Barack Obama today signed a law that is an atrocity in so many ways. It represents yet another payback to another special interest group whose goals are far outside the mainstream of American values.
1. Avoiding Real Debate
By attaching the a federal “hate crimes” amendment to the military funding that is urgently needed, the Democrats kept it from being considered and debated on its own merits. This is sleazy politics, and that has become the trademark of how this administration does business.
2. Criminalizing thought
“Hate crimes” legislation makes thought into a criminal act. The mark of a free society is that thought and speech are protected, and we only punish criminal actions. But “hate crimes” are actions that are motivated by beliefs or prejudices that are politically incorrect, and are therefore punished more than the same action would have been if motivated by a politically correct motive (like needing money for a drug addiction, or because someone just wants “his slice of the pie”, or because they were bored…).
In particular, “hate crime” legislation is aimed at punishing mainstream America for daring to disagree with the radical agendas of liberal groups.
Make sense to you? I hope not.
The history of the world offers many examples of despots and oppressive regimes that stigmatized, punished, and even killed their people for disagreeing with them. We are on that road, when beliefs and opinions become crimes. Is this the America you want? A nation with “thought police”?
3. Special Classes of Victims
Equal protection under the law, one of the bedrock foundations of our free society, suggests that a crime against any person will be treated just as it would be on behalf of any other person, and that all persons are treated equally in matters of law and justice. The law should not “play favorites”.
“Hate crime” legislation says that because you are green and I am blue, a crime against you is worse, and should be punished more, than the same crime against me… if the attacker apparently doesn’t like green people. And it doesn’t matter how justified his attitude might be, based on all the reasons each of us prefer some things and not others. And … since we cannot know someone’s thoughts … we are convicting based upon assumptions, interpretations, guesses… not fact.
I have just lost equal protection… and so has the attacker. He should be treated the same as any other person committing the same crime, regardless of his beliefs or who was attacked. And I should have the same benefit under the law, whether he attacked me because I am blue or because what he had for dinner gave him a belly ache. The impact is the same, the loss is the same … the crime is the same.
So some victims are more special … some deserve more “justice” than others who suffered the same crime.
4. Bias Against Mainstream Values
It appears to me that the “hate crime” laws create a legal bias against those who have mainstream, traditional values and beliefs, setting them up for attack and a presumption of unacceptable bias if they act on those beliefs. There is no such presumption of bias when the other side acts on their beliefs, even when those beliefs are radical and destructive.
The evidence for this bias is clear, in a simple review of the list of groups supporting such laws. If it were even-handed, all groups would have an equal interest in seeing such law enacted. That is clearly not the case; this law is being forged as a weapon for one side of the argument.
Should the law be taking sides like that? Is that what you want?
5. Lack of Jurisdiction
But all of the above does not matter, really. Because the federal government has no jurisdiction to write this sort of law, except possibly for the District of Columbia. Look at what they are authorized to do. (Hint: it’s called the Constitution, and it is the agreement between the states, the people, and the federal entity that sets forth what they can, and cannot, do. Browse Article I, Section 8; it won’t take you long.) It appears that this legislation is flatly illegal, and represents yet another violation of their oaths by a crowd of rampant oathbreakers.
So, an illegal act, passed by attaching it to a completely different bill and bypassing all legitimate debate, and providing political payback to favored supporters at the expense of equal justice for all.
Other than that … I guess it’s fine.