DONATE

Showing posts with label Hate Crimes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hate Crimes. Show all posts

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Solid Snake emails and SlantRight Thoughts Pt 1

Solid Snake and John R. Houk
August 23, 2012

Let’s consider this a part one title because I still have some emails to go through from Solid Snake. The emails are all about exposing the nature of homosexuality.

JRH 8/23/12
***************************
9/23/12 SF Folsom Street Pervert Promotion

Sent: Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:40 PM


Psycho Pervert Ad
SF Fulsom Street Fair Ad for 9-23-12


In 2012 the world's largest leather event, the Folsom Street Fair®, will take place on Sunday, September 23, 2012 from 11:00 AM to 6:00 PM. We are sure to see the fairgrounds filled with people in their most outrageous leather/rubber/fetish attire enjoying the world's largest and best loved Leather fair.

The Folsom Street Fair is a true San Francisco original. With over 400,000 people in attendance covering 13 city blocks, the Fair is the largest leather/fetish event in the world and the third largest, single-day outdoor event in California. Folsom Street Events is thrilled to celebrate the 28th Folsom Street Fair with style and a week's worth of truly outstanding events and programs over the course of San Francisco Leather Week.

Pictures from the Folsom Street Fair®

See the pictures from previous Folsom Street Fairs®:

















SlantRight Comment: If you could stomach the perversion take note this perverted street fair is open to the public and it includes homosexuals performing sex in the streets. Also note the event is licensed by the City of San Francisco and the name is actually trademarked.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
FRC Attacked by Fanatic

Sent: 8/22/2012 7:22 PM

Some whack-job opened fire on FRC HQ in DC. I forewarned that things were going to get nasty. I’ve been saying it.  They are desperate to hold on to that perversion.  Here are links providing more info if needed.


A security guard at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Family Research Council was shot on Wednesday after an altercation with a man who entered the lobby with a gun. Police and agents from the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are investigating the shooting.

"Our first concern is with our colleague who was shot today," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said in a brief statement. "Our concern is for him and his family."

According to a spokesman for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, the suspected gunman entered the lobby of the building in downtown Washington at 10:45 a.m. Wednesday morning. He was confronted by the security guard and opened fire.

The guard was shot in the left arm, police said. The gunman was tackled and then taken into custody.

"The suspect is in custody and is being interviewed by the FBI," Jacqueline Maguire, a spokeswoman for the FBI's Washington Field Office, said, declining to discuss his motive. Charges have yet to be filed.

The FBI did not release the suspect's name, but multiple reports identified the gunman as Floyd Lee Corkins, 28, from READ THE REST


A security guard at the Family Research Council's headquarters in Washington, D.C. is being hailed as a hero after he stopped a gunman posing as an intern, taking a bullet in the arm before wrestling the suspect to the ground.

The gunman, identified as 28-year-old Floyd Lee Corkins II, entered the lobby of the organization's Chinatown headquarters around 10:45 a.m. and expressed disagreement with the conservative group's policy positions, sources tell Fox News.

When the guard asked him where he was going, he opened fire, according to police.

“The security guard here is a hero, as far as I’m concerned,” D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier said. "He did his job. The person never made it past the front.”

The guard, Leo Johnson, was shot in the arm and was conscious after the shooting and in stable condition. Corkins was being questioned by READ THE REST

And Joe Jervis did say they stated their own hate crime.


SlantRight Comment: Actually Jervis’ first reaction was empathy with the shot guard. As Jervis runs updates to the incident you can tell he is becoming perturbed the MSM and Fox News is reporting this as a hate crime executed by a homosexual against a Family Values organization lie FRC.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
SPLC Labels FRC Incident Hate Crime

Sent: 8/22/2012 7:32 PM

Enclosed is a release put out by Mr. Potok. When you see it you will be amused along with other info to substantiate what I am telling you here. Also the SPLC wrote some real nasty stuff saying on how they deserved it and such. Read the comment section.


SPLC: Family Research Council License-to-Kill Claim ‘Outrageous’

By Mark Potok
August 16, 2012

Editor’s Note: The following statement may be attributed to Mark Potok, Senior Fellow of the Southern Poverty Law Center and editor of its Intelligence Report and Hatewatch blog.

Yesterday’s attack on the Family Research Council and the shooting of a security guard there was a tragedy. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) deplores all violence, and our thoughts are with the wounded victim, Leo Johnson, his family and others who lived through the attack.

For more than 40 years, the SPLC has battled against political extremism and political violence. We have argued consistently that violence is no answer to problems in a democratic society, and we have strongly criticized all those who endorse such violence, whether on the political left or the political right.

SlantRight Comment: This is Potok’s hypocritical beginning to the load of Leftist deception. Yes, SPLC was awesome in the early days of the Civil Rights Movement bringing greater political stature to the African-Americans of the USA when bigotry kept them in a second class citizen status literally forced to take a back seat to Whites and in many cases Black people were the recipient of Hate Crime violence.

Those days of relevance are gone for the SPLC. Presently they are the champions of Leftist ideology and promoters of immoral culture by taking a stand against God and for homosexuals.

From here Potok embarks on a pace of vitriol against Tony Perkins and FRC calling the organization a lying hate group because of a stand for Godly morality. For the SPLC any science that disagrees with the validation of homosexuality is bad science.

Also Potok rails on the FRC when Perkins tosses some of the SPLCs own tactics by saying that being labeled a hate group by the SPLC was tantamount for encouraging a hate crime against a Christian organization. Potok calls this outrageous and yet the SPLC calls organizations like the FRC encourage violence against homosexuals when that lifestyle is correctly labeled an abomination in the Presence of God.

Potok’s outrage is the height of Leftist hypocrisy.

But this afternoon, FRC President Tony Perkins attacked the SPLC, saying it had encouraged and enabled the attack by labeling the FRC a “hate group.” The attacker, Floyd Corkins, “was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center,” Perkins said. “I believe the Southern Poverty Law Center should be held accountable for their reckless use of terminology.”

Perkins’ accusation is outrageous. The SPLC has listed the FRC as a hate group since 2010 because it has knowingly spread false and denigrating propaganda about LGBT people — not, as some claim, because it opposes same-sex marriage. The FRC and its allies on the religious right are saying, in effect, that offering legitimate and fact-based criticism in a democratic society is tantamount to suggesting that the objects of criticism should be the targets of criminal violence. READ THE REST

SlantRight Comment: The SPLC is knowingly spreading the message of homosexual acceptance when the lifestyle is ungodly according to the Word of God. The SPLC’s propaganda is setting up homosexual terrorism against Biblical Christians.

ENOUGH SAID!


SlantRight Comment: Evidently the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) also criticized the SPLC as an instrument encouraging violence against groups like the FRC. One Rob Tisinai writing at the Box Turtle Bulletin goes after Brian Brown’s vilification of the SPLC.

After Wednesday’s shooting at the Family Research Council, you quickly leveraged the event into a self-serving denunciation of the Southern Poverty Law Center. I can’t fault you for that. After all, in the wake of Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting, I denounced Sarah Palin for lacking the decency to take down her “target map” with its Giffords crosshairs as the Congresswoman struggled through intensive care.  However…

However, you’d be more persuasive if you didn’t exploit this crime to lie about yourself and your organization.

NOMblog reports your statement:


Please, Brian, this event is too important for casual deception. NOM has long, long history, not just of failing to condemn violence and vilification, but of promoting it.

§  When Reverend Ariel Torres Ortega stood on your stage as your guest at your rally and proclaimed that gays are “worthy to death,” NOM was there. But you didn’t condemn it at the event, on your website, or on your blog.

§  When Bishop Robert Evans announced gay marriage represents “the evil modern day works of Satan,” NOM was there to spread the message.

§  When Kirk Cameron called same-sex marriage a threat to civilization, NOM was there to create a video helping him spread his views and dubbing him a “champion of marriage.”

§  When Chik-Fil-A president Dan Cathy said marriage equality activists “are inviting God’s judgment on our nation,” NOM was there to suggest a weekly appreciation day for him.

§  When Fox News asked NOM founder Maggie Gallagher about a pageant contestant who said gays “shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them,” Maggie was there, not to condemn the call for violence, but to praise “her courage in coming forward.”

§  When commenters on your own blog responded to your complaints about incendiary rhetoric by by claiming homosexuality is “a perverted act, just like pedophilia,” and saying they understand why a country like Uganda would want to punish gays with the death penalty? Maggie Gallagher was there — but to defend her own self, not to condemn violence and vilification.

NOM is there. Over and over, when gays are demonized, vilified, and … READ THE REST

SlantRight Comment: How funny are these six points by Tisinai? He calls these six points vitriolic demonization. Frankly it is the truth.

Biblically homosexuals are worthy of death … according to the Law of Moses. Thank God that He so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that those who believe in Him are Saved. Christ’s death, burial and resurrection redeems us from the curse of the Law; i.e. the penalty resulting from breaking the Law. In America the combination of Liberty and Christian forgiveness has led to the tolerance of deviance. For Christians this tolerance is the hope of Salvation for those lost in this world age.

The Word of God says that homosexuality is an abomination. Hmm … I believe it is a truism that the homosexual lifestyle is evil.

As civilization is propagandize and anesthetized to accept homosexuality it dilutes the morality of civilization. If immorality turns into the new normal then homosexuality and its ugly result of same-sex marriage is a threat to civilization. What do you know? Kirk Cameron is telling the truth.

God’s judgment came upon Sodom and Gomorrah for sexual perversion including homosexuality. God’s judgment came upon Israel and Judah for ungodly practices and the Jews found themselves kicked out of the Land Promised them twice. As society accepts ungodly practices as homosexuality, adultery, pornography, man/boy sex and on and on … society is inviting God’s judgment.

Tisinai interprets a beauty pageant contestant belief in the God endorsement that marriage is between one man and one woman in which the contestant then quotes a portion of the Law of Moses found in Leviticus is an endorsement to go homo hunting and killing:

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.  (Lev. 20: 13 NKJV)

I’ve already addressed this fallacy harped upon by homosexuals but let’s to the New Testament to learn why Christians do not hunt down homosexuals and execute them.

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth,[a] before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you[b] as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?

5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do itby the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[c] 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”[d] 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”[e] 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.”[f] 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”[g]

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”[h]), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (Bold Emphasis Mine - Galatians 3: 1-14 NKJV)

SlantRight Comment Continued: Now Tisinai condemned NOM President Maggie Gallagher for praising the beauty pageant contestants stand on traditional marriage equating that stand with a call for executing homosexuals. Once again the homosexual activist is proven wrong.

Tisinai is upset that commenters on the NOM blog equated homosexuality as perverted in the same league as pedophilia. Further Tisinai was bent out of shape that Maggie Gallagher defended her position on homosexuality rather than condemn Uganda for its legal code calling for capital punishment for homosexuals.

I got news for Tisinai. Practicing a LGBT lifestyle is PERVERTED like pedophilia. Gallagher has a right to defend her stance on homosexuality AND Gallagher does not live in Uganda. A lack of condemnation of capital punishment of homosexuality is NOT an agreement to murder homosexuals. If it makes homosexuals feel better. I condemn capital punishment in any form for immoral people practicing homosexuality. Christ came to Save the World not condemn. Rejecting Christ is self-condemnation.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Gohmert Defends Christianity’s Free Speech




John R. Houk
© October 8, 2009


I was directed to a YouTube video by a person that keeps me up to date on the evil wiles of the participants in the homosexual agenda. The video was an excerpted C-Span broadcast showing Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) castigating the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act 2009.

I was delighted to see a Congressman simultaneously taking homosexuality to task followed by the criticism of the Bill’s potential to lead to a Persecute Christian Free Speech Act. Evidently the Bill was attached to a military appropriation Bill no doubt to coerce Republics to pass the whole package.

Gohmert did not hold back not failing to use the whole gamut of sexual perversions the Bill is to protect into the public record:


“A preacher preaching from the Bible, a rabbi preaching from the Torah, an Imam teaching from the Koran says, in his opinion, homosexuality is wrong. Some nut hears 'em, goes out commits commits an act of violence, and when arrested says "Well I was induced to do this by the preacher, or the Imam, or the rabbi.” (From Pam’s House Blend – an appalled transgender oriented blog)


AND


“If you're oriented toward animals, bestiality, then, you know, that's not something that can be used, held against you or any bias be held against you for that [under the new law]”. (The Hill)


Now here’s the thing. After watching and silently giving Gohmert an “‘at a boy,” I decided to check into the nature of the poster. The YouTube post refers those to a blog entitled Inside, Looking Out. It turns out the Inside, Looking Out is a homosexual agenda blog. AND the post was intended to show Gohmert as a homophobic racist rather than as a defender of free speech and Christianity. The blog even writes that that they left out the Biblical Scripture part of the speech to spare his (her or shem) fellow homosexual readers from the horror of anti-homosexual speech.

This was not unexpected regarding that is the agenda of homosexuals. I decided to Google the speech to read or hear a Conservative or Biblical Christian view is a bit more supportive of Gohmert. I was astonished to discover an overwhelming majority of the Google citations represented the anti-Christian Leftist and homosexual position on the Gohmert speech. Hopefully as time proceeds a better Google update will arise.

How far has morality degenerated in America when the defenders of Christian Morality are denigrated as prejudiced racists and the castigators of Christianity are hailed as progressive heroes of normalcy? I see media both written and televised instilling propaganda that it is bigotry to decry homosexuality as an immoral practice and not only should it be allowed but legally protected. I have seen those same media sources castigating Biblical minded Christians as either backwards or arrogant menaces to society.

Friends, this is CRAZY.

For clarity’s sake here is a post of Rep. Gohmert’s position and reasoning for being against the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act 2009:

JRH 10/8/09 (Hat Tip: Solid Snake)
******************************
Hate Crimes Bill Infringes First Amendment Rights

By Rep. Louie Gohmert
04/27/2009
Human Events


The new Federal Hate Crimes bill, which is about to pass the House, intrudes on First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion. It’s another great leap forward on the “gay rights” agenda.

We’ve been sliding down this slope for too long.

When I joined the American Bar Association, I understood it was about making better laws and lawyers. It wasn’t supposed to have a social agenda, left or right. For example, the ABA offered model codes regarding appropriate objectivity and fairness from judges and lawyers that the attorneys in each state were to consider as the most appropriate rules for governing their professional actions.

In the 1980's lawyers with a social agenda began filling the ranks of the ABA. It began to show itself in the resolutions being made and passed. By 1988, the Association adopted a policy urging its members not to hold business or professional functions at clubs that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. In 1989, the ABA adopted a policy of urging the federal government, state governments and local governments to enact legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and housing. I recall seeing in the ABA Journal that states should be encouraged to send more homosexual delegates to the convention around that same time. Also, the ABA passed a controversial resolution in support of keeping abortion legal. Even some members who were pro-choice felt that the ABA was not the place to be pushing social issues. But the bar association had become the place to get social engineering done.

The model code of conduct for judges, called the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, actually was improved in a number of ways by the early 1990's. One of the changes for judges, though, was that "A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice . . ." followed by a list of things most would agree on including "race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age . . ." The laundry list then added a surprise to many in attorneys as it inserted the words "sexual orientation" as well as "socioeconomic status."

This created concern in some circles that the ABA was now into social engineering and trying to move an agenda with vague language that created problems for judges. Some writers following the new model code expressed concern that it would prevent a judge from even mentioning that a lazy, able-bodied defendant being put on probation should get a job and start making something of himself rather than being a burden.

States were pushed to adopt the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct and come out, as the social engineers felt, of the dark ages. Some states' legal elites did not want to be considered intellectually inferior, so they began to give in. Even in Texas, where the Texas Supreme Court decides on such changes to its own code for all judges, the court was mostly composed of quite conservative jurists at the time. However, they too did not want to be accused of intellectual inferiority, so they quickly moved to adopt it. Chief Justice Tom Phillips and Justice Nathan Hecht were both considered very conservative, socially and politically. But, all nine signed on to the new provisions to make it the guiding ethical rule for all state judges in Texas.

When Judge Cynthia Kent and I with other Smith County judges expressed concern to our friend, Justice Hecht, he felt we were over-reacting. I said that this new change will ultimately prevent a child custody judge from considering that one of the spouses practices homosexual conduct in front of the child. He said, "It will never come to mean that on my watch." He was wrong.

As I pointed out then and continue to point out in the hate crimes debate, words have meaning. And although right now "sexual orientation" may be said by some to include only heterosexual and homosexual preferences, someday some judges will begin to say that "sexual orientation" means exactly what it says. It means whatever you are oriented toward sexually cannot be held against you. So, if you are oriented sexually toward children, or toward animals, or corpses, or shoes, or whatever, that's ok. Who are we to judge?

In the Hate Crimes hearings last week, the Democratic proponents made immensely clear they did not want any definition in the bill to restrict its application. It was mentioned during debate that there was a definition of the term in another law that restricted its meaning to heterosexuality and homosexuality, but there was no reference allowed in our bill to that definition, so it does not control the Hate Crimes bill.

We pointed out that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV had at least 30 different types of sexual orientation. Surely, we felt, the majority would allow at least some restriction to keep the new law from being too offensive. So, Steve King offered an amendment to at least exclude pedophiles from the special class of extra protection. However, this was voted down on party lines.

Every Democrat voted against excluding pedophilia from heightened protection, and each Republican voted to exclude pedophiles from any more protection than anyone else in America gets. As I pointed out at the hearing, other types of sexual orientation could be included if the term is given its plain meaning and even listed in the current DSM, including exhibitionism, voyeurism, or even necrophilia.

So far, 40 states plus the District of Columbia have been coerced into basically adopting the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct for judges. Under it, no state judge can say anything about sexual practices without risking grievances being filed and potentially being sanctioned or even removed from office. Iowa is not one of the thirty-seven who adopted it for judges, but they did adopt the prohibition for all lawyers. Since all of the higher level court judges have to be lawyers, the judges are actually governed. And isn’t the single most numerous profession in any legislature in the country the lawyers? What does that tell you about the laws they can make without violating their own cannons of ethics?

The battle in Texas to insert the "sexual orientation" language into the model codes for all attorneys was probably typical of some other states as well. Some lawyers objected to being muzzled permanently, but narrowly the new change passed the vote of the State Bar, thus becoming the rule for attorneys. In debate over whether lawyers’ religious beliefs about sexual orientation should be stymied by the new lawyers’ ethical cannons, a major argument was that the judges had to comply so why shouldn’t the lawyers, too. So the first step was to control the judges; then parlay that to prevent all lawyers from expressing their religious beliefs on sexuality if it differed from those who had overtaken the ABA.

After the model codes for all judges and lawyers prevented them from saying or doing anything to reflect the belief that such conduct was inappropriate, things could move more smoothly for anyone pushing a gay rights agenda. How could it not? Any judge or lawyer who said there were any orientations that were not appropriate risked then be skewered and deemed unethical. Unsuspecting litigants wanting to uphold traditional values of marriage or heterosexuality were walking into courts with the decks completely stacked against them. If a judge supported their position, he was unethical. So, should we be surprised by the judicial holdings in states like tradition-oriented Iowa regarding gay marriage when no lawyer there can ethically claim that homosexuality is inappropriate?

Overlapping that period, there has been a noble fight to finally diminish and defeat unfair prejudice based on race, creed, color, or gender. In that battle, those seeking to overcome unfair racial or gender bias have welcomed help from all sources. As the civil rights advocates were joined by those with a homosexual agenda, they were glad for the company. Homosexual advocates hitched their wagon to the racial and gender civil rights movement and attempted to equate all rights movements. Many of the civil rights warriors were driven by their Christian beliefs that all races should be treated equally as we are equal in God's eyes.

Many of those same ministers have seen societal damage to those who have practiced what the ministers saw as sexual immorality. Those ministers never dreamed that after the homosexual rights proponents arrived on the civil rights platform that those same gay rights advocates would someday turn and say, "Now you ministers have no right to say my homosexual conduct is inappropriate." They had no idea that they would now be muzzled by the same people who rode their movement to the capital.

It was a great honor for me to stand with dozens of African-American ministers who understand what sexual immorality can do to the foundation of a nation. Chuck Colson once pointed out that you cannot demand the morals of Woodstock and not expect a Columbine. The truth is that when a society is guided by "If it feels good, do it," then it is deteriorating into the most base of animal instincts. We leave behind the ability to override base animal instincts for the good of society. Animals do not have the ability to override instincts. They can choose between instincts as to which takes priority, but only humans can choose to override all base instincts including self-preservation, fight or flight, or even sexual instincts for a higher good of those around us. For example, if you are hungry as are strangers around you and you find food, you could choose to share with perfect strangers. Animals cannot set aside all instincts for societal good. Humans can.

Hate crimes legislation may bring an end to the ability to advocate that sexual immorality is unhealthy, as propounded in many religions including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. In the legislation before the Judiciary Committee this week, hate crimes proponents claim that religious objections are specifically protected. The bill says that it does not restrict Constitutionally-protected speech, unless it relates to the underlying offense. But that’s clearly untrue: the underlying offense can be religious teaching or even quotes from religious books. There is no protection for religious speech negatively addresses sexual orientation. That, after all, might induce someone to do something violent.

The hate crimes legislation purports to address only crimes of violence or attempted crimes of violence. However, under Article 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) of the Federal Criminal Code: "Whoever . . . aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" a crime's commission, is punishable just as if he is the principal.

Here is one scenario about which every minister, rabbi, and imam would have to worry. A minister, rabbi, or imam preaches that homosexuality is wrong and leads to the ultimate destruction of moral society. Perhaps one might even quote language in sacred writing saying homosexuality is an "abomination." Then some nut who hears such preaching goes out and shoots a homosexual. When arrested, the mental defective says that the teaching of the minister/rabbi/imam is what "induced" him into committing the act. The minister/rabbi/imam could be argued to have induced the shooter. It raises a fact question that a prosecutor could demand be submitted to the jury at the religious leader's trial.

It also would follow that someone reading scripture that indicates homosexuality is wrong might be attempting to induce a Hate Crime. Criminal attempts can get someone arrested as well. Even if a minister were not convicted, arrests alone have a way of sending chills throughout the religious communities.

Any atheist might say he could care less about the foregoing arguments. But, if he is honest, he cannot disagree with the facts. The facts are that hate crimes are not an epidemic as some claim. There are horrible case scenarios which proponents of the bill say justify federal legislation. One such case is the horrible dragging death in Jasper, Texas. Yet, two of the three defendants in that case received the death penalty under state murder law (not hate crime law), and the third was sentenced to life in prison. No proposed Hate Crimes bill enhances the sentences there.

I, personally, could probably have supported a sentence in that case that allowed the victim's family to choose the method and location by which the defendants would be dragged to death. But, that is not before us in any of the hate crimes proposals, which would do nothing to alter the cases that are most often touted as reasons to have hate crimes legislation. I even offered a death penalty provision for the federal Hate Crimes bill so that would at least be an option in some states that did not have it. That too was voted down in committee on a party line vote.

There was the tragic case of Nicholas West in my home county where the young man was clearly targeted for being a homosexual, was kidnapped, and brutally killed. The defendants were charged with Capital Murder, convicted and have had the death penalty already inflicted. There is no proposed hate crime law anywhere that would have meted out a tougher penalty or had any affect on that case.

FBI statistics show that the incidence of hate crimes has declined over the last ten years for which we have available data. The FBI statistics show that the number of crimes alleged (many self-reported) to have involved some type of bias or prejudice in 2007 is actually lower than it was in 1997.

Alleged “hate crimes” comprise a fraction of one per cent of the actual violent crimes in America. There is no epidemic, yet proponents keep saying the evidence is clear that the instances require action. They won’t cite evidence to support their idea, but they will say it is out there and everyone just knows. Instead they constantly site terribly egregious cases in which hate crime legislation would have made no difference.

Every potential victim deserves protection. Every victim deserves help. Who one sleeps with should not be a reason to give that person heightened protection over any other victim. Hate Crime laws do. We even offered amendments to say that if you are determined to set up these special classes of people who deserve more protection than others, let’s include the military in there too. That was voted down on party lines as well. Every Democrat felt it was more important to protect someone because of whom he or she sleeps with than those who protect our very freedoms.

It just seems insane to this former judge that a defendant charged with a federal Hate Crime could literally come into court having committed a heinous attack on someone and his defense could be that he randomly selected his victim. He just wanted to hurt somebody, anybody. Therefore, if he convinced the jury of his random selection for his brutality, he would have to be acquitted of all federal hate crime charges. According to the Hate Crime bill, we just don’t think randomly select victims deserve as much protection.

The bottom-line message of all Hate Crimes legislation is this: If you are going to hurt me, shoot me, brutalize me, but please don't hate me. Make it a random, senseless crime of violence instead. You’ll walk free from the federal charges under the new Hate Crimes bill if you do.

__________________

Gohmert Defends Christianity’s Free Speech
John R. Houk
© October 8, 2009

________________________

Hate Crimes Bill Infringes First Amendment Rights
Louie Gohmert, a Republican, has represented the First Congressional District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2005.
Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

See Also:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96595

http://www.papastors.net/news/read/247

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/62001-rep-gohmert-hates-crimes-amendment-holding-our-soldiers-hostage