"On April 23, the House Judiciary Committee voted 15-to-12 to approve a dramatic expansion of the federal hate-crimes law. The bill, H.R. 1913, would add gender, sexual orientation, and transgender characteristics to a law originally designed to protect racial minorities. It also greatly expands the law’s reach over local offenses typically handled by state prosecutors, by eliminating many jurisdictional limits.
The bill would allow people who have been found innocent of a hate crime in state court to be reprosecuted in federal court. Many supporters of the federal hate crimes bill want to allow people who have been found innocent of a hate crime in state court to be reprosecuted in federal court. As one supporter put it, “the federal hate crimes bill serves as a vital safety valve in case a state hate-crimes prosecution fails.” The claim that the justice system has “failed” when a jury returns a not-guilty verdict is truly scary and contrary to the constitutional presumption of innocence and the right to trial by jury.
But it is a view widely shared among supporters of the hate-crimes bill. Syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum pointed out in 1998 that Janet Reno, Clinton’s Attorney General, backed the bill as a way of providing a federal “forum” for prosecution if prosecutors fail to obtain a conviction “in the state court.”
As Sullum noted, the federal hate crimes bill exploits a loophole in constitutional protections against double jeopardy, known as the “dual sovereignty” doctrine. The Supreme Court created this loophole in its 5-to-4 Bartkus decision.
Supporters of the hate crimes bill also see it as a way to prosecute people even in cases where the evidence is so weak that state prosecutors have decided not to prosecute. Attorney General Eric Holder has pushed for the hate crimes bill as a way to prosecute people whom state prosecutors refuse to prosecute because of a lack of evidence. To justify broadening federal hate-crimes law, he cited three examples where state prosecutors refused to prosecute, citing a lack of evidence. In each, a federal jury acquitted the accused, finding them not guilty.
Animal trainers know all about conditioning a beast until it does what the trainer wants. The basic premise goes like this; trick the animal into thinking that what it is doing is natural, expected, and that obedience is followed by a reward.
And make no mistake, we ARE being trained.
Failing to beat us head to head and toe to toe, our enemy has resorted to changing the rules in an attempt to make us think that we're doing the right thing. Then comes the democrat reward; health care, welfare, and free pony rides if need be, just as long as we forget our rights, forget the Constitution, forget the very premise of being a free people.
Control. Taking our monies, using it for THEIR pet projects and hobbies, and conditioning us to believe that this is the natural way of things. Doesn't matter if its hate crimes, or letting illegal aliens have free rein, or disarming the Republic or apologizing to the rest of the world about the American propensity to fight for American interests.
They KNOW that we cannot be trusted to decide upon our own destiny, and nothing better illustrates this particular-to-liberals propensity to run things THEIR WAY or the HIGHWAY better than Hussein Obama touring the planet to let everyone know that the new sheriff in town has all but forbidden pride in patriotism.
Not that liberals CAN change the rules, as all men of good will know that we are endowed by our creator...be it a deity or a Darwin...with unalienable rights that are NOT government bestowed and therefore CANNOT be government sanctioned into oblivion.
This week its hate crimes. Next week they'll be after our guns yet again, and the future is littered with liberal laundry lists of things to steal.
Not on our watch (?).
Update
Since not enough folks check the comment section here, it behooves me to post two fine examples of what patriots are saying about the rain the park and other things:
"When the cops were wrongfully acquitted in the Rodney King beating, everybody was all for a new trial in federal court. Had I been on the jury I would have tried to put those cops in jail for 900 plus years. Hate criminals, especially ones in uniform.
But I was totally opposed to changing the name of the offense for the same act and trying them again. I said it would lead to this."
Again, I was right. Now, where are all those assholes who told me I was paranoid? You ain't paranoid if the sonsofbitches really are out to fuck you up.
straightarrow |
"There is no constitutional authority for federal "hate crimes" prosecution. If "dual sovereignty" is a problem, perhaps it's because one of the sovereigns really isn't? I would also like the "hate crimes" bill amended to include "disdain for the Constitution"."TJP |
No comments:
Post a Comment