Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House passes 'thought crimes' bill 237 to 180
OneNewsNow.com ^ | May 3, 2007 | Jeff Johnson

Posted on 05/03/2007 1:02:59 PM PDT by EShellenberger

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would punish offenders more severely if a criminal assault or murder could be proven to have been motivated by the attackers alleged hatred for the victim because of the victim's "sexual orientation," though that term is not defined in the legislation.

advertisement

A news release from the Family Research Council (FRC) called the legislation "a direct violation of the 14th Amendment which affords equal protection under the law."

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the Judiciary Committee agreed.

"Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of equal justice for all," Smith said. "Under this bill justice will no longer be equal, but [will] depend on the race, sex, sexual orientation, disability or status of the victim."

FRC says the "Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007," H.R. 1592, which passed by a vote of 237 to 180, would, "grant certain victims of crimes allegedly motivated by bias greater protection than other victims of violence.

"Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions, and creating special categories of victims is unconstitutional," said Tony Perkins, FRC president. "The actions of a majority of the House today undermine the promise of equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

"This legislation creates second-class victims and a legal system of 'separate and unequal,'" he added.

The Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee defended the bill.

"It does not impinge on public speech or writing in any way," Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.)argued.

But Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, warned that the true intent of the bill was "to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality." If you read the Bible in a certain way, he told his broadcast listeners, "you may be guilty of committing a 'thought crime.'"

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) explained his opposition to the bill in a news release issued just after the vote was taken.

"The law should not distinguish between victims or levy higher penalties based on a criminal's supposed motive," Wilson wrote. "Our legal system was founded on the principle that justice is blind. It is our duty to uphold this standard."

But the South Carolina Republican also echoed Dobson's concerns.

"[C]ertain provisions of this bill would inhibit the free practice of religion and compromise First Amendment rights," Wilson explained. "For these reasons, I could not support this legislation."

Twenty-five Republicans crossed party lines to support the bill. Fourteen Democrats did the same to oppose it.

The White House issued a "Statement of Administration Policy" shortly before the vote indicating that President Bush might veto the legislation, if it passes the Senate and is sent to his desk.

"The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics such as race, color, religion, or national origin," the statement said. "However, the Administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill."

The statement goes on to explain that the acts covered by the legislation are already illegal under the laws of all 50 states and that states have had no difficulty prosecuting such crimes. In addition, the White House notes that many states impose penalties for these crimes that are more severe than those proposed in the bill.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 110th; homosexualagenda; hr1592; moralabsolutes; unconstitutional
"Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions, and creating special categories of victims is unconstitutional," said Tony Perkins, FRC president.

I hate the 237 weasels who voted for this travesty!

1 posted on 05/03/2007 1:03:02 PM PDT by EShellenberger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger
Liberals declare conservatism a hate crime. Film at 11.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

2 posted on 05/03/2007 1:04:49 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger
It'll pass the Senate too. ....probably with even less difficulty.

Chances the President signs the damn thing?

3 posted on 05/03/2007 1:08:01 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger

Which of the Weasels were Pubicrats????....Names Please....


4 posted on 05/03/2007 1:08:28 PM PDT by Postman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger

Wow! The Rats are pissing all over the Constitution!


5 posted on 05/03/2007 1:08:54 PM PDT by 4yearlurker (Liberals, A terrorists best friend!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger
Three Cheers for the defenders of the Republic- sig heil, Sig Heil, SIG HEIL
6 posted on 05/03/2007 1:11:35 PM PDT by 11th Commandment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger
This LEFTIST bill is about controlling speech. Relatives tell me a similar bill passed in Canada and certain passages of the Bible, or even references to them, can not now be displayed in public.
7 posted on 05/03/2007 1:12:45 PM PDT by pyx (Rule#1.The LEFT lies.Rule#2.See Rule#1. IF THE LEFT CONTROLS THE LANGUAGE, IT CONTROLS THE ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Postman; All

Here’s the vote.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll299.xml


8 posted on 05/03/2007 1:14:22 PM PDT by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Postman
Which of the Weasels were Pubicrats????....Names Please....

We need names.

Give us names!

9 posted on 05/03/2007 1:14:25 PM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger
I hate the 237 weasels who voted for this travesty!

Careful, there - hatred of 'Rats will be the next "thought crime" to be defined by these budding commissars.

10 posted on 05/03/2007 1:14:44 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger

This is curious. I called my House rep and was told this bill had gone back to committee.


11 posted on 05/03/2007 1:15:30 PM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger

The Minority Report, 1984, and It Can’t Happen Here, all in one convenient legislative package.

Might as well dress it up a little and call it the Enabling Acts.


12 posted on 05/03/2007 1:15:33 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

IIRC, Bush has already said he’ll veto it. The House results are way short of a veto-proof majority, so for the time being, this travesty ought to be dead in the water.


13 posted on 05/03/2007 1:16:23 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (A member of the Frederalist Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger

Law can establish penalties for actions, not for thoughts, intentions or wishes. Any law that penalizes for thoughts, intentions or wishes is invalid.
Problem is that the whole judicial system is complicit and won’t accept what I just said. This means that the whole judicial system is corrupt.
Also, if you contacted your senator/congressperson, it was a waste of time. This law was going to be passed no matter what the people thought.


14 posted on 05/03/2007 1:19:26 PM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (democratic government becomes less democratic over time, and tends inexorably toward totalitarianism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Buncha RINO liberals:

Judy Biggert, Mary Bono, Mike Castle, Charlie Dent, Mark Kirk, the Diaz-Balart bros & Irena Ros-Lehtinen (Cuban trio = gay-friendly), English, Mike Ferguson, Rod Freylinghausen, Jim Gerlach, Wayne Gilchrest, Jim McCrery(?!), Frank LoBiondo, Ray LaHood, Kuhl, Platts, Jon Porter (?!), Deb Pryce, Dave Reichert, Saxton, Chrissy Shays, Greg Walden, Walsh.

Mostly from liberal states, though some of them are in many respects conservative.

Apologies to those whose first names I couldn't recall.

15 posted on 05/03/2007 1:22:49 PM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose" -- Mitt Romney, April 2002)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sunshine Sister
The residents of North and Central Texas might be happy to know that Chet Edwards, the “conservative” Democrat from Waco who represents Bosque, Brazos, Grimes, Hill, Hood, Johnson, Madison, McLennan, and Somervell Counties and part of Burleson, Limestone, and Robertson Counties voted for the suppression of free speech and the promotion of the perverts’ agenda. When the numerous Baptist and pentecostal and charismatic churches in the area place any anti-homosexual books in their libraries into the dumpster and note that their pastors will not speak out against this issue, perhaps some of the old line “yellow dog” Democrats will learn something. But I doubt it.
16 posted on 05/03/2007 1:24:12 PM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger

This will last about 2 days before the supreme court strikes it down for violating the equal protection clause.


17 posted on 05/03/2007 1:26:44 PM PDT by lesser_satan (FRED THOMPSON '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

Doreen Vigue, a former co-host on WRKO used to push Hate Crimes by saying that “sexual Orientation”, “Race” etc, was “Added Value”. She would say that phrase slowly and clearly so us Troglodytes could absorb its profundity. Her assertion that those traits are “added value” over a cookie cutter White guy proves the violence that Hate Crime Laws do to the 14th Amendment.


18 posted on 05/03/2007 1:28:21 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
Buncha RINO liberals:

Exactly! Thanks for listing them.

19 posted on 05/03/2007 1:28:48 PM PDT by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
We need names. Give us names!

Judy Biggert, IL-13
Mary Bono, CA-45
Mike Castle, DE-AL
Charles Dent, PA-15
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, FL-21
Mario Diaz-Balart, FL-25
Phil English, PA-3
Mike Ferguson, NJ-7
Rodney Freylinghouse, NJ-11
Jim Gerlach, PA-6
Wayne Gilchrist, MD-1
Mark Kirk, IL-10
John "Randy" Kuhl, NY-29
Ray LaHood, IL-18
Frank LoBiondo, NJ-2
Jim McCrery, LA-4
Todd Platts, PA-19
Jon Porter, NV-3
Deborah Pryce, OH-15
David Reichert, WA-8
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, FL-18
Jim Saxton, NJ-3
Chris Shays, CT-4
Greg Walden, OR-2
James Walsh, NY-25

Most all of them come from districts in blue states, or else from socially liberal districts that just happen to be in red states (i.e., LA-4, IIRC, contains part of New Orleans).

20 posted on 05/03/2007 1:28:56 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (A member of the Frederalist Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Most all of them come from districts in blue states

Yeah, 4 of them from NJ, where even when you vote for a Republican, you're really voting for (and suffering under) a dimmicrat.

21 posted on 05/03/2007 1:35:10 PM PDT by Sicon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

Thanks.....Three JerseyPubs on the list.


22 posted on 05/03/2007 1:35:45 PM PDT by Postman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger

Careful. Hating them is a thought crime. ;)


23 posted on 05/03/2007 1:37:11 PM PDT by Xenalyte (Cheese . . . milk's leap toward immortality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
Doreen Vigue

wow - now, theres a name I have not heard in some time.
In regard to so called ‘ hate crime ‘ laws to protect gays..if one were sexually assaulted by a homosexual and you fought back, I suppose you have then committed a hate crime? A federal offense?
24 posted on 05/03/2007 1:37:13 PM PDT by warsaw44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Postman

That’s FOUR JerseyPubs...including the putative Pub, Ferguson


25 posted on 05/03/2007 1:38:09 PM PDT by Postman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger

Thought Crime bill? When I read the headline, I thought this was an anti flag burning bill...


26 posted on 05/03/2007 1:39:32 PM PDT by LibertarianSJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

LA-4 actually is in the northwest corner of the state. It includes Shreveport, Bossier City and a slew of smaller, rural parishes to the south. It voted 59%-41% for Bush. Why McCrery would vote for this bill is beyond me.


27 posted on 05/03/2007 1:41:10 PM PDT by Galactic Overlord-In-Chief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
The votes of "conservative" Democrats of the Blue Dog group:


Mike Arcuri (New York) Yes
Joe Baca (California) Yes
John Barrow (Georgia) Yes
Marion Berry (Arkansas) No
Sanford Bishop (Georgia) Yes
Dan Boren (Oklahoma) No
Leonard Boswell (Iowa) Yes
Allen Boyd (Florida), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration Yes
Dennis Cardoza (California) Yes
Ben Chandler (Kentucky) Yes
Jim Cooper (Tennessee) Yes
Jim Costa (California) Yes
Bud Cramer (Alabama) No
Lincoln Davis (Tennessee) No
Joe Donnelly (Indiana) No
Brad Ellsworth (Indiana) No
Kirsten Gillibrand (New York) Yes
Jane Harman (California) Yes
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota), Blue Dog Whip Yes
Baron Hill (Indiana) Yes
Tim Holden (Pennsylvania) Yes
Steve Israel (New York) Yes
Tim Mahoney (Florida) Yes
Jim Marshall (Georgia) Yes
Jim Matheson (Utah) Yes
Mike McIntyre (North Carolina) No
Charlie Melancon (Louisiana) No
Mike Michaud (Maine) Yes
Dennis Moore (Kansas), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy Yes
Patrick Murphy (Pennsylvania) Yes
Collin Peterson (Minnesota) No
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota) Yes
Mike Ross (Arkansas), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications No
John Salazar (Colorado) Yes
Loretta Sanchez (California) Yes
Adam Schiff (California) Yes
David Scott (Georgia) Yes
Heath Shuler (North Carolina) No
John Tanner (Tennessee) Not voting
Gene Taylor (Mississippi) No
Mike Thompson (California) Yes
Charlie Wilson (Ohio) Yes

The bottom line is that, except in a few cases mostly in the South, a Blue Dog Democrat is just another liberal.

28 posted on 05/03/2007 1:44:34 PM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Leftism is Mentally Deranged
Law can establish penalties for actions, not for thoughts, intentions or wishes. Any law that penalizes for thoughts, intentions or wishes is invalid.

Actually the law does that all the time.

For a particular action (say, killing your wife), whether it's a crime at all will depend on your intent. Was it your intention to kill your wife, or was it an accident?

Furthermore, the extent of the penalty you receive also will depend on your thoughts and intentions. Had you thought it out for weeks ahead (first degree murder) or did you kill your wife in a fit of passion when you came home early and found her in bed with your best friend (manslaughter)?

What this bill does is elevate groups of victims like homosexuals and blacks into "first class citizens" while victims who happen to be heterosexual white males are made into "second class citizens."

So you kill your wife, who you discovered was cheating with your best friend. But now let's change the facts and postulate that you kill your wife, who was cheating with your best friend's WIFE.

Now that changes everything, under this law. Now you could go to jail for even longer, because you killed someone who practiced homosexuality. And the evidence to be presented at your trial will be, did LeftismIsMentallyDeranged ever say anything negative about homosexuality? Did LeftismIsMentallyDeranged ever attend a church which preached against homosexuality?

And if you did, what will the members of the jury say, those same jurors who attended the government schools and get their news and opinions from the MSM, about what was in LeftismIsMentallyDeranged's heart, and about what you are guilty of?

29 posted on 05/03/2007 1:44:40 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger
I’m not nearly as conservative on social issues as many on FR. I’m to the right of Rudy for sure but that’s not too hard.

So what is amazing to me is for once I agree with James Dobson. This bill is nothing more than an attempt to muzzle ANYBODY who, in public statement or writing, says anything negative about homosexuality.

More specifically what would happen is some minister will say homosexuality is a sin (which it is), and some numbnutt who attended that same church at SOME point in his life goes off and commits a violent crime against a homosexual, then the state can come after the minister for inciting a hate crime.

Anybody who denies this would be the outcome (John Conyers) is either naive or a liar or both.

30 posted on 05/03/2007 1:46:37 PM PDT by Artemis Webb (New York politicians do not think or believe like Americans. ...Thompson 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

Conyers is leftist slime. He knows exactly what he’s doing.


31 posted on 05/03/2007 2:32:08 PM PDT by darkangel82 (Socialism is NOT an American value.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Both Diaz-Balarts voted for this? I thought they were conservative. The usual RINOs(Bono, Shays, Kirk, etc) are on the list.


32 posted on 05/03/2007 2:35:29 PM PDT by darkangel82 (Socialism is NOT an American value.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Galactic Overlord-In-Chief

I stand corrected!


33 posted on 05/03/2007 2:36:46 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (A member of the Frederalist Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

The President said he would veto the bill if it passes. The text of his statement follows:
“The Administration favors strong criminal penalties for violent crime, including crime based on personal characteristics, such as race, color, religion, or national origin. However, the Administration believes that H.R. 1592 is unnecessary and constitutionally questionable. If H.R. 1592 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”

“State and local criminal laws already provide criminal penalties for the violence addressed by the new Federal crime defined in section 7 of H.R. 1592, and many of these laws carry stricter penalties (including mandatory minimums and the death penalty) than the proposed language in H.R. 1592. State and local law enforcement agencies and courts have the capability to enforce those penalties and are doing so effectively. There has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement, and doing so is inconsistent with the proper allocation of criminal enforcement responsibilities between the different levels of government. In addition, almost every State in the country can actively prosecute hate crimes under the State’s own hate crimes law.”

“H.R. 1592 prohibits willfully causing or attempting to cause bodily injury to any person based upon the victim’s race, color, religion, or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. The Administration notes that the bill would leave other classes (such as the elderly, members of the military, police officers, and victims of prior crimes) without similar special status. The Administration believes that all violent crimes are unacceptable, regardless of the victims, and should be punished firmly.

“Moreover, the bill’s proposed section 249(a)(1) of title 18 of the U.S. Code raises constitutional concerns. Federalization of criminal law concerning the violence prohibited by the bill would be constitutional only if done in the implementation of a power granted to the Federal government, such as the power to protect Federal personnel, to regulate interstate commerce, or to enforce equal protection of the laws. Section 249(a)(1) is not by its terms limited to the exercise of such a power, and it is not at all clear that sufficient factual or legal grounds exist to uphold this provision of H.R. 1592.”


34 posted on 05/03/2007 4:19:21 PM PDT by conservative blonde (Let's call the Jr. Senator from Illinois by his full name, Barack Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger; Abram; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; amchugh; ..
""Criminalizing thoughts as well as actions, and creating special categories of victims is unconstitutional," said Tony Perkins, FRC president."





Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
35 posted on 05/03/2007 4:56:01 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.; Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

This is why I love FR. I don’t even have to break the vote down or do any research. Somebody’s already done it. Thanks.


36 posted on 05/03/2007 5:13:21 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal agency...it should be a convenience store.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

Secret thought police agent at work.

37 posted on 05/03/2007 5:17:02 PM PDT by Eric Blair 2084 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal agency...it should be a convenience store.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
"It'll pass the Senate too. ....probably with even less difficulty."

The Senate is far worse than the House on such matters, and I believe it will pass the Senate easily.

The only silver lining in this black cloud of political correctness run amok is the news earlier today saying Bush may veto it. We'll see.

38 posted on 05/03/2007 5:18:16 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger

Holding my breath for the ACLU to denounce it...

Ya’ll better come check on me if I ain’t back in a few days.


39 posted on 05/03/2007 5:29:01 PM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; The majority are satisfied with a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

Zero. When he says he’d veto, he’s done it.


40 posted on 05/03/2007 6:42:47 PM PDT by zendari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger
The elected representatives of this Republic used to go to Washington briefly to act on the Nation's business, and then go home.

This was before the invention of HVAC.

Maybe we should ban HVAC in all government buildings in Washington, DC.

41 posted on 05/03/2007 7:35:02 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 230FMJ; 49th; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; AFA-Michigan; Agitate; Alexander Rubin; AliVeritas; ...
Shame on the Republicans who voted for this piece of work. Non-conservatives. Enemies of freedom of speech and religious expression.

Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

42 posted on 05/03/2007 9:23:43 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Only those who thirst for truth can know truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger

Despicable. Agreed.


43 posted on 05/03/2007 9:25:45 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Mitt Romney for President '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leftism is Mentally Deranged
Part of the reason the founding fathers specifically forbade the quartering of soldiers in private homes without permission was that the British would put the soldiers in the homes to act as “bugs” for the English and repress a person’s natural right to freedom of though and speech.

These says “surveillance techniques” make the quartering of soldiers unnecessary to listen to what is said within a home. Make no mistake the people pushing these bills will use surveillance to suppress “unacceptable speech”.

This is exactly the sort of thing that drove the founding fathers to rebel against their government. Our Representatives need a reminder. They fancy themselves to be the Earls and Dukes of old.

44 posted on 05/03/2007 9:51:22 PM PDT by Hawk1976 (It is better to die than to live as a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment
Three Cheers for the defenders of the Republic- sig heil, Sig Heil, SIG HEIL

It actually "sieg".

I got to correct your German... oooh that felt good

45 posted on 05/04/2007 12:40:58 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (I don't care what side of the debate you are on: Weather is not Climate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Chances the President signs the damn thing?

We can only hope that he, in a lapse of his compassionate-conservatism nature, does veto this as a small gesture to those who contributed money and time to get him elected and re-elected.

Musn't hold our breath.

46 posted on 05/04/2007 3:57:05 AM PDT by EShellenberger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lesser_satan

If the court does what we would expect it to do,then yes this law is doomed.I don’t have much faith in the court following the Constitution anymore.


47 posted on 05/04/2007 4:37:03 AM PDT by Farmer Dean (Every time a toilet flushes,another liberal gets his brains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Thanks for the link. As expected, my congressman did not do the right thing, but it helps to confirm it.

I have already written him, politely expressing my dissatisfaction with his vote. Politely, because I’m still lobbying him everyday to seal the borders.

Not that he will do the right thing there, either.


48 posted on 05/04/2007 7:20:50 AM PDT by chesley (Where's the omelet? -- Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EShellenberger

God help us. I guess it’s time for the end.


49 posted on 05/04/2007 12:30:10 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson