Obama signs defense bill with hate crimes law

Yesterday, the GOP opposed passage of a bill that expands current hate crimes law to include violence based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

For the last few months, the GOP has been fighting tooth and nail against a bill that will introduce healthcare to the majority of Americans.

Republicans are also fighting tooth and nail to preserve massive pay rates for executives, and to cap it all off, they are actually against a bill that prevents corporations and rich Americans from hiding funds overseas and paying taxes like ordinary Americans do.

Q: Who is leading the anti-American GOP?

It seems to be against actually supporting and helping ordinary Americans.

I like Obama's direction on this. -We need to tighten the purse strings.

"The measure expands current hate crimes law to include violence based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to the must-pass defense policy bill over the steep objections of many Republicans."

I'd like to see comments from conservatives about this part.

If I read that correctly, the GOP has been against a bill that would have made it a crime to enact violence against others based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

Do you agree/disagree with your party's standing on this issue?

The GOP were against the passing of a hate crimes law that would have made it a criminal offence to, for example, bash gays, women or sexual orientation.

Did I read that correctly???

"The GOP were againstthe passing of a hate crimes law that would have made it a criminal offence to, for example, bash gays, women or sexual orientation. Did I read that correctly?"

I think you made it up, Sushi.

Sarge, I think you misread the article.

It appears the GOP was and still is against outlawing hate crimes.

That is just incredible.

The hate crime bill is not about protecting human rights. It's about taking away more of the State's rights in favor of Federal rights, making the central government that much closer to a police state.

"America is now following hate law countries such as Canada, England, and Australia in erecting a bias-oriented justice system existing parallel to traditional law. The government will now become especially attuned to the question of whether bias has motivated a crime on the state level. If they decide it has, the federal government will have complete jurisdiction to enter the case, forcing states to obtain the verdict the government wants. If the state fails to do so, the government can force it to re-try the case until federal prosecutors are satisfied. Thus, federal law enforcement will be uniting tomorrow afternoon with local law enforcement in a seamless unity of jurisdiction and power — the definition of a police state. The 10th Amendment of the Constitution, reserving generous rights and protections to states, especially in law enforcement, will become irretrievably shattered."

More here: http://www.infowars.com/obama-will-sign-hate-bill-wednesday/

www.infowars.com

"Trumpeting a victory against careless spending..."

Reporting like this is why the state media is losing readers at unprecedented rates and is next in line for a bailout.

The cash-for-clunkers program cost the taxpayer 24,000 dollars for each car the government sold through this ridiculous program. Careless military spending? Congress saw fit to once again award themselves raises, and Democrats robbed our troops of 20 million so they could award their loyal voters in Massachusetts pork barrel projects designed to memorialize the scumbag Ted Kennedy.

How Obama and his lickspittle attorney general Holder wish they could make their Orwellian 'hate speech' laws retroactive - any hard-working American who opposed Obamacare would be threatened with arrest.

"Trumpeting a victory against careless spending"

Here is a visualization of Obama's proposed budget:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc&feature=related

Hate laws are a mixed bag. They sound good but enforcement is complex at best. As it stands now if you stab a guy you get put on trial and get a sentence based on the laws. But now you're creating a second set of sentences for a special group of people for the exact same crime, and the decision about which sentence to use is based on what you believe was in the attacker's head.

Sometimes it's obvious hate was involved, as was the case with Matthew Shepard. But most times it won't be, and honestly I don't think it should be. How do you give someone a life sentence for murdering a gay person and give another person 20 years for murdering a heterosexual? And if a gay person is murdered do you ask the killer if he knew he was gay before he killed him?

We already have laws for murder that apply equally to everyone....

SuperLib then why do we have hate crimes laws against murder for race? Should someone who shoots a black man in the commission of a robbery or goes out and searches out for a black man and murders him because he was black be any different? Should there be hate crime laws against this? Same difference. Hate murder. Hate crime. < :-)

In most cases it will be clear if it was a hate crime or not. It's hard to be a racist or sexist and hide that away so any racist killing should be detectable and more severely punished.

I would say that ALL crime is a form of hate crime, on one level or another.

Typical leftist hypocrisy, and more attacks on our liberty.

That's just rich! THE greatest attacks on Americans' liberty took place under successive GOP administrations. W took the biscuit, with warrantless wiretaps, DHS, the so called Patriot Act etc. etc. etc. American's sold their liberty for a false security.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Ben Franklin, Feb 17 1775. Ya shoulda listened! Last I looked "All men are created equal...." meant just that, ALL men (and women too of course.)

Usually if you want to beat the crap out of someone you hate them first, right? "Hate crime" seems redundant.

Hmm.. maybe it's double-think. We are supposed to think that we don't like "hate crime" so if you HATE crime then you are bad.... O.o

Officer-"Did you commit a hate crime!?" The accused-"No! I LOVE crime!" Doh!!

This is good news for the gay and lesbian community.

Well done Congress and Mr. President.

Taka

"a victory against careless spending"

That will come only after Obama and the Democrats, who have put our nation into the deepest debt ever, are ousted from power.

That will come only after Obama and the Democrats, who have put our nation into the deepest debt ever, are ousted from power.

I hope that you not suggesting that had McCain won that America would not have gone deeper into debt.

making the central government that much closer to a police state. "America is now following hate law countries such as Canada, England, and Australia

This is rich: Canada, England, and Australia are now police states.

We already have laws for murder that apply equally to everyone....

Agreed. One the one hand hate crime laws sound good. They make it seem like we're being tough on criminals. But why is a rape by a white man against a black woman worse then a rape by a white man against a white woman? I am strongly opposed to hate crimes legislation. Not because I like seeing killers walk free, but because it perverts the system of justice. Murder is murder. Rape is rape. Reasons for the commission of the crime shouldn't matter, only the crime itself. If something is viewed as especially heinous, its easy to ramp up the punishment level without using the Hate crimes route. As it is, the hate crime statute should be repealed.

Reasons for the commission of the crime shouldn't matter, only the crime itself.

So motive does not play a part in investigating a crime? Crime often does not easily lend itself to simple guilt/not guilty dualities. Knowing the motive helps in building a case for guilt and also plays a part in sentencing.

When you give a lighter sentence to someone else because he killed someone not seen as "special" under the eyes of the law then you're in fact saying that their murder is less tragic. I don't think that's right.

And what happens when someone kills a gay guy and calls him a "fag" in the process? Maybe he's angry and kills and that's the first word that comes out of his mouth. Maybe if he killed someone else who wasn't gay he'd call him an "a-hole" before killing him. It's like we have to now listen to the words he uses when he kills to decide how long his sentence should be, when in fact they might just be random words said in rage.

SuperLib

Sometimes it's obvious hate was involved, as was the case with Matthew Shepard.

Taking your own statement from above, should the murders of Matthew Shepard be judged any differently then the man killed by mistake in the commission of a robbery? < :-)

So motive does not play a part in investigating a crime? Crime often does not easily lend itself to simple guilt/not guilty dualities. Knowing the motive helps in building a case for guilt and also plays a part in sentencing.

Motive plays a role, of course it does. Its role though is one primarily in determining guilt or innocence. The crime though is what should determine punishment, not the motive for the crime.

Should it matter at all if I murder someone because they're black, or because they're gay or a woman. Maybe because they're Catholic or Muslim. You see, none of that matters at all. Those are my reasons for why I might do something evil, but the reasons for my punishment and the severity of it, should not be based on why I might have done something, but rather because I did it. As SuperLib and others said, giving someone a lighter sentence implies its less bad somehow. 20 years as opposed to life, to me, this victimizes people further. It says that one crime isn't as bad as another.

There is a reason why the statue of justice is blindfolded, and holding scales. It gets at what we want, and expect justice to be. Hate crime laws go against that. Perverting the justice system, unbalancing the scales. It! Ought! Not! To! Be!

adaydream: Taking your own statement from above, should the murders of Matthew Shepard be judged any differently then the man killed by mistake in the commission of a robbery?

There are some distinctions made for murder, like aggravated circumstances for which the death penalty becomes a possibility. And there's a difference between manslaughter and murder, with manslaughter mostly being an unintentional killing, like hitting someone with your car. The law already accounts for certain situations when the motive can be different. My comparison was different sentences for different people for the same crime.

Do you have a point or are you just asking questions?

It's like we have to now listen to the words he uses when he kills to decide how long his sentence should be, when in fact they might just be random words said in rage.

I only made issue of your comment because this statement you made later. Yes we do listen to the words he says when he murders. Remember anything and everything can be used in a court of law. And yes it should be used in sentencing. < :-)

So a guy who shouts, "Screw you, gay person" should get 20 years in jail and a guy who shouts, "Screw you, jerk!" should only get 10 years?

SuperLib that's what the court has to decide. If they decide that it was a racist act, screaming a gay slur and murders him. Maybe so. They might decide to consider it in the verdict and sentencing. < :-)