Monday, May 25, 2009
Memorial Day
Then, as I was watching, I saw a little girl across the street. She had been given a small flag to wave at the parade. She was hitting it(the flag end) against the ground in time to the music from the marching bands and at other times just let it lay on the street. At one point the father of this little family gave her sister a flag too and she treated it the same way. At the end of the parade, I crossed the street and told the father I didn't mean to be rude but that his little girl was hitting that flag against the ground throughout the entire parade and that every time it hit the ground I just cringed. He apologized.
Am I the only one anymore who thinks that if your child isn't old enough to understand that our flag does not touch the ground, they shouldn't be given one? Or am I just the only one willing to teach my child so?
My sincere thanks to all who have served to preserve my freedom. I appreciate your sacrifices and hold you up in my prayers. May God grant that we who have benefited so greatly from the sacrifices of others hold to our duty to repel the economic, political and cultural attacks meant to deprive us of the freedom that has been so dearly won.
"Let them be ashamed and confounded together that seek after my soul to destroy it; let them be driven backward and put to shame that wish me evil." Psalm 40:14
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A Tea Party illustration for the MSM and other collectivists who just don't "get it".
In my mind, as well, I think, as in the minds of the founding fathers, government is like an unruly child that must be watched over every second of the day, lest the entire family come to harm through his mischief. Let's say, for the sake of this illustration, that our unruly child has become a college student and we, his parents, sent our credit card with him to use for certain, very specific expenses or in case of emergencies. This is not money we have, but money we are willing to work in the future to provide for those specific expenses. He was fairly responsible at first. After a few blips here and there, we have gone on with our lives and not paid much attention to the totals on the credit card statement.
We have just received a bill for several trillion dollars. The extra zeros caught our attention. We thought "how could that possibly be correct?" After checking with the company, we have been assured that it is indeed correct. Our unruly child, bereft of our close attention, has been behaving badly. He seems to have decided that, since we are(or were)the richest family on the block and since he has a credit card that seems to have no limit, there's no reason he shouldn't help others as well as himself. In fact it looks as though our unruly child has decided that he can provide for the entire world...as long as he has our credit card. He seems to believe that it is his duty to do so, since he has the means...our credit card. He has purchased houses, food and medicine for his friends, his friend's relatives and strangers. He has even allowed thieves to come into our home and take our things for themselves. These thieves are not required to follow our rules, but we are supposed to treat them as honored guests no matter how they behave because our child thinks they will return his generosity with a like measure of their own.
We have invited our unruly child to a tea party to explain the consequences of his actions.
- He has put us so far into debt that we will never be able to retire and he must pay for the debt for his entire life as well. We are no longer the richest family on the block.
- He is on the verge of causing our grandchildren to be in debt for their entire lives as well. This is immoral and unacceptable.
- He has denied his fellows the satisfaction of paying their own way and possibly crippled them permanently in so doing.
- He has usurped the responsibility of other families/communities to care for their own. This is detrimental to the character of those families/communities.
- Thieves will not repay you for allowing them to steal from you except by stealing from you again. It is the height of foolishness to expect otherwise.
- He has placed us in a situation where, at any time, our creditors may call our debt due and take everything we have. Then, not having met our debt obligations through our property, our creditors will be allowed to sell us into slavery to satisfy that debt. We hope that we have been a good enough customer that they will be willing to allow us the time to work to pay off those debts. (Unfortunately, our child is currently engaged in telling them what horrible people we are.)
We understand the humanitarian impulses and even the power trip that spending all that money gave our child and we're willing to work to pay it off. We, after all, gave our child the card and did not keep a close eye on it's use. We are responsible for these debts, but there can be no more spending.
If he agrees, he must live under our rules until we have a handle on this mess. The credit card will be closed. Any extraneous assets must be sold. Any payments he is making for expenses besides those we approved at the outset must be stopped. His friends(who are now his dependents) must be allowed to pay their own way. We can work to ease that transition for them, but there must be a transition, we have no other options. There is no more money. The thieves will be arrested and removed from our home to face justice.
Much of America is at the point of saying that if our unruly child will not follow our rules, he is free to go and live on his own, but without our support or our credit card. That anyone who continues to lend to him based on the expectation of our paying it back does so at their own risk.
That is what the tea party movement is about and the tenth amendment movement as well. We the People are attempting to once again exercise our authority over this government.
"Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. " ~ Matt 18:23-30
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Happy Mother's Day
"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. " ~Matt 19:16-19
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Big Brother anyone?
She did not ask my name or how many people were living here or any of the other info one might expect to be asked by someone who was checking to make sure this was my address. When I asked her why the government needed a GPS reading on the location of my front door, she said she really didn't know, but suggested a few possibilities. When I pointed out that all of those possibilities were nonsense, as between Google Earth and the 911 system(not to mention street signs and numbers), I would think the government would be able to find my house. She agreed.
Then I told her that the only really plausible explanation I had heard, would be that the government would need the GPS coordinates to round people up in case martial law was declared and the government was using foreign, non-English speaking troops (or if the citizens had removed the street signs and house numbers for some reason-but I digress). She was taken aback at the idea and looked a little worried. I thanked her for the piece of paper she handed me outlining the legal ramifications of not cooperating with census takers and closed the door.
One would like to think such an idea is sheerest nonsense. I'm all for hearing a more reasonable explanation.
Anyone? Anyone? ...Bueller?
" And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba, and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.
And Joab said unto the king, Now the LORD thy God add unto the people, how many soever they be, an hundredfold, and that the eyes of my lord the king may see it: but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing? " 2Sam 24:1-3
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Your legislators in action The New and improved Hate Crimes bill.
Rather than go through them myself, I thought I'd post the text of both versions here for you to make your own comparisons. I know it's a lot to read, but it's my understanding that they plan to vote on this tomorrow and that's not a lot of time for us to read this and contact our legislators. My comments are at the bottom. The legislation can be found here, if you would prefer to read them from the THOMAS page.
First the April 27th version:
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (Reported in House)
HR 1913 RH
Union Calendar No. 40
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1913
[Report No. 111-86]
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2009
Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mrs. BONO MACK, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. CAO, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CASTLE, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. DRIEHAUS, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. KILROY, Mr. KIRK, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. LANCE, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. NADLER of New York, Mr. OLVER, Mr. PETERS, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. WATSON, and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
April 27, 2009
Additional sponsors: Mr. CAPUANO, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. COHEN, Mr. HARE, Mr. FILNER, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. MAFFEI, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. HOLT, Mr. SIRES, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. PASTOR of Arizona, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Ms. NORTON, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. WU, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. MITCHELL, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. SESTAK, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. COURTNEY, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. GIFFORDS, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. SHERMAN, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. SNYDER, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. DOYLE, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Mr. COOPER, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. MILLER of North Carolina, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. LOEBSACK, Mr. PIERLUISI, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. MCMAHON, Mr. FARR, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. CARNAHAN, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Ms. FUDGE, Mr. BACA, and Mr. CARSON of Indiana
April 27, 2009
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on April 2, 2009]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act--
(1) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term `hate crime' has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term `local' means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.
SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.
(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-
(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or tribal laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws.
(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.
(b) Grants-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.
(3) APPLICATION-
(A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.
(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.
(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall--
(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;
(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;
(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental violence recovery service programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and
(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.
(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 30 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.
(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.
(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2011, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.
(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
SEC. 4. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Authority To Award Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or tribal 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.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012, such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.
SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--
`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--
`(I) across a State line or national border; or
`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--
`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
`(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--
`(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
`(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--
`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
`(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or
`(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
`(c) Definitions-
`(1) In this section--
`(A) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title; and
`(B) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title.
`(2) For the purposes of this chapter, the term `gender identity' means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.
`(d) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`249. Hate crime acts.'.
SEC. 7. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
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 Constitution.
Union Calendar No. 40
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1913
[Report No. 111-86]
A BILL
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 27, 2009
Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
Now the supposedly April 2nd although not available on April 28th am version:
Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)
HR 1913 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1913
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2009
Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mrs. BONO MACK, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. CAO, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CASTLE, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. DRIEHAUS, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. KILROY, Mr. KIRK, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. LANCE, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. NADLER of New York, Mr. OLVER, Mr. PETERS, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. WATSON, and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.
(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.
(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.
(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.
(5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.
(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:
(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.
(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
(D) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.
(E) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.
(7) 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.
(8) 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.
(9) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.
(10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.
In this Act--
(1) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given that term in section 16, title 18, United States Code;
(2) the term `hate crime' has the meaning given such term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note); and
(3) the term `local' means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.
SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.
(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-
(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of a State, local, or Tribal law enforcement agency, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--
(A) constitutes a crime of violence;
(B) constitutes a felony under the State, local, or Tribal laws; and
(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or Tribal hate crime laws.
(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime.
(b) Grants-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to State, local, and Indian law enforcement agencies for extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program under this subsection, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with grantees to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.
(3) APPLICATION-
(A) IN GENERAL- Each State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.
(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.
(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency applying for a grant under this subsection shall--
(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;
(ii) certify that the State, local government, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;
(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, local, and Indian law enforcement agency has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental violence recovery service programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and
(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.
(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or denied by the Attorney General not later than 30 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.
(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any 1-year period.
(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2011, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.
(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Authority To Award Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or Tribal 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.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012, such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7 of this Act.
SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--
`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--
`(I) across a State line or national border; or
`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--
`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
`(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--
`(1) such certifying individual has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and
`(2) such certifying individual has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--
`(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;
`(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;
`(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or
`(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
`(c) Definitions-
`(1) In this section--
`(A) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given such term in section 232 of this title; and
`(B) the term `firearm' has the meaning given such term in section 921(a) of this title.
`(2) For the purposes of this chapter, the term `gender identity' means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics.
`(d) Rule of Evidence- In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`249. Hate crime acts.'.
SEC. 8. STATISTICS.
(a) In General- Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting `gender and gender identity,' after `race,'.
(b) Data- Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting `, including data about crimes committed by, and crimes directed against, juveniles' after `data acquired under this section'.
SEC. 9. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
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.
I find myself to be somewhat troubled about this legislation as I think we have laws currently on the books that are sufficient to the prosecution of any crimes of this nature. There is a higher penalty for murder than for assault, which is as it should be. That said, what does the reason for the commission of such a crime matter? We have penalties for them all with judges able to exercise discretion in sentencing for those who have no remorse. I disagree with the findings of Congress in the "updated-but-still-dated April 2nd-version". (And I find that a bit odd as well. Why would the April 2nd version have been unavailable when I was attempting to see it earlier today when the April 27th version was right there and does not contain the findings of Congress? Was it removed? Which version will they be voting on?)
This seems to be, at best, an attempt to bribe our law enforcement officials into prosecuting more people for these types of crimes. (Aww, somebody murdered your grandma just because they wanted to get into a gang or they thought it would be fun-sorry, we can't help you unless you say that grandma was murdered because of her race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation-real or percieved or etc. ad nauseum, because we don't have the funds to prosecute ordinary murderers. But if it was a hate crime, we have a grant to investigate that. Yikes!)
Comments anyone?
" That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.
But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities:
Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.
Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee"
~Duet:19:10-13
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Wake up call to Parents
There is a case before the U.S. Supreme court right now that will determine if school officials may strip search students. I find this case particularly appalling in view of the violations of the privileges we have already given school officials under the doctrine of in loco parentis. Those who have read my posts from way back at the American Federalist Blog will surely recall my post there on this very issue.
What's at stake is nothing less than our freedom as a nation and the future of our children and grandchildren. When school administrators perform the duties of law enforcement while acting under in loco parentis, they are in a conflict of interest. They cannot be acting in your child's best interests when they are seeking evidence that may convict them of a crime. It is outrageous that any school official should be able to question, search, lie to and offer rewards to a child for confessing to a crime, in order to prosecute that child and still claim to be acting in the place of a parent. I believe that most parents would insist that their child have a lawyer present for any questioning that might lead to a criminal conviction for that child, just as they would for themselves.
Some may argue that the purpose of a school administrator in these situations is not to find prosecutorial evidence against a child but rather to maintain order in the school and to protect the other students. That when, during such an investigation, a school official finds evidence of a crime, they are then obligated as, both a citizen and an agent of the state(who is paying them in the case of public schools)to communicate what they have found to law enforcement. This might be true if a crime was discovered to have been committed serendipitously, but this is often not the case. When school administrators have carte blanche to interrogate your child on the basis of rumors(malicious or otherwise) or chance heard comments, the tendency is for them to want to find something wrong. This process is traumatic for the student and their family and it sends a message to the other students. That message is-you have no rights to due process here. Even if your child is of a strong enough character to defend him/herself by taking the 5th, many districts maintain that a child's use of the 5th amendment to protect their interests may be construed as a confession and used to expel your child. (Taking the 5th is not an admission of guilt, it is common sense.)
The reason I think that this is an issue of vital national interest is the same reason many of our founders insisted that education be a priority. Educated people can maintain the boundaries of government and prevent it from becoming tyrannical. If our youth are taught by this most practical of examples that the bill of rights does not apply to them while they are in school, how can we possibly expect them to exercise those rights or protect them when they are old enough to vote. If we do not allow our students to exercise their rights, we should not expect to have any when we are old and we should not expect our grandchildren to have them either.
Please understand that I am not condoning criminal behavior on the part of children. I am saying that our children have the same rights we do as American citizens. Those rights include a right to legal counsel when being questioned by an agent of the state about a crime and a right not to incriminate themselves under questioning. Not only does current law allow such abuses of our children' rights, without notification to us, but it it places the heaviest burden to exercise one's God given and Constitutionally affirmed rights on that segment of our population that is least able to exercise it.
If it is determined in this case that school officials do have the right to strip search your child, I would urge all parents to pull their child(ren) out of the public school system and homeschool them for their own safety. If you cannot, then send a certified letter to your school district's administrator revoking the right of all school officials to act "in loco parentis" in such circumstances and directing them to contact you immediately. It should also prohibit them from questioning your child without yourself and /or your legal counsel present. (In fact, I would recommend you do the second one now anyway.)
If you are interested in adding a Constitutional amendment to assure the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children , please also visit http://www.parentalrights.org/
In my own state I have recently submitted language to my legislators for a bill limiting the rights of school officials to act under "in loco parentis" in these types of situations. If your own state does not have such legislation, may I suggest you help them to make some. The future of your children and our nation is at stake. (Always assuming we can get ourselves out the the debt prison to which our Congress has recently consigned us.)
"For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him."~Gen 18:9
Friday, April 17, 2009
Tea party reporting you won't see on the MSM
There was, as I mentioned earlier, one other speaker who went beyond the bounds of conventional manners, but by and large the speakers were very good and stayed on topic.
Our crowd was clearly better mannered than the one in Chicago, but I can hardly blame them. When I consider how CNN and the MSM spin their coverage, I wouldn't be happy to see them covering any event I was at either.
"And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."~Luke 9:50
