This pro-family press conference — largely ignored by the dominant liberal media — was organized by Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs at the Liberty Counsel (and an AFTAH Board Member), was fired by Allstate Insurance Company in 2005 because he wrote an online article — on his own time — critical of organized homosexuality. Since then, he has risen to his current position as one of Americas leading defenders of natural marriage and family. He will be the keynote speaker at AFTAH’s fund-raising banquet outside Chicago on Oct. 24, 2009.

By Laurie Higgins

Homosexual activist Wayne Besen of the oddly named Truth Wins Out described Dr. Michael Brown’s group of evangelists (the “God Has a Better Way” campaign responding to the Charlotte, N.C. “gay pride” parade) as “uninvited locusts” descending on Charlotte. With that description in mind, I wonder how conservatives should describe the thousands of participants in “pride” parades and “fairs” who pollute our streets with illegal nudity and public sex acts to which law enforcement agents, who are paid by the public to enforce laws, turn a blind eye.

When Besen said that “the notion that gay people in conservative North Carolina needed Brown to educate them about religious fundamentalism was farcical,” he revealed his ignorance about Biblical and Historical Theology. Although the belief that homosexual acts violate God’s will is a belief held by “fundamentalists,” it also integral to all orthodox theological traditions and has been since the beginnings of the church. His ignorance is not surprising, however, since Besen is a member of the homosexual activist movement that regularly makes numerous ludicrous exegetical claims, including the claims that Ruth and Naomi and David and Jonathan had homosexual relationships.

Then Besen makes a patently false assertion when he states that homosexual activists are “falsely accused of working to undermine freedom of religion.” He may want to read the words of Georgetown University lesbian law professor, Chai Feldblum who writes that when same-sex “marriage” is legalized, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights.

Besen’s clouded vision is manifest in this description of a group of Christians engaged in evangelism: “Most alarming are these charlatans’ deliberate perpetuation of paranoia by trumpeting alleged religious persecution that exists only in their warped minds.” Perhaps Besen should talk to the Christian infertility doctors in California whom a lesbian sued when their religious convictions prevented them from inseminating a lesbian. Or perhaps he should talk to the Christian owners of a New Mexico photography studio who were sued and fined for “discrimination” when their religious beliefs prevented them from photographing the commitment ceremony of two homosexuals.

Perhaps Besen (left) should talk to the Christian mother in Alameda, Cal., whose public school is introducing pro-homosexual resources to first-graders next year. The school is refusing to notify parents prior to the presentation of these resources and is refusing to allow parents to opt out. Or perhaps he should talk to me about the efforts of change.org to get a hotel to break a legal contract with Illinois Family Institute because of our religious conviction that homosexual acts are immoral. Sounds remarkably like religious persecution to me.

What is confusing in Besen’s diatribe are these two seemingly contradictory claims: first, he said, “Brown tries to cover his tracks by sprinkling his apocalyptic rhetoric with calls for non-violence. Good orators, however, understand the principle of ‘layering’ messages. If in one sentence you speak of violence and in the next of non-violence, the listener will almost always embrace the words that support his or her belief system.” This clearly implies that Dr. Brown “spoke of violence in one sentence.”

But shortly thereafter, Besen said, “Brown, of course, doesn’t actually have to make an overt pitch for mayhem,” which seems to imply that Dr. Brown did not, in fact, “speak of violence.”

Besen takes issue with the proposition that the movement to normalize homosexuality tampers “with the foundations of human society.” Surely, he knows that this belief is not unique to Dr. Brown. It is widely held by theologians from most denominational traditions and by many legal scholars, philosophers, political commentators, sociologists, psychologists, and ordinary people of all educational backgrounds and walks of life. Many, many people view heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman who together produce and nurture future generations of children to be the foundational institution of any healthy society. Once society divorces marriage from children and marriage from gender, the institution becomes meaningless and the culture dies.

Besen goes on to say in his apoplectic way that “It is time for Brown and his comrades to abort their increasingly hostile and combative tactics before it leads to more wanton death.” This tactic of misrepresenting any public opposition to the ideologies and political actions of homosexual activists and their supporters as hate mongers, fomenters of violence, and bigots is the stock-in-trade of the “LGBT” movement. The logical implication of the argument that the expression of opposition to one group’s moral claims represents hatred, bigotry, and incitement to violence, however, would be that Besen’s words represent hatred, bigotry, and incitement to violence against Christians, and Orthodox Jews, and Muslims, and secular conservatives.

Besen’s screed is laden with overheated, inflammatory, intolerant rhetoric. Kudos to Dr. Brown for doing what faith leaders should have done decades ago. Let’s hope more brave men step forward.

One last point on another topic: I noticed that Besen (shown with the bullhorn at right) refers to Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth as “Porno Pete” which I also find ironic in light of the homosexual community’s purported opposition to name-calling.  It’s not just ironic; it’s hypocritical. It’s just one more revelatory sign of the intellectual and ethical vacuity of the homosexual movement.

Laurie Higgins is the Director of Illinois Family Institute’s Division of School Advocacy.

“Coalition of Conscience” crowd of more than 500 prepares to offer Gospel witness at homosexual “pride” event in Charlotte, N.C.  Their message: “God has a better way.” See www.godhasabetterway.com.

Dear Readers,

I commend to you my friend Dr. Michael Brown’s and the Coalition of Conscience’s response to the “gay pride” movement in Charlotte, N.C. In a speech last week to Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ, I said that the appropriate Christian response to homosexual/”trans” activism and homosexual strugglers is a tightrope walk — balancing a witness for truth on the one side and the gracious love of Christ for sinners on the other. I too often fall off that tightrope, but Michael hangs on it as well as any pro-family leader I have observed in the last 20 years. (My only cautionary note is Brown’s use of the term “homophobia” [see this excellent NARTH analysis] — an artificial construct that is now so elastically defined that almost any rejection of homosexualist goals (including same-sex “marriage”) can be and is deemed “homophobic” by “gay” activists and the liberal media. That said, his point it correct: it is wrong to fear and hate men and women trapped in homosexuality — people who need God’s love and grace.)

How I wish that decades ago Christian leaders in Chicago had taken Dr. Brown’s “God has a better way” approach of a mobilized witness against “proud” homosexuality and the dangerous agenda that goes with it. Perhaps if they had, we wouldn’t be seeing the annual, raucous, debauched homosexuality “pride” celebrations on Chicago streets with attendees (”gay” and straight) numbering in the hundreds of thousands. The Church of Jesus Christ in America has largely abdicated its role as a bold witness for truth and Biblical morality in the culture. (And who says proclaiming the Gospel and confronting sexual sin agendas must be mutually exclusive?) I challenged Oklahoma Christians to be as aggressive in defending God’s truth about homosexuality as self-described “queer” activists are in advancing their lies (enumerated below). Such is the spirit that Michael Brown and the Coalition of Conscience have displayed in Charlotte; believers across the nation would do well to learn from and imitate them. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH, www.americansfortruth.org

P.S. As if to prove my theory that no matter how loving biblically faithful Christians are, they will always be cast as hateful, “homophobic” bigots by radical “queer” activists, click HERE to read homosexual militant Wayne Besen’s response to Michael Brown’s “God has a better way” campaign. It is vicious, even by Besen’s low standard.

_________________________________________________

Dr. Michael Brown

STATEMENT TO THE MEDIA, JULY 25, 2009
GOD HAS A BETTER WAY RALLY, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

DR. MICHAEL BROWN, DIRECTOR, THE COALITION OF CONSCIENCE [links added by AFTAH]
www.coalitionofconscience.org; www.godhasabetterway.com

We are here today to reach out and resist –– to reach out to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community with compassion, as neighbors and friends and fellow-workers, and to declare God’s great love for GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] people. And we are here to resist the gay activist agenda and to send a message to the nation.

As followers of Jesus, we first confess our own sins –– our lack of ardent love for homosexual men and women, our lack of compassion for their struggles, our adding to their sense of rejection through insensitive words and deeds.

We acknowledge the fact that homophobia is alive and well in some churches, and we renounce and repudiate that hateful and destructive attitude.

Our love also compels us to speak the truth, and we do not believe that all sexual orientations should be celebrated.

We do not celebrate the fact that some people believe they are women trapped in men’s bodies;

We do not celebrate the fact that two men or two women cannot reproduce their own unique offspring and that same-sex families guarantee that a child will never have either a mother or a father;

We do not celebrate the fact that some people choose to surgically mutilate their God-given organs and must take hormones for the rest of their lives just to be at peace with themselves;

We do not celebrate the sexual confusion that exists in many young people today, to the point that they can only identify themselves “as genderqueer”;

We do not celebrate the pain and brokenness that exists in the lives of many of those attending Pride Charlotte today –– completely apart from societal rejection –– and we proclaim to our GLBT friends that God has a better way, that there is a place of wholeness and transformation to be found in Jesus. And we are here for the long-term to help them on that journey.

And because of our sense of justice and rightness, we take strong exception to the gay activist agenda. We watch its trajectory, we see where it has gone and where it is going, and we say, “It stops here in Charlotte.”

Since gay pride events have been rallying points for GLBT activism, we take our stand here today and declare:

We don’t believe that elementary school children should be taught to find their “inner-trannie” (meaning their inner transgender identity) as advocated in GLSEN’s training materials.

We don’t believe that it is in the best interest of our society to seek to eradicate gender or to multiply it exponentially.

We completely reject the Los Angeles Unified School District Reference Guide when it states that Gender identity “refers to one’s understanding, interests, outlook, and feelings about whether one is female or male, or both, or neither, regardless of one’s biological sex.”

We don’t believe it is good or right for four-year-old children to have their preschool teachers read them books like One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads or to be lined up by sneaker color rather than gender so they don’t feel “boxed in.”

We don’t believe in “Queering Elementary Education,” to use the title of a well-known book.

We believe it is outrageous when an African American woman is fired from her university position of vice-president of human resources because she writes an editorial objecting to the concept that sexual orientation is equivalent to skin color.

We believe it is outrageous for the media to cover up the gay identity of a sexual predator who repeatedly raped his adopted, five-year-old African American son and offered him for sex through the internet – for fear of making homosexual couples look bad.

We believe it is outrageous for the mayor of San Francisco to welcome warmly a public fair featuring nude, sado-masochistic displays, and to do so in the name of “diversity.”

And what does it say of our country today when our president, in the White House, could say “We are very proud of you” to a man who leads an organization devoted to making harder core pornography more readily available and who says that bestiality is fine as long as the animal doesn’t mind?

We don’t believe in fining a Christian photographer in New Mexico for politely declining to shoot a lesbian commitment ceremony, or punishing an Anglican bishop in England for choosing not to hire an openly gay youth worker, or for putting a lifetime ban on Christian leaders in Canada, forbidding them from expressing the biblical teaching on homosexual practice and threatening them with imprisonment.

We don’t believe in laws that could jail the owner of a Christian bookstore for choosing not to hire a cross-dresser as a receptionist.

We don’t believe in a Hate Crimes bill that is so flawed that even the ACLU is concerned that it could restrict freedom of speech.

We don’t believe it is right for major Charlotte-based companies like Bank of America and Wachovia and Duke Energy to pour tens of thousands of dollars into a radical organization like the Human Rights Campaign, an organization that has stated that supporters of male-female marriage are “right wing extremists” and that mandates that businesses must have special bathroom accommodations for employees undergoing sex-change surgery.

We are saddened by the fact that some of those who came out of the closet forty years now are now trying to put conservative Christians in the closet.

We don’t believe in tampering with the foundations of human society –– male-female marriage and family –– and creating a new institution previously unknown in human history.

We utterly reject the new theologies that advocate “Queering Christ” and writing “Queer Commentaries” on the Bible, and we say to Charlotte and the nation, “By God’s grace, it stops here.”

So, we say “Enough is enough” to the destructive goals of gay activism, and we say to the GLBT community, “Jesus loves you and God has a better way!”

Hate Crimes Amendment Will Face More Hurdles After Passing Senate in Late Night Vote

July 17, 2009

Senator Harry Reid’s bullying tactics paved the way for the Senate to pass the so-called Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill late last night. The cloture vote taken late last night was 63-28, with every Democrat voting for the amendment, except Senators Byrd (WV) and Kennedy (MA), who were not present. Approval of the cloture motion meant that the hate crimes amendment was adopted.

The hate crimes amendment will not become law unless the $680 billion Defense Authorization bill passes and the amendment is reconciled with the version of the hate crimes bill passed by the House. The Senate Defense Authorization bill includes funding for F-22 jets. President Obama has threatened to veto the Defense bill if it funds the F-22.

Read our News Release for more details.

Call to Action on Hate Crimes

See how your Senator voted and then call their office (202-224-3121; www.congress.org) to express your approval or disapproval of their vote.  Call Reid’s office and tell him you disapprove of him burying this amendment in the defense bill and forcing a late night vote. Call Reid’s Majority Leader office at  202-224-5556 and his D.C. Senate office at 202-224-3542.

A watered-down version of the “hate crimes” amendment passed the Senate last night.  I watched on CSPAN as Sen. Brownback (R-KS) offered a successful amendment adopting language from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — protecting all speech except that specifically intended to incite violence.  Brownback’s amendment would make it harder for overzealous, pro-homosexual prosecutors to use the “hate crimes” law to suppress moral speech and Bible preaching against homosexuality.

AP reports: “Republicans will have the opportunity to propose several more changes to the hate crimes bill on Monday, but that will not change its status as part of the must-pass defense bill.”  The “hate crimes” measure — outrageously attached by the Democrats to a DoD spending bill — remains a dangerous Trojan Horse.

TAKE ACTION: Urge your Senators to challenge other portions of the “hate crimes” amendment, such as language that would make it the first federal law to create federal “civil rights” protections based on gender confusion (”gender identity”).  Call Congress at 202-224-3121 or write your Senators through www.congress.org.

Despite the AP’s characterization, “hate crimes” still might not become law as President Obama could veto the defense bill to which it is attached (he objects to some military spending in the bill).  Keep checking our website, www.aftah.org, for more details. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth; donate online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/

P.S.  Remember Arthur Goldberg’s dinner-talk TONIGHT at AFTAH’s office in Carol Stream:

Dinner-Lecture July 17: Arthur Goldberg, Co-Director of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality), will be the featured speaker at AFTAH’s next dinner lecture on Friday, July 17. Dinner starts at 6:00 PM and Arthur’s talk and Q&A will run from 7:00-9:00. Arthur will be discussing his new book, “Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change” [order HERE]. You will not want to miss this informative presentation from a man who — although not ex-”gay” himself — knows firsthand the reality that men and women can leave the homosexual lifestyle because that is his life’s work. RSVP to Angela at aftahangela@gmail.com. AFTAH’s office is at 25W560 Geneva Rd. in Carol Stream, IL (just west of Gary on Geneva Rd.). Donations will be accepted to cover expenses.

The following is Part II of Prof. Robert Gagnon’s series, “Why a Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity “Hate Crimes” Law Is Bad for You.” Click HERE for Part I (“Hate Crimes Bill Promotes Hatred of People Opposed to Homosexual Behavior“) and HERE for Gagnon’s web page containing links to all three parts (scroll down on page).

Part 2:  The irrelevant and inaccurate claim that this bill will not abridge your freedom of speech

by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

June 17, 2009

Note: To print a clean copy with proper formatting and pagination go to the pdf version HERE.

Proponents of the current “hate crimes” bill before the U.S. Senate argue that it is a lie that this bill will abridge in any way free speech protections for those who publicly express opposition to homosexual practice without causing, or attempting to cause, bodily harm. This claim is both irrelevant and inaccurate.

The first step of getting “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in federal law

It is irrelevant because, as noted in Part I, this bill does most of its damage in creating, for the first time in federal law, the special legal-protective categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” The first hurdle is the biggest: getting the categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on the books. A “hate crimes” bill functions as — no double entendre intended — the Trojan horse of an aggressive gay/transgender lobby, offering to the public the “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” law least likely to meet with massive public resistance.

Once the Trojan Horse is within the city walls, the rest of the task is relatively easy. If “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are special civil rights categories in federal law, then many other “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws must be passed if society is going to turn back the “homophobic hate” and “discrimination” that makes bodily crimes against homosexual and transgendered persons possible in the first place. President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have already indicated their eagerness to advance this agenda (go HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE).

Removing the explicit free-speech protection in the bill

The claim that this bill will not lead to an abridgement of free speech is not only irrelevant but also inaccurate. It is inaccurate, first, because the bill itself does not provide much in the way of protection of free speech rights. When it was first introduced into the House the bill contained this provision:

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution. (bold added)

Democrats in committee removed the material in boldface so that what was voted on by the full House no longer contained the explicit mention of free speech and free exercise. The remaining phrase “expressive conduct protected …by the Constitution” begs the question about what “expressive conduct” is protected. No piece of legislation could abridge the Constitution anyway so the phrase is useless. The issue is what constitutes abridgement and that is not spelled out in this bill.

U.S. Code stipulating that inducement is as liable as commission

Second, it is inaccurate to claim that free speech will not be abridged inasmuch as other existing legislation requires an extension beyond actual physical violence.

United States Code Title 18, Section 2, stipulates that “whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” Statements that “abet,” “counsel,” or “induce the commission” of bodily injury are thus not protected by the Constitution.

The omission of “any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses” makes it that much easier to prosecute strong statements against homosexual practice as abetting or counseling violence or as inducing its commission. There is nothing in this bill that explicitly prevents any homosexualist-activist judge, of which there are many, from ruling that calling homosexual acts a grave “abomination” by appeal to Levitical prohibitions constitutes an inducement to violence.

The existence of state and local “hate crimes” law that include mere disturbance

Third, this “hate crimes” bill puts free speech in jeopardy because some state and local “hate crime” laws already make simple assault or intimidation prosecutable offenses.

For example, the Illinois Hate Crime Law permits prosecution for mere assault (i.e., a threat or action that puts a person in apprehension of bodily harm prior to any actual harm), property trespass, “disorderly conduct,” or “harassment by telephone” or “electronic communications.” “Disorderly conduct” is defined in Illinois law as a person who “does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace” (emphasis added).

In 2007 two 16-year old girls from Crystal Lake South High School (Ill.) were arrested on felony hate crime charges for distributing about 40 fliers on cars in the student parking lot of their high school. The fliers contained an anti-homosex slur (the media have not reported what precisely the slur was) and a photo of two boys kissing, one of whom was identified as a classmate. The fliers contained no threats of violence. One of the girls was apparently getting back at a boy with whom she had once been best friend.

Assistant state’s attorney for McHenry County, Thomas Carroll, commented: “You can be charged with a hate crime if you make a statement or take an action that inflicts injury or incites a breach of the peace based on a person’s race, creed, gender, or perceived sexual orientation.” Another assistant state’s attorney, Robert Windon, said: “We do not feel this type of behavior is what the First Amendment protects.” State’s attorney Lou Bianchi insisted: “This is a classic case of the kind of conduct that the state legislature was directing the law against. This is what the legislators wanted to stop, this kind of activity.”

The girls spent 18 days in jail (a juvenile detention center) and appeared in court for their hearing with shackles on their ankles. They were ordered by the judge to remain in home detention on electronic monitoring until the court sentenced them some months later. Relieved that they would be allowed to return home for the time being, the girls sobbed uncontrollably in court. Prosecutors eventually dropped the felony hate-crime charge in exchange for a plea bargain, in which the girls pleaded guilty to lesser misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest (the girls fled the scene when a police officer arrived; they did not strike an officer).

The girls were sentenced to one year of probation, ordered to write letters of apology for distributing anti-gay fliers to the boy and the arresting officer, required to do 40 hours of community service, and given a two-week suspended sentence in the McHenry County Jail (to be implemented if the girls violated probation). The girls told the court that the whole matter was a joke that they took too far. State Attorney Louis Bianchi told the press that he still felt the hate crime charge was justified, while acknowledging that the plea bargain was fair for juveniles.

Conclusion

Claims that the homosexual and transsexual “hate crimes” bill soon to be voted on by the U.S. Senate will not lead to an abridgement of free speech rights and other liberties are both irrelevant and inaccurate.

They are irrelevant because the primary purpose of this bill is not to reduce “hate crimes” against homosexual and transgendered persons (laws against violent acts are already in place) but rather to establish “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as specially protected classifications in federal law. This establishment will make possible—indeed, inevitable—an avalanche of other “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws that in turn make “hateful bigots” of anyone who opposes homosexual and transsexual behavior.

They are inaccurate because (1) the bill has already had stripped from it explicit free-speech protection; (2) the U.S. legal code already stipulates that verbal “inducement” of a crime makes the inducer “punishable as a principal”; and (3) the federal “hate crimes” law will work in tandem with state and local “hate crime” laws, some of which already make prosecutable any “alarming” or “disturbing” of another.

In Part 3 we will look at other instances where “sexual orientation” laws have led to the curtailment of civil liberties and explain why religious exemption clauses are worthless.

_______________________________

Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. (www.robgagnon.net) is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press) and co-author of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress Press).

McCain Exposes Democrats’ ‘Gay’ Political Payoff Priorities over the Best Interests of our Men and Women in Uniform

The following are Sen. John McCain’s floor remarks,  July 15, 2009, regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) decision to tack a “hate crimes” amendment (S 909) on to an unrelated defense appropriations bill:

“Mr. McCain:  Mr. President, we have just seen, I know there are a lot of other issues that are consuming the interest of my colleagues and the American people such as the confirmation hearings of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the “Help” committee of which I am a member, is reporting out one of the most massive takeovers and expenditures of taxpayers’ dollars in history and we have this bill on the floor and there are other issues so it has probably gone unnoticed we’ve seen another really, if not unprecedented, certainly highly unusual action on the part of the majority.

Frankly, to my colleagues on this side of the aisle and the American people, elections have consequences.  What we have just seen is an amendment before this body that I think you could argue is probably of more importance than any other that we consider because it authorizes the measures necessary to preserve the security of this nation, care for the men and women who are serving in the military and future threats that we will face in the 21st century.

So what has happened here is that the majority leader with the agreement of my friend from Michigan who I highly respect and regard have made it clear that their highest priority is not that.

Their highest priority is a hate crimes bill, a hate crimes bill that has nothing to do whatever with defending this nation.  Now, my friend from Michigan just complained we haven’t had time for a vote.  Of course we haven’t had a time for the vote on the pending amendment because we have been made aware a hate crimes bill, 17 pages, encompassing piece of legislation before this body that has not moved through the judiciary committee, the Appropriate Committee of oversight.

So the majority leader of the United States Senate comes to the floor after prevailing upon the distinguished chairman to withdraw his amendment – an amendment of some consequence, $1.75 billion expenditure and a far more important than even the money, a real confrontation between special interests and the national interests so that we can move to the hate crimes bill.  Now, the hate crimes bill is not without controversy, I say.  In fact, it’s interesting that on June 16, 2009, the United States Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter to the Vice President, to the leaders of the Congress, opposing — opposing — the hate crimes bill.  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this letter be made part of the record.

The presiding officer:  Without objection.

Mr. McCain:  The United States Commission on Civil Rights sends a letter saying Dear Mr. President, Distinguished Senators, we write today to urge you to vote against the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Prevention Act. That’s basically the bill that the majority leader has just inserted into the process of the legislation designed to defend this nation’s national security.  And of course there are strong feelings on it.

This is a complete abdication of the responsibilities of the judiciary committee but more importantly could hang up this bill for a long period.  While we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars we’re going to take up the hate crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that’s more important — more important than legislation concerning the defense of this nation.

I’m sure the men and women in the military serving in his home state would be interested to know about his priorities.  So here we are.  Now we will go through – I’m sure the majority leader will file cloture and we’ll go through 30 hours of debate and have another vote and all of this is unnecessary.  Why couldn’t we move the Hate Crimes Bill?  Remember, this is not a single shot amendment on a small issue.  This is a huge issue, the whole issue of hate crimes is a huge issue.

This is a complete abdication of the responsibilities of the judiciary committee but more importantly could hang up this bill for a long period.  While we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars we’re going to take up the hate crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that’s more important — more important than legislation concerning the defense of this nation.

It requires citizens hearings, and debate. But what are we going to do?  For reasons that I guess the majority leader can make clear because I don’t get it, wants to put it on the national defense authorization bill and pass it that way.  Now, [he will] probably succeed and he’s calling it bipartisan.  The last time I checked it has 44 Democrat sponsors and two Republicans.  That’s the definition around here of ‘bipartisan’ bills.  That’s the way the stimulus package was bipartisan.  That’s how the omnibus spending bill was bipartisan.

And I’m confident if the health care reform – “reform” – it will be reasonable in another “bipartisan” fashion.  So we’ll have some hours of debate.  We’ll have more exacerbated feel ensure between this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle.  I would imagine that the hate crimes bill, given the way, the makeup of this body, may even be put on a defense authorization.  A huge issue.  A huge issue.  It will now be placed on a defense authorization bill and passed through the congress and signed by the president.  That’s a great disservice to the American people, Mr. President.  The American people deserve debate and discussion and hearings and witnesses on this legislation.

They don’t deserve to have a hate crimes bill put on this legislation which has no relation whatever to hate crimes.  Now, I’ll probably have a lot more to say about this in the hours ahead but I’ve been around this body a fair amount of time.  I’ve watched the defense authorization bill move its way through Congress and occasionally, including at other times.  I’ve seen amendments put on the bills which are non germaine.  But I haven’t seen the majority leader of the Senate whose responsibility is to move legislation through the Senate -- take a totally nonrelevant, all encompassing controversial piece of legislation and put it on a bill that is as important to the nation’s security as this legislation is.  We’re breaking new ground here, Mr. President. Let’s have no doubt about it.

Its one thing to have one member or two or others propose amendments that happen to be their pet project or their pet peeve, sometimes; it’s an entirely different thing, an entirely different thing, and I have never seen it before that the majority leader of the United States Senate comes to the near and introduces an irrelevant piece of legislation that is controversial., that is fraught with implications for this and future generations to a bill that is totally nonrelevant and after 30 hours of debate we’ll have a vote on closing that debate and including it in the legislation.  I’m deeply, deeply disappointed.  And I would question anyone’s priorities, anyone’s priorities who puts this kind of legislation ahead of the needs of the men and women who are serving our military with bravery, courage, and distinction.  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.”

Below we reprint the first of an excellent three-part series on the “Hate Crimes” bill (S. 909) by Pittsburgh Theological Seminary professor Robert Gagnon (left), probably the world’s foremost expert on the Bible and homosexuality from an orthodox (Bible-believing) perspective. S. 909 could be voted on as early as Thursday in the U.S. Senate. (So says the extremist National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.) For those who can’t wait on AFTAH for Parts II and III, go to this page on Gagnon’s website and scroll down for the full series.

TAKE ACTION: call or write your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121 or 202-225-1321; www.congress.org) today and urge them to oppose the “hate crimes” bill, which is likely to be tacked on as an amendment to the defense appropriations bill for a vote as early as Thursday. Federal “hate crimes” legislation including homosexuality and gender confusion will lay the groundwork for the persecution of religious Americans or anyone who acts on the belief that homosexuality is wrong — as well as pro-life activists working to save unborn babies and those who fight jihadist Islamo-fascism. Every red state with no “sexual orientation” laws will instantly be affected by this federal power-grab that guarantees unequal treatment in the law by awarding homosexuals, bisexuals and the gender confused specially protected “civil rights” status.

_____________________________

Gagnon writes:

Why a Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity “Hate Crimes” Law Is Bad for You

Part 1: Promoting hatred of people opposed to homosexual practice and transgenderism

by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

May 28, 2009

To print a clean copy with proper formatting and pagination go to the pdf version HERE.

The so-called “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” (H.R. 1913), passed by the U.S. House of Representatives along party lines on Apr. 29 and introduced into the U.S. Senate shortly thereafter by Ted Kennedy (S. 909), is improperly named. The bill is really a hate-promotion bill as regards the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” among the groupings slated to receive special protection.

Supporters of this bill who rightly believe homosexual practice to be unnatural and sinful have been duped into thinking that this bill is primarily about protecting homosexual and transgendered persons from violence. They hear the rubric “hate crimes” and think: Who can be for violence toward homosexual and transgendered persons?

The real objectives of the “hate crimes” bill (hint: it’s not about crime)

Supporters of this bill who believe homosexual practice to be immoral rarely stop to consider that all necessary laws are already in place protecting everyone from violent physical attacks or verbal threats to do bodily harm, including persons who engage in homosexual and transgendered behavior. Even homosexual columnist Andrew Sullivan has recently commented: “The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that—and Matthew Shepard’s murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time.” There is absolutely no evidence that state prosecutors are systematically ignoring genuine crimes against homosexual and transgendered persons, once reported to law enforcement officials.

So why pass “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” so-called “hate crime” legislation? The reason has more to do with foisting an expansive homosexualist agenda on the nation than with concerns about crime. The bill serves the following vital aims of that agenda:

• It gets the federal government to enshrine in federal law “sexual orientation” (i.e. homosexuality and bisexuality) and “gender identity” (i.e. transsexualism and cross-dressing) as identity markers worthy of special protection and promotion alongside racial and gender diversity.
• This in turn gives federal backing to hatred of all persons who express opposition to homosexual practice and transgenderism as the moral equivalent of racists and misogynists (sexists), no matter how loving that expression of opposition may be.
• It also lays the foundation for a litany of future “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” bills that will markedly abridge the civil liberties of all who express moral disapproval of homosexual practice and transgenderism.

The foot in the door

This “hate crimes” bill is the proverbial foot in the door or camel nose in the tent that makes possible —— indeed inevitable —— all future laws involving “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” By simply placing “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” alongside of “race,” “color,” “national origin,” “gender,” and “disability,” this “hate crimes” bill does most of its damage. It ensconces in federal law the principle that homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality are as benign as race, gender, and disability —— an aspect of human diversity that must be affirmed and celebrated. Those who refuse to go along with this principle then become encoded in law as hateful, discriminatory bigots.

Note that while “religion” (an identity marker involving choice) is one of the protected categories of this “hate crime” bill, the bill mainly makes a connection between “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on the one hand and a host of benign innate conditions on the other (i.e., the five other protected categories of the bill). I’ve never heard an advocate for homosexual practice and transgenderism make the connection between these behaviors and religious belief. The analogy is always made with race and gender.

The thought crime of “prejudice” against homosexual and transgender behavior

Make no mistake about the fact that this is an Orwellian thought-crimes bill. Suppose a young man and a 70-year-old grandmother push each at roughly the same time. The man does so after shouting out “You bigoted homophobe!” while the grandmother does so after responding “Well then, you are a sexual pervert!”

This “hate crime” bill would apply only to the grandmother and would do so solely on the basis that she believed that homosexual practice was a perversion of the natural sexual order. For the bill establishes this conviction to be a “prejudice,” stating that the federal government can intervene when “a crime of violence … is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived … sexual orientation [or] gender identity … of the victim” (emphasis added). The bill effectively (but wrongly, go HERE) declares this conviction to be a hate that society must prosecute vigorously by enhancing penalties and calling for massive federal intervention.

However, the bill shows no concern for classifying as hateful prejudice the alternative conviction; namely, that advocates of a male-female requirement for sexual relations are hateful, ignorant bigots. Rather, the bill promotes this alternative conviction to society at large. It essentially declares to all sectors of society that it is “open season” on hating and ostracizing persons who find homosexual behavior and transsexualism to be morally repugnant, much as society hates and ostracizes members of the Klu Klux Klan or skinhead Nazi groups.

Recent cases in point are the widespread intimidation tactics employed by homosexualist opponents of California’s Proposition 8 against its supporters (for example, go HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE) and the smear campaign against Miss California, Carrie Prejean, for daring to disagree with a homosexual pageant judge’s affirmation of “gay marriage” (note that the point holds whatever Prejean’s deficiencies may be as a role model for Christian sexual modesty). Why shouldn’t those opposed to homosexual practice or transsexualism get special protection from the federal government? The reason is simple: They’re bigots.

The analogy of other sexual orientations

This bill thus goes beyond protection of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered persons (who are already protected) to promotion of hatred —— hatred toward those opposed to homosexual and transgendered behavior. If you have any doubt about that, consider whether adding pedophilia (‘pedosexuality’) to the list would imply promotion of pedophilic behavior by the state and antagonism by the state toward perceived opponents of pedophiles. Surely it would.

Sadly, this may not be the best example since Rep. Steven King unsuccessfully introduced an amendment to the “hate crimes” bill in the House that would have excluded pedophilia from the definition of “sexual orientation.” If you can believe it, the Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee defeated the amendment along party lines, 13-10. To be sure, the Democrats are right that both “pedosexuality,” sexual desire for children, and “polysexuality,” sexual desire for more than one person concurrently, are “sexual orientations.” Where the Democrats err is in failing to recognize that this is a good reason for not having a “sexual orientation” provision.

Conclusion

So don’t fall for the line that, if you really love “gay,” lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons, you will support this “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” “hate crime” bill. No, support for this bill does not mean that you oppose hateful, violent acts against persons who self-identify as homosexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers. Existing laws already make that point. Rather, it means that you support stigmatizing, marginalizing, and penalizing people who, lovingly or not, oppose homosexual practice and transgenderism. This is a hate-promotion bill.

Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press) and co-author of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress Press). See www.robgagnon.net for more information.

To view the president’s elitist slap at Americans who oppose homosexuality as adhering to “worn arguments and old attitudes,” start watching at the 1:00 mark of the YouTube video below of the June 29th White House reception with homosexual activists celebrating “gay pride month” (read AFTAH’s reaction to the speech HERE):

The following is the official White House transcript of Obama’s “LGBT”(lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender) speech June 29 (emphasis added):

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                                      June 29, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT LGBT PRIDE MONTH RECEPTION

East Room

4:35 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody.  Hello, hello, hello.  (Applause.)  Hey!  Good to see you.  (Applause.)  I’m waiting for FLOTUS here.  FLOTUS always politics more than POTUS.

MRS. OBAMA:  No, you move too slow.  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  It is great to see everybody here today and they’re just — I’ve got a lot of friends in the room, but there are some people I want to especially acknowledge.  First of all, somebody who helped ensure that we are in the White House, Steve Hildebrand.  Please give Steve a big round of applause.  (Applause.)  Where’s Steve?  He’s around here somewhere.  (Applause.)

The new chair of the Export-Import Bank, Fred Hochberg.  (Applause.)  Where’s Fred?  There’s Fred.  Good to see you, Fred.  Our Director of the Institute of Education Sciences at DOE, John Easton.  Where’s John?  (Applause.)  A couple of special friends — Bishop Gene Robinson.  Where’s Gene?  (Applause.)  Hey, Gene.  Ambassador Michael Guest is here.  (Applause.)  Ambassador Jim Hormel is here.  (Applause.)  Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown is here.  (Applause.)

All of you are here.  (Laughter and applause.)  Welcome to your White House.  (Applause.)  So –

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Inaudible.)  (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Somebody asked from the Lincoln Bedroom here.  (Laughter.)  You knew I was from Chicago too.  (Laughter.)

It’s good to see so many friends and familiar faces, and I deeply appreciate the support I’ve received from so many of you.  Michelle appreciates it and I want you to know that you have our support, as well.  (Applause.)  And you have my thanks for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard and care about their communities — and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.  (Applause.)

Now this struggle, I don’t need to tell you, is incredibly difficult, although I think it’s important to consider the extraordinary progress that we have made.  There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop.  And though we’ve made progress, there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted.  And I know this is painful and I know it can be heartbreaking.

And yet all of you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make but also by the power of the example that you set in your own lives — as parents and friends, as PTA members and leaders in the community.  And that’s important, and I’m glad that so many LGBT families could join us today.  (Applause.)  For we know that progress depends not only on changing laws but also changing hearts.  And that real, transformative change never begins in Washington.

(Cell phone “quacks.”)

Whose duck is back there?  (Laughter.)

MRS. OBAMA:  It’s a duck.

THE PRESIDENT:  There’s a duck quacking in there somewhere.  (Laughter.)  Where do you guys get these ring tones, by the way?  (Laughter.)  I’m just curious.  (Laughter.)

Indeed, that’s the story of the movement for fairness and equality — not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who’ve been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; who’ve been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them.  It’s the story of progress sought by those who started off with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion and courage and sometimes defiance wherever and whenever they could.

That’s the story of a civil rights pioneer who’s here today, Frank Kameny, who was fired — (applause.)  Frank was fired from his job as an astronomer for the federal government simply because he was gay.  And in 1965, he led a protest outside the White House, which was at the time both an act of conscience but also an act of extraordinary courage.  And so we are proud of you, Frank, and we are grateful to you for your leadership.  (Applause.)

It’s the story of the Stonewall protests, which took place 40 years ago this week, when a group of citizens — with few options, and fewer supporters — decided they’d had enough and refused to accept a policy of wanton discrimination.  And two men who were at those protests are here today.  Imagine the journey that they’ve travelled.

It’s the story of an epidemic that decimated a community — and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; and who continue to fight this scourge; and who demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion and support in a time of need — that we all share the capacity to love.

So this story, this struggle, continues today — for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot — and will not — put aside issues of basic equality.  (Applause.)  We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love.

And I know that many in this room don’t believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that.  It’s not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago.

But I say this:  We have made progress and we will make more.  And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I’ve made, but by the promises that my administration keeps.  And by the time you receive — (applause.)  We’ve been in office six months now.  I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.  (Applause.)

Now, while there is much more work to do, we can point to important changes we’ve already put in place since coming into office.  I’ve signed a memorandum requiring all agencies to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as current law allows.  And these are benefits that will make a real difference for federal employees and Foreign Service Officers, who are so often treated as if their families don’t exist.  And I’d like to note that one of the key voices in helping us develop this policy is John Berry, our director of the Office of Personnel Management, who is here today.  And I want to thank John Berry.  (Applause.)

I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination — (applause) — to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country.  Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides.  And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law.  I’ve made that clear.

I’m also urging Congress to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act, which will guarantee the full range of benefits, including health care, to LGBT couples and their children.  (Applause.)  My administration is also working hard to pass an employee non-discrimination bill and hate crimes bill, and we’re making progress on both fronts.  (Applause.)  Judy and Dennis Shepard, as well as their son Logan, are here today.  I met with Judy in the Oval Office in May — (applause) — and I assured her and I assured all of you that we are going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill into law, a bill named for their son Matthew.  (Applause.)

In addition, my administration is committed to rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status.  (Applause.)  The Office of Management and Budget just concluded a review of a proposal to repeal this entry ban, which is a first and very big step towards ending this policy.  And we all know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia.  And that’s why this past Saturday, on National HIV Testing Day, I was proud once again to encourage all Americans to know their status and get tested the way Michelle and I know our status and got tested.  (Applause.)

And finally, I want to say a word about “don’t ask, don’t tell.”  As I said before — I’ll say it again — I believe “don’t ask, don’t tell” doesn’t contribute to our national security.  (Applause.)  In fact, I believe preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security.  (Applause.)

Now, my administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we’ll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress.

Someday, I’m confident, we’ll look back at this transition and ask why it generated such angst, but as Commander-in-Chief, in a time of war, I do have a responsibility to see that this change is administered in a practical way and a way that takes over the long term.  That’s why I’ve asked the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal.

I know that every day that passes without a resolution is a deep disappointment to those men and women who continue to be discharged under this policy — patriots who often possess critical language skills and years of training and who’ve served this country well.  But what I hope is that these cases underscore the urgency of reversing this policy not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it is essential for our national security.

Now, even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change but, as I said before, on the hearts we open.  For if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that there are good and decent people in this country who don’t yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters — not yet.

That’s why I’ve spoken about these issues not just in front of you, but in front of unlikely audiences — in front of African American church members, in front of other audiences that have traditionally resisted these changes.  And that’s what I’ll continue to do so.  That’s how we’ll shift attitudes.  That’s how we’ll honor the legacy of leaders like Frank and many others who have refused to accept anything less than full and equal citizenship.

Now, 40 years ago, in the heart of New York City at a place called the Stonewall Inn, a group of citizens, including a few who are here today, as I said, defied an unjust policy and awakened a nascent movement.

It was the middle of the night.  The police stormed the bar, which was known for being one of the few spots where it was safe to be gay in New York.  Now, raids like this were entirely ordinary.  Because it was considered obscene and illegal to be gay, no establishments for gays and lesbians could get licenses to operate.  The nature of these businesses, combined with the vulnerability of the gay community itself, meant places like Stonewall, and the patrons inside, were often the victims of corruption and blackmail.

Now, ordinarily, the raid would come and the customers would disperse.  But on this night, something was different.  There are many accounts of what happened, and much has been lost to history, but what we do know is this:  People didn’t leave.  They stood their ground.  And over the course of several nights they declared that they had seen enough injustice in their time.  This was an outpouring against not just what they experienced that night, but what they had experienced their whole lives.  And as with so many movements, it was also something more:  It was at this defining moment that these folks who had been marginalized rose up to challenge not just how the world saw them, but also how they saw themselves.

As we’ve seen so many times in history, once that spirit takes hold there is little that can stand in its way.  (Applause.)  And the riots at Stonewall gave way to protests, and protests gave way to a movement, and the movement gave way to a transformation that continues to this day.  It continues when a partner fights for her right to sit at the hospital bedside of a woman she loves.  It continues when a teenager is called a name for being different and says, “So what if I am?”  It continues in your work and in your activism, in your fight to freely live your lives to the fullest.

In one year after the protests, a few hundred gays and lesbians and their supporters gathered at the Stonewall Inn to lead a historic march for equality.  But when they reached Central Park, the few hundred that began the march had swelled to 5,000.  Something had changed, and it would never change back.

The truth is when these folks protested at Stonewall 40 years ago no one could have imagined that you — or, for that matter, I — (laughter) — would be standing here today.  (Applause.)  So we are all witnesses to monumental changes in this country.  That should give us hope, but we cannot rest.  We must continue to do our part to make progress — step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind.  And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a President who fights with you and for you.

Thanks very much, everybody.  God bless you.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  It’s a little stuffed in here.  We’re going to open — we opened up that door.  We’re going to walk this way, and then we’re going to come around and we’ll see some of you over there, all right?  (Laughter.)  But out there.  (Laughter.)

But thank you very much, all, for being here.  Enjoy the White House.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

END                4:53 P.M. EDT

____________________________

TAKE ACTION: Call your U.S. Congressman and Senators and oppose “Hate Crimes” (S 909), ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) and all aspects of President Obama’s homosexual/transsexual agenda (see below). Call or write: 202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org.

____________________________

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
www.americansfortruth.com

June 29, 2009; Contact AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net

AFTAH Warns of Obama’s Radical Homosexual Agenda as President Meets Today with Gay Activists

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) warns that President Obama will likely renew his radical promises to homosexual activists today at a White House “Pride Month” reception –– promises that, if fulfilled, will undermine the freedoms of the majority of Americans who affirm marriage and healthy, time-tested Judeo-Christian sexual values in their daily lives.

This afternoon, President Obama will meet with homosexual and transsexual activists at a “Reception for LGBT Pride Month.” AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera reminds voters that Obama has no mandate for his comprehensive “gay” agenda, since these agenda items were barely discussed in the general election campaign:

• Obama’s commitment to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act –– which could force pro-traditional-marriage states to recognize out-of-state homosexual “marriages”;
• Obama’s plans to homosexualize the U.S. military despite the plea of 1,100 high-ranking retired military officers not to overturn current law declaring homosexuality incompatible with military service;
• Obama’s plans to create federal workplace “rights” based on transsexuality;
• Obama’s Faith Advisory appointment of Harry Knox, who called the pope a “discredited leader” and homosexuality a “gift from God,” thus mocking holy Scripture;
•  Obama’s appointment of Kevin Jennings to head up “Safe Schools” at the Department of Education. As founder of Gay, Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Jennings presided over the 2000 “Fistgate” scandal in which a GLSEN-sponsored workshop exposed underage children to graphic discussions by homosexual adults on how to perform dangerous and bizarre gay perversions; Jennings also said “[F**k] ‘em” and “Drop dead” to religious conservatives in a 2000 speech [click HERE to read Scott Whiteman's shocking "Fistgate" affidavit];
• Obama’s appointment of John Berry as Office of Personnel Management Director, strategically placed to advance homosexual activism throughout the federal government;
• Obama’s agenda of federalizing pro-homosexual “hate crimes” and employment law (ENDA) –– which would undermine Americans’ freedoms and vastly increase the power of the state to punish moral-minded citizens by promoting homosexuality and gender confusion as official government policy;
• Obama’s goal to homosexualize immigration laws, thus further undermining marriage and incentivizing the immigration of homosexuals –– adding new stress to an already burdened system;
• The White House’s honoring of “gay pride” and radical, anti-Christian bigots like homosexual icon Frank Kameny –– who smears religious conservatives as “Christianofascists” –– and who cynically proclaims, despite being an atheist, that “gay is godly”; [Note: Kameny is also "Bestiality-tolerant"];
• Obama’s promotion of homosexual adoption, which (for intentionally fatherless lesbian-led households), contradicts his commitment to responsible fatherhood.

Homosexual activist icon Frank Kameny (left) with Obama’s homosexual director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), John Berry.

The following letter regarding the proposed Hate Crimes Prevention Act was sent by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to Senate leaders:

June 16, 2009

Re: S. 909

Dear Mr. President and Distinguished Senators:

We write today to urge you to vote against the proposed Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) (“MSHCPA”)

We believe that MSHCPA will do little good and a great deal of harm.  Its most important effect will be to allow federal authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of defendants who have already been acquitted by state juries—as in the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases more than a decade ago Due to the exception for prosecutions by “dual sovereigns,” such double prosecutions are technically not violations of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution  But they are very much a violation of the spirit that drove the framers of the Bill of Rights, who never dreamed that federal criminal jurisdiction would be expanded to the point where an astonishing proportion of crimes are now both state and federal offenses.  We regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties.  There is no better place to draw the line on that process than with a bill that purports to protect civil rights.

While the title of MSHCPA suggests that it will apply only to “hate crimes,” the actual criminal prohibitions contained in it do not require that the defendant be inspired by hatred or ill will in order to convict.  It is sufficient if he acts “because of” someone’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.  Consider:

• *Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their victims.  They are virtually always chosen “because of” their gender.
• *A robber might well steal only from women or the disabled because, in general, they are less able to defend themselves.  Literally, they are chosen “because of” their gender or disability.

While Senator Edward Kennedy has written that it was not his intention to cover all rape with MSHCPA, some DOJ officials have declined to disclaim such coverage.  Moreover, both the objective meaning of the language and considerable legal scholarship would certainly include such coverage.  If all rape and many other crimes that do not rise to the level of a “hate crime” in the minds of ordinary Americans are covered by MSHCPA, then prosecutors will have “two bites at the apple” for a very large number of crimes.

DOJ officials have argued that MSHCPA is needed because state procedures sometimes make it difficult to obtain convictions.  They have cited a Texas case from over a decade ago involving an attack on a black man by three white hoodlums.  Texas law required the three defendants to be tried separately.  By prosecuting them under federal law, however, they could have been tried together.  As a result, admissions made by one could be introduced into evidence at the trial of all three without falling foul of the hearsay rule.

Such an argument should send up red flags.  It is just an end-run around state procedures designed to ensure a fair trial.  The citizens of Texas evidently thought that separate trials were necessary to ensure that innocent men and women are not punished.  No one was claiming that Texas applies this rule only when the victim is black or female or gay.  And surely no one is arguing that Texans are soft on crime.  Why interfere with their judgment?

We are unimpressed with the arguments in favor of MSHCPA and would be happy to discuss the matter further with you if you so desire.  Please do not hesitate to contact any of us with your questions or comments.

[Addressed to:]

The Honorable Joseph Biden, Jr., President, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd, President Pro Tempore, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Richard Durbin, Majority Whip, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Jon Kyl, Minority Whip, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
The Honorable Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
The Honorable Russell Feingold, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution
The Honorable Tom Coburn, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution

Excerpted from the Washington Blade:

Senate to pass hate crimes bill as amendment
HRC calls for vote before summer’s end

By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade | Jun 8 2009

Senate leadership has decided to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment to another bill instead of a standalone piece of legislation, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Trevor Thomas, an HRC spokesperson, told the Blade in a statement Monday that the Senate settled on this method of passage.

“We understand that Senate leadership does not believe a hearing or mark up on the bill is necessary and plans to bring it directly to the floor as an amendment to another moving vehicle,” he said.

The bill passed the House on April 29, 249-175, as a standalone measure. The legislation would allow the U.S. Justice Department to assist in the prosecution of hate crimes committed against LGBT people that result in death or serious injury.

The Blade reported last month that the Senate was debating whether to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment or as a standalone bill.

Thomas said the Senate determined it would pass the legislation as an amendment because the chamber’s leaders believes that’s “the most efficient way” to send the measure to the president’s desk.

Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said he couldn’t confirm whether the Senate had decided to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment, but he noted that’s how the Senate passed the legislation in previous sessions….

A Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Senate has planned to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment for some time. He noted that a standalone bill would be open to amendments and the Senate amendment process is much more open than the House’s.

The aide said it was not yet clear what bill the hate crimes legislation would join and that a viable option might not be available before late summer or early fall.

Thomas said HRC was calling on the Senate to pass the legislation before the end of the summer….

HRC is pushing every day for the amendment to come to the floor and believes there’s enough support in Congress to pass the measure as an amendment, Thomas said….

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the longest-serving openly gay member of Congress, said in an interview with the Blade in May that supporters of hate crimes legislation in the Senate were considering attaching the measure as an amendment to the 2010 defense authorization bill, but House lawmakers were trying to convince the Senate to pass the legislation in another way.

Frank told the Blade on Monday that said he understands the danger of a filibuster in the Senate with a standalone bill and said he’s fine with passing the legislation as an amendment — so long as the amended bill doesn’t deal with defense.

“You get kind of cognitive dissonance where you put [a] liberal amendment on a conservative bill or vice-versa, and you have problems,” he said. “It’s basically a liberal amendment. It shouldn’t go on a conservative bill.”

Posted on WorldNetDaily, May 14, 2009

By Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily

A longtime pundit and supporter of the homosexual lifestyle choice has admitted online that the so-called “hate crimes” bill now pending in the U.S. Senate is totally unnecessary, according to a report.

“The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that – and Matthew Shepard’s murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time,” wrote Andrew Sullivan in his “Daily Dish” column.

“The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings,” he continued.

“Just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money for [Human Rights Campaign], more gay human beings will be crucified on fences. It’s very, very powerful as a money-making tool – which may explain why the largely symbolic federal bill still hasn’t passed.”

The comments came in an article titled, “Intent vs. Motivation” that discussed the “hate crime” law that has been proposed.

By special arrangement through WND, for only $10.95 members of the public can send 100 individually addressed letters to each senator by overnight mail. Each letter is individually “signed” by the sender. The letters ask for a written response and call for opposition to the bill, including by filibuster if necessary.

Matt Barber, director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and the Liberty Alliance Action, commended Sullivan, whom he described as “one of the foremost leaders in the homosexual activist movement worldwide,” for admitting S. 909 is “a money making scheme.”

“Well, the cat’s out of the bag,” said Barber. “I almost never, if ever, agree with Andrew Sullivan on anything. But I must give credit where credit is due. Sullivan’s admission that S. 909 is both a ’symbolic’ and ‘meaningless … money-making tool’ devised by the extremist homosexual lobby is both refreshing and stunning at the same time.”

Barber continued, “I hope Sullivan will now join me in calling for his fellow homosexual activist leaders, such as HRC’s Joe Solmonese, to exhibit the same kind of candor relative to this anti-American ‘hate crimes’ charade, do the honorable thing and come together to request that the Senate withdraw S. 909 from consideration.”

Read the rest of the story, “‘Gay’ pundit says ‘Hate Crimes’ a scam,”  on WorldNetDaily.com

TAKE ACTION: Call your U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose S. 909, the “Thought Crimes” (hate crimes) bill; call 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 or go to www.congress.org. 

_______________________

Hate crimes’ bill is full of swill

Matt Barber, 5/7/2009 10:15:00 AM

Senate sponsors and liberal activist proponents of the federal “hate crimes” bill, S. 909, have been caught in a series of bald-faced lies. So confident am I of this, that if they can prove me wrong (for real I mean – you know, with evidence and such) I’ll join their little soirée, don a very large pink evening gown and publicly voice support for the legislation.

To the express exclusion of other identifiable groups – including veterans, the elderly and the homeless – S. 909, in its current form, would grant special federal resources and preferred minority status to pedophiles, homosexuals, cross-dressers and – as Democratic sponsor Alcee Hastings recently admitted on the House floor – a host of other APA recognized “sexual orientations” (i.e., deviant sexual fetishes and perversions).

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.

Here’s how they’re doing it:

In order for the feds to usurp the States’ police power, liberals in Congress have had to openly place, within the very language of the bill, a series of transparent lies. To get around that pesky old Constitution and accomplish this brash federal power grab, they’ve been forced to misuse and abuse the Commerce Clause.

In a feeble attempt to constitutionally justify federal interference with local law enforcement, S. 909’s sponsors have made – within the bill’s “Findings” section – several outlandish and unsustainable claims relative to “interstate commerce.” So outlandish are these claims, in fact, that the same language was intentionally withdrawn from the House version before it was passed and referred to the Senate.

But since the bill’s Senate sponsors recognize that failure to include these fantasy “findings” immediately renders the legislation unconstitutional, the interstate commerce language has quickly and quietly found its way home.

First, while addressing “hate crimes” allegedly motivated by so-called “sexual orientation” bias, the bill asserts that existing law is “inadequate to address this problem.” This is patently untrue.

When the legislation’s 1968 “hate crimes” forerunner was introduced, there were multiple and verifiable cases of local prosecutors refusing to indict whites for violent crimes committed against blacks. Moreover, the 1968 law was actually conceived and passed with the primary purpose of righting this specific wrong.

The exact opposite is true today. As FBI statistics reveal, in the relatively few instances where bias motivated crimes are committed against homosexuals or cross-dressers, those crimes are, without fail, zealously prosecuted under existing law. Victims are granted “equal protection of the laws” regardless of sexual preference or proclivity.

Yet these same victims are, nonetheless, shamelessly and publicly exploited by homosexual activists and the mainstream media as the latest “hate crimes” cause célèbre. This, even as hypersensitive local prosecutors bend over backwards to take-down alleged “gay-bashing” assailants as to avoid kneejerk accusations of systemic “homophobia.”

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.

This fact notwithstanding, the left continues to disgracefully politicize Shepard’s memory by claiming he was murdered simply for being “gay.” Indeed, this very legislation, S. 909, is cited as the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.”

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. Justice prevailed and existing law was undeniably “[adequate] to address this problem.”

In fact, I challenge proponents of S. 909 to provide one verifiable example of a prosecutor refusing to charge a violent criminal because the victim was a homosexual or a cross-dresser.

They won’t. They can’t.

But back to the interstate commerce charade:

Here, the federal government’s own statistics serve to derail the “hate crimes” gravy train. According to the FBI, in 2007 – out of 1.4 million violent crimes in the U.S. – there were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) allegedly motivated by the victim’s “sexual orientation.”

Yet S. 909 makes the fantastic claim that there is an epidemic of such “hate crimes.” So many, in fact, that it “poses a serious national problem.”  The bill hysterically declares – while providing zero evidence – the following nonsense:

• Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways;
• [T]he movement of members of targeted groups (homosexuals, pedophiles, cross-dressers, etc.) is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence;
• Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity;
• And, here’s the kicker. Wait for it ….Wait for it:
• Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

So there you have it, folks. If it weren’t so serious, it’d be comical. But let’s make sure we have it straight. According to Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama and their S. 909 cheerleading cohorts, we must pass S. 909 immediately because right here, right now in America, it’s not at all unusual to witness terrified hordes of fabulously dressed – yet wrongfully unemployed – “gays” and otherwise gender-confused blokes in lipstick and Jimmy Choo pumps, frantically fleeing Dolce & Gabbana before they’ve even had a chance to make a purchase, while inbred, homophobic, bat-wielding rednecks hotly pursue them across state lines.

Don’t think I’ll be wearing that pink evening gown any time soon.

###

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and associate dean with Liberty University School of Law. He also co-hosts the nationally syndicated “Liberty Live” talk radio program on AFR Talk. This column is printed with permission.

____________________________

Folks, I don’t know about calling it a “hoax,” but Rep. Foxx is correct to challenge the ongoing myth that says Matthew Shepard was killed just for being “gay.” Read this 2004 ABC 20/20 report and decide for yourself. Regardless, the fact that Shepard’s is now one of the most famous murder cases in history belies the notion that homosexuals are somehow underserved by our justice system. In fact, thousands of victims of similar horrific violence never received any of the national media attention that this crime received. TAKE ACTION: Call your U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose “hate crimes” legislation, H.R. 1913, which would federalize homosexuality (”sexual orientation”) law and create a politically correct hierarchy of victims. Call 202-224-3121 or go to www.congress.org.

_____________________________________

OneNewsNow reports (listen to their report HERE):

NC Congresswoman Claims Shepard Murder ‘Not a Hate Crime’

By Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 5/5/2009 7:00:00

Matthew ShepardA Republican lawmaker has enraged supporters of “hate crimes” legislation for suggesting that the horrible murder of Matthew Shepard was not motivated by anti-homosexual bigotry.

Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-North Carolina) drew the ire of homosexual activists and other supporters of hate crimes legislation last week when she suggested that the tragic 1998 murder of college student Matthew Shepard was not a hate crime.

“We know that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay,” Foxx said on the House floor. “The bill was named for him — the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.”

Foxx later apologized for using the word “hoax,” and said it “may have been a mistake” to reference two media accounts that reported robbery was the motive for the Shepard murder.

In 2004, Elizabeth Vargas of ABC News reported that one of the lead investigators in the Shepard case believed robbery was the primary motive. Former Laramie Police detective Ben Fritzen told Vargas, “Matthew Shepard’s sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn’t the motive in the homicide.”

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says the idea that Shepard was brutally murdered “just because he was gay” is a myth.

“I think it’s sad that Matthew Shepard’s case continues to be exploited by homosexual activists. Even in schools there’s the ‘Laramie Project,’ which is a pro-homosexual play which sort of builds on the Matthew Shepard myth. That’s still used today to advance the hate crimes concept,” he contends. “I think his case, again, proves that homosexual activists in this politically correct environment get greater attention than any other victim.”

What a travesty that House Democratic leaders did not even allow a full-fledged floor debate on H.R. 1913. the “Thought Crimes” bill, which could become the first law to federalize both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Below Congressman Steve King discusses the “Hate Crimes” legislation during the limited House floor debate on April 29, 2009:

_________________________:

Liberty Counsel

April 30, 2009

Hate Crimes Passes House and Heads to Senate

Yesterday the U.S. House passed H.R. 1913 and elevated “actual or perceived” “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the same federal legal status as race. The vote was 249 to 175, with 10 not voting. You can see how your representative voted by checking the roll online.

Senator Ted Kennedy has  introduced a similar bill (S. 909) in the Senate. The bill, which has 34 cosponsors, has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. There is still time to combat this bill, and here is how you can help:

• Sign the Petition to Congress against “Hate Crimes” laws.
• Contact Your Senators and request them to vote NO. They will listen to constituents. Call the Capitol Switchboard number, (202) 224-3121, and ask to be connected to your Senator.
• Continue to pray against this dangerous piece of legislation. Together we can make a difference.

50 Ways to Lose Your Freedom

We are providing a link to a document compiled from various organizations that overviews the appointments and actions taken by the President in his first 100 days in office. Please read it and draw your own conclusions about the State of the Nation. Then, pray for a reversal of each of the alarming and destructive anti-life, anti-family policies that are being implemented.

TAKE ACTION: Call or write your U.S. Representative and Senators in opposition to H.R. 1913, the “Hate Crimes” bill that will likely be voted on by the House tomorrow, Wednesday, April 28. Call 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121 or contact your representatives through www.congress.org.

Editor’s Note: we delayed in making a change in copy desired by the author, in paragraph I.A. (”Characteristics”), giving the proper credit for a description of the Hate Crimes bill, HR 1913. That paragraph was corrected on May 1, 2009.

Following is an outstanding analysis of the federal “Hate Crimes” bill, HR 1913, which could be voted on by the House of Representatives tomorrow (Wednesday, April 29). Shawn Akers is a relative newcomer to the pro-family movement but is shaping up to be a future all-star. He serves as a Policy Analyst with Liberty Counsel, and as Adjunct Professor of Law and Director of Academic Support with Liberty University School of Law.  Akers is a close friend, colleague and former Regent Law classmate of Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member and current Culture War heavyweight also with Liberty Counsel. (Barber will keynote AFTAH’s fundraising banquet on Saturday, Oct. 10 — save the date.) Keep an eye on Shawn. The Lord will be using him mightily as the heated culture war reaches a boil. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.com.

Click here for the text of H.R. 1913, Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009; emphasis is author’s below:

__________________________________________

The “Hate Crimes” Bill

H.R. 1913, the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009″

By Shawn D. Akers

I.    Characteristics

A.     “This bill would create a federal offense imposing federal criminal penalties – potentially in addition to criminal penalties imposed under state law” – on any defendant who chooses his victim in whole or in part because of the victim’s “actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin” or “actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” “Violations would be punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment of up to 10 years, or imprisonment for life if the offense results in death or ‘includes kidnaping [sic] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.’” See Legislation Detail: http://www.overcriminalized.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?id=441.
B.    The bill includes the terms “Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity” – ambiguous terms that the drafters of the bill have refused to define.  It places those descriptions on par with race, color, religion and nationality.
C.    As a matter of mechanics, the bill provides financial grants to state and local entities, provides additional personnel for investigation and prosecution, creates new federal criminal offenses, and creates a new evidentiary rule (no evidence of speech or associations is admissible to prove motive of defendant unless the speech or association is “specifically related” to the “hate crime”).
D.    The bill is couched in terms of providing assistance to state local and Indian governments but it reserves the right to act if they fail to exercise their jurisdiction, or leave “demonstrably un-vindicated the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.”

II.    Status

A.    The version of the bill titled HR 1913 RH  passed out of Judiciary committee on a 15-12 vote.  It appears that the only change from the prior version, HR 1913 IH,  was the dropping of the original section 2 –  the findings section which included exaggerated figures of so-called hate crimes and included the interstate commerce language.
B.    Rep. Steve King, Rep. Bob Goodlatte and others offered and argued persuasively for several amendments all of which were defeated.  One that was particularly interesting was Steve King’s amendment to merely exclude pedophiles from the protected class based on “sexual orientation” – it was voted down 13-10.
C.    If Rep. Barney Frank is to be believed, the bill will likely go to the floor of the house very quickly, probably within the next few weeks. [A House floor vote is expected to come as early as tomorrow, Wednesday, April 29--Editor.]

III.    Major Concerns

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.  Indeed, if the bill’s drafters and supporters are to be believed, the bill only becomes relevant after a criminal has committed an already illegal act.  On closer analysis, 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.  The particular concerns with the bill are numerous, but a few of the most troublesome are listed below.

A.    Unequal Protection of Laws Under 14th Amendment

1. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that all citizens be extended equal protection under the law. HR 1913 in effect creates two classes of victims, i.e. those who are a member of the preferred and protected class created by the bill and those who are not. Inclusion in the preferred class is to a great extent based not on immutable characteristics but on the class member’s choice of sexual conduct, subjective gender, and subjective gender self-identity.
2. The practical effect of the carrot and the stick of federal funds, federal promotion and federal oversight is the promotion of the preferred class and the neglect of non-class members.  Specifically, local and state law enforcement would have the incentive of federal funds to prosecute cases involving these preferred victims to the exclusion and neglect of less valuable victims.  Additionally, with federal funds available when the requisite “hate” connection can be alleged, the bill creates a powerful incentive to force cases into the “hate crimes” mold.  This heavily incentivized increase in reported “hate crimes” would artificially inflate the number and apparent prevalence of so called “hate crimes.” The natural and very political result of such a perceived increase in “hate crimes” would undoubtedly be an increase in the political influence of the preferred class, and as night follows day, a corresponding increase and expansion of even more intrusive “hate crime” and “hate speech” legislation to address the perceived crisis.

B.    Punishes Thought (Potentially Religious or Political thought) rather than Mere Intent To Commit a Crime.

1.    Ironically hate is not even an element of a “hate crime” in the bill. Rather, the definition of a “hate crime” is borrowed from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 – requiring only that the defendant selects a victim because of the membership or perceived membership in one of these proposed protected classes. Proponents of the bill argue that the criminal is being punished for his or her intent to terrorize an entire class of people (i.e. all homosexuals) but no such intent to terrorize is actually required.  Indeed, despite the framing of the term “hate crime” the bill does not even require a showing of animus toward the victim or the preferred class.  Under existing law, the criminal would be punished if he or she possessed the requisite intent to commit the act.  The additional criminal fines and prison sentences that would be created by HR 1913 are based not on whether the defendant intended to commit the act but on whether the defendant considered the victim’s membership in the preferred class in choosing the victim.  In other words, because penalties already exist for those who commit criminal acts, HR 1913 serves only to punish individuals for the beliefs, opinions, or convictions held at the time an act is committed.  As such, HR 1913 does not punish criminal intent, but criminalizes thought.

C.    Wider Immediate Application than Claimed.

This bill will certainly be construed in light of existing federal law including specifically United States Code Title 18, Section 2, that says that : “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” (emphasis added).  This is the feared immediate nexus between the speech of a pastor or radio commentator and the actions of a deranged parishioner or listener.  Proponents of the bill argue that it clearly, under its own language, applies only to acts of violence.  This argument is misleading and naïve in that it implies that criminal liability would be available only for the person physically committing the violent act, while ignoring completely the likelihood that courts, especially ideologically driven, activist courts, will impose criminal liability on those deemed complicit in the violent act whether or not they physically contributed to the act.

D.    Federal Power Grab

The bill, if passed into law, would as a practical matter federalize virtually every sexual crime in the United States.  This federalization would occur even in the absence of any evidence of failure by states and municipalities to prosecute.  Under the bill, membership in one of the preferred classes does not have to be the impetus for the criminal act but merely a factor in the defendant’s selection of his victim.  This is almost always the case. Muggers invariably choose little old ladies as victims precisely because they are little old ladies and unlikely to be able to fend them off.  Under the bill, consideration of the gender of the victim effectively creates the potential for federal jurisdiction. Considering both the extreme breadth of the bill and the built-in incentives to bring crimes under the bill, the likely result is the practical federalization of large swaths of state and local criminal law.

E.    Trend of Nationalization of State and Local Law and the Internationalization of Federal Law; And a Corresponding rise in Anti-Semitic and Anti-Christian activity.

1.    The recent report by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) widely increased the number of people who may be classified as terrorists and who almost by definition would be members of hate groups.  Under the HR 1913, the speech of a criminal defendant and the mere membership of the defendant in a given group may be used as evidence of his or her biased motive so long as a prosecutor can show that the speech or association was “specifically related” to the criminal act.

2.    Substance and methods similar to that offered in the DHS report have recently been echoed by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  That group provides influential lists of alleged hate groups relied upon by state and federal law enforcement.  The reports have begun to blend among its lengthy list of true hate-based groups such as neo-Nazi groups and the Ku Klux Klan, other organizations based on little more than their opposition to homosexuality.  The effect of listing a pro-family organization along side several neo-Nazi groups is to create guilt by the artificial manufactured appearance of association.

3.    Additionally the appointment of Harold Koh as legal advisor to the State Department and the rise of acceptability of his stance that international laws should be used to interpret American laws, even among such figures as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, creates the danger and likelihood that judicial activism would further increase the power, reach, and tyrannical effect of HR 1913 by bringing its application in line with its counterparts in Canada, the Netherlands, etc.

4.    Proponents of HR 1913 argue or imply that the law would provide greater protection for members of all faiths, presumably including Judaism and Christianity.  The application of hate crimes laws in the countries they are most prevalent (and the countries to which Harold Koh would likely look for interpretive guidance), produce exactly the opposite result.  The application of hate crimes laws in countries like the Netherlands experiencing the increased influence of Shariah – stringent Islamic religious law — is patently and consistently anti-Semitic.  The most concrete example of this is the stark contrast in the application of the hate crimes laws in the Netherlands between those who criticize Shariah and those who call for violence against Israel and the Jewish people.  For instance, Geert Wilders, who produced a 17-minute film critical of Shariah, is being vigorously prosecuted under the Netherlands’ hate crimes laws — while the blatant and violent anti-Semitism of others such as Dutch MP Harry van Bommel, who called for intifada against Israel earlier this year, and Doekle Terpstra, who sponsored an “Olive Tree Campaign” rally in Amsterdam where the participants chanted “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas!” are apparently immune from hate crimes prosecution.

5.    The same is likely true of the UN Anti-Blasphemy measures which realistically can be seen only to forbid criticism of Shariah while allowing wholesale anti-Semitism.

6.    Christians who vocally oppose homosexuality and the state endorsement of homosexuality in Holland, Canada, and Brazil routinely receive similar treatment, finding themselves on the prosecuted and persecuted end of hate crimes legislation while the anti-Christian actions of other groups are ignored.

7.    Historically an increase in Shariah influence and/or a rise in economic problems have consistently shown a corresponding rise in anti-Semitism.  The growing national and international acceptance and preferential treatment of the pro-homosexual movement has likewise shown a similar increase in anti-Christian activity (such as the threats of violence against Proposition 8 supporters in California and the recent attack launched by homosexual activist Perez Hilton against a contestant in the Miss USA competition).  Were the United States under the leadership of Harold Koh, Janet Napolitano, etc., to follow the hate crimes trends and precedents established in the international community, the actual application of HR 1913 and its certain coming hate crimes and hate speech progeny, would likely undermine the rights of Christian and Jewish citizens.

F.    Incremental Move Toward Making Speech a Federal Crime.

1.    All of the above can reasonably be expected to lead to a quickly spawned progeny of hate crime legislation demanding greater and greater control of thought, expression and association.  This is the pattern in the international community. HR 1913 would firmly brand one’s thoughts on the issues of human sexuality as potentially criminal activity. The logical next step is to recognize the “harmful impact of hateful speech” on preferred classes and to begin outlawing speech that would communicate what members of preferred classes find offensive.  Proponents of HR 1913 have argued that this is preposterous but tellingly, in the April 23, 2009 Judiciary Committee hearings on HR 1913, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) said unequivocally that “We need to protect victims against hateful words, hateful acts and even violent acts.” (emphasis added).

IV.    Action Steps

1. Encourage constituents to participate in immediate, continued, and persistent contact with both personal senators and congressmen and those of other districts and states (Congressional Switchboard: 202-225-3121; or 202-224-3121; www.congress.org).
2. Support, promote and demand a filibuster if the measure reaches the floor of the Senate.
3. Record and hold to account every member of Congress supporting the bill in the coming elections.
4. Actively oppose the confirmation of Harold Koh.
5. Vigorously hold Janet Napolitano responsible for the libelous report issued by the DHS.

___________________________________

1  Shawn D. Akers is a Policy Analyst with Liberty Counsel, and an Adjunct Professor of Law and Director of Academic Support with Liberty University School of Law.  He can be reached via email at akerslaw@aim.com.

______________________________________

Does a Republican Precinct Committeeman have to support all GOP candidates?

By John Biver, Editor of Champion News; posted4-27-09

Last week a good friend who is newly involved in his township GOP organization asked me if I thought he was obligated to work for Republican candidates he felt he couldn’t support. As an example, he said he can’t support Republican Congresswoman Judy Biggert because of her co-sponsoring of Republican Mark Kirk’s dangerous and wrong-headed H.R. 1913 [the "Thought Crimes" bill].

It’s a good question, since there seems to be some misunderstanding about the role of precinct committeemen, the party itself, and the people it elects.

Many Republicans hold the view that we owe a blind fealty to those who appear on our party’s ballot line. I disagree. The party is the servant to the principles, nothing more. The party has no purpose outside of that service.

Those principles are outlined nicely in the state and national platforms. Simply stated, those principles are: limited government, traditional values, and a strong national defense policy.

It has long been the position of those of us at Champion News that there are some actions taken by our GOP candidates and elected officials that disqualify them from the support of platform supporting Republicans.

The evidence is abundant that our party’s problem isn’t the Democrats – it’s liberal or incompetent “Republicans” that misuse the GOP brand. Often, it’s better to have a lousy Republican candidate lose and a Democrat win. Why? Republicans are the only people who can do lasting damage to the public’s perception of the Grand Old Party. Democrats can’t.

Click here to read the rest of the article on Champion News: http://www.championnews.net/article.php?sid=1841

“Passage of ‘hate crimes’ legislation would place the behaviorally driven and fluid concepts of ’sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ on an equal footing with legitimate, neutral and immutable ’suspect class’ characteristics such as skin color or a person’s true gender. This creates both a sociopolitical and legal environment wherein traditional sexual morality officially becomes the new racism.” – Matt Barber

By Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel

Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) have quietly re-introduced the federal thought crimes bill, H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. 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. The bill is expected to be marked up Wednesday before the full House Judiciary Committee.

Under the 14th Amendment, victims of violent crime are currently afforded equal protection under the law regardless of sexual preference or proclivity. If passed, H.R. 1913 will change all that.  It overtly and, most likely, unconstitutionally discriminates against millions of Americans by granting federally preferred status, time and resources to individuals who define their identity based upon aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., “gay” and lesbian “sexual orientation” or cross-dressing “gender identity”).

Of course, this entire concept flies in the face of the 14th Amendment. It inarguably codifies unequal protection under the law, creating a two-tiered justice system made up of first-class victims such as those who self-identify as homosexual or “transgender” and second-class victims such as the elderly, children, pregnant women, veterans, the homeless and others who choose not to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors.

There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that homosexuals or cross-dressers do not currently receive equal protection under the law. In fact, you need only look to the most famous “hate crime” of all – Matthew Shepard – for proof. Although the evidence determined that Shepard’s murder was not a “hate crime” by definition (a misconception still widely propagated by the homosexual lobby, the media and liberal lawmakers), the two thugs who committed the crime nonetheless received life in prison – and rightfully so. (Shepard’s murder turned out to be the end result of a robbery for drug money gone from bad to horrible).

Likewise, the murderer of Mary Stachowicz – a devout Catholic grandmother who reportedly was brutally killed by a homosexual man in Chicago merely for sharing the Bible – was also given a life sentence. The system worked in both cases and both victims received equal justice under the law apart from any discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation.

Yet, proponents of H.R. 1913 claim it’s needed to curb an epidemic of so-called “hate crimes” committed against homosexuals and those who suffer gender identity disorder. This is a lie that is knowingly and intentionally cultivated by a very well funded and intrinsically deceptive homosexual lobby.  The alarmist propaganda simply doesn’t square with the facts.

According to the latest FBI statistics, in 2007 there were about 1.4 million violent crimes committed in the U.S. Of those, only 1,512 were reported as “hate crimes” motivated by “sexual orientation” bias. Over two thirds of those were allegations of “hateful” words, touching, intimidation, pushing or shoving. There were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) allegedly motivated by “sexual orientation” bias nationwide. In each case, where appropriate, offenders were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and victims were afforded the exact same justice guaranteed every other American.

The entire push for federal “hate crimes” legislation is rooted in fraud. In fact, many of the most high-profile reports have turned out to be false. For example, investigators determined that the very “hate crime” (Andrew Anthos in Michigan) exploited by liberal lawmakers to justify the same legislation in the last Congress, was a false report. It never happened. (See report from Detroit News [PDF].) And instances of such fabricated and politically motivated “hate crimes” continue to pile up.

So, if proponents of H.R. 1913 are neither justified nor motivated by an actual need for the bill – as clearly demonstrated – then what drives them? The answer is twofold. First, passage of “hate crimes” legislation would place the behaviorally driven and fluid concepts of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on an equal footing with legitimate, neutral and immutable “suspect class” characteristics such as skin color or a person’s true gender.

This creates both a sociopolitical and legal environment wherein traditional sexual morality officially becomes the new racism. Those who publicly express medical, moral or religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle are tagged by the government as “homophobic bigots” to be treated no differently by law enforcement, the courts or larger society than the KKK or neo-Nazis.

In short, this bill places newfangled “gay rights” in direct conflict with our enumerated constitutional rights. It becomes the first step in the official criminalization of Christianity. It’s a zero sum game and someone has to lose. Ultimately, what we lose are our First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, religious expression and association.

But the threat is not just some shadowy phantom looming in the near future. It’s a clear and present danger. While debating the notion of “conspiracy to commit a hate crime” in the last Congress, Representative Artur Davis (D-Alabama) admitted that the legislation could be used to prosecute pastors for merely preaching the Bible under the concept of “inducement” to violence.

Furthermore, under existing criminal statute if H.R. 1913 becomes law, actual violence or injury need not take place for a “hate crime” to occur. For example, if a group of Christians are at a “gay pride” parade and a one of them gently places his hand on a homosexual’s shoulder and shares that there is freedom from homosexuality through a relationship with Jesus Christ, then, voila, we have a battery and, consequently, a felony “hate crime.”

But the Christian needn’t even touch the homosexual.  If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in “apprehension of bodily injury” by the Christian’s words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony “hate crime.” The FBI has included mere words – “insults” and “intimidation” – in calculating “hate crimes” statistics and – under the current political regime in Washington – there’s every reason to believe they’ll subjectively consider “insults” and “intimidation” (read: traditional sexual morality) for purposes of prosecuting “hate crimes.”

Yes, it’s a brave new world and with H.R. 1913 – among other things – a once free America has moved, both literally and figuratively, a quarter of a century beyond Orwell’s 1984.

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and associate dean with Liberty University School of Law. He also co-hosts the nationally syndicated “Liberty Live” talk radio program on AFR Talk. This column is printed with permission.

Send To Phone