Rev. Ted Pike
National Prayer Network
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Sen. Majority Leader Reid agrees with Attorney Gen. Holder that the federal hate crimes bill will not protect most Americans. Instead, he says it will give a small minority, including Muslims, preferential rights and protections. An NPR story following hate bill passage quotes Reid: “This bill simply recognizes that there is a difference between assaulting someone to steal his money, or doing so because he is gay, or disabled, or Latino, or Muslim.”
Reid’s statement is an official admission that the United States–like Canada, Holland, England, France, and Australia–will enforce at least triple penalties against anyone who commits a hate crime against a Muslim.
Lovers of freedom hope the Brownback amendment, passed by the Senate on July 17, will help protect those whose public speech might be accused of influencing someone to commit a violent hate crime. Yet free speech could still be lost under federal hate law jurisdiction in a number of ways. The existing federal law already makes free speech very vulnerable. Title 18, Sec. 2a of the federal hate bill’s 1969 parent legislation says anyone whose speech influences a violent hate crime will be prosecuted alongside the active offender. Also, judges, legislating hate law from the bench, could set judicial precedents that would protect favored groups not only from physical, bias-motivated violence but also “verbal” violence. In hate law countries this means simply criticizing members of federally protected groups–including Muslims! (Watch, Hate Law Jihad: How Hate Laws Make Criminals of Islam’s Critics video)
In addition, a federal hate law will stimulate what is already happening throughout America in cases too numerous to list: State and local prosecutors, with little regard for Constitutional restraint, criminalize and even jail individuals for “hate speech” alone — speech with no hint of performing or encouraging violence.
Thus, as happens in all hate law countries, speech historically considered free becomes hate speech — isolated in a heinous category. Under the banner of “No tolerance for intolerance!” this is taking place in America despite seeming protections of the First Amendment. It occurs on the social and cultural level primarily as a result of decades of “anti-bias” and “respect for diversity” propaganda incessantly proceeding from the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith and Jewish-dominated big media. (See, Who’s Behind the ‘Pedophile Protection Act’? and Jews Confirm Big Media Is Jewish)
Outlawing Unpopular Speech
Society has increasingly come to believe racist or homophobic speech should be criminalized, just as libel, slander, incitement to riot or shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater are not protected. Such epithets, usually uttered in the heat of anger, while offensive and bigoted, have always been the imperfect part of the verbal free-for-all especially guarded under the First Amendment. America’s Founding Fathers knew that repressive regimes throughout history have imprisoned people for criticizing government, not addressing nobility respectfully, profane or bawdy language, etc. Realizing man’s proclivity to err in speech, the Founders determined, through the First Amendment, to especially protect such coarse and erring speech. I view the fringe around the American flag as standing for protection of those “fringe elements” in every period of American history whose irregular, unconventional, unpopular but non-criminal thoughts and words especially need protection.
Yet, the public now raises no protest when state or local magistrates jail “hate speech” offenders, sometimes for months. Under ADL’s federal hate law, the government will endorse and endlessly repeat the ADL maxim that any form of “bias” is intolerable. This will stimulate local prosecutors to take punitive, unconstitutional action, primarily against racists or Christian/conservative “haters.”
With Muslims added to the already long list of those Americans might offend or have offended, what can we do to be safe? Is it sufficient to never criticize Islam again?
Not necessarily. Attorney Gen. Holder testified that the Senate version of the hate bill intends a statute of limitations of seven years. This would allow government to search seven years back into public records to see if a person made any “Islamophobic” statements that may have incited violence against a Muslim. The Brownback amendment would restrain federal empowerment to indict us for having unintentionally incited anti-Islamic violence. But it was earlier rejected in the House Judiciary Markup hearing. If Democrats strip off the Brownback amendment in conference between the House and Senate this fall, literally millions of Americans, including high public officials who have uttered vehement public criticism of Islam over the past seven years, could be indicted if a hate criminal claims he acted under their influence. Most hate law countries prosecute retroactively. David Irving was imprisoned under ADL’s Austrian hate law for a comment he made a decade earlier questioning the sufficiency of gas chambers to effect the deaths of six million Jews.
Legislation of Secrecy, Unanswered Questions
These are only a few of the unsettling possibilities which federal hate crimes law enforcement will hasten in America. No one knows exactly what will happen in the U.S. context because the hate bill is intrinsically conspiratorial, deceptive, stealth legislation. ADL designed it to entrap and persecute honest citizens, end freedom, and subject America to Jewish supremacist rule under their anti-Christ, one world government.
As a result of its Constitutional, ethical and even rational weaknesses, the hate bill had to be passed by the Democrats through deception and circumvention of legislative due process.
All spring I encouraged pressure on Judiciary heads Rep. John Conyers and Sen. Patrick Leahy to submit the hate bill to normal Congressional scrutiny. They were very resistant. About a week before final passage in the Senate, I called Sen. Leahy’s Judiciary office seeking assurance that, since S. 909 was to be submitted as an amendment, Leahy would not omit legislative due process. Judiciary assured me that the hate bill would be given complete public exposure through a Mark-up session and following Rules session. Republican Senators would have complete freedom to voice objections and propose amendments. I relayed that assurance to tens of thousands by e-alert and radio. It never happened. Judiciary’s promise was like Stalin’s proverbial pie crust, meant to be broken. There were no hate bill Mark-up or Rules sessions. The same end-run around free inquiry occurred on the floor of the Senate when a quorum finally assembled. In contrast to Senate hate bill action in the previous Congress, when approximately two hours of debate and invitation for amendments were provided, this time the Democrats successfully called for a cloture vote to end debate before it had begun!
We have not seen the last of surprises from this devious legislation. One of the most obscure of the hate bill’s assertions is found in its initial statement of purpose: “To provide federal assistance to states…to prosecute hate crimes and for other purposes.”
What are these “other purposes?” Could they include mandatory pro-homosexual education in public schools beginning in kindergarten? Concentration camps for Christian “haters?” Eventually, intradermal computer chips identifying and locating all citizens?
“Other purposes” were never discussed. Meanwhile, Congress has approved massive federal legislation giving a green light for government to do virtually anything it wants under the mandate of hate crimes prevention and jurisdiction.
How far will the long arm of the coming hate crimes gestapo reach? ADL and the Democrats aren’t saying. Maybe the Marxist Democrats, who boast of encouraging “openness and transparency in government,” will someday tell us.
From behind the barrel of a gun.
This article was posted: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 at 4:01 am