HR 1913 – Hate Crime – Perceived intent added to offenses

Text of H.R. 1913: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

Another redundant unnecessary feel good law passed in the house by democrats that will let the justice department have someone put on trial because a politically appointed lawyer (prosecutor) perceives that the person on trial for committing a crime may have thought something before or during the committing of a crime.

Some excerpts from the law

(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–
………………..
(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 am pretty sure is is already against the law for anyone to burn, shot, beat, stab or blow up someone else in America. It should not matter if any perceived prejudice is present just that one individual (or group) tried to harm or succeeding in harming another individual.

Passage of this bill and signing into law will make any crime a hate crime because one can now be prosecuted on the perception of a prejudice.

Under this law any crime in which the attacker can be categorized as different is some way from the victim is now a hate crime.

So much for equal protection under the law, one is only equal to one that the government classifies as the same not everyone. This is a tragedy and a shame that the punishment for all crime is not the same regardless of government classification for the perpetrator and the victim. Everyone will now be unequal under the law.

This is the “thought” police at work. Bring on Big Brother, it is 1984 Mr Orwell.

States start to fight back vs central government

More and more states are starting to realize that the federal government over the last 100 years has become more and more about a large central power and limiting the rights of states and individuals to do as they desire.

Not all are being successful but the challenges to federal authority are being started and a very important fight that will rival the civil war in its importance to the future of America is coming. Which side will people choose and who will prevail, the fight is between a central government which tells everyone how to run their life vs state and individual rights.

This should be decided law based on the 10th Amendment but power corrupts and the creation of a central power will most certainly result in a very corrupt entity.

When the NY Times even takes notice (even though it is downplayed in significance) one knows that the elite media and Washington Power brokers are worried.

two examples
Oklahoma
Montana

For more about states rights go to tenthamendmentcenter

Tax Day Tea Party – Rochester NY

I went to the Tea Party on today (April 15th) – I would estimate there was about 2000 people in attendance.

here are some pictures

Update : Local media is saying 400 hundred. Sorry the line of people in the march was 2 or 4 wide and at least a 1000 long and took 15 minutes to pass me from start to finish.

Prop 8, Judges and Constitutional Law

This is the major problem with America today.

The elected officials do not list to their bosses, the voters.
California’s top lawyer opposes gay marriage ban

California Attorney General Jerry Brown unexpectedly joined the fight to reverse a ban on gay marriage, telling the state Supreme Court on Friday the voter-approved ban violates the constitutional right to liberty.

Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages

The key paragraphs in this article

Proposition 8’s supporters assert that the Supreme Court lacks the authority or historical precedent to throw out the amendment.

“For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence,” the court papers state. “That body of decisional law commands judges — as servants of the people — to bow to the will of those whom they serve — even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened.”

Why do I know that the “enlightened” will change the California constitution again like they did earlier in 2008.

It is a real shame that the top law enforcement office of a state decides which parts of the constitution to follow.
The right for two people to marry is not the major issue in this fight anymore. The need for attorney generals, mayors and judges to enforce the constitution is what is at stake now.

Security vs Liberty

I have been giving thought to the security vs liberty debate since the India terrorist attacks.

The Questions I have been pondering:
Is America Safer in 2008 vs 2001?
Are Americans less free and have fewer liberties in 2008 vs 2001?
Is being randomly almost stripped searched at airports worth the “security”?

The fact that there has not been an attack on American Soil since 9-11,2001 is evidence that America is safer, but are we really and at what costs to freedom and liberty. Why is that, is it because of great work or just dumb luck? Is it because we took the fight to other countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, bombing Al-Qaeda in Pakistan tribal areas, Predator planes raids into Syria.

Is it because America has captured and detained at Guantánamo Bay people caught on the battlefield are being detained for America’s security? I understand people what those detained charged with crimes or released. What if the information to convict those detained will make America less safe due to the need to expose undercover agents or others sources and put the sources lives in jeopardy to get the conviction?

Do we trust the US military enough to know it has detained the correct people? Since we are trusting the US military to be posted inside our boarders for our own security why do we not trust them to know they captured the correct people?

Was Patrick Henry correct that we should make the choice between liberty and death in his famous speech.

Here is one older libertarian point of view from 2002.

Here is another view from 2006

Loss of American’s Freedom, liberty gone a little at a time

From the Washington Post

The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.

The long-planned shift in the Defense Department’s role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.

There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military’s role in domestic law enforcement.

This is a terrible thing to do. It violates the prime principal of the Posse Comitatus Act to protect the American People from politicians using the Army against the American People. This is a just another step in the centralizing of power in the federal government and taking the rights away from the states.

Read up on the Posse Comitatus Act
Here

and “>Here

The stationing of federal troops at political events and polling places under the justification of maintaining domestic order became of increasing concern to Congress, which felt that the Army was becoming politicized and straying from its original national defense mission. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed to remove the Army from civilian law enforcement and to return it to its role of defending the borders of the United States.

The ball has started down the hill (I agree with the ACLU, time to be scared) and now the party which wants massive federal government control has total power at least for the next 2 years and it is all being started by a “Conservative”. I wonder how far the trio of Obama, Pelosi, Reid will go.

History shows us that the ability of those in power to use the military inside the country will result in a centralized dictatorship.

The entire reason for this law was to protect the people form the Army and the executive branch of the government.

Now under the pretense of National security we are supposed to accept this continuing erosion of freedom and liberty.

Bush is not a CONSERVATIVE. A real conservative would be figuring out a way to let each state create its own preparedness plan for a WMD attack and not to federalize the system.

Central government control = guaranteed failure
Local government control = better chance for success,50/50
Self-reliant people= 100% chance of success