‘Hate crimes’ fate now up to people
Congressman: ‘If you don’t raise enough stink, there’s not a chance of stopping it’
Posted: May 09, 2009
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A Texas member of Congress is warning Americans that unless they act – and act now – the nation soon will have a "hate crimes" law that actually was written so that it protects pedophiles and others with alternative sexual orientations such as voyeurism and exhibitionism.
"If you guys don’t raise enough stink there’s not chance of stopping it," U.S. Rep. Louis Gohmert said today on a radio program with WND columnist Janet Porter. She’s the chief of the Faith2Action Christian ministry and has coordinated a campaign to allow citizens to send overnight letters to members of the U.S. Senate expressing opposition to the plan.
Already well over 2,000 people have utilized the procedures and more than 200,000 letters have been dispatched to members of the Senate.
"It’s entirely in the hands of your listeners and people across the country," Gohmert told Porter. "If you guys put up a strong enough fight, that will give backbone enough to the 41 or 42 in the Senate to say we don’t want to have our names on that."
WND has reported multiple times on the developing legislation – a plan that failed under President George W. Bush when he determined it was unnecessary and most likely unconstitutional.
An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel, said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose "victims" were chosen based on an "actual or perceived… sexual orientation, gender identity."
The audio of the interview with Gohmert, who repeatedly has tried to correct some of the more egregious difficulties he sees in the bill, has been embedded here:
He warned Porter during the interview that even her introduction of him, and references to the different sexual orientations, could be restricted if the plan becomes law.
"You can’t talk like that once this becomes law," he said.
He said the foundational problem with the bill is that it is based on lies: it assumes there’s an epidemic of crimes in the United States – especially actions that cross state lines – that is targeting those alternative sexual lifestyles.
"When you base a law on lies, you’re going to have a bad law," he said. "This ‘Pedophilia Protection Act,’ a ‘hate crimes’ bill, is based on the representation that there’s a epidemic of crimes based on bias and prejudice. It turns out there are fewer crimes now than there were 10 years ago."
He said he fought in committee and in the House, where it was approved 249-175, to correct some of the failings, including his repeated requests for definitions in the bill for terms such as "sexual orientation."
Majority Democrats refused, he said. He said that leaves the definition up to a standard definition in the medical field, which includes hundreds of "philias" and "isms" and would be protected.
Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a "hate crimes" supporter, confirmed that worry, 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…"
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.
But Gohmert pointed out that if an exhibitionist flashes a woman, and she responds by slapping him with her purse, he has probably committed a misdemeanor while she has committed a federal felony hate crime.
"That’s how ludicrous this situation is," Gohmert said.
According to published reports, the Senate Judiciary committee may be holding a hearing on the bill on Tuesday.
For only $10.95, any member of the public can send letters to all 100 senators, individually addressed and "signed" by the sender. The letters ask for a written response and call for opposition to the bill, including by filibuster if necessary.
According to a staunch critic on "hate crimes" provisions, Rev. Ted Pike, "This is a ‘hearing’ to which no witnesses will probably be called. No troublesome Republican debate or amendments may be allowed."
Akers’ analysis said the bill would result in the federalization of "virtually every sexual crime in the United States." And he said it appears to be part of an agenda that would relegate pro-family and traditional marriage advocates into the ranks of "terrorists." Critics also hvae expressed alarm because in committee hearings Democrats admitted that a Christian pastor could be prosecuted under the law if he spoke biblically against homosexuality, someone heard the comments and then committed a crime.
He said there’s already an effort afoot in the U.S. to list those pro-family organizations "alongside several neo-Nazi groups … to create guilt by the artificial manufactured appearance of association."
The letter to senators being promoted by Porter, in part, says:
"I am writing to urge you to do all in your power to oppose passage of S.909, also known as ‘The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.’
"Passage of this bill by the U.S. Senate would be reckless and irresponsible not only because of the ‘chilling effect’ it would have on First Amendment-guaranteed rights to free speech, but also because it would provide, for the first time ever, special legal protections for pedophiles and other sexual offenders.
"If there was ever a time for the Senate to stand and fight with a filibuster, that time is now. We are calling for members of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, to stop S. 909.
"While the bill’s supporters have very effectively framed the bill as one that will protect victims from criminal acts, the bill actually has very little to do with protection," Akers wrote.
"The bill does not merely provide stiffer penalties for certain crimes but, rather, represents a substantive and fundamental shift away from the American ideas of free speech and God-given immutable equality and toward the European ideas of state approved speech, state endorsed morality, state-given egality," he said.
Foremost, the bill simply ignores the 14th Amendment requirements that all citizens be protected equally, providing special protections for homosexuals and others with alternative sexual lifestyle choices, he said.
Matt Barber, also of Liberty Counsel, wrote in a commentary, "Not only is this legislation constitutionally dubious on First Amendment grounds, and a prima facie violation of Fourteenth Amendment required ‘equal protection of the laws;’ it also flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly limits the federal government’s authority in such matters to those powers delegated by the U.S. Constitution."
"To illustrate the point, one need look only to the most famous supposed ‘hate crimes’ victim of all, Matthew Shepard, who, as it later turned out, was killed during a robbery for drug money gone awry.," he wrote. "This fact notwithstanding, the left continues to disgracefully politicize Shepard’s memory by claiming he was murdered simply for being ‘gay.’ … The bizarre irony is palpable. The two thugs who killed Shepard are currently serving life sentences for their crimes – and rightfully so – in the complete absence of any discriminatory and unnecessary ‘hate crimes’ legislation," he said.
During arguments in the House while the plan was being adopted, lawmakers pointed out the representatives were voting for protection for "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or ‘paraphilias’ listed by the American Psychiatric Association."
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.
"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," explained Gohmert. "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."
All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.