« Ninth Circus Throws Out Sentence of Millennium Bomber | Main | Justice at Last: Castro Made to Suffer Cuban Healthcare »
January 16, 2007
Dem Wants to Federalize Inequality Before the Law
In a frightening example of what we can expect of the new Democrat Congress, the atrocious Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) has introduced a bill that would extend federal authority over so-called "hate crimes" — i.e., crimes that Dems hate because the victim belongs to one of the special interest groups they favor at the expense of everyone else, primarily non-Caucasians, homosexuals, and Muslims.
High-toned verbiage about how thou shalt not commit crimes "motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim" inevitably boils down in actual application to a simple principle: it may be bad to assault someone, but it's worse to assault someone who is liable to vote Democrat. As usual, the real discrimination is directed against normal people — and the real victim is civil society, which rests on the concept that we are all equal before the law.
Needless to say, Jackson-Lee's bill violates the Constitution, but that's unlikely to prevent its passage. For example, the Tenth Amendment is easily skirted with this preposterous argument:
Such violence affects interstate commerce in many ways … instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
"Such violence" refers to violence where the victim is a person of color, a person of gayness, a person of Islamicness, etc., etc., ad nauseam.
Beyond the obvious hyperextension of federal authority and the equally obvious practical result of creating a legal caste system, the bill also assaults free speech. It addresses violent crime, but could easily lead to federal punishment for speech that "offends" privileged groups. Similar legislation has criminalized criticism of homosexuality in Canada.
The utility of the bill lies in its vagueness. If pretty much anything liberals don't like can be called racist, then anything they don't like can be called a hate crime. As Ted Pike of the National Prayer Network notes:
It will be up to judges … to begin to interpret and adjudicate from the bench and inevitably they broaden out the definition of a hate crime.
The same moonbats who sentence child rapists to wrist slaps out of sheer depravity may some day throw you in jail for implying that you don't like it when Muslims fly planes into skyscrapers.
Posted by Van Helsing at January 16, 2007 9:16 PM
Comments
She could make me comitt a crime, up to and including murder if I had to look at that face daily. I actually said 'dumba** N and so did several million other people, black and white.
Posted by: Scrapiron at January 17, 2007 12:30 AM
That psycho is about as sickening as Cynthia McKinney-and just as anti-white. Another of the "fruits" of diversity is constant expansion of State power to search for perfect equality and to protect the victim-status groups. Thus dissolving away freedom eventually. Another thing the Founders tried to warn us about that we just shrugged off.
Posted by: Chris at January 17, 2007 2:10 AM
Remember the good old days when our representatives would get dressed up before appearing on camera? She looks like she just stepped out of Dunkin' Donuts.
Posted by: phil at January 17, 2007 2:41 AM
"Hatecrime" always sounded to me a lot like "Thoughtcrime." And since liberals are always out to silence or punish those who do not think as they do, it's probably not far behind.
In Londonistan, they've taken it to the next logical step, not punishing crimes committed by certain favored minority groups.
U.K. police ignore hundreds of ``honor crimes'' to avoid inflaming relations with Muslim enclaves as they work to head off homegrown terror plots, say lawmakers and women's rights advocates.
Posted by: V the K at January 17, 2007 3:23 AM
Posted by: V the K at January 17, 2007 6:26 AM
people actually buy into this clownery!
Posted by: nanc at January 17, 2007 9:23 AM
Please don't post this picture again. Every time I see it, I spend the rest of the day humming "Mama's little babies love shortenin' bread," and it drives me nuts.
Thanks!
Posted by: Jay Guevara at January 17, 2007 10:53 AM
The Founders understood that perfect equality, while never really possible, was only partially achievable with massive State power and thus was detrimental to freedom. We have forgotten our own creed in this country, and it's going to cost us our freedom.
Posted by: Chris at January 17, 2007 12:55 PM
The thing these libs don’t realize is that THEY are the racists ones. By saying that we will give you benefits because you need them is basically how it sounds. That they are unable to do it by themselves thus need the governments handouts!
Posted by: Eric at January 17, 2007 3:34 PM
