13 May, 2009
The Hate Crimes Prevention Bill: Why Do Jewish Organizations Support It?
Posted by Socrates in 'hate', 'hate' crimes, 'hate' laws, Jewish organizations, Kevin MacDonald, Socrates at 2:13 am | 
Permanent Link
by Dr. Kevin MacDonald.
“The ‘Hate Crimes Prevention Bill’ will be in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. It recently passed the House, causing the Anti-Defamation League to rejoice. The ADL called the law ‘an essential and necessary step forward in the national effort to counter hate crimes’ and urged passage by the Senate.
It also congratulated itself on taking a leadership role in promoting this legislation for the last 10 years. Other Jewish organizations have also been at the forefront of promoting ‘hate crime’ legislation in the US and throughout the West.”
13 May, 2009 at 7:52 am
How I will laugh when the very first evangelical minister is fined for “hate speech” when he preaches against homosexuality!
How the evangelicals will react when they find out that THIS is what they get for sending all those millions to their friends, the Jews!
How cowering they will appear, because, after all, do we really expect them to stand up against “God’s people”?
How mind-soft the evangelicals will appear, perhaps discrediting their movement for all eternity!
13 May, 2009 at 8:09 am
This is one of many attempts to rid of free speech entirely by the jews. We know if this passes, the jews will not stop furthering their hate upon us including torture. Torture will eventually follow.
The only solution to this problem is to take away money and power away from the jews and incarcerate them until they rot. The world would do them a favor by ignoring these trolls and banishing them from and any social network.
13 May, 2009 at 8:19 am
My question to Dr. MacDonald is why are the Roman Catholics in a political coalition with the Jews to pass this, and similar legislation.
The Roman Catholic & Jew coalition in the US Senate has about 41 votes. Of those 41, two Roman Catholics, and one Jew may vote against the “Hate Crimes” bill. I expect Vitter, and, one other Roman Catholic to vote NO. I would think that Sanders may break with his fellow Jews and vote NO.
So, the Roman Catholic & Jew coalition will need 22 votes from the splintered Protestant majority to have a filibuster proof bill.
There’s nothing saying that the Roman Catholic & Jew coalition in the Senate won’t muster the full 41 votes—as they would for pro-Israel legislation.
13 May, 2009 at 4:15 pm
And here we sit yakking on the Internet about what SHOULD be done and what we SHOULD do and what SHOULD happen.
lfuckingol. We are pathetic. We deserve whatever despicable fate awaits us.
13 May, 2009 at 6:49 pm
“And here we sit yakking on the Internet about what SHOULD be done and what we SHOULD do and what SHOULD happen.
“lfuckingol. We are pathetic. We deserve whatever despicable fate awaits us.”
Any overt action/resistance against ZOG, particularly on its home turf, is guaranteed to be crushed at this point, our numbers tiny and most of our people programmed to hate us. The lemmings are scared of giving up the imaginary “security” found in being a jew-slave who kisses Congoid rump, and I doubt if most of them will even be aware of of the existence of legislation such as this until they’re being sentenced to several years in the Gulag for making a few offensive remarks through some electronic communications medium concerning “minorities.” As Mark Faust said a few broadcasts ago, (White) Americans are probably going to be eating each other before they decide that they’ve had enough.
13 May, 2009 at 6:59 pm
“The only solution to this problem is to take away money and power away from the jews and incarcerate them”
Good idea. Now how do we do that?
13 May, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Start by trading with Whites, and not using jew monetary instruments. Form a “White market.”
13 May, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Start by unhinging the West from Semitic religion.
Christianity must become Euro-centric and Jew-wise, just as, at one time, it had to become scientific and wise to the sun’s being the center of our solar system, and not the earth.
It can be done, but it will take a different calibre of men than I see today. Sometimes, I think it cannot be done.
Actually, I am becoming more and more pagan-oriented.
Who knows what European paganism could have become, if it had been left alone.
13 May, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Left alone? Here a jew says the same:
“You have not begun to appreciate the depth of our guilt. We are intruders. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom of not merely the latest great war, but of every other major revolution in your history. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long we shall go on doing it. Who knows what great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you alone.” — Marcus Eli Ravage, Century Magazine, February 1926
14 May, 2009 at 1:16 am
With all due respect to Professor MacDonald, I think he’s got it wrong when he says that the two Jewish motives for pushing the hate crime bill are Israel and immigration. So complete is the somnolence of white people that it’s hard to imagine circumstances under which either issue could present a serious danger to them. After more than half a century of the most relentless and intense propaganda campaign in history, so beloved are the hooknoses that the great mass of white people will NEVER blame the Jews for anything. To do so would represent a psychologically impossible 180 degree turnaround; it would stand their world on its head, and make a mockery of all their previous feelings and opinions.
They aren’t doing it because they feel threatened with exposure. No, the Jew needs no motive to tighten the chains on his goyish slaves beyond his love of power. He does so because he can. If American whites had even a small fraction of his racial good sense and love of power, control of their country would never have slipped from their hands.
14 May, 2009 at 5:29 am
“After more than half a century of the most relentless and intense propaganda campaign in history, so beloved are the hooknoses that the great mass of white people will NEVER blame the Jews for anything. To do so would represent a psychologically impossible 180 degree turnaround; it would stand their world on its head, and make a mockery of all their previous feelings and opinions.”
My God, you’ve put that well! Thanks, Adam. That’s worth saving.
However, I don’t know about disagreeing with MacDonald. I won’t go that far. But I do know that people hate changes — including mental changes. We are creatures of habit, just as dogs are: we like the old and familiar. To get used to a new idea, once we’ve learned it, is unsettling to most people. It requires a re-structuring of their mental landscape. It’s sort of like re-arranging the furniture in a room, and then stumbling over everything because we are used to it the way it was. It’s much easier just to leave everything alone, even if it’s illogical and inconvenient. People don’t like the new and unfamiliar. As you say, it would stand their world on its head and require a “psychologically impossible” turnabout.
And so, once the Jews have conditioned us to think a certain way (which they have, after half a century of diligent effort), they can pretty much take us for granted and let the indoctrination work automatically.
MOST of us that is! But not all.
14 May, 2009 at 10:04 am
This is a comment by ‘Dave” that appeared at another site. He’s not American and he can’t find anything about restricting speech in our pending hate crime bills.
“Arguably, the federal hate crime law now before the Senate does not explicitly penalize speech in the absence of a crime.”
Arguably? Speech is not an element of hate crimes. A hate crime is an act of violence – a crime in and of itself – that receives a sentencing enhancement where the perpetrator’s motive is that of racial/ethnic/religious hatred. The motive can be evidenced by comments made by the perpetrator while the act is being performed. This, however, is true with any crime – a perpetrator’s remarks can be used as evidence of intent. However, the key point here is that there is no crime without the actual physical violence. You can say whatever you want, so long as you aren’t beating someone’s head in when you do it.
MacDonald’s slippery slope fallacy is risible. Hate crimes have been around for over 2 decades, and their definition has never been expanded to include speech. Nor am I aware of any proposed bills to that effect, that is when you actually do look at the real hate crime bills that are pending. It seems every new hate crime related bill is either falsely labelled as an anti-speech bill, or else as the next new stepping stone on the way to anti-speech laws, when in reality these bills are adding nothing of substance to what is already there. This bill does not even define a new hate crime, i.e. it does not criminalize any conduct. It’s definition of hate crimes is for purposes of determining which existing state/local hate crime laws qualify for the federal assistance which is the point of the bill. The last bill you posted about had to do with nothing more than collecting data on the prevelance of hate crimes in various locales by tapping statistics compiled by local authorities, and this bill too was labelled as a bill than banned speech.
How many anti-semites does it take to write a articles about bills before one will actually tell the reader what the bill does?
Let’s sketch the anti-semitic playbook every time a new piece of legislation pertaining to hate crimes comes down the pike:
1. Baldly lie about and it and claim the law criminalizes speech; or
2. Mention in passing that it doesn’t criminalize speech, then say its a slippery slide to banning speech;
3. Treat the law as an anti-speech law for the remainder of the discussion, as if this fact has been established through assertion #2;
4. Treat the law as a Jewish law because the ADL posted a blurb on its website supporting it;
5. Ignore non-Jewish support for the bill;
6. By now, you’ve established that the bill is a Jewish bill that bans speech, so explain whatever “theory” you have about why the pathological Jews are banning your speech.
My suggestion to anyone reading articles by far right commentators about so-called anti-speech laws in the U.S. should just skip the article and read the bill, because anti-semites are as a rule incapable of describing them accurately.
14 May, 2009 at 10:33 am
The problem with this bill is that a speaker, let’s say Paul Craig Roberts speaking at an anti-Israel rally could be charged with inciting a hate crime if the rally turned ugly. And chances are any anti-Israel rally of any size would get ugly.
I agree with you, in that I don’t understand why the Roman Catholics in Congress are sharing an agenda with the Jews.
14 May, 2009 at 11:31 am
Well they want to take “Zionist” off the table of words in the dictionary you can use. The Jews more than any other group get their 13 year old sons to memorize the SAT word lists. They are supremely interested in words and writing and debate. So they are getting any means to talk about their predatory nature locked up in word/speech jail since “anti Semitic” and “Holocaust” aren’t scaring critics enough. “Hate speech” sounds like a broader headed mace to swing than whipping out “ANTI-SEMITIC”. Too many people don’t have a problem understanding why somebody might be “anti-Semitic”. But if they can get everybody’s grievances, the American Indians, the blacks, the people who resented Sherman’s march to the sea and burning Atlanta etc. under this idea of “hate speech” then they’ve upgraded anti-Semitic to something newer and better. “Zionist” was an attempt to get around not being able to say ” Jew” on the floors of power. They want to be like the God whose name you dare not speak. With “Hate speech” you can’t talk about their actions either.
14 May, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Version History
S 909 IS
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 909
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 28, 2009
Mr. REID (for Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. SNOWE, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LEVIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. REED, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. KERRY, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. DODD, Mr. BAYH, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. BROWN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. CASEY, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Ms. LANDRIEU, Ms. CANTWELL, and Mr. AKAKA)) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
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 ‘Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.
(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.
(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.
(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.
(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.
(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:
(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.
(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.
(7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.
(8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct ‘races’. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
(9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.
(10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.
SEC. 3. 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. 4. 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 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, and 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, and 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, and tribal law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services 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, 2010, 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 kidnapping 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) or paragraph (3), 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 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 kidnapping 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, dangerous weapon, 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) OFFENSES OCCURRING IN THE SPECIAL MARITIME OR TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES- Whoever, within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, commits an offense described in paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to the same penalties as prescribed in those paragraphs.
‘(b) Certification Requirement-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- 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, or his designee, that–
‘(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;
‘(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
‘(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence; or
‘(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice.
‘(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the authority of Federal officers, or a Federal grand jury, to investigate possible violations of this section.
‘(c) Definitions- In this section–
‘(1) the term ‘bodily injury’ has the meaning given such term in section 1365(h)(4) of this title, but does not include solely emotional or psychological harm to the victim;
‘(2) the term ‘explosive or incendiary device’ has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title;
‘(3) the term ‘firearm’ has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title; and
‘(4) the term ‘gender identity’ for the purposes of this chapter means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.’.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The analysis for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘249. Hate crime acts.’.
SEC. 8. STATISTICS.
(a) In General- Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting ‘gender and gender identity,’ after ‘race,’.
(b) Data- Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting ‘, including data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles’ after ‘data acquired under this section’.
SEC. 9. 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. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
For purposes of construing this Act and the amendments made by this Act the following shall apply:
(1) RELEVANT EVIDENCE- Courts may consider relevant evidence of speech, beliefs, or expressive conduct to the extent that such evidence is offered to prove an element of a charged offense or is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this Act is intended to affect the existing rules of evidence.
(2) VIOLENT ACTS- This Act applies to violent acts motivated by actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a victim.
(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.
(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.
14 May, 2009 at 4:58 pm
That idiot “Dave” is correct. This pending legislation is not a hate-SPEECH bill. It is a hate-CRIMES bill.
But you see, dumb-ass Dave, the ultimate goal of Jews and organized Jewish groups is to get a hate-SPEECH bill passed through Congress. These hate-CRIMES bills are just stepping stones to that ultimate goal. And if you don’t believe me, then just take a look at all the hate-SPEECH laws that are already in place in pretty much every Western nations. The United States is an anomaly in this regard. The ONLY reason the United States doesn’t yet have hate-SPEECH laws is because of a pesky thing called the “1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution”.
15 May, 2009 at 8:45 am
Antagonistes Says: How I will laugh when the very first evangelical minister is fined for “hate speech” …. How mind-soft the evangelicals will appear, perhaps discrediting their movement for all eternity!
That’s what you get when you worship another tribe’s god, adopt another tribe’s religion, believe another tribe’s holy book.
Let’s hope, but I don’t think their discredit will last for all eternity (alas). Few people learn anything from history (least of all, their type); and most people don’t learn anything for any more than a generation, if even that long.
17 May, 2009 at 3:09 am
The” hate book” called Old Testament should be first on the list of speech with intent to kill……………. This “hate book” is still in every desk drawers all over America’s motel rooms.