Jeff,
Christians are specifically protected under the act.
Christians are specifically protected under the act.
Hate Crimes Bill Passes Senate
- Thread starter panthera
- Start date
I don't think we're disagreeing.
Panthera, I don't think we're disagreeing. I'm simply saying that while we both need to keep our powder dry and watch and protect ourselves from abuse and/or violence, to take the moral high ground and realize that some folks are truly misguided.
Pray for them, if you will.
(Personally as an agnostic leaning toward athiest I doubt that'll make a darn bit of difference but you know what I mean).
What was the context of the discrimination comment?
I am not native to Colorado so know relatively little about the history of water issues. I do know that I think that it is obscene in a climate such as this one for folks to waste water on lawns and other stupid stuff like that. It's far too valuable for drinking and agriculture. It makes me crazy to see this as a matter of fact.
Panthera, I don't think we're disagreeing. I'm simply saying that while we both need to keep our powder dry and watch and protect ourselves from abuse and/or violence, to take the moral high ground and realize that some folks are truly misguided.
Pray for them, if you will.
(Personally as an agnostic leaning toward athiest I doubt that'll make a darn bit of difference but you know what I mean).
What was the context of the discrimination comment?
I am not native to Colorado so know relatively little about the history of water issues. I do know that I think that it is obscene in a climate such as this one for folks to waste water on lawns and other stupid stuff like that. It's far too valuable for drinking and agriculture. It makes me crazy to see this as a matter of fact.
Jeff,
I'm trying awfully hard to follow you hear, but remember, dear, in our discussions, you're the smart one and I'm the one with stuffing between his ears.
Basically, if I understand you correctly, we disagree on the federal assistance to local law enforcement aspect and on the basic premise that certain acts of violence against certain specific groups should be signaled out for more severe punishment than are others. Have I got that right?
I'm trying awfully hard to follow you hear, but remember, dear, in our discussions, you're the smart one and I'm the one with stuffing between his ears.
Basically, if I understand you correctly, we disagree on the federal assistance to local law enforcement aspect and on the basic premise that certain acts of violence against certain specific groups should be signaled out for more severe punishment than are others. Have I got that right?
I don't care what the law states...
You will not get anyone to prosecute if one of the perceived majority are a victim of hate crime violence.
It's just the way it is.
In many police departments it is department policy to arrest the man in the event of a m-f call regarding domestic violence - even if she has no marks on her and he's bleeding profusely.
It is what it is.
You will not get anyone to prosecute if one of the perceived majority are a victim of hate crime violence.
It's just the way it is.
In many police departments it is department policy to arrest the man in the event of a m-f call regarding domestic violence - even if she has no marks on her and he's bleeding profusely.
It is what it is.
Keven, I try to be consistent about adding IMOs and other qualifiers. It's just opinions here, including mine.
IMO, this hate crime law is far from the worst federal legislation we've ever had to deal with. If it serves to isolate hatred and violence against gay people, and as a foot in the door to end institutionalized bigotry against us, that's great. However I do believe this and similar state laws are clearly unconstitutional and will eventually be thrown out on those grounds.
I also believe history has shown that the more narrowly these laws have been written, the more effective they have been. My main point throughout this discussion is that this new law covers just about everyone, and therefore will convert our criminal justice system into a popularity contest, an outright mockery of equal protection.
IMO, this hate crime law is far from the worst federal legislation we've ever had to deal with. If it serves to isolate hatred and violence against gay people, and as a foot in the door to end institutionalized bigotry against us, that's great. However I do believe this and similar state laws are clearly unconstitutional and will eventually be thrown out on those grounds.
I also believe history has shown that the more narrowly these laws have been written, the more effective they have been. My main point throughout this discussion is that this new law covers just about everyone, and therefore will convert our criminal justice system into a popularity contest, an outright mockery of equal protection.
Hunter,
Never mind, I was born in Colorado and there is much - most - I don't get.
Water, however, well, basically, Colorado was forced (by the feds) to share her water with other territories and states, not least of which being Texas. In fact, until July of 2009, the water falling on your roof during a rainstorm was not legally yours.
Yes, the absurd laws and home owner association mandates (Fort Collins leads the nation on stupid rules there) about green grass lawns, etc. are truly scary. I mean, just where the hell is the water supposed to come form. Hello, 'high arid plain', mean anything? Obviously not, we'll just pretend those aquifers are bottomless.
Anyway, Colorado was forced to share and those provisions have rankled natives ever sense. They aren't necessarily unfair to the state, and had Colorado been willing to play fairly with Texas et al. the feds wouldn't have got involved. The current bug-a-boo is Southern California with the Colorado river. Yes, I know, but where does that water flow into the river from?
The URL is just a brief look at the current situation from the perspective of a neutral state. I'll try to scan and copy out some early 20th century history on the water mess for you in December or maybe you can find it online. It's quite interesting reading.
We need to figure out, and that right quick, if America can continue to be an "Agrarian" country/economy or if we are going to be a capitalist country which practices value addition of raw resources. The Republican solution of the last 30 some odd years has bankrupted us. We don't make anything, we just sell widgets to each other. The right has succeeded in reducing their entire economic stance to a frozen in time mantra: reduce taxes. This is not necessarily the right solution to every economic problem. By chasing all the moderates out, they ended up with only the christianists (not Christians) running things and are now completely opposed to everything the other party suggests, just on principle.
The Democrats, on the other hand (again, it is irrelevant to be a libertarian in America, they don't win elections), have become the party of knee-jerk political correctness and one-size-fits-all social solutions. We don't need more guns in the hell-holes of America's inner cities, whether Denver or Detroit. We need guns as tools on a ranch in Weld county.
In the end, I see Republicans denying me human status and doing their best to strip me of what few civil rights I do have. If the Democrats haven't moved as fast as they needed to, we have seen more progress on civil rights for all Americans under Obama than the last eight years together.
By the end of the Bush dictatorship, we had lost habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights had been secretly suspended. They have been restored under Obama. I really don't see anybody on the right arguing that that is a good thing or that Bush and Co. removed liberties and rights.
http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/arroyo/101comm.html
Never mind, I was born in Colorado and there is much - most - I don't get.
Water, however, well, basically, Colorado was forced (by the feds) to share her water with other territories and states, not least of which being Texas. In fact, until July of 2009, the water falling on your roof during a rainstorm was not legally yours.
Yes, the absurd laws and home owner association mandates (Fort Collins leads the nation on stupid rules there) about green grass lawns, etc. are truly scary. I mean, just where the hell is the water supposed to come form. Hello, 'high arid plain', mean anything? Obviously not, we'll just pretend those aquifers are bottomless.
Anyway, Colorado was forced to share and those provisions have rankled natives ever sense. They aren't necessarily unfair to the state, and had Colorado been willing to play fairly with Texas et al. the feds wouldn't have got involved. The current bug-a-boo is Southern California with the Colorado river. Yes, I know, but where does that water flow into the river from?
The URL is just a brief look at the current situation from the perspective of a neutral state. I'll try to scan and copy out some early 20th century history on the water mess for you in December or maybe you can find it online. It's quite interesting reading.
We need to figure out, and that right quick, if America can continue to be an "Agrarian" country/economy or if we are going to be a capitalist country which practices value addition of raw resources. The Republican solution of the last 30 some odd years has bankrupted us. We don't make anything, we just sell widgets to each other. The right has succeeded in reducing their entire economic stance to a frozen in time mantra: reduce taxes. This is not necessarily the right solution to every economic problem. By chasing all the moderates out, they ended up with only the christianists (not Christians) running things and are now completely opposed to everything the other party suggests, just on principle.
The Democrats, on the other hand (again, it is irrelevant to be a libertarian in America, they don't win elections), have become the party of knee-jerk political correctness and one-size-fits-all social solutions. We don't need more guns in the hell-holes of America's inner cities, whether Denver or Detroit. We need guns as tools on a ranch in Weld county.
In the end, I see Republicans denying me human status and doing their best to strip me of what few civil rights I do have. If the Democrats haven't moved as fast as they needed to, we have seen more progress on civil rights for all Americans under Obama than the last eight years together.
By the end of the Bush dictatorship, we had lost habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights had been secretly suspended. They have been restored under Obama. I really don't see anybody on the right arguing that that is a good thing or that Bush and Co. removed liberties and rights.
http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/arroyo/101comm.html
Please tell me how they have been restored,
...especially since Obama has put in for a Patriot act extension.
I have seen no indication of this.
"sneak and peak" searches are still happening.
The so called 'war on drugs' is still going on.
NAFTA is still in force as is GATT.
Thanks for the water link I am reading it now.
...especially since Obama has put in for a Patriot act extension.
I have seen no indication of this.
"sneak and peak" searches are still happening.
The so called 'war on drugs' is still going on.
NAFTA is still in force as is GATT.
Thanks for the water link I am reading it now.
Hunter and Jeff,
I am not happy about those things, either, but I am referring literally to habeas corpus, literally to the secret court decison to suspend the Bill of Rights. Those have been overturned by Obama's justice department and the Constitutional rule of law restored. These other things like NAFTA, etc. are a pain in the butt, but they are based on federally prosecuted treaties which were ratified by legally elected representatives. We may not be happy about them, but you can not compare them to stripping American citizens of the right to hear the charges against them in front of a court of justice...
Here's the text of the Hate Crimes Law as passed out of the House. It is the basis for what Obama will sign. Unless someone really wants the full defense bill, I ain't gonna do that. Even if they do want it, just take my word for it, they're the same...or look it up.
This version: Referred in Senate. This is the text of the bill after moving from the House to the Senate before being considered by Senate committees. This is the latest version of the bill available on this website.
HR 1913 RFS
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1913
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 30, 2009
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
AN ACT
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009’.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act--
(1) the term ‘crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term ‘hate crime’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term ‘local’ means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.
SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.
(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-
(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws.
(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.
(b) Grants-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.
(3) APPLICATION-
(A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.
(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.
(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall--
(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;
(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;
(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental violence recovery service programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and
(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.
(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 180 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.
(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.
(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2011, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.
(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Authority To Award Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012, such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.
SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘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.
‘(c) Definitions-
‘(1) In this section--
‘(A) the term ‘explosive or incendiary device’ has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
‘(B) the term ‘firearm’ has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and
‘(C) the term ‘State’ includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.
‘(2) For the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘gender identity’ means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.
‘(d) Statute of Limitations-
‘(1) OFFENSES NOT RESULTING IN DEATH- Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense under this section unless the indictment for such offense is found, or the information for such offense is instituted, not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed.
‘(2) DEATH RESULTING OFFENSES- An indictment or information alleging that an offense under this section resulted in death may be found or instituted at any time without limitation.
‘(e) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.’.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘249. Hate crime acts.’.
SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution.
Passed the House of Representatives April 29, 2009.
Attest:
LORRAINE C. MILLER,
Clerk.
I am not happy about those things, either, but I am referring literally to habeas corpus, literally to the secret court decison to suspend the Bill of Rights. Those have been overturned by Obama's justice department and the Constitutional rule of law restored. These other things like NAFTA, etc. are a pain in the butt, but they are based on federally prosecuted treaties which were ratified by legally elected representatives. We may not be happy about them, but you can not compare them to stripping American citizens of the right to hear the charges against them in front of a court of justice...
Here's the text of the Hate Crimes Law as passed out of the House. It is the basis for what Obama will sign. Unless someone really wants the full defense bill, I ain't gonna do that. Even if they do want it, just take my word for it, they're the same...or look it up.
This version: Referred in Senate. This is the text of the bill after moving from the House to the Senate before being considered by Senate committees. This is the latest version of the bill available on this website.
HR 1913 RFS
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1913
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 30, 2009
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
AN ACT
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009’.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act--
(1) the term ‘crime of violence’ has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term ‘hate crime’ has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term ‘local’ means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.
SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.
(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-
(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws.
(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.
(b) Grants-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.
(3) APPLICATION-
(A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.
(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.
(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall--
(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;
(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;
(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental violence recovery service programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and
(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.
(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 180 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.
(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.
(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2011, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.
(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Authority To Award Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012, such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.
SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘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.
‘(c) Definitions-
‘(1) In this section--
‘(A) the term ‘explosive or incendiary device’ has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
‘(B) the term ‘firearm’ has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and
‘(C) the term ‘State’ includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.
‘(2) For the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘gender identity’ means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.
‘(d) Statute of Limitations-
‘(1) OFFENSES NOT RESULTING IN DEATH- Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense under this section unless the indictment for such offense is found, or the information for such offense is instituted, not later than 7 years after the date on which the offense was committed.
‘(2) DEATH RESULTING OFFENSES- An indictment or information alleging that an offense under this section resulted in death may be found or instituted at any time without limitation.
‘(e) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.’.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘249. Hate crime acts.’.
SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution.
Passed the House of Representatives April 29, 2009.
Attest:
LORRAINE C. MILLER,
Clerk.
I need source material
About the restoration of habeous corpus. Can you provide? (I'm NOT baiting you, I just think something may have zoomed under my radar and I want to analyze it).
Not unreasonable law language - but it really does not change intrastate laws in any way.
It will be interesting to see a)if it passes, b) if odious things get attached to it, and c) if it ever used and for what purposes. The language looks good though (though IANAL)
About the restoration of habeous corpus. Can you provide? (I'm NOT baiting you, I just think something may have zoomed under my radar and I want to analyze it).
Not unreasonable law language - but it really does not change intrastate laws in any way.
It will be interesting to see a)if it passes, b) if odious things get attached to it, and c) if it ever used and for what purposes. The language looks good though (though IANAL)
Jeff,
I think we either misunderstood each other or we were talking past each other. Or, I just didn't get your point.
Of course the whole point of adding us to the hate-crimes legislation was to make it possible to intervene below the federal level. The feds can't interfere in Constitutionally valid state laws (14th amendment), so only thusly could those jurisdictions which don't give a flying halibut about us be motivated to preserve our rights...they now being federal and thus overarching.
Hunter, here is the link to Bush#43 stripping us of that right:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/203303Here, the Supreme Court restored them:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/12/boumediene/
No, we have not yet seen legislation stripping them out of the abominations against the Constitution the Republicans pushed through under Bush#43. For now, we only have the Supreme Court judgment. I hope to see legislation before the end of the year so that Republicans will have a chance to reaffirm their oath to uphold the Constitution.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not happy with the fact that Obama has moved too slowly on these things. Just, he is going the right direction.
As for the other nonsense from the Bush,er, presidency. Here, the fourthamendment overturned and the rest by extension, too:
http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2008/030408Memo.htmHere, we see the 4th restored:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2...s-4th-amendment-after-hounding-from-congress/
I'm done for the evening, long day. Very frightening, all in all - the important thing is that at least the Obama administration is restoring rights, if not quite as fast as a sleeping turtle walking backwards towards the finish line, at least Americans now have those rights again.
I think we either misunderstood each other or we were talking past each other. Or, I just didn't get your point.
Of course the whole point of adding us to the hate-crimes legislation was to make it possible to intervene below the federal level. The feds can't interfere in Constitutionally valid state laws (14th amendment), so only thusly could those jurisdictions which don't give a flying halibut about us be motivated to preserve our rights...they now being federal and thus overarching.
Hunter, here is the link to Bush#43 stripping us of that right:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/203303Here, the Supreme Court restored them:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/12/boumediene/
No, we have not yet seen legislation stripping them out of the abominations against the Constitution the Republicans pushed through under Bush#43. For now, we only have the Supreme Court judgment. I hope to see legislation before the end of the year so that Republicans will have a chance to reaffirm their oath to uphold the Constitution.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not happy with the fact that Obama has moved too slowly on these things. Just, he is going the right direction.
As for the other nonsense from the Bush,er, presidency. Here, the fourthamendment overturned and the rest by extension, too:
http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2008/030408Memo.htmHere, we see the 4th restored:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2...s-4th-amendment-after-hounding-from-congress/
I'm done for the evening, long day. Very frightening, all in all - the important thing is that at least the Obama administration is restoring rights, if not quite as fast as a sleeping turtle walking backwards towards the finish line, at least Americans now have those rights again.
earthling177
Well-known member
I guess there are multiple things going on and people often conflate them. I'm not a lawyer, but several friends are, so forgive me for paraphrasing a discussion between them and other friends of mine, I can't really remember their exact words.
There's a big difference between thoughtcrime and the fact that, at least currently, hate crimes would be criminal acts even if they weren't hate crimes. If you beat or kill someone, it's still a crime. The law is not asking to punish people for thinking of crimes. (Not mind you, that we're strangers to that either, just tell your friends you'd like to hurt the president, and you'll quickly find yourself dealing with treason, for example.)
Also, if you think that considering what people were thinking at the moment they've committed a crime is hard, you will be dismayed to find out that in criminal law intent is key in the majority of crimes. You get very different outcomes for identical acts depending on intention: if you drive off with my car planning to return it later, it's unauthorized use, not grand theft auto, even if you crash it an hour later and I never get it back. Another example? You are driving and talking on a cell phone with your friend, and you run over someone not knowing they are there, you're in for motor vehicle homicide… if instead you run over someone while telling your friend "Hey, here's so-and-so, I'm gonna run over them now", you're in for murder.
So yeah, harsh as it is, in the example Jeff offered, it seems that they *were* selecting someone to rob/assault *because* the person was gay, which the hate crime law was designed to be applied to. You may have noticed that when ordinary folks fall for a con artist we may ask "how can you be so dumb/greedy?" and give the con artist a light sentence, but when they scam old folks, the charges pile up quickly and people actually get up in arms if the law enforcement doesn't pile up the charges, everyone goes "that could be my parents you're talking about!" and just because we don't call it a "hate" crime doesn't mean that we don't apply the law more harshly when we perceive the criminals to be selecting people because they belong to some specific slice of the population.
Anyway, while we may acknowledge that some people are opposed to hate crime laws in general because they think it puts too much attention on motives over and above the criminal acts themselves, it might be interesting to also consider the fact that when an assault on an individual also functions to terrorize a community, it's not unreasonable to acknowledge those as two distinct criminal acts. Sometimes, as one of my friends said, it helps to treat systemic effects systematically.
Cheers
-- Paulo.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." -- Anatole France
There's a big difference between thoughtcrime and the fact that, at least currently, hate crimes would be criminal acts even if they weren't hate crimes. If you beat or kill someone, it's still a crime. The law is not asking to punish people for thinking of crimes. (Not mind you, that we're strangers to that either, just tell your friends you'd like to hurt the president, and you'll quickly find yourself dealing with treason, for example.)
Also, if you think that considering what people were thinking at the moment they've committed a crime is hard, you will be dismayed to find out that in criminal law intent is key in the majority of crimes. You get very different outcomes for identical acts depending on intention: if you drive off with my car planning to return it later, it's unauthorized use, not grand theft auto, even if you crash it an hour later and I never get it back. Another example? You are driving and talking on a cell phone with your friend, and you run over someone not knowing they are there, you're in for motor vehicle homicide… if instead you run over someone while telling your friend "Hey, here's so-and-so, I'm gonna run over them now", you're in for murder.
So yeah, harsh as it is, in the example Jeff offered, it seems that they *were* selecting someone to rob/assault *because* the person was gay, which the hate crime law was designed to be applied to. You may have noticed that when ordinary folks fall for a con artist we may ask "how can you be so dumb/greedy?" and give the con artist a light sentence, but when they scam old folks, the charges pile up quickly and people actually get up in arms if the law enforcement doesn't pile up the charges, everyone goes "that could be my parents you're talking about!" and just because we don't call it a "hate" crime doesn't mean that we don't apply the law more harshly when we perceive the criminals to be selecting people because they belong to some specific slice of the population.
Anyway, while we may acknowledge that some people are opposed to hate crime laws in general because they think it puts too much attention on motives over and above the criminal acts themselves, it might be interesting to also consider the fact that when an assault on an individual also functions to terrorize a community, it's not unreasonable to acknowledge those as two distinct criminal acts. Sometimes, as one of my friends said, it helps to treat systemic effects systematically.
Cheers
-- Paulo.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." -- Anatole France
excellent article on the hate crime bill
He gets it.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/.../hate_crimes_are_different.html?hpid=talkbox1
He gets it.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/.../hate_crimes_are_different.html?hpid=talkbox1
well yes,
There has been tremendous effort to restore the constitutional amendments that were ignored by the Bush 43 presidency - but since I note these are April 2008 and October 2008 how does that mean Obama 'restored' them? They were restored via judicial action by judges that weren't corrupt, yes?
I'm not venerating Bush and dissing Obama but I don't see Obama helping to restore them, I see the judiciary saying 'hold it right there, you can't do that.'
The biggest frustration I have is that the left is usually the one who screams 'this is wrong' - but now that y'all have your boy in there everyone seems to be going to sleep.
There has been tremendous effort to restore the constitutional amendments that were ignored by the Bush 43 presidency - but since I note these are April 2008 and October 2008 how does that mean Obama 'restored' them? They were restored via judicial action by judges that weren't corrupt, yes?
I'm not venerating Bush and dissing Obama but I don't see Obama helping to restore them, I see the judiciary saying 'hold it right there, you can't do that.'
The biggest frustration I have is that the left is usually the one who screams 'this is wrong' - but now that y'all have your boy in there everyone seems to be going to sleep.
Hunter,
No, I wouldn't say we are even moving that fast.
The urgency of whenever.
Sigh.
I knew most of the horror cabinet had been struck down (all those 'activist' judges who apply a strict reading of the Constitution), but I didn't realize how far behind we lagged, still. I do know the justice department is ready to use the new hate crimes legislation's funds to promote civil rights, but, gosh - we need to go faster.
It is funny, I know you're not in love with the Democrats, but it's the Republicans who keep taking away rights..while we lament over them and drag our feet.
Sigh.
Oh, ENDA may have the votes to go through this year.
No, I wouldn't say we are even moving that fast.
The urgency of whenever.
Sigh.
I knew most of the horror cabinet had been struck down (all those 'activist' judges who apply a strict reading of the Constitution), but I didn't realize how far behind we lagged, still. I do know the justice department is ready to use the new hate crimes legislation's funds to promote civil rights, but, gosh - we need to go faster.
It is funny, I know you're not in love with the Democrats, but it's the Republicans who keep taking away rights..while we lament over them and drag our feet.
Sigh.
Oh, ENDA may have the votes to go through this year.
andrewinorlando
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,392
You know, I have to say something here....it is VERY NICE to see everyone talk about a topic about which we don't all agree and be completely civil and open minded and have no name calling...this is quite nice.
Good job boys!! Keep up the good work!
Good job boys!! Keep up the good work!
Andrew,
I, too, am grateful for it. Jeff and Hunter are both way out of my league and I'm have a great time learning from both of them.
I, too, am grateful for it. Jeff and Hunter are both way out of my league and I'm have a great time learning from both of them.
perhaps you misunderstand me, Panthera...
I am not in love with EITHER the Repubicans or the Democrats, believing that BOTH are horrible. It's easy to point at Republican excess - they had majorities in both the house and senate for six years. But really, the Democrats took control of the house and senate in 2006...THREE YEARS AGO. And I have seen no change at all.
Both parties are disgusting. Ultimately it comes down to individuals feeling they are more (or less) like one of the parties public platforms. But really are either of them that different? They simply want power and nothing else, at the expense of all of us.
The unfortunate thing is - we let them do it.
I am not in love with EITHER the Repubicans or the Democrats, believing that BOTH are horrible. It's easy to point at Republican excess - they had majorities in both the house and senate for six years. But really, the Democrats took control of the house and senate in 2006...THREE YEARS AGO. And I have seen no change at all.
Both parties are disgusting. Ultimately it comes down to individuals feeling they are more (or less) like one of the parties public platforms. But really are either of them that different? They simply want power and nothing else, at the expense of all of us.
The unfortunate thing is - we let them do it.
Oh, heavens no,
Hunter - I read you loud and clear.
Your analysis of both is spot on, the Republicans being slightly more inclined to attack the Constitution, the Democrats leaning slightly more towards dithering when they should be doing. That, I think, we can agree on.
As a member of a threatened class (gay man), I don't have the luxury of thumbing my nose at the parties. I split my time between Europe, where I am granted full civil rights and the US where we are, literally, sub-human. The Democrats are, at worst not going to hurt me, the Republicans just recently submitted a bill to have a gay rights ban permanently written into the Constitution.
'Leave me alone' in the sense of 'let me be' is one of the Rocky Mountain Characteristics I most value. Grew up in that culture. Because of the desperate people on the coasts who tried to impose gun control (and I don't mean that in our sense: using both hands) on the West, Democrats are seen by too many as unelectable. This, coupled with the rise of know-nothing christianists has radically altered the nature of the Republican party over the last decades. Give me an alternative, please.
We don't have the luxury in the US of a true third party and, after the last eight years, we can't really keep up the pseudo-intellectual pretense that elections don't have consequences. So, I work with the group which is least out to hurt my love and me.
Hope your weather isn't nearly as dreary as it looks.
Hunter - I read you loud and clear.
Your analysis of both is spot on, the Republicans being slightly more inclined to attack the Constitution, the Democrats leaning slightly more towards dithering when they should be doing. That, I think, we can agree on.
As a member of a threatened class (gay man), I don't have the luxury of thumbing my nose at the parties. I split my time between Europe, where I am granted full civil rights and the US where we are, literally, sub-human. The Democrats are, at worst not going to hurt me, the Republicans just recently submitted a bill to have a gay rights ban permanently written into the Constitution.
'Leave me alone' in the sense of 'let me be' is one of the Rocky Mountain Characteristics I most value. Grew up in that culture. Because of the desperate people on the coasts who tried to impose gun control (and I don't mean that in our sense: using both hands) on the West, Democrats are seen by too many as unelectable. This, coupled with the rise of know-nothing christianists has radically altered the nature of the Republican party over the last decades. Give me an alternative, please.
We don't have the luxury in the US of a true third party and, after the last eight years, we can't really keep up the pseudo-intellectual pretense that elections don't have consequences. So, I work with the group which is least out to hurt my love and me.
Hope your weather isn't nearly as dreary as it looks.
the thing I find so difficult...
Interestingly enough, my observation of so called 'Conservatives (what you would call christianists) is that they bluster A LOT but if you put up a token front, they'll leave you alone (Obviously if you are a male partnered with a man, and living with him, you can't do this and I certainly understand your position).
The left, however, want you to be a true believer.
It's very strange.
Ironically enough, the worst thing is most of the bad stuff toward gays in the last 20 years was done by democrats (the Clintons, another presidency that didn't give a damn about the constitution).
Having lived in Massachusetts, I try to avoid ever visiting either coast again. Facism under any name,right or left, is still facism. The Mass SJC recently ruled that it is quite legal to put a tracing device on the cars of suspected criminals. Gods wounds, talk about self incrimination! If the state wishes to find me guilty of something they can have someone follow me.
I do love to read Ayn Rand's words on the American right - she condemned them utterly for bringing religion into politics, and she was of course, absolutely right.
Hunter
Interestingly enough, my observation of so called 'Conservatives (what you would call christianists) is that they bluster A LOT but if you put up a token front, they'll leave you alone (Obviously if you are a male partnered with a man, and living with him, you can't do this and I certainly understand your position).
The left, however, want you to be a true believer.
It's very strange.
Ironically enough, the worst thing is most of the bad stuff toward gays in the last 20 years was done by democrats (the Clintons, another presidency that didn't give a damn about the constitution).
Having lived in Massachusetts, I try to avoid ever visiting either coast again. Facism under any name,right or left, is still facism. The Mass SJC recently ruled that it is quite legal to put a tracing device on the cars of suspected criminals. Gods wounds, talk about self incrimination! If the state wishes to find me guilty of something they can have someone follow me.
I do love to read Ayn Rand's words on the American right - she condemned them utterly for bringing religion into politics, and she was of course, absolutely right.
Hunter
Yeah,
99% of those id-i-ots out there talking about 'going Galt' have neither the creativity nor the first clue what Rand was talking about. I enjoyed The Fountainhead enormously when I was 13, found Atlas Shrugged more than a bit boring. She sure did nail Colorado mentality with it, tho'.
You've seen me called a Leninist-Marxists-Fascist-Socialist-Librul here for stating that value addition is the key to wealth in a capitalist society. When that is the basis upon which economics is discussed - as it pretty much is, I fear neither of us has a clue just how 'deviant' we really are from the majority. Clinton has, since, admitted the error of his ways. I think he, similar to Carter, underestimated the willingness of the far right to tear up the Constitution to achieve their aims. Unlike Carter, he wised up and, if he'd been able to think with his head and not his penis, we might just have made some progress.
Come to think of it, yes, I do believe this great animosity really stems to a large extent from the impeachment. That's certainly the point where I realized the Republicans were willing to trample the Constitution to reach their aims.
I disagree with Rand on many things - and, thanks to Mad Maggie, I need only point to what she did to the North of the UK to make the point cogently and irrefutably. Still, tho', we can't return to an agrarian economy and so long as my darlin's right to be left in peace is directly under threat, I have to work with the folks who are changing it. It's that simple - gays and transgendered are directly under attack. I mean, look at Maine and Washington state...look at Prop. 8. Since when did America become about stripping people of their human status?
99% of those id-i-ots out there talking about 'going Galt' have neither the creativity nor the first clue what Rand was talking about. I enjoyed The Fountainhead enormously when I was 13, found Atlas Shrugged more than a bit boring. She sure did nail Colorado mentality with it, tho'.
You've seen me called a Leninist-Marxists-Fascist-Socialist-Librul here for stating that value addition is the key to wealth in a capitalist society. When that is the basis upon which economics is discussed - as it pretty much is, I fear neither of us has a clue just how 'deviant' we really are from the majority. Clinton has, since, admitted the error of his ways. I think he, similar to Carter, underestimated the willingness of the far right to tear up the Constitution to achieve their aims. Unlike Carter, he wised up and, if he'd been able to think with his head and not his penis, we might just have made some progress.
Come to think of it, yes, I do believe this great animosity really stems to a large extent from the impeachment. That's certainly the point where I realized the Republicans were willing to trample the Constitution to reach their aims.
I disagree with Rand on many things - and, thanks to Mad Maggie, I need only point to what she did to the North of the UK to make the point cogently and irrefutably. Still, tho', we can't return to an agrarian economy and so long as my darlin's right to be left in peace is directly under threat, I have to work with the folks who are changing it. It's that simple - gays and transgendered are directly under attack. I mean, look at Maine and Washington state...look at Prop. 8. Since when did America become about stripping people of their human status?
But...
Honestly people striding around proudly proclaiming their individualism while spouting rand in ever phrase is a hoot. Yes, I know her writings well, and I admire them, and I do even sometimes spout them - but hell it's a BOOK, an ILLUSTRATION OF WHAT COULD BE (and we are close to). I do believe that lots of teh world are 'looters' but you MUST check your premise when you deal with that.
...value addition IS the key to wealth in a capitalist society. How can you think of it as anything else?
Honestly, Bill Clinton's biggest failing was his incredible narcissism.
I do disagree on one point though: I see the demos trample the constitution just as much.
I would argue that Mrs. Thatcher did what so many so called right wingers have done all over: they don't believe in true free markets, but instead in markets manipulated for their buddies. Just like the left does. And her insistence on the 'community charge' was also ridiculous. But given how far UK has gone down the path of totalitarianism what other do you expect? How can the US take on the policies that are causing complete deindustralization ?
As for the various antigay stuff on state ballots - I don't understand it at all. It is anti-freedom and the so called champions of freedom on the right should be (well actually the 10 of us left ARE) screaming from the rooftops about it.
I will never, never, never give up though.
Honestly people striding around proudly proclaiming their individualism while spouting rand in ever phrase is a hoot. Yes, I know her writings well, and I admire them, and I do even sometimes spout them - but hell it's a BOOK, an ILLUSTRATION OF WHAT COULD BE (and we are close to). I do believe that lots of teh world are 'looters' but you MUST check your premise when you deal with that.
...value addition IS the key to wealth in a capitalist society. How can you think of it as anything else?
Honestly, Bill Clinton's biggest failing was his incredible narcissism.
I do disagree on one point though: I see the demos trample the constitution just as much.
I would argue that Mrs. Thatcher did what so many so called right wingers have done all over: they don't believe in true free markets, but instead in markets manipulated for their buddies. Just like the left does. And her insistence on the 'community charge' was also ridiculous. But given how far UK has gone down the path of totalitarianism what other do you expect? How can the US take on the policies that are causing complete deindustralization ?
As for the various antigay stuff on state ballots - I don't understand it at all. It is anti-freedom and the so called champions of freedom on the right should be (well actually the 10 of us left ARE) screaming from the rooftops about it.
I will never, never, never give up though.
you just stay up on those rooftops, Hunter
It will make you a much easier target for the 60 million conservatives who don't believe in the Constitution...
I wish I were joking. Honestly, did you know that most students are no longer taught civics? The Republicans budget cut it in Colorado - when I was a child, it was a full, separate, one year class in junior high. Now, it's either supposed to be taught with American History-geography-state history or is an elective.
I take a lot of flak from American friends who say to me that the big difference between the US and Europe is that over here, everything which is not permitted is forbidden...and that is so wrong. The German Constitution, for instance, is modeled after the American and the French and grants the same freedoms plus several extra (like gays are human). Everything not enumerated as belonging to the State of necessity is forbidden to the State to prohibit.
But the way the Republicans read it in the US, it was just the opposite and since too many Americans actually believed in Bush #43 as the second-coming incarnate (real patriots) and the idiot Democrats were too busy being politically correct and threatening to come get your gun, we got into this mess.
Sheesh.
Oh, looks like NOM in Maine stole an entire TV-Ad this time and boy are copyright owners furious. No, not the NPR stuff, that was last week. The actions of the Catholic Church here and NOM are mirror images of the last eight years of trampling on the Constitution - they want it, and are willing to destroy the federal republic to get it. Jefferson knew why he didn't want a pure democracy.
It will make you a much easier target for the 60 million conservatives who don't believe in the Constitution...
I wish I were joking. Honestly, did you know that most students are no longer taught civics? The Republicans budget cut it in Colorado - when I was a child, it was a full, separate, one year class in junior high. Now, it's either supposed to be taught with American History-geography-state history or is an elective.
I take a lot of flak from American friends who say to me that the big difference between the US and Europe is that over here, everything which is not permitted is forbidden...and that is so wrong. The German Constitution, for instance, is modeled after the American and the French and grants the same freedoms plus several extra (like gays are human). Everything not enumerated as belonging to the State of necessity is forbidden to the State to prohibit.
But the way the Republicans read it in the US, it was just the opposite and since too many Americans actually believed in Bush #43 as the second-coming incarnate (real patriots) and the idiot Democrats were too busy being politically correct and threatening to come get your gun, we got into this mess.
Sheesh.
Oh, looks like NOM in Maine stole an entire TV-Ad this time and boy are copyright owners furious. No, not the NPR stuff, that was last week. The actions of the Catholic Church here and NOM are mirror images of the last eight years of trampling on the Constitution - they want it, and are willing to destroy the federal republic to get it. Jefferson knew why he didn't want a pure democracy.
You've read it right, Panthera.
I can't argue with you here...and as for being on the rooftops to be a better target, I think I can handle myself with them.
Honestly, WHY is our country so filled with idiots in recent decades?
Never mind, I know why: the immediate gratification of the sound byte, among other things.
I can't argue with you here...and as for being on the rooftops to be a better target, I think I can handle myself with them.
Honestly, WHY is our country so filled with idiots in recent decades?
Never mind, I know why: the immediate gratification of the sound byte, among other things.
perc-o-prince
Well-known member
Keven,
Please... I am not attacking you. I feel the need to let you know that before I post the following:
You posted: "You know, just two weeks ago my darlin' was at a Chamber of Commerce meeting at which the keynote speaker made an extra point of mentioning that it is not only legal but God's will to discriminate against gays in housing and employment. We really are under attack."
Did your darlin' say anything about it at the meeting? Or, assuming that it may have been something that may have inflamed folks, did he report it anonymously in any way to anyone? Apathy on our part is just as bad as what you say the christianists are doing!! No one needs to be militant, but there are times that people need to be questioned.
If nothing else, the group he represented should have been informed, even if anonymously.
When our fuel guy came into the shop last year and asked, "Did you fill the faggot's bus?," it was heard by a co-worker and reported to me. You bet your ass I reported it to my supervisor and made sure it was addressed. I have a good relationship with the manager of the shop and several of the shop employees, so....
Chuck
Please... I am not attacking you. I feel the need to let you know that before I post the following:
You posted: "You know, just two weeks ago my darlin' was at a Chamber of Commerce meeting at which the keynote speaker made an extra point of mentioning that it is not only legal but God's will to discriminate against gays in housing and employment. We really are under attack."
Did your darlin' say anything about it at the meeting? Or, assuming that it may have been something that may have inflamed folks, did he report it anonymously in any way to anyone? Apathy on our part is just as bad as what you say the christianists are doing!! No one needs to be militant, but there are times that people need to be questioned.
If nothing else, the group he represented should have been informed, even if anonymously.
When our fuel guy came into the shop last year and asked, "Did you fill the faggot's bus?," it was heard by a co-worker and reported to me. You bet your ass I reported it to my supervisor and made sure it was addressed. I have a good relationship with the manager of the shop and several of the shop employees, so....
Chuck
Signing tonight!
WOW!
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary...emony-to-celebrate-hate-crimes-bill-enactment
WOW!
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary...emony-to-celebrate-hate-crimes-bill-enactment
Speaking of the US Constitution
Another one of those 'judicial activists', another Bush#43 appointee just ruled that the PAC in Washington state does so have to tell the voters where their money comes from.
Guess where? NOM.
And who gave it to NOM?
Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs!
So Christian, so brimming with charity. I guess the commandment against false witness doesn't apply, it being Old Testament, eh?
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary...reject-71-but-cant-stop-wave-of-colorado-cash
Another one of those 'judicial activists', another Bush#43 appointee just ruled that the PAC in Washington state does so have to tell the voters where their money comes from.
Guess where? NOM.
And who gave it to NOM?
Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs!
So Christian, so brimming with charity. I guess the commandment against false witness doesn't apply, it being Old Testament, eh?
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary...reject-71-but-cant-stop-wave-of-colorado-cash
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Help with Maytag LAT9800AGW please- Latest: vintagewashday
