No Nanny State - Molon Labe!

Commercials are not the only junk food in the speech market - indeed, when compared to shallow news reporting, vacuous television shows, or political doublespeak, commercials are not even the most harmful to mental health.
-- Rodney A. Smolla

It seems like there's been a lot of this forked-tongue stuff going on. Look at this article. It is commenting on a website called FireDavidLetterman.com and how there are a growing number of calls to get Letterman canned for making his jokes/remarks about Sarah Palin and her daughters.

If you're not aware of his comments, he joked about Palin's 14 year old daughter being raped by a NY Yankee's player, and that Palin herself looked like a, "slutty flight attendant."

The author of the article says that we all just need to chill, after all, it was just a joke.

Why doesn't someone tell this asshole about Don Imus. His "nappy headed ho's" comment got him fired.

If we're going to be politically correct, and never denigrate women - even in obvious jest - shouldn't jokesters of all political persuasions be held to the same standard? Or is it OK when the women are white? And conservative?

We know the answer to those questions. I just thought I'd ask anyway.
----------

Universal health care:

"The public option is not your enemy, it is your friend, I believe."
--Barry

[Shudder] Almost as scary as, "We're from the government, and we're here to help."

Oh wait - it's the same thing.
----------

Financial double-talking:

Aiming for greater limits and more clarity in the nation's financial system, the Obama administration on Monday proposed adding muscle to the Federal Reserve and new restrictions on complex securities whose collapse choked lending and hit millions of American households.

So Barry & Company wants to restrict salaries and spending, and wants to promote more disclosure of financial dealings of PRIVATE COMPANIES, but not of the federal government itself.

Pot, meet kettle.
----------

What's that joke about lawyers? How can you tell if a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.

Barry and most of his cronies are lawyers, aren't they? Wow, imagine that...
----------

"I don't want to run auto companies, and I don't want to run banks."
--Barry

Then why don't you stop, big guy? Just Say No, Barry. Just Say No...

Labels: communism, Constitution, democrats, Fascism, Hate Crimes, Media Bias, nanny state, Political Correctness, presidential, Thought Crimes

The art of leadership. . . consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.
--Adolph Hitler

It's coming, folks.

The plan is beginning to come together. The socialist left has long recognized that if you control the message, you control the outcome. All great totalitarian regimes have recognized this.

I've written in the past that, through a number of means, we have seen "the message" slowly but surely morph to a one-sided "debate".

In February of last year ("Good Bye, Sweet America"):

It's pure genius: Socialize education so the state is free to indoctrinate at will. Control the message, and it becomes the truth. As time passes, the concept of the individual is replaced by collectivism. It takes a village.

My Modern Country Home had a great post with this line:

This is the first part of the Declaration of Independence....There is a reason that children arent expected to memorize it anymore....Its dangerous. It is POWERFUL....

Children in public schools are not taught the ideals behind our nation. Ideals of individual liberty. When kids are indoctrinated on the Hive Mentality from their earliest school years, it makes an impression that lasts a life time. It can be reversed, but it's an uphill battle.

I've discussed the Fairness Doctrine a number of times. Last September, I wrote:

Regardless of whether Barry O or Johnny Mac becomes president, I think conservative talk radio is in trouble. Barry will run right at it and push the Fairness Doctrine as new FCC policy. Conservative radio has called out enough powerful Republican politicians whom they no longer consider as conservative, that the days of this radio format may be numbered.

Once Barry won the election, and the Dems owned both houses of Congress, I predicted at the beginning of the year that this would be one of their first targets.

... I think one of the very first issues on Barry's agenda will be to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. It will silence the one significant threat to his ability to control the message in the media - Talk Radio. The Republicans in Congress will go along as well, as they occasionally take a whipping from the radio folks as well.

Once Talk Radio is silenced, large-scale gun control will be a walk in the park. Without a dissenting public voice, the gun-control advocates will have an unfettered ability to dispense their message on evil guns.

It will start with more guns being labeled as "assault weapons" and additional types of ammo being classified as "cop killers" and the like. As soon as some nut "assaults" and kills a cop with a hunting rifle, the end will be near.

Guns will just be one of their targets. When you combine zero public dissent with the god-like worship Barry receives by the rest of the media, you have the makings for a rapid, debilitating rush towards socialism.

Guns, income redistribution, universal health care, banking, transportation, communications - pick a topic - will all be easy pickins'.
----------

Now, lots of people have been saying this. Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity and others have all railed against this for years. They've talked about the evils of the One Voice approach, but no one has said what they will do after it happens.

It's a tough call.

There are a few liberty-loving magazines, but few have wide circulation. The NRA publications probably have the broadest reach.

Fox, the supposed 'Conservative voice' only seems that way when compared to the rest of the TV media. I don't see this avenue expanding in the future, especially considering it is Nanny who must approve new licenses.

There's this media - blogs and the Internet (pod casts, newsletters, etc). You can reach a lot of people for very little cost. I figure that this is the best way to spread the word in the short term, but it will likely be targeted as well. Probably under some sort of "hate speech" provision.

If I were to make a prediction on how the media will be fully homogenized, it will be under the Hate Speech doctrine. Criticize anything put forth by the One Voice, and you must be hateful. Fine or jail them in retaliation.
----------

I don't have a bullet-proof (pun intended) solution. There probably isn't such a thing, anyways. There are weaknesses in every plan or process. The successful plan incorporates contingency actions to kick in when things don't proceed as intended.

I think we all owe it to ourselves to start noodling over this problem.

What are the weaknesses in the pro-Fairness Doctrine plan that can be exploited? What are the weaknesses in libertarian responses to the One Voice plan?
----------

Has your line in the sand been crossed? Have you even drawn a line? What will you do when it is crossed?

Labels: communism, Constitution, Corruption, Ethics, Fascism, Gun Grabbers, Hate Crimes, Media Bias, nanny state, Political Correctness, Thought Crimes

The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.
--Albert Einstein

Shootin'

I started the first part of my NRA Basic Pistol Instructor's class yesterday. I picked up a couple of things - technique-wise - but it was mostly about how to present gun safety and shooting techniques, The NRA Way.

I must say, the most surprising thing was the income potential that seems to be there. We ran some numbers, and even part-time teaching can bring in a decent amount of cash. There are some logistics to work out, but I'm quite optimistic.

One thing that pissed me off about the instructor was that he was constantly taking phone calls, even in the middle of the class. He has no one answering the phones - he's the whole kit and kaboodle. I understand he's trying to run a business, but it was breaking up the flow of the class from people he already had money from. It was a bit unprofessional in my opinion.

Still, answering one of those calls paid off BIG TIME for him. It was a call from a major software company that is the biggest operating system coder in the world - any guesses? He booked a "morale building" gig for 80 people. It will last 4 hours and he will gross $10,000. Probably net himself $5,000 for half a days work after paying hired-on instructors and range expenses.

The class will be on "assault weapons", so I can't scam my first gig from him! Still, pretty impressive.
----------

I found it VERY interesting that, to teach the Basic Pistol class, the instructor does not need to demonstrate shooting proficiency prior to certification. You can just list classes you've taken and experience you have. You just need to take the class, pass the test and obtain the recommendation of the Training Counselor (the Instructor's instructor).

Now, my Counselor did take me to the range and I had to show that I knew what I was doing, but that seemed like an odd omission to the certification process.
----------

I picked up a nice tip while we were at the range. I don't know why he shared it with me, because we never used the technique - but it fit in perfectly with one of my personal training gigs.

I had mentioned a couple of weeks ago that one of my training routines was to start with the gun in the Low-Ready position (both hands on the weapon while it is pointed downward), bring the gun up rapidly, acquire the target and shoot.

He said that he had gotten this from a "group of Israelis" (his fiance is Israeli).

You start with the gun in the Low-Ready position, but you tilt the gun perhaps 45 degrees to the right (if you're a right-handed shooter). When you bring the gun up to fire, it is brought naturally into a straight position. I guess the idea is that it is normal for your strong hand to muscle the gun "over the top" and it normally ends up tilted to the left when in the firing position.

I haven't yet tried this, so YMMV, but it seems to make sense.
----------

Shuckin'

....help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right.

That is part of the hate speech spewed by racist preacher Joseph Lowery. Of course, the media paints him as, "a civil rights icon and a pastor".

The press is trying to put lipstick on this pig of an old racist bastard.

Lowery implored God to help Americans make "choices on the side of love, not hate, on the side of inclusion not exclusion, tolerance not intolerance."

I guess that doesn't include blacks. It is still socially acceptable to make whites targets of reverse racism.

Go fuck yourself, preacher.
----------

Jivin'

I'm trying not be be ubber-paranoid today, but why isn't a clip from last night's Daily Show up on YouTube yet? Not politically correct enough?

On the show, Jon Steward and one of the other "correspondents" were having a discussion about Barry's speech. The correspondent was mocking the MSM and being all giggly about how wonderful everything was, and how Obama had given us all kinds of hope.

Stewart, to his credit and my shock, played a clip from Barry's speech, then ran one from Dubya that used virtually the exact same words. It was hilarious.

They ran a good four or five tandem clips. The correspondent had a great line at the end. It was something to the effect of, "Why are you doing this? You're ruining, 'Hope Day One'".

I nearly wet myself!
----------

UPDATE:

Here's the clip I was discussing above. The part I was referrencing starts at 1:21.

Labels: Brady Bunch, Constitution, Fascism, Hate Crimes, Media Bias, Political Correctness, Race-baiters, Self-Defense

I've been busy as hell at work the past two days - trying to wrap up the tattered ends of the employee that ripped us off. It is difficult to see what this woman did for the past 3 years. We've got a minimum of 4-6 weeks of work ahead of us just to get these records in presentable fashion.

It's interesting, but this has diverted my attention from the "bigger picture" of what is happening in the country and the world. I didn't even realize the Japanese stock market took a huge hit, that gold tickled the $1000 level and that oil had broken its all-time high price per barrel.

Speaking of gold, back on the 23rd of February, I had a conversation with Karen in the comment section of one of my posts. We were talking about how to buy gold coin. I noted that the spot price of gold was $944.60 per ounce. As of yesterday, it was at $989 per ounce, a 4.7% increase in 10 days. Annualized, that is a 173% rate of increase. Now, I doubt the increase will continue at that rate, but I do believe it will continue to grow. It's up around 50% over the past 6 months.
----------

I bought 400 rounds of .223 Rem ammo and some gold coin this weekend, paying (what seems to me) way too much for both. Ammo and gold are both true commodities, where supply and demand are making prices skyrocket. Both also share a common thread that people hoard both when they don't have rosy outlooks for the future. Same with the bucket of wheat I just bought. At least there isn't any inflation to worry about, and we're not yet in a recession. So sez Dubya.

On Friday, the employment numbers will be released. The preliminary figures have not been too good. Especially here in The People's Republic of California. Maybe the Leader of The Free World will change his tune at that time. Doubtful.
----------

When will a group of Nazi's or Skin Heads or some other racist group protest to Harvard University and get preferential treatment for use of the gym. The Muslim's get special privileges, and there are fewer Nazi's in the US than there are Muslims, so the Nazi's are actually a minor minority. They should get extra special treatment.

I wonder how Harvard would argue in denying the Nazi's request. It couldn't be on hate-speech grounds, because no group is more vocal in their hate of anything more than the Muslims. It couldn't be on promoting violence, because no group is more proactive in promoting and actually carrying out violence in furtherance of their goals than Muslims.

Labels: communism, Hate Crimes, nanny state, Political Correctness, Race-baiters, welfare state

"I don't even call it violence when it's in self defense; I call it intelligence."
- Malcolm X

[Wow, I never thought I'd be quoting Malcolm X...]

I was reading Fred On Everything this weekend and he had a story titled Race and Crime, about a young woman in Baltimore that was very nearly beaten to death.

A young white woman.

Nearly beaten to death by 9 black youths.

It seems the young lady was riding on the bus, and went to take a seat. She was told by the black youths - aged 14 and 15 - that she couldn't sit in any of the open seats. She did anyway, and was severely beaten.

From the Examiner, “She sustained ‘serious injuries’ and had to be transported to the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center, according to a police report… [Sarah] Kreager suffered two broken bones in her left eye socket, police said. She had eye muscles that were damaged… She had deep lacerations on the top of her head and another above her neck.” Her face will never be the same.

Again, this happened because she wanted to sit in an unoccupied seat, and these black thugs didn't want her to do so.

It's because of episodes like this, AND the fact that California will prosecute me for carrying the means to protect myself, my family or a fellow citizen against this type of crime, that we will be leaving.

Please, take the time to read Fred's essay. He speaks from first-hand knowledge about what is happening in our inner cities (he used to have the Police Beat as a reporter in Washington, DC). Speak to any police officer, and you'll get similar stories.

Yet somehow, California thinks it would not be in the public interest for me to be able to protect myself with a gun. They think it would be better for me to have my head caved-in than for a violent predator to be stopped, perhaps forever.

Guyk had a story about some homeowner here in California that shot and killed two thugs (yep, they were black as well) that had come into his house at 4 in the morning (supposedly to buy some pot). They beat the guy's son with a baseball bat - so badly that he is in a care home as he is unable to care for himself any more.

Of course, the NAACP is crying foul (as the shooter was white) and are trying to paint the homeowner as a murderer. [There are some legal wranglings going on about the third bad guy getting charged with murder, but that is irrelevant to the issue of self-defense.]

If you can't shoot and kill two assailants that are in your home and have just beaten your child with a baseball bat, when could it ever be allowed?

I've already read some stories about the Baltimore beating where the NAACP is trying to paint these thugs as another Jena 6.

Unbelievable. They have no idea what kind of long-term damage they're doing to their community. These thugs should be thrown in jail on attempted murder charges, but will likely be slapped on the wrist and sent to bed without dinner.

I push the California gun laws right up to the line. Without going into great detail, I can have one of my weapons in my hands in short order. Unless I'm in my home, though, that means upwards of 3 or 4 minutes. A lot of people can be killed or beaten in that amount of time. And if I'm the target, I'm SOL.

I simply will not live this way. My wife will not go to the store if she can't be finished before the sun goes down. We live in a very nice part of a very nice town, but the bad guys don't seem to care about that.

I would be remiss in my duties as a husband and father is I did not work to fix this situation. My wife is fully behind leaving California - almost anxious. My boys, though, are at that point in their lives where you think you are invincible. They are just starting to formulate their career paths, and would have great difficulty moving from their friends. I need to figure out a way to address that.

This is no place to live and raise a family.

Labels: Concealed Carry, Hate Crimes, Self-Defense, Self-Reliance

A number of people are pumping fists and high-fiving over the court case where a church group is being forced to pay a multi-million dollar settlement to the father of a slain veteran. For those of you who haven't heard the story, it goes like this:

Westboro Baptist Church, a fundamentalist Christian group based in Topeka, Kan., has protested military funerals across the country with placards bearing shock-value messages such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."

They contend that the deaths are punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality and of gays in the military.

At the March 2006 funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq, church members waved fire-and-brimstone placards near the funeral motorcade. Snyder's father sued Westboro and three church leaders for emotional distress and won a nearly $11 million jury verdict Wednesday in Baltimore.

"Yeah, we shut those fuckers up!"

I cannot imagine anything more painful than burying one of my children. And to have some idiots protesting my son's service to our country might be intolerable. But insensitive, close-minded idiots are allowed to be Americans. That's supposedly what my son would have died for.

This perhaps frightens me even more than the abuses under Color of Authority in my last post. If this verdict is upheld, the government will have effectively usurped the First Amendment protections of Freedom of Speech (the fact that it is a church group is, in my opinion, irrelevant).

Regardless of how tasteless, vile or repugnant you find someone's speech or ideas, they have the right to express them. Only speech which actually harms - libel and defamation of character - should be controlled.

If we take away this right from those with whom we disagree, we are effectively cutting out our own tongues. This sets a precedent that, "those in power" get to determine what is allowable and what is, "hate speech". As the article points out,

Alarmed by Westboro protests, at least 22 states have enacted or proposed laws to limit the rights of protesters at funerals.

We currently have a pro-war, pro-illegal aliens administration in power at this time. What is to stop them from getting laws passed that disallow protests against these stances? Would those not be expressions of opinions that are hateful towards the administration's stance? Illegal aliens are people, too, and should not have to bear the humiliation and degradation of citizens protesting their presence in our country.

What about the flip-side of the war debate?

During Friday's show, the topic of what Islamic extremists should be called was first raised by Colmes during a discussion with conservative author David Horowitz regarding the upcoming "Islamo-fascism Awareness Week" at George Washington University. After Horowitz complained about liberal students creating a poster portraying conservative students as hating Muslims, with Horowitz accusing liberals of using a "hate campaign," Colmes commented that the phrase "Islamo-fascism" constitutes "hate speech." Colmes: "You talk about hate speech. The words, the phrase 'Islamo-fascism' is hate speech. It equates an entire religion with fascism. That's what people object to. It conflates the two, and it's wrong."

If the Colmes administration were in power - or maybe someone like Hillary or Barack or Edwards - it would clearly be a hate crime to call Islamo-fascists, uhm, Islamo-fascists. Could we even call them, "an extremist group of folks" as the president did? Seems kinda harsh to me.

When our government starts limiting the speech and thoughts of its citizens, we move one step closer to becoming subjects. Virtually all thoughts and speech are offensive - even hateful - to someone else. How can we limit the speech of a few without limiting the speech of the many?

We can't.

Labels: Constitution, Hate Crimes, nanny state, Political Correctness, Thought Crimes

People are getting tired of this bullshit

Posturing. The great American pastime. Athletes do it. Business professionals do it. Teenagers do it.

And paid public officials do it.

San Francisco, the provincial capital of the People's Republic of California, has been trying to get a non-binding resolution passed against talk show host Michael Savage.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors today condemned nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage, whose program originates in city by the bay, for "hate speech."

It was the board's second attempt at a resolution to condemn Savage for his criticism of illegal aliens in the U.S.

Clearly, the stupidvisors, uhm, supervisors in San Francisco have too much time on their hands. Forget about budget problems, family and business flight from the city, homeless encampments and city-supplied hypodermic needles littering the parks. They need to be spending time and money fighting about whether Savage gets to exercise his freedom of speech.

Because of this idiocy, people of all races are bailing out from the City By The Bay in droves.

But this idiocy is not limited to our cities. No, no, no. Our national "leaders" are baring their asses as well. Radio host Rush Limbaugh made some comment about soldiers that the Democrats are running with.

In the House, Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., who is running for the open Senate seat in his state, has authored a resolution condemning the host. Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has not decided whether or not he'll bring it up for a vote, his staff told FOX News.

The Republicans are just as willing to piss our tax dollars away when they are given the chance to grandstand.

... and GOP efforts last week to condemn ads by MoveOn.org that suggested Gen. David Petraeus, head of Multinational Forces in Iraq, had betrayed the United States by giving Congress a semi-positive report on the result of the troop surge there.

It's comments like this that make me proud to be an American:

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander," Hoyer said, adding that everyone should try to show "restraint from condemning all that we disagree with."

Well neener, neener, neener.

I don't care if you agree or disagree with Limbaugh, Savage or any of the politicians involved. That's not the point. The point is our public officials are so busy posturing and passing non-binding resolutions that nothing is getting done. This joint is falling apart.

So what are you gonna do? Two groups with very different political viewpoints are joining forces.

They want to secede from the union.

In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions — New England and the South — are sitting down to talk.

Tired of foreign wars and what they consider right-wing courts, the Middlebury Institute wants liberal states like Vermont to be able to secede peacefully.

That sounds just fine to the League of the South, a conservative group that refuses to give up on Southern independence.

Because of the over-reaching control of the federal government, Americans are frustrated. Our Constitution was specifically written to limit the feds. There are 37 specific powers granted to the three branches of our federal government. In general, they concern commerce, common defense, international relations, and the laws and their interpretation. That's it.

To make sure there was no confusion about this, we have the tenth amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So why do we have a Department of Health and Human Services? A Department of Education? The EPA? Social Security Administration? Hello?!?

Rights specifically acknowledged or granted are routinely trampled. Search and seizure. Probable cause. Right to arms. Eminent domain abuses. All crapped upon.

It has spun out of control, and there is no indication that the Constitution will be followed in the future.

People want out.

Open talk of secession. The Ex-patriot movement.

It's a message. Our supposed leaders had better pay attention or they may be the only ones left.

Labels: Constitution, Hate Crimes, nanny state, Political Correctness, Thought Crimes

Much appreciated reply; Disgustingly vague answers

Much to my surprise and delight, my Congressman, Jerry McNerney responded to my letter/email of May 8th (see blog entry, More Hate Crimes). Below is Congressman McNerney's response to my original letter, followed by my rebuttal reply. Democracy in action! Let's see if it works!

Dear Mr. NoNannyState,

Thank you for sharing your opposition to H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. I appreciate learning your views, and I value your input.

Under current law, a hate crime is defined as intentionally committing a crime against a person or property because of their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.

U.S. law limits governmental involvement in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes and federal law enforcement can only pursue hate crimes that occur during a specified federally-protected activity, such as serving on a jury, traveling on the interstate highway system, or attending public school. Additionally, federal law enforcement officers cannot assist when a hate crime is motivated by gender, sexual orientation, or disability biases. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 adds these classes of protections to current law.

It is important to note that H.R. 1592 bill does not prohibit thought, speech, or expression protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. In fact, Section 11 of the bill expressly states that "[n]othing in this Act . . . shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct . . . or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution." This legislation seeks to curb the occurrence of hate violence, not restrict thoughts or words. H.R. 1592 passed the House by a vote of 237 to 180. It remains to be seen whether this bill will be considered by the U.S. Senate.

Thank you again for sharing your views. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance. For more information on other issues that I am working on in Congress, please visit my website at www.mcnerney.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Jerry McNerney
Member of Congress

My follow up questions:

Congressman McNerney,

I want to genuinely thank you for your response. It is clear that you or one of your staffers actually took the time to read my email and make a response. Based upon the replies to letters I’ve sent to other federal representatives, it has been clear that the letter was not read, and a simple form letter sent in reply. Thank you again.

That being said, you still did not respond to the core issues raised in my letter:

1. What Constitutional powers

2. Establishing different classes of citizens

3. Thought/speech crimes

Constitutional Powers. You did not address my question about where in the Constitution the Congress has been authorized to prosecute or assist in local crimes. There is simply no Constitutional provision that allows the Federal Government the authority to meddle in local affairs. This law – in particular Section 249 (a) (1) - appears to now grant the Federal Government the power to prosecute these crimes even without state lines being crossed or commerce being interrupted. This is very disturbing.

Legislating Different Classes of Citizens. You also did not address my questions about setting up special classes of citizens. Why should someone get more protections under the law simply because they are of a different color, gender or race? I ask you to refer to the Fourteenth amendment. Equal protection is pretty clearly laid out. Perhaps it only applies to the individual states, and not the Federal Government? Is that your justification for voting for this?

Thought/Speech Crimes. Finally, you side-stepped the Thought Crimes portion. In my letter, I specifically stated, “You have voted for a law based upon motivation or words, not upon deed.” The law itself states [Sec. 249 (b)(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; “

This law will more severely punish someone for what they are thinking (or for what they say during the commission of the crime) – their motivation – than someone that simply commits the same crime out of greed or any other reason. How can you support that? How is the “hate crime” victim more injured than the “greed crime” victim?

I’ll say it again: I think you voted for this legislation because it would win you “brownie points”. This law simply exemplifies what is wrong with government: More must be better. I want a congressman that is going to base his or her votes on the Constitution, not on political expediency.

How are you going to rectify this?

Sincerely,

Mr. NoNannyState

I wait breathlessly for his reply.....

Labels: Constitution, Hate Crimes, McNerney, Thought Crimes

I've written in the past about the "slippery slope" of so-called "Hate Crimes" ('Speak The Truth?' and 'Special Circumstances'). They are horrible laws that add additional punishment for Thought Crimes.

That's the problem with these “Hate Crime” laws. They hinge on the motivation of the perpetrator. Is that really relevant? Aren't I just as dead if I'm killed for being white or being killed because I have a nice watch on my wrist?

Well, the House of Representatives just passed HR 1592. It offers federal assistance and grant money for the prosecution of Hate Crimes. In fact, it directs the US Attorney General to give priority to these crimes. My brain wants to explode when I read crap like this. More Nanny State, now for Thought Crimes. As usual, I sent a letter to my House member, Jerry McNerney.

I would like an explanation of your recent vote on HR 1592, the so called Hate Crimes legislation.

In 2006, I voted for you, albeit with reservations, because I wanted a change in Congress. I wanted someone that would not simply follow the herd, but someone that might actually lead. Most importantly, I was looking for someone that would base their votes, not necessarily upon what it would do for his or her district, but for the country. Someone that would base their votes upon the powers vested by the US Constitution. Special Interests be damned.

Under what possible Congressional Constitutional powers could you have based your vote? I'll tell you: There are none. Perhaps as important, under what common sense considerations could it have been based upon?

How can you agree with making one person less worthy of justice because they were robbed due to their location, as opposed to the person that is robbed because they are of a particular race or religion? Have they not both been equally deprived of their property? Where is the equal protection under the law? Why are you voting to set up special classes of citizens within our society?

And where does legislation like this end? You have voted for a law based upon motivation or words, not upon deed. Do I not have the right, via my first amendment protections, to express my opinion about anything I wish, even if someone else believes it to be hateful? Unless my words, in and of themselves cause harm (as in libel), the answer is “yes”. You've taken part in the early steps of making something you say a crime.

Lastly, I want to expand on my first point: You (and 236 other members of Congress) based your vote not upon the Constitution (going against the First and Tenth amendments), but upon political “brownie points”. After all, who could disagree with a law against mean people, right?

You should have. Consider your Constitutional powers when voting (or voting to over ride the promised Presidential veto). Otherwise, you'll get to spend your old-age, telling those that will listen, what it was like to be a one-term Congressman.

I look forward to your reply.

Jerry is my only federal representative that has not responded to one of my letters. Not a good idea should he expect my vote in 2008.

Labels: Hate Crimes, McNerney