Assassination attempts inevitable

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I am NOT calling for assassination attempts. I will NOT be making any assassination attempts. I am merely predicting the inevitability of attempts given the radical extremist movements rapidly taking place. Pedophiles and 546 other forms of sexual deviants to be protected by federal hate crime laws? A parent protecting their child from a pervert chargeable with a federal felony? This is just another of the absolutely ludicrous measures the brainless, mindless, moronic, idiotic FOOLS now in the majority have brought to the forefront in an attempt to destroy what this country was and remake it to what it shouldn't be. I suspect there will be attempts on Senators and Congress(wo)men in the foreseeable future and perhaps the president as well but I think things will shift from the CIC (chump in charge) to the rank and file.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Haven't heard of this. Is this a passed bill or something?
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
It has passed the house already and is coming up soon in the senate as S909. It will be voted on no later than Wed. and unless there's a miracle the fools will pass it and the chief fool will sign it into law.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Leo,
Settle down man.


S909 is the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It is a Kennedy bill that was created to "to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes" - it is the other purposes that worry me.

Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:
      • (A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.

      • (B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

      • (C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

      • (D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

      • (E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.
Last Action taken on it was
4/28/2009:Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
It is a long way off from hitting the senate floor and then the house and then back into committee for a reconciliation of the two versions.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I wonder if we held a Million Gun Owner March on Washington on July th 4th to protest this adminstrations anti-gun and anti- Bill of Rights stands if that would be considered movements of a "hate" group. I kinda would not be surprised if it was. Layoutshooter
 

DougTravels

Not a Member
Are these the same "Wise" men that voted for W 2 or more times and put us in a real mess.

This thread is a total troll based on mis-information.

Good job LDB as of right now you have 3 trolls right on top of this forum.

To Layout: What guns do you own, that you are afraid they are going to ban anyway?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
First off Doug, what guns I own or do not own is none of the Federal Governments business. It is also no one elses business but my own. I own NO guns that are illegal under current law but own several that have been on so-called "liberal" lists to be out lawed. Just everyday stuff.

The Bill of Rights gives me the RIGHT to keep and Bare Arms. I will take advantage of that RIGHT in any way that I see fit.

That was NOT what I was posting about in this thread. I was musing about I a march like a Million Gun Owners march would be considered movement of a "hate" group under the law being dicussed. I truley believe that this administration would consider a march in that light. They would have no problem taking away our Right to gather and protest that is ours in the First Amendment just as they would have no problem taking away ANY Rights in the Bill of Rights.

Your rather intrusive questions to my ownership of legal private property are not relevent to that question.

Who I may or may not have voted for at any point in my life is also no ones business but my own.

The Bill of Rights was written for one reason, to insure the RIGHTS of the people NOT the government. I consider ANY attempt by ANYONE to usurp, circumvent or do away with ANY amendment of that document an attack on my Constitution which I have taken an oath to Protect and Defend on several occaision. I take no oath that I have ever taken in my life lightly.

I, at no point, was talking about GB 2 or anyone else other than the current administration. Almost everyone in that administration has a criminal record, either self-admitted or discovered after thier appointment. Those crimes include tax evasion, use of illegal and controlled substances, mis-handling of classified documents and possibly espionage.

Now, you are welcome to spout some more slogans, repeat what ever retoric you wish and call me whatever and ridicule me as you please. As you do keep one thing in mind, I have no such criminal record, those who you support do. I have passed multiple criminal backround checks that those who you support most likely could not and I have passed mulitple polygraphs which most of them could not.

I question your judgement.

Layoutshooter
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The House version was passed during the week. That will prompt action on this bill in the Senate. Doug, you are the poster boy for the one trick pony aren't you.
 

FIS53

Veteran Expediter
Unfortunately there are those who will continue to harass a person who has served time for such crimes and has been released. They have to live somewhere and not all are repeat offenders. I know that many parents would not want a sex abuse ex-con living around the corner and I really don't blame them for being wary. It's the name calling, brick throwing, demonstrations in front of the persons abode etc that are a form of harassment that cause more problems. The govt hasn't seen fit to create a community for these social outcasts and once released can live almost anywhere.

So it appears with this law they want to make the harassment a crime to try and give these persons a chance at getting on with life. Is there another option?
Rob
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I have no idea what Canada is doing with it's sex offenders. Our record here is NOT very good. TRUE sex offenders, not 18 year old boys who have consentual sex with 15 year old girls, have little chance of "being fixed". Maybe a quiet little town surrounded by 15ft high fences topped with razor wire and let them live out thier lives, at thier own expense so they had better have a way to support themeslf. Layoutshooter
 

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
Are these the same "Wise" men that voted for W 2 or more times and put us in a real mess.

This thread is a total troll based on mis-information.

Good job LDB as of right now you have 3 trolls right on top of this forum.

To Layout: What guns do you own, that you are afraid they are going to ban anyway?

Doug... do you ever have anything SUBSTANTIVE to say? Do you have any opinion that's not given to you by moveon.org? If so, try showing it. If Leo jumped the gun, big whoop.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I want to know why he had the audacity to question me on what firearms I own? That is VERY scary to me. Only one other person has EVER asked me a question like that. That was an official of the Canadian government who first asked me if I had guns on my truck ( legal question) what and how many guns I owned at home ( not a legal question). Don't even call me parinoid either. I truely want to know why a person who on every occasion professes his willingness to destroy our Constitution want to know what guns I own? Layoutshooter
 

FIS53

Veteran Expediter
The canuck govt just releases them with few restrictions on where they can live. Usually there are conditions for the duration of the parole period but after that they can live anywhere they want and no reporting and the cops don't track them. If they served their entire sentence with no early release they can live anywhere they want on release. Of course this does upset many parents especially when they move back to their old stomping grounds.
Rob
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
How many re-offend? Everything I have read suggests that they are very likely to commit a similar crime. I would hold the government that allowed slime like that on the street responsible. I know one thing, it is a very good thing that I never knew that one was living next to us when we had kids around. Layoutshooter
 

FIS53

Veteran Expediter
Due to the lack of shrinks available to help these persons a lot of them reoffend. There is just not enough money in the system to get the proper help to these sickos. There are in the worst cases where castration and other such things are done and do help some but of course we have (you guys as well) a lack of space in our prisons and a lack of rehabilitation programs. This is another problem I don't like is the fact that the govt is reducing the work programs, the length of time behind bars and other such goodies so the criminals are left with working out and watching tv all day. Prisoners have more rights than the average joe on the street. Not fair and we've let it happen.
Rob
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
From what I have read shrinks etc won't help. I don't want them back on the street. There has to be other means for controlling these evil beings. They are not much better than walking viruses. Layoutshooter
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
To insinuate that Leo is simply a troll and trolling is nothing short of stupid in itself...i'd think most anyone here knows Leo post from what he feels are facts, some might not be aware or even care to find out if what is posted id true or not, they just feel the need to "label" the OP when their post doesn't suit their liberal point of view.

So here you all go, i'll do what i am known for and "Cut & Paste" an article to back Leo's point....seems he is not allone in his feelings on the issue of protecting sex offenders........



Next on Senate agenda? 'Pedophile Protection Act'
'Hate crimes' law definitions would protect 547 sex 'philias'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 04, 2009
9:08 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Next on Senate agenda? 'Pedophile Protection Act'


The leader of a pro-family organization says families across the nation need to contact their U.S. senators now to try to derail a legislative plan that already has passed the U.S. House and is being awaited by President Obama – after a Democrat confirmed it would protect "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association."

WND columnist Janet Porter, who also heads the Faith2Action Christian ministry, today cited S. 909, dubbed the "Pedophile Protection Act," as an extreme danger to America.

As H.R. 1913, the House version of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill, the plan was adopted on a 249-175 vote, but not before several amendments were proposed by Republicans trying to mitigate the impact of the law.

Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy and Patrick Leahy immediately introduced a matching plan in the U.S. Senate, and activists say a vote in committee could come as early as tomorrow.

The proposal, also called the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act after a Wyoming homosexual who was killed in a horrific robbery and beating in 1998, creates a special class for homosexuals and others with alternative sexual lifestyles and provides them protections against so-called "hate."

It specifically denies such protections to other targeted classes of citizens such as pastors, Christians, missionaries, veterans and the elderly.

Wrote Porter, "I've written extensively about how this bill would criminalize Christianity and turn those who disagree with the homosexual agenda into felons, but criminalizing Christianity is just the beginning of what this bill would do. It would also elevate pedophiles as a special protected class – since the term 'sexual orientation' which has been added to the 'hate crimes' legislation includes them in the American Psychiatric Association's definition of various 'sexual orientations."

Porter cited the amendment offering from Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, in committee that was very simple:

The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.
But majority Democrats refused to accept it.

Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, then explained what it means, Porter wrote.

There are only 242 crimes where there is actually some – truly – an assault, and we just rejected an amendment to including pedophilia from being a part of this protected class. Do you realize what that means?

If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he's committed a misdemeanor, she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation.

I know my friend said that we have a definition in the law, but there is nothing in this bill that references the definitions in the Hate Crimes Statistical Act…it's not there. We asked that it be added so we could get a specific definition. It is not there.

And having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words. The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) … it could include Urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they've committed a misdemeanor, you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong.
King, Porter wrote, also told the full U.S. House that the APA has a list of 547 different "paraphilias" that would be protected by members of Congress under the "hate crimes" bill.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a "hate crimes" supporter, agreed, saying:

This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'Philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…"

Porter said families, parents, Americans, anyone interested in the future of the nation, need to contact their members in the Senate and demand hearings, then demand a filibuster.

"Pushing away an unwelcome advance of a homosexual, transgendered, cross-dresser or exhibitionist could make you a felon under this law. Speaking out against the homosexual agenda could also make you a felon if you are said to influence someone who pushes away that unwelcome advance. And pedophiles and other sexual deviants would enjoy an elevated level of protection while children, seniors, veterans, and churches would not," Porter said.

The "hate crimes" proposal not only sets up criminal charges against those whose actions or words offend homosexuals but also provides money "to improve the education and training of local officials to identify, investigate, prosecute and prevent hate crimes."

President Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.

"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," he said.

Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission said the Senate proposal could be voted on in committee as early as tomorrow.

"You must call the Senate today and demand that they hold hearings on this bill," he wrote. "It is one of the most radical pieces of legislation to ever make its way to the Senate. If passed, it will lay the groundwork for restricting religious liberty and freedom of speech as it has in Canada and Europe."

Similar state laws have resulted in persecution for Christians. In Philadelphia several years ago, a 73-year-old grandmother was jailed for trying to share Christian tracts with people at a homosexual festival.

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., said H.R. 1913 will create "thought crimes," and U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said it will end equality in the U.S.

Gohmert warned the law will be used against pastors – or anyone else – who speaks against homosexuality or other alternative sexual lifestyle choices. He said it provides that anyone who through speech "induces" commission of a violent hate crime "will be tried as a principal" alongside the active offender.

Critics say that would allow for prosecutions against pastors who preach a biblical ban on homosexuality if someone who hears such a message later is accused of any crime.

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, said, "A pastor's sermon could be considered 'hate speech' under this legislation if heard by an individual who then acts aggressively against persons based on 'sexual orientation.' The pastor could be prosecuted for 'conspiracy to commit a hate crime'" she said.

The bill previously failed when President Bush determined it was unnecessary – the crimes banned in the legislation already are addressed by other laws – and it probably is unconstitutional.

"The federal hate crimes bill is bad news for everyone," said Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute, who testified in Congress against the bill two years ago.

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel has spoken out against H.R. 1913 a number of times.

"As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling 'hate speech' laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle," he said.

I agree Leo, people will start taking the law into their own hands before too long...and that might not be a bad thing, it was something our founding fathers told the people they would need to do from time to time...........
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
As Rob pointed out, the bill addresses hate inspired violence, such as the death of Matthew Shephard [a gay young man dragged to death behind a pick up truck]. It does NOT protect pedophiles, except from those who would attack them simply for existing. [Something I can empathize with - I have daughters and granddaughters whom I cherish, but entirely wrong in a nation of law.]
There is not a speck of sense in the opinion piece pasted by the Chef - it's utter tripe, meant to incite even more baseless hatred and violence - how 'Christian' is that? To suggest that a pastor could be held legally liable for influencing a parishioner to attack gay people, simply by repeating the words of the Bible, is asinine, and typical of the scare tactics used when reality doesn't suffice.
No one is suggesting that a pedophile or any gay person be protected IF BREAKING THE LAW - but the other side of the coin is that they need protected from those whose hatred pushes them over the line into unlawful behavior themselves.
Matthew Shephard died a horrible death because some people objected to his sexual orientation - how many pastors have suffered the same fate?
We are a nation of laws, and the laws must protect every citizen until such time as said citizen breaks a law, period. If you 'object' to homosexuality, you have the right to say so - but you have NO right to engage in violence to make your feelings known.
If the law were to make 'exceptions' based upon moral prejudices, there's quite a few whose lives wouldn't be worth a plugged nickle, IMO.
 
Top