Forgive me for not posting since Monday…been working on the road this week. But I’ve been closely following the Senate’s scandalous vote today on the defense spending bill hijacked by hate crimes legislation. The bill passed 60 – 39 (McCain didn’t vote), but should face certain veto.
The LA Times, in typical liberal, biased media coverage, titles their article as if crimes committed against gays would NOT be covered if it weren’t for this bill. Ha!
Senate passes hate-crime bill that covers violence against gays
The Senate today approved a long-debated measure that would expand the federal hate crime law to cover violence against gays, and in an unusual gambit to make it difficult for President Bush to carry out his veto threat, attached it to a defense bill.
The legislation — the first major expansion of the hate crime statute passed in 1968 — would expand the law to cover acts of violence motivated by a victim’s sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity. Existing federal law defines hate crimes as those motivated by bias based on religion, race, national origin or color.
It should be noted that race, national origin, and color are born attributes and religion is included because it is a key First Amendment right. But since there is no conclusive, scientific evidence people are born gay, it cannot be included in hate-crime legislation.
Ted Kennedy crafted the hate crimes legislation and embedded it intentionally into the defense spending bill knowing full well:
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who has championed the legislation, noted that no president has ever vetoed a defense authorization bill. “We’re very hopeful that the president will sign it,” he said.
Nor has any president had to fight off many defeat-o-crats either. But that’s beside the point. For a man with Kennedy’s experience, education, and tenure, he certainly displayed that he has and elementary understanding of the Constitution.
Let’s get a few things straight. First, acts of terror are acts of war, while acts of violence (such as those described under the “hate crimes” law) are criminal acts. As such, these crimes are already pursued and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law–making federal legislation both redundant and onerous. The amendment under debate would create a tiered system of justice, where certain citizens are given special protection while others are not.
So why would such a “respected,” “knowledgeable” senator like Kennedy deliberately attach a hate crimes bill to a defense spending bill? Even a sixth grader could see that this is nothing more than a political maneuver to paint Bush into a corner and shift pressure off the defeat-invested Democrats. But not Kennedy. He carves himself out as the prototypical pharisee:
In debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., again tried to tie hate crimes to terrorism: “This is about the morality of our country, our values of our country, and that is directly tied in to what our men and women are doing overseas in resisting terrorism and fighting for the values here at home.”
I couldn’t be paid enough to say something so hare-brained. Kennedy’s “values” couldn’t be more antithetical to American morality. This statement demonstrates not only Kennedy’s erroneous apprehension of the Constitution but his absolute asinine awareness of morals and values. As most Americans are well aware, morals and values, in America at least, are biblically-based. Following this line, the bible is certainly clear on establishing homosexuality as a sin. Kennedy’s appeal to morals and values confirms one of two conclusions: at best he doesn’t care what the bible truly says and adopts it to fit his own version of morality, or at worst, he places a higher emphasis on political gain than biblical morality thereby jeopardizing future generations of Americans who will be born into a moral-free America.
Thankfully, five Republican senators who voted in favor of hate-crimes legislation in 2004 switched their votes today and opposed the measure. They are: Sens. Lamar Alexander, TN; Robert Bennett, UT; John Ensign, NV; and Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens, both of AK. President Bush should veto the bill since it is unconstitutional. He knows Democrats are all talk at this point and do not wish to have defeat on their hands. If the Democrats win the White House in 2008, I can almost guarantee that we won’t see any more legislation to end the war. Staying there will become politically correct again and hate crimes legislation will have to be attached to some other “closely related” bill such as tax reform law.