractors who are making exceptional mention of pedophiles, though, because the list is pretty inclusive of ANYONE who might be considered "beneath" the protection of the law for what they believe or are.

"sexual orientation" is not the same as "sexual behaviour or abuse". if it was reworded to say "between consenting adults" that would eliminate the ambiguity.

it doesn't say anything at all about inflicting injury on someone who is in the act of hurting you, your children, or your neighbour's dog. it doesn't ban the ability to make citizen's arrest. it basically says WHATEVER it is you don't like about someone it is up to the LAW to punish them, not you the man in the street (or in the KKK) and that taking the law into your hands will now be a federal offense.

like i said it IS repetitious and pointless. i'm not defending the legislation, just arguing with the argument that taking the law into your own hands is ever okay EXCEPT in self-defense. or that it says pedos are now a protected class. what tripe.

the pedophile thing is a red herring meant to convince people that the government is trying to shield criminals when really it is just restating something that is already on the books and making it more of a crime - you know that little old thing about discrimination on the basis of race, sex or creed...they're throwing in more details.

its not just coincidence that no one is saying "that means you can't bash gays, blacks or muslims, kids!" but they are saying they will be prosecuted for speaking their mind...the thing doesn't mention "incitement" but "bodily injury".

posted May 06, 2009 10:09 PM         

Apparantly, according to a Congresswoman in my own home state, only Jews, Blacks and Gays count as "real" hate crime victims.

The arguments I've read that are "pro" the protection being extended towards pedophiles is that once they serve their time, they are released and all their information is made public. So their lives are potentially endangered by angry parents who hate pedophiles and don't want them in their neighborhood.

I think that argument is pure BS. You don't choose to be Black and, from an ethnic standpoint, you don't choose to be Jewish. Also, Blacks and Jews don't actually hurt anyone just by being Black and Jewish. But you do choose to act on your sexual proclivities, even if they do decide that those proclivities are genetic. You CHOSE to molest a child. And, as for the Gay argument, consensual decisions between two adults is NOWHERE near the same thing as molesting a child.

I frankly don't care what inclinations anyone is genetically predisposed to having. You make the choice to act on those inclinations or not. Children should never be fair game. And spare me the bleeding heart "he was 18, she was 17 and it's not fair" argument. It's one damn year. No one is putting a gun to your head to have consensual sex, are they? Imagine. You can actually decide to wait. Oh, the horror.

So, no, I don't think pedophiles should be offered any special protection. Particularly because they are not capable of being "healed" or "fixed" or whatever the PC term is for not wanting to hurt little kids anymore.

It's like being an alcoholic. You're an alcoholic for the rest of your life and every day you have to choose. A pedophile will have to choose for the rest of his life to not harm a child.

Pedophiles pose one of the greatest threats to society for this very reason, imo. Alcoholics post a direct threat to themselves and an indirect threat to others. But pedophiles are a direct threat to every child in their community.

Another solution needs to found for what to do with people that cannot be rehabilitated, the punishment needs to be tailored to suit the crime (and being molested is a life sentence for a child), and I frankly don't want any of my tax dollars going to "specially" protect these people.

And, btw, if they do extend the meaning of "hate crimes", an already dubious classification, who gets to decide who is more or less hated? Because I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people who hate groups that it would not be PC to suggest are victims of hate crimes. Recent example? Military members and their families. Sure, some Marine may not really need to be protected from Joe Schmoe. But what about his wife and kids ... who are left alone for months at a time ... often in a foreign place without a strong support network of friends and family? Believe me, particularly being stationed in the states, we all get advice on how to try to fake that your husband is around because the anti-military sentiment is so strong. But, no, no. Politicians figure she and the kids can handle it on their own. Being attacked because someone HATES you for being married or born to a soldier isn't quite good enough. Instead, let's worry about the sickos who get their jollies off of little children. Here's an idea: EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. But wait, that would make sense!

Hell in a handbasket is not a foreign and exotic destination somewhere below the ethers any more.