Sunday, May 06, 2007

Special Victims Have to Wait in Line with the Rest of Us

On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted 237-180 to extend existing federal “hate crimes” laws to protect certain groups against crimes which are motivated by the victim’s gender or disability or sexual orientation.

In choosing its politically correct favorite victims, 237 representatives explicitly refused to acknowledge the vulnerability of the military as targets, even though there are established cases of hatred toward those in uniform. Old people were also voted off this bill, even though they are often the targets of crime because of their age or infirmity.

H.R. 1592 : Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 is a despicable bill. Were it to be enacted, it would swell an already bloated federal government just that much more. It would cost you and me more money, for no discernibly better outcome. It would lengthen trials and cost local governments more money as prosecutors and defenders argued the “true” motives of an assault against those special someones on the endangered list.

When you stop to think about it, this piece of legislation has much in common with Sharia laws: they both say that some of us are more equal than others. We know whom H. R. 1592 protects, and whom it leaves in the dust. Compare it with Sharia law where Muslim men are compensated at a higher level because they are worth more than Muslim women, and infidel women rate lower than infidel men. It’s a case of diminishing punishment depending on how far up the food chain you are.

Here's a hint: white heterosexual men almost disappear off the list. I know: my straight white son was beaten by a group of black “youths” who broke his ribs for fun. The police took a report and shrugged. End of that hate crime...except for his ribs, which are still mending.

Now in America if you’re a homosexual victim and the feds can prove your attacker went after you because of your sexual orientation and not because you were wearing a Rolex and he wanted it, then you get a higher rate of return on your vengeance than would an old person whose purse containing her Social Security check was ripped off her shoulder, causing her to fall and break her hip.

And that’s progressive law in a nutshell: some victims are more equal than others, and any situation where the federal government can stick its nose is now an improvement over local law enforcement.

Fortunately, the President will veto this wrong-headed notion of “justice” based on special privilege. Fortunately, too, the House doesn’t have enough votes to override his signature.

This is a cynical piece of work. The Dems can use it to campaign on their tough attitude toward hate crimes — hmm… are there any love crimes? — and the Republicans can use it to taunt the Dems for trying to blow the federal balloon just that much bigger.

Do you know how your representative voted? Below the fold is a list of the Republicans who voted for this despicable waste of time and resources. If your rep appears on this roll, I strongly urge you to give him or her a nudge, even if you think it’s a hopeless cause. Perhaps especially if you think your representative is nothing but a quintessential pol… they’re the ones who don’t want to hear your dissent, so be sure to share it. Be polite and firm. Tell him why his vote for something that is unconstitutional — i.e., that we are purportedly all equal in the sight of the law — will motivate you to campaign against his continued presence in the halls of Congress.
- - - - - - - - - - -
You can find the addresses and emails here. Don’t use snail mail for the Washington office as it is quarantined. If you want to send a letter use a district office address instead. Most representatives maintain more than one district office, especially if it covers a large geographical area. Emails and phone calls work fine, too, especially if you know you won’t get around to posting a letter.

Don’t bother to contact a representative outside your district. They seem to take great pleasure in reminding you that you’re not in their district, so they don’t have to listen to you. Even Mrs. Pelosi does this, despite her position as the national Speaker of the House.

Now, let’s see what they drag up next. Harry Reid has some ideas about old legislation.

Seems like this group can’t do much but wash, rinse, repeat….

State Dist Name
California CA-45 Bono, Mary
Connecticut CT-4 Shays, Christopher
Delaware DE-0 Castle, Michael
Florida FL-21 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln
  FL-25 Diaz-Balart, Mario
  FL-18 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana
Illinois IL-13 Biggert, Judy
  IL-10 Kirk, Mark
  IL-18 LaHood, Ray
Louisiana LA-4 McCrery, James
Maryland MD-1 Gilchrest, Wayne
Nevada NV-3 Porter, Jon
New Jersey NJ-7 Ferguson, Michael
  NJ-11 Frelinghuysen, Rodney
  NJ-2 LoBiondo, Frank
  NJ-3 Saxton, H.
New York NY-29 Kuhl, John
  NY-25 Walsh, James
Ohio OH-15 Pryce, Deborah
Oregon OR-2 Walden, Greg
Pennsylvania PA-15 Dent, Charles
  PA-3 English, Philip
  PA-6 Gerlach, Jim
  PA-19 Platts, Todd
Washington WA-8 Reichert, Dave

5 comments:

USpace said...

What about if someone assaults a 'special rights' person even though they 'like' that group?

I hope Bush vetoes this, but the way he has been caving in to anything PC makes me have doubts.

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
you must not hate broccoli
.

PapaBear said...

It's going to be even more amusing when a member of a "special rights" group assaults a member of a different group. For example, some Muslims beating up gays, followed by a retaliatory incident of a group of gays beating up the imam

The charges and counter charges will be fascinating

I'd really like a lawsuit brought forward by a straight white guy challenging this under "equal protection". Giving extra protection to some groups BY DEFINITION means what the other groups get less protection under the law

PapaBear said...

As an additional point, I really hate the way the feds are inserting themselves into local law enforcement

One protection of citizens in the old days, was that the might of federal and state governments could not easily touch individuals without the cooperation of the local sheriff, who could withhold his cooperation if he did not agree with the charges.

With local police departments increasingly dependent on federal cash, it's easier for individuals to be crushed if they earn the dislike of upper-level bureaucracies or the powerful people who can tell the bureaucrats to jump

gun-totin-wacko said...

I wonder if politicians are protected by this legislation...

A couple other thoughts: It occurs to me that the dems seem to be just throwing unconstitutional legislation at the wall, and hoping some will stick.

Also, I hope that they're misreading their "mandate". In Michigan at least, the last election was largely a dem. victory, for the candidates. As far as the proposals on the ballot, we conservatives lost on only one, and that was regarding the major issue of dove hunting. So if they keep pushing, then next time hopefully they'll find out that the Right isn't broken after all.

Finally, I see that Mary Bono of California is a "traitor" on this bill. I'm saddened. As the heir to her late husband Sonny's seat, I hoped she would maintain his conservative values. Ack.

Dymphna said...

g.t. wacko--

No wonder her name sounds familiar. I'd forgotten Sonny's wife. Sounds like she's moving closer to the Cher position...