House Democrats in Washington brought forward a bill today to expand the scope of “thought crimes,” as well as expand the power and scope of the federal government in areas it simply has no business being in.
HR 1592 would “provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes” for sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. Unbelievably, the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) notes that under this legislation, “a violent crime against an individual that is targeted because he is a transsexual or a necrophile (sexual arousal or activity with a corpse) will be investigated, prosecuted, and sentenced more harshly than an identical violent crime against a pregnant woman or a police officer.”
Lovely.
RSC Chairman Jeb Hensarling says the bill would “federalize every state and local crime, so long as there exists the possibility that the crime was potentially motivated by hate.” The RSC also says this Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, as well as the First, Tenth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments.
And here’s the official position of the Republican Bush administration on the bill: “The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However, the Administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”
Naturally, Nevada’s Democrat Rep. Shelly Berkley voted for it.
Freshman Republican Rep. Dean Heller joined almost all of his Republican colleagues in voting against this liberal bill.
But “Republican” Rep. Jon Porter voted with liberal Democrats such as Shelly Berkley, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank, Alcee Hastings, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Dennis Kucinich, John Murtha and Henry Waxman. That’s right, Jon Porter voted FOR this expansion of federal hate crimes legislation which the president has said he would veto.
Does anyone know why Jon Porter is still a registered Republican? Does anyone still wonder why I left?
Posted on May 7th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
It’s no longer a shock, no longer amazing, no longer astounding, no longer disturbing, that these left wing, liberal, elected officials, most of which resemble former French President Jacque Chirac and his socialist parties views, are attempting to push the same socialist issues on the American people that caused Mr. Chirac’s demise by a majority of the French electorate. Assuming but not conceding that you are a legal voting baby boomer of 54 years old, and you have 10 more years of employment before retirement, and you have paid into social security to the point where you qualify for todays maximum benefits, you have a real problem. Firstly, you will be required to pay about $60,000. dollars at todays money value into a system that has just reduced your benefits. The argument I have is multifold: 1. You are better off to retire early and take less benefits than continue paying $6,000.00 per year into the system where you already have maximum benefits. Lesser entitlement payments are offset by the cost of paying into the system. It’s a wash. 2. Congress can change the benefits at any time. They recently extended the age of retirement for the same benefits you would have received if you had retired last year. 3. If the Social Security System itself is in trouble with respect to paying those who have paid for it’s benefits for their entire working lives, then how can liberal members of Congress propose giving those benefits to Felons, namely illegal immigrants who have contributed nothing to the socialist system? 4. As a practical matter, the system cannot be abolished but could be improved. Why not allow, under certain guidelines, contributors to use their own money for their own private retirement plans instead of proposing to give it away to illegal aliens? Instead of a welfare state with the benefits being mailed to Mexico, make it a self sufficient state with American’s taking care of themselves as the framers of the Constitution intended it to be?
5. Who if anyone will espouse the doctrine of Compensatory Takings prohibited by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution applicable to each state through the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment? Under what argument could the Federal Government take a mandatory payroll deduction from you in return for nothing, and for benefits you have involuntarily already paid for. Congratulations to the new President-Elect of France. He appears to be a true American.
Lovely to see such a wonderful site. Thank you