Mikerotch Commends King George

[Mikerotch]

In the interest of objectivity, Mikerotch is formally commending King George the tyrant, assuming he follows through with his intended veto on the following legislation. Please not that Mikerotch is giving credit where credit is due. The following is this week's piece by Rep. Ron Paul, our only elected official in Washington, D.C. who puts constitutional principles ahead of political concerns 100 % of the time. Enjoy.

Mikerotch, Hailing The King Today

"Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms"

May 7, 2007

Last week, the House of Representatives acted with disdain for the Constitution and individual liberty by passing HR 1592, a bill creating new federal programs to combat so-called “hate crimes.” The legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats define as “hateful.”

There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. Instead of increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement, hate crime laws undermine equal justice under the law by requiring law enforcement and judicial system officers to give priority to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Of course, all decent people should condemn criminal acts motivated by prejudice. But why should an assault victim be treated by the legal system as a second-class citizen because his assailant was motivated by greed instead of hate?

HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts--as opposed to willful criminal acts--is inconsistent with a free society.

HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.

Hate crime laws not only violate the First Amendment, they also violate the Tenth Amendment. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.

Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society. Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto.

[Wayward Son]

I agree. I've never supported the notion of punishing motive. I don't really care why you did what you did, the act itself is punishable. Motive is simply a means of showing that you had a reason to do it.

[Mikerotch]

Exactly. I've always believed that one must truly "hate" in order to murder, period. If I understand things correctly, a white guy murdering a black guy because he hates blacks is worse than a black guy murdering a white guy in order to steal his wallet ? Or, a heterosexual who murders a gay man because of his sexual orientation is more "bad" than an enraged homosexual who murders his lover because of infidelity ? This is no doubt the largest can of worms ever opened, in my primitive opinion.

Mikerotch, Guilty Of The "Crime" Of Hating Government, What's The Penalty Now?

[mnguy]

Originally Posted by Mikerotch

Mikerotch, Guilty Of The "Crime" Of Hating Government, What's The Penalty Now?

Well, Murphy's law would follow that the penalty would be more bureaucracies to figure out why you hate government, if anyone else hates government, what to do about people that hate government, oversight committees for each one plus an overarching bureau to umbrella thed lot and an oversight for that one too.

The corrolary to Murphy's law(what you dislike will end up in your family) means either one of your offspring will become a politician/government official or they will marry one.

[Wayward Son]

In this case, we have the additional consideration of the constitution. Aside from the idiocy of punishing the motive, this bill would clearly be in violation of the 14th amendments "equal protection" clause. It would create groups of citizens who would be treated with greater consideration under the law than everyone else.

Cho, when he shot up Virginia Tech & killed 32 people, clearly was motivated by hate. He hated privileged rich kids. But he did not kill those people for being gay or cross dressers, so under this bill, that crime would not be considered a hate crime.

If that isn't enough to demonstrate the degree of nonsense involved in this, I don't know what is.

[Gradyman]

The downward spiral is getting more & more out of control...who came up with this one (HR 1592) anyway??

[Wayward Son]

The dems:

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c1103VyeaA::

[Mikerotch]

Sponsor:
Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]

Cosponsors
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
Rep. Thomas Allen [D-ME]
Rep. Robert Andrews [D-NJ]
Rep. Michael Arcuri [D-NY]
Rep. Joe Baca [D-CA]
Rep. Brian Baird [D-WA]
Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D-WI]
Rep. Melissa Bean [D-IL]
Rep. Xavier Becerra [D-CA]
Rep. Shelley Berkley [D-NV]
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
Rep. Judy Biggert [R-IL]
Rep. Sanford Bishop [D-GA]
Rep. Timothy Bishop [D-NY]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR]
Rep. Mary Bono [R-CA]
Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU]
Rep. Leonard Boswell [D-IA]
Rep. Robert Brady [D-PA]
Rep. Bruce Braley [D-IA]
Rep. Corrine Brown [D-FL]
Rep. Lois Capps [D-CA]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D-MA]
Rep. Russ Carnahan [D-MO]
Rep. Julia Carson [D-IN]
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Rep. Kathy Castor [D-FL]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D-NY]
Rep. William Clay [D-MO]
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver [D-MO]
Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN]
Rep. Jim Costa [D-CA]
Rep. Joe Courtney [D-CT]
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D-NY]
Rep. Elijah Cummings [D-MD]
Rep. Artur Davis [D-AL]
Rep. Danny Davis [D-IL]
Rep. Susan Davis [D-CA]
Rep. Peter DeFazio [D-OR]
Rep. Diana DeGette [D-CO]
Rep. William Delahunt [D-MA]
Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D-CT]
Rep. John Dingell [D-MI]
Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D-TX]
Rep. Michael Doyle [D-PA]
Rep. Keith Ellison [D-MN]
Rep. Rahm Emanuel [D-IL]
Rep. Eliot Engel [D-NY]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA]
Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA]
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D-PA]
Rep. Bob Filner [D-CA]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Jim Gerlach [R-PA]
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D-AZ]
Rep. Wayne Gilchrest [R-MD]
Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D-TX]
Rep. Al Green [D-TX]
Rep. Raymond Green [D-TX]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez [D-IL]
Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
Rep. Brian Higgins [D-NY]
Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D-NY]
Rep. Mazie Hirono [D-HI]
Rep. Paul Hodes [D-NH]
Rep. Rush Holt [D-NJ]
Rep. Michael Honda [D-CA]
Rep. Darlene Hooley [D-OR]
Rep. Jay Inslee [D-WA]
Rep. Steve Israel [D-NY]
Rep. Jesse Jackson [D-IL]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Eddie Johnson [D-TX]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA]
Rep. Stephanie Jones [D-OH]
Rep. Steve Kagen [D-WI]
Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D-OH]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D-RI]
Rep. Dale Kildee [D-MI]
Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick [D-MI]
Rep. Ronald Kind [D-WI]
Rep. Mark Kirk [R-IL]
Rep. Ron Klein [D-FL]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]
Rep. John Kuhl [R-NY]
Rep. James Langevin [D-RI]
Rep. Tom Lantos [D-CA]
Rep. Rick Larsen [D-WA]
Rep. John Larson [D-CT]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA]
Rep. Sander Levin [D-MI]
Rep. John Lewis [D-GA]
Rep. David Loebsack [D-IA]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY]
Rep. Stephen Lynch [D-MA]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY]
Rep. Edward Markey [D-MA]
Rep. Jim Matheson [D-UT]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D-CA]
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY]
Rep. Betty McCollum [D-MN]
Rep. James McDermott [D-WA]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]
Rep. Michael McNulty [D-NY]
Rep. Martin Meehan [D-MA]
Rep. Gregory Meeks [D-NY]
Rep. Michael Michaud [D-ME]
Rep. Bradley Miller [D-NC]
Rep. George Miller [D-CA]
Rep. Dennis Moore [D-KS]
Rep. Gwen Moore [D-WI]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. Christopher Murphy [D-CT]
Rep. Patrick Murphy [D-PA]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Rep. Grace Napolitano [D-CA]
Rep. Richard Neal [D-MA]
Del. Eleanor Norton [D-DC]
Rep. James Oberstar [D-MN]
Rep. John Olver [D-MA]
Rep. Frank Pallone [D-NJ]
Rep. William Pascrell [D-NJ]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D-AZ]
Rep. Donald Payne [D-NJ]
Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D-CO]
Rep. Todd Platts [R-PA]
Rep. David Price [D-NC]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL]
Rep. Steven Rothman [D-NJ]
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D-CA]
Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger [D-MD]
Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL]
Rep. Linda Sánchez [D-CA]
Rep. John Sarbanes [D-MD]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL]
Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA]
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D-PA]
Rep. Robert Scott [D-VA]
Rep. José Serrano [D-NY]
Rep. Christopher Shays [R-CT]
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter [D-NH]
Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA]
Rep. Albio Sires [D-NJ]
Rep. Ike Skelton [D-MO]
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D-NY]
Rep. Adam Smith [D-WA]
Rep. Victor Snyder [D-AR]
Rep. Hilda Solis [D-CA]
Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA]
Rep. Betty Sutton [D-OH]
Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D-CA]
Rep. Michael Thompson [D-CA]
Rep. John Tierney [D-MA]
Rep. Mark Udall [D-CO]
Rep. Tom Udall [D-NM]
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D-MD]
Rep. Nydia Velázquez [D-NY]
Rep. James Walsh [R-NY]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL]
Rep. Diane Watson [D-CA]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA]
Rep. Anthony Weiner [D-NY]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]
Rep. David Wu [D-OR]
Rep. Albert Wynn [D-MD]
Rep. John Yarmuth [D-KY]

There is your list. Sponsor : John Conyers and all his partners in thought punishment. Hitler would be proud.

Mikerotch, Hates The Legislation, What's The Sentence?

[Gradyman]

Thanks guys for the list and the perspective on the bill. I wonder if they take the time to read or think it through...I'm gonna send an email to my FL folks. Mind if I use some of your thoughts?

[Mikerotch]

I don't know if any of my thoughts are suitable for official correspondence, or any correspondence for that matter, but if you can clean them up, have at it.
I am convinced that Satan himself invented politicians with me in mind. I must add he has been quite successful in that regard as well.

Mikerotch, Struggling Not To Hate Them All

[Gradyman]

Between you and Wayward I was able to build a really good letter!!!

[Mikerotch]

Grady, Post it on here for review, if you would. ( unless it is confidential in some way ) Also, if you sent it to your representative, I'd be interested in what type of form letter response you receive. I've kind of given up on most of ours, although I do work over a friend of mine who is now a state representative.

Mikerotch, Wishing We Could Start Over

[riplipper]

What scares me the most in the post above is how our part system votes so sided.....just look at the list and tell me these people are voting for the people the represent or their own thoughts.....its all or at least 95% party line......very very sad for us......I say again....politicians suck

[Mikerotch]

politicians suck

Rip,

That is a very nice way of saying what I think of them.

Mikerotch, Trying To Be Nicer, But Not Very Hard

[Gradyman]

Here's the letter...Thanks for all the insight...again, all I did was piece together what you all wrote.

Out of four sent I did recieve one responce so far that stated they can only spend the time to personally respond to constituants in thier area, but would keep the comments in mind.

In a discussion with some acquaintances over the HR 1592 bill some good points were brought up.

Legislation defines a hate crime as an act of violence committed against an individual because of the victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Federal hate crime laws violate the Tenth Amendment’s limitations on federal power. Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.
Hate crime laws may also violate the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech and religion by criminalizing speech federal bureaucrats defines as “hateful.” HR 1592 could lead to federal censorship of religious or political speech on the grounds that the speech incites hate. Hate crime laws have been used to silence free speech and even the free exercise of religion. For example, a Pennsylvania hate crime law has been used to prosecute peaceful religious demonstrators on the grounds that their public Bible readings could incite violence. One of HR 1592’s supporters admitted that this legislation could allow the government to silence a preacher if one of the preacher’s parishioners commits a hate crime. More evidence that hate crime laws lead to censorship came recently when one member of Congress suggested that the Federal Communications Commission ban hate speech from the airwaves.

There is no evidence that local governments are failing to apprehend and prosecute criminals motivated by prejudice, in comparison to the apprehension and conviction rates of other crimes. Therefore, new hate crime laws will not significantly reduce crime. HR 1592, like all hate crime laws, imposes a longer sentence on a criminal motivated by hate than on someone who commits the same crime with a different motivation. So now we're punishing motive??? I don't really care why one did what they did, the act itself is punishable. Motive is simply a means of showing that they had a reason to do it. Cho, when he shot up Virginia Tech & killed 32 people, clearly was motivated by hate. He hated privileged rich kids. But he did not kill those people for being gay or cross dressers; so under this bill, that crime would not be considered a hate crime??? If that isn't enough to demonstrate the degree of nonsense involved in this, I don't know what is. Increasing sentences because of motivation goes beyond criminalizing acts; it makes it a crime to think certain thoughts. Criminalizing even the vilest hateful thoughts--as opposed to willful criminal acts--is inconsistent with a free society. Because federal hate crime laws criminalize thoughts, they are incompatible with a free society. Fortunately, President Bush has pledged to veto HR 1592. Of course, I would vote to uphold the president’s veto.