Bush Signs His 26.5 Billion Education BillAnd then, of course, there's Senator Edward Kennedy. And the folks at the Crawford Coffee Shop would be somewhat shocked when I told them I actually like the fellow. He is a fabulous United States senator."
Posted on 05/17/2002 11:04:06 AM PDT by Liz
Conservative circles are rightly opposed to S. 625, Ted Kennedy’s latest bill aimed at "hate crimes." This legislation has the potential to do much harm and little good, and real Americans should oppose it at every turn. To oppose it most effectively, we need to understand what it contains and what arguments we should make against those contents. We must then make those arguments to our Congressional representatives in order to stop this bill from passing the House.
For all of its evils, this bill would not outlaw free speech exactly. Some writers have started commentaries against this bill with stories of pastors being arrested in Europe for preaching against homosexuality. While many who support this bill would undoubtedly like to outlaw the speech of conservatives, individualists, and those with traditional values, this bill doesn’t contain direct penalties for speaking for or against certain beliefs or practices. The only penalties in this bill are for actions that result in bodily injury or death to a member of a protected class. Americans need to speak against this bill, but we need to be accurate and not misleading in our opposition.
The problems with this bill start in Section 2, labelled "FINDINGS" and consisting of 13 points of ultra-liberal propaganda. The first five of these points claim that "hate crimes" are a serious national problem and that the federal government must "do something." The next four points drag interstate commerce into picture so that supporters can pretend that they are following the Constitution. The next two points talk about slavery and claim that hate crimes are related to slavery. The final two points restate Kennedy’s intention to involve the federal government in the issue. Most of these points deserve closer criticism. A few examples will be given:
(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.
Existing federal law is more than adequate to address any "hate crimes" problems. When Rodney King was beaten by four Los Angeles police officers and acquitted by a jury of state charges, the federal government arrested, charged, and convicted those four officers of violations of King’s civil rights. Whether the police should have been prosecuted is a different argument, but assuming that they committed a "hate crime" in beating Rodney King, the existing civil rights laws punished this "hate crime." When black churches were being burned in 1996, the ATF investigated the fires. Whether their involvement actually advanced the investigation is a different argument, but existing federal law was more than adequate to allow federal agencies to address the problem. Here’s a question: What major hate crime has not been solved by local law enforcement with or without federal help? In spite of all of Kennedy’s bluster, there is no crime in this country that could not be addressed by federal agencies under some excuse or another.
(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including--
(A) by impeding the movement of members of targeted groups and forcing such members to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence; and
(B) by preventing members of targeted groups from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
These statements make it clear that the purpose of this bill is not equal protection under the law. Undoubtedly, there are neighborhoods where one doesn’t want to be in the minority. However, there are just as many non-white neighborhoods where whites would be targets as there are white neighborhoods where non-whites would be targets. As a white man, I’ve avoided seeking certain professional jobs because their location would force me to travel through high-crime areas where whites are more likely to be victimized. Kennedy makes it clear that this bill is not meant to protect me because I’m not a member of one of these "targeted groups."
(10) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.
(11) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races'. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
Promoting these lies about our history makes points for Kennedy with his fellow demagouges and his followers, but it does little to heal old wounds or solve today’s problems. The fact that whites were brought here as slaves, that some blacks owned slaves, and that we had a strong anti-slavery movement from our earliest days is ignored. Also ignored is that at the time these amendments were passed, most whites had been disenfranchised in the South as a result of Reconstruction. For these people, racial violence was considered part of the fight to regain their right to vote. If Kennedy truly wanted to end racial tension, he would fight for equal protection under the law instead of introducing more biased legislation.
While Kennedy may love playing the race card, Sections 4, 5, and 6 contain the real motivation for him. These sections provide for government spending, and spending other people’s money is the reason people like Kennedy are in government.
Section 4 provides for two things. The first is the authorization for the Attorney General to provide "technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance" to local law enforcement investigating or prosecuting a hate crime. This authorization is redundant because the federal government already has thousands of excuses to become involved in any crime that interests them. The second is the authorization of grants of up to $100,000 a year to local law enforcement for the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. These grants are authorized up to 5 million dollars a year during 2002 and 2003.
Section 5 provides for more grants that are less clearly defined. The entire section states:
(a) AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice shall award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.
While the bill doesn’t say what is required of "State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes," we know what kinds of programs these laws try to promote. This bill is being advocated by the same people who thought that federally-funded midnight basketball was a legitimate means of fighting crime. Ultra-liberals believe that the answer to crimes involving homosexuals is to squelch all public criticism of homosexuality; that the answer to crimes against minorities is to squelch all opposition to racial quotas; and that the answer to crimes against women is to squelch all public advocacy of traditional family roles.
The big payoff for Kennedy is the unspecified and therefore unlimited authorization of funds for thse programs. While I have some hopes that Mr. Ashcroft will be able to stop these programs while he’s in office, the Democrats will regain the White House someday, and this law would give them another source of funding for ultra-liberal programs. In this case, the programs would aimed at forcing juveniles to accept ultra-liberal ideas under the guise of eliminating "hate crimes." These programs provide jobs for Kennedy ideologues and attack the beliefs of those who disagree with them. However, in funding this attack on certain belief systems, this bill is an attack on the First Amendment.
Section 6 is simply an authorization to add more employees to the Justice Department to implement this bill. The authorization is only until 2004, but the federal government doesn’t have a good record for eliminating positions once they’ve been established.
The rest of the bill gives a few more details and spends a few more dollars. Section 7 adds criminal penalties to hate crimes. As mentioned previously, this section includes penalties only for crimes that result in bodily injury. Section 8 allows a federal agency to study the problem of adults recruiting juveniles to commit hate crimes. Section 9 authorizes another bureaucracy to collect more hate crimes statistics.
Summary
S. 625 is another bad law that has no basis in reality, attacks the First Amendment, and spends our money. The premises on which this law is based are faulty. We do not need more federal involvement in the hate crimes issue; hate crimes are not a threat to interstate commerce; and hate crimes legislation is certainly not needed to fight some stigma left by slavery. The primary effect of the law would be to take more dollars from taxpayers and give them to people trying to spread ultra-liberal propaganda.
The liberals are screaming about President Bush’s tax cut reducing the surplus, but in S. 625 they are trying to spend more of that surplus. They scream about taking money from Social Security, but S. 625 takes money that could be used to fund Social Security. As you enjoy the $300 or $600 rebate on last year’s taxes, ask yourself this question: Would this money be better spent having some ultra-liberal lecture a teenager about racial and sexual issues? If your answer is yes, then you should support S. 625. If your answer is no, then you should oppose S. 625.
A shorter version of this commentary has been published at EtherZone.com. That commentary is at
TED KENNEDY's LATEST DRIVEL... S.625 HATE CRIMES FOR PROFIT.
Copyright 2001 By William K. Kelly
I think he takes out his water-wings and heads for the kiddie pool.
Oops, under Teddy's law, you just committed a hate crime....against women.....sorry.
.....also never say submerged, underwater, swam to save himself, left Mary Jo in the car,
....... waited 10 hours to go to police, contacted a lawyer first.....all hate crimes in Teddy's book.......
Bush Signs His 26.5 Billion Education Bill
I shall contact my reps immediately. I find it amusing that a murderer introduced the bill.
Thank you from the author.
.....and he can't stand watching the 1977 movie or reading the book by Cornelius Ryan, "A Bridge Too Far."
Tres bien. Here's the number again:
Call 202-224-3121 to reach Congressmen and U.S. Senators.
I still cannot believe that Teddy-Bare is still in office. He really did get away with murder, and has been doing it all his life.
I am still upset that BUSH did the education tour with him, but understand the politics. Maybe Teddy will OD on tacos one day.
All that Scotch he consumes has created a firewall in his digestive system. Better pray for prostate disease instead......
I'm reporting you to the Thought Police. Imagine. Committing a Hate Crime right on FR. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Great idea. I'll contribute a dozen glazed.
ACTION: John Ashcroft needs to know how you feel.
EMAIL askDOJ@usdoj.gov
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.