New Hate Crimes Law Could Politically Target People Who Object To Homosexuality

One thing you can count on from the libs is that their sense of reasoning only makes sense to themselves and no one else. I guess the most prominent example would be taxes. They believe that taxes should always be raised so that the government always has money, but they forget that the people who pay those taxes need the money more than the government does. They also forget that when tax money goes to Washington DC, a good chunk of it stays there to make politicians and bureaucrats a little richer and less than 60 cents on the dollar actually makes back out to those who paid the tax to begin with.

Well, the libs still don't have any common sense, especially when it comes to writing legislation that promotes the agenda of one of their special interest groups. In this case, it is the gay and lesbian lobby. The new Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA), H.R. 1913, is one such case where the special interest group is considered more important than Joe and Jane Average American.

Jillian Bandes gives us some insight on this in her latest column from Town Hall:

One of the most pressing concerns is that the bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA), could target acts of violence that were carried out for reasons unrelated to sexual preference. Brian Walsh, senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said HCPA did not require any proof that a crime was committed because of a person’s sexual identity, so prosecution could be willy-nilly. The “amorphous standard would federalize almost all incidents of violent crime, even those that have nothing to do with bias, prejudice, or animus toward the victim because of his or her membership in a particular group,” he said.

In other words, a gay or lesbian could be the target of a completely random crime and this law would be used to inflict heavier prosecution and punishment than if the victim were a straight Christian. Now, that doesn't mean that I think such crimes should go unpunished, but it does mean that I think there should be a fair application of the law across the spectrum.

Even many Democrats are wary of what this bill could portend for the future. Read what Rep. Lamar Smith (D-TX) has to say:

“Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (D-Tex.), ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. Smith also said HCPA could target those who opposed gay marriage and forms of unconventional sexual expression. “Some of my colleagues on the other side claim that the bill protects religious speech. But religious leaders could still be subjected to criminal investigations, and be reluctant to preach the teachings of their faith as a result of this bill,” said Smith.

And that brings us to the true crux of this bill. It is an attempt by the gay and lesbian lobby to stamp out speech that isn't favorable or complimentary to the gay and lesbian lifestyle. If one were to say they opposed homosexuality on moral grounds, this legislation could be used as an excuse to charge such a person with a "Hate Crime" simply for giving their own personal opinion. George Orwell couldn't have come up with a better scenario of real-world thought police.

How can I say something that many on the left would deem as far-fetched? Read on:

Republican staff pointed to an amendment that Democrats rejected during the discussion of the bill, which would have prohibited prosecution of those who simply spoke about sexual identity issues. Because of this exclusion, the prohibition against prosecuting speech had no teeth.

That amendment was killed specifically at the behest of the gay and lesbian lobby. There is no other logical reason for tossing that amendment out.

But this will be the first bill that reaches into a church to censor the content of the service.

“It’s going to cause at a critical moment in American history a chilling effect on the pulpit where we cannot preach about biblical morality and sexuality,” said Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md.

(Photo: Bishop Harry Jackson)

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Hate Crimes Law May Have Loopholes
Jillian Bandes
TownHall.com
April 30, 2009

Chuck Norris: Barack Obama And The "J" Word

When I was growing up in the 1970's and going to elementary school in Prince George's County, Maryland, I very much enjoyed studying the history of the American Revolution. It was always a very big deal for us and we used to have "festivals" celebrating the founding of the United States and celebrating the ideas that the Founders wrote about.

That doesn't seem to happen much anymore. Somewhere along the line, our educational system began to "forget" about where we came from. And, if you don't know where you came from, you cannot get to where you're going.

How many of us still believe as the Founders did? I mean, really believe. How many of us even know what the Founders believed?

That number is getting smaller and smaller even thought our population is getting bigger and bigger.

John Adams once said, "Our constitution is only fit for a moral and religious people. It is wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind."

Perhaps that quote merely sounded like Christian bravado over the years, but today, we may be witnessing the true meaning of those words.

The Constitution was originally written so that people of all faiths could come to the New World and worship according their own conscious. But the deeper meaning is that they were free from having any particular religion forced upon them by the state. John Adams envisioned such a nation growing in North America.

What neither he nor any other Founder envisioned was that atheistic movements would spring up and threaten to drown out the faithful from the public scene. The reason that Adams said that our Constitution was "wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind" was because the Constitution contained no controls over those who would reject morality and decency in favor of hedonism and self-indulgence.

For example, the Consitution contains no reference to the crime of murder. Why? Because the Founders knew that the good and moral people of the several states would enforce a "murder is a crime" civic code. That one is simple to explain.

But, the Constitution also contains language that guarantees certain liberties like free speech. Does that mean that you are free to go over to your neighbor's house and begin yelling obscenities at your neighbor's children because they are praying where you can see them? Again, the Founders would never have considered this to be a problem and were certain that local communities were filled with people who would find such a prospect horrifying. But, now you can see the grey area where, over the past hundred years or so, the non-faithful have been working in and exploiting legal loopholes.

This is, I believe, precisely why John Adams said what he said. It wasn't meant as a compliment to the faithful, it was meant as a warning of what could happen if the faithful ever lost their public voice.

Chuck Norris, writing for Town Hall notes a few things:

Under Article VI, Section 3 of the new Constitution, denominational tests for public office were prohibited, but the idea that Judeo-Christian ideas and practices must be kept separate from government would have struck our Founders as ridiculous because the very basis for the Founders' ideas were rights that were endowed upon all of us by our Creator.

It was everywhere in public life back in the late 1700's. Even Benjamin Rush advocated diversity long before it became a left-wing political buzzword:

"Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament."

Well, maybe not so much Mohammed, but clearly, Rush saw the dangers of allowing atheism to overshadow faith.

More:

[S]igners of the Constitution included Abraham Baldwin, a minister. Others had studied religion but never were ordained. And again, most signers of the Constitution were also Protestants. Two, Charles Carroll and Thomas Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics. ... Like George Washington, I don't believe we can maintain morality and civility apart from a religious foundation: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

One of the problems we are facing here in modern times is that groups like the ACLU have twisted the First Amendment around so that "Freedom of religion" now means to them "Freedom from religion." They like to point to the part of the First Amendment that says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but seem to conveniently forget the rest of that line which statess, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Founders envisioned people having the right to worship in public, something that atheists claim is "offensive." In other words, the ACLU and their anti-religious allies are seeking to force us all to act like atheists.

So, why hasn't our new president shown any regard for any religion except Islam? Chuck Norris isn't afraid to ask the following question:

Is Obama afraid of the word "Jesus"?

The Founders weren't. And we shouldn't be either. Feel free to express your religious convictions anywhere you please. If the ACLU tries to stop you, remind them of the part of the First Amendment that states "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Is Obama Afraid Of The J-Word?
Chuck Norris
TownHall.com
April 7, 2009

Dennis Prager: Minorities Should Express Shame, Not Only Pride

Let's start off with Dennis Prager's first few paragraphs:

Gay Pride. Jewish Pride. Black pride. Hispanic Pride. Multiculturalism. Ethnic pride. Minority rights vs. tyranny of the majority.

That's right. You can't turn anywhere these days without seeing something about celebrating any one of these issues. But what you don't see is any celebration of white Christian heterosexual males.

In fact, usually, the only time you ever hear about white Christian heterosexual males is when some activist group has something bad to say about them or is criticizing them for some imagined transgression.

Why does one almost never hear expressions of group shame from members of any American group other than white Christians (specifically, white Christian male heterosexuals)? Are the only evildoers in America white male heterosexual Christians? Is there something inherently wrong about members of minorities expressing anything but group pride? Are there no minority sins worthy of shame? The latter is in fact the argument advanced by many intellectuals concerning black racism, for example. For a generation, college students have been taught that it is impossible for blacks to be racist because only the racial group in power, i.e. whites, can express racism. Of course, that is nonsense. A black can be a racist just as a white can be one. A minority race might not have the power to implement racist national policies but that hardly means that no minority group, or any individual, can be a racist.

Yes, it is nonsense. Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a prime example of a black racist. So are Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan and several recent leaders of the NAACP.

From Old Media, we are bombarded with ideas that only whites can be racist or prejudicial. Reality shows otherwise. For example, the FBI's Uniform Crime Report shows clearly that most inter-racial crimes are black on white crimes. Further, it also shows that blacks are more likely to be victims of crimes committed by other blacks than by whites. And yet, only the white on black crime ever makes the news.

And gay pride? Where is the pride in being the major group vector for HIV infections? I never hear any gay leaders expressing regret that the homosexual community is still leading the spread of AIDS. Or how about terrorizing a little old lady in California? Where is the pride in that?

Prager has more examples of a serious skew in pride vs. shame:

The relative absence of expressions of shame in the Muslim world over the atrocities committed in Islams name is an example of the above. The labeling of blacks who express shame over disproportionate rates of violent crime and out-of-wedlock births in the black community as Uncle Toms is another. The absence of any expression of shame in the gay community over the current blacklisting -- and attempts to economically destroy -- anyone who donated to the California proposition defining marriage as between a man and a woman is another example.

This column is very thought provoking on many levels. Read it and then ask yourself, "Would I be proud if my ethnic/social group engaged in such shameful behavior?"

Prager's parting shot:

Expressing group shame when morally necessary is not airing dirty linen or giving solace to ones ideological enemies. It is, rather, one of the highest expressions of moral development. And it is therefore universally applicable. Being a minority doesnt exempt its members from moral responsibility. It will be a great day for America and the world when minorities begin to express shame as well as pride. In fact, there is real pride in expressing shame. Minorities should give it a try.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Minorities Should Express Shame, Not Only Pride
Dennis Prager
TownHall.com
December 16, 2008

Tim Tebow's Eye Black Message (Philippians 4:13)

Last December, I blogged about how 2007 Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow might very well have been aborted before he was born had not his mother been so committed to her Christian values and staunchly opposed the doctors who were trying to convince her to kill her unborn baby as a means of saving her own life. Her faith won the day and she is still alive after giving birth to a boy in 1987 who would become, arguably, one of the best college football quarterbacks of all time.

Anyone who would doubt this apparently did not watch the SEC Championship Game between #1 ranked Alabama and #4 ranked Florida yesterday. It was a tough fought contest, but Florida prevailed with a final score of 31 to 20. The Gators look as though they will be headed to the National Championship Game.

I watched that game and thoroughly enjoyed it. But, thanks to the technology of Hi-Def televsion, I noticed something for the first time. While most other players wear eye black (that black, greasy stuff they put below their eyes to reduce glare) with things like their team names or their own jersey number or whatnot, Tim Tebow's eye black smears had something much more profound written in them. Together, they read: "PHIL 4:13."

I quickly realized that this was the reference to a Bible verse although I wasn't sure if it was for the book of Philemon or Philippians. I looked it up. Since Philemon is only one chapter, it has to be Phillipians.

Philippians 4:13 reads:

I can do all things through Christ which strengthenth me.

From mother to son, father to son and now out to the world, we know where Tim Tebow's strength comes from.

God bless Pam Tebow for holding her ground, relying on her faith and giving the world Tim.

Homosexual Agenda Threatens First Amendment Freedom Of Speech

There were a whole bunch of news items in the past two years about how the homosexual and lesbian lobby was trying to push through legislation that would make it a hate crime if any Christian or other churches offered any critique of the homosexual lifestyle choice. There were also an equal number of people who were concerned that such legislation threatened First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion. Then there were a number of naysayers who said that such opposition was nothing more than poltical paranoia.

Well, the situation has gone from paranoia to reality. Crystal Dixon, former associate vice-president of human resources at the University of Toledo was fired because she engaged in her First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech which was further enhanced by the Toledo Free Press exercising the First Amendment right of Freedom of the Press. You see, Ms. Dixon, as a private citizen, wrote an editorial letter to the Toledo Free Press and was subsequently fired for doing so.

Here is the story and what her letter was about. According to the Bulletin of Philadelphia:

Crystal Dixon, a high-ranking black official at the University of Toledo, was fired in May by the university because she wrote a newspaper commentary expressing her personal Christian views regarding homosexuality. Ms. Dixon was responding to an opinion article written by Michael Miller, the editor-in-chief of the Toledo Free Press titled, "Gay Rights and Wrongs." In her private editorial, Ms. Dixon objected to the comparison of "gay rights" with the civil rights struggles of blacks. "I absolutely respected Mr. Miller's right to express his opinion while at the same time, I disagreed with several of the points that he made," said Ms. Dixon on her Web site. "One of the freedoms that makes this country great and makes newspapers great is the privilege of exchanging different points of view via public print communications."

And Ms. Dixon has every right to express her opposition to the camparison of the gay lobby to civil rights activists.

Read on:

"As a black woman ... I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are 'civil rights victims,' " she wrote in the article. "Here's why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended." Following the article's appearance, Ms. Dixon was placed on paid administrative leave, pending an investigation. On May 8, she was dismissed from her job.

"Dismissed from her job." For what? Being a Christian with a conscience? Exercising First Amendment freedoms?

This case is making something very clear. Radical leftist groups like the gay and lesbian lobby have no concern whatsoever for anyone else's rights; only their own. They do not care if people like Crystal Dixon are trampled down and spat upon. They seek to limit other people's freedoms under the guise of enhancing their own.

Gays and lesbians are not looking for rights. They have the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as the rest of us. They are looking for privilige and they want to obtain that privilige by limiting the freedoms of others. If Ms. Dixon loses this fight, how long will it be before someone writing a criticism of the gay and lesbian lifestyle choice is thrown in jail for some perceived "hate crime?" It won't be long at all, and we will have the first major deterioration of the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

University Of Toledo Sued For Firing Christian Official
John P. Connolly
The Bulletin
December 2, 2008

And you can access Crystal Dixon's website on-line here:

Crystal Dixon

If you wish to make a tax-deductible contribution to Crystal Dixon's legal fund, you may send contributions to:

Grace In Action
Crystal Dixon Defense Fund
2902 Auburn Avenue
Toledo, OH 43606

Violent Mob Of Gays And Lesbians Attack Elderly Christian Woman

The next time someone accuses me of hate speech against gays and lesbians, I am going to remind them of how a violent mob of gays and lesbians attacked Phyillis Burgess, slapped a cross out of her hand and began stomping on it as they surrounded her.



How hateful is that? These people want us to accept them as civilized members of society and they go on a barbaric rampage like this? Why shouldn't this be considered a "hate-crime?" Clearly, they did this out of hate for Christians.

You can access the video on-line here:

Violent Mob Of Gays And Lesbians Attack Elderly Woman
YouTube.com

Why do people in the Democratic party and on the left in general claim to embrace "tolerance" when they act so intolerant towards those with differing views?

And what would have been the response from the Mass Media outlets if it had been a gay or lesbian attacked by a mob of Christians? Certainly not the silence they are giving to this story.

You can read an on-line report about this situation here:

Video Shows Gay 'Marriage' Backers Terrorizing Cross-Carrying Elderly Woman And Reporter
Kathleen Gilbert
LifeSiteNews.com
November 10, 2008

Mark Warner's Macaca Moment: Calls Christians, NRA Members And Home-Schoolers A 'Threat To America'

You know, I believe in the right to keep and bears arms just as the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment says. I believe the Judeo-Christian Faith is what allowed America to grow into the nation it is today. I believe people should have the right to educate their own children when public schools fail due to teachers indoctrinating rather than educating students.

And Mark Warner has the unmitigated gall to call me a "threat to America?"

Does he not see his own presidential candidate, the one he has pictures of in his own ads, palling around with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and not see that as a threat? Does he not see Obama's thugs trying to silence criticism through the use prosecutors and law-enforcement officials and not see that as a threat?

No, he sees people like me, people who believe in the rights guaranteed under the first ten amendments, as a threat to America.

He might as well have just called me and millions like me a "macaca."

You can access the audio of him saying these things here:



Or you can access it on-line here:

Warner Attacks The NRA And Other Groups
YouTube.com
July 22, 2008