Congressional Dems Protect Pedophiles,
Demean Military In Hate Crimes Bill
Demean Military In Hate Crimes Bill
It really leaves you speechless…..
During a House Judiciary Committee meeting, Congressman Steve King (R-IA) offered up an amendment to the hate crimes bill to exclude pedophiles from being a protected category under the hate crimes legislation.
Every single Democrat voted it down.
In the same meeting, Congressman Tom Rooney (R-FL) offered an amendment to include veterans as a class protected under the hate crimes bill. Not only did the Democrats vote it down, but Cogresswoman Debbie Waasserman Schultz attacked the Republicans for even thinking veterans might need protection under hate crimes legislation. After all, who but Democrats in Congress hate veterans?
And, after all, the Dept. of Homeland Security has all but declared veterans as “right wing extremists” intent on violence. So I guess Congressional Democrats are just trying to be consistent with Gestapo Janet.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
63 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
How has the DHS “declared veterans as “right wing extremists””
Comment by gillie — May 7, 2009 @ 5:22 pm - May 7, 2009
Remaining speechless would perhaps have been best that way you wouldn’t seem like a total right wing stooge idiot. Since pedophiles AREN’T covered and AREN’T considered a sexual orientation (despite the multitude of lies from your allies claiming the opposite) there was absolutely no reason to add them AND it was just a farce to make those voting for it look like they cared. Same with adding veterans. Since the true conservative position would be that no hate crimes laws are needed adding others to it in order TO LOOK GOOD to the haters is just more evidence that it’s the adding LGBT people to the laws that bugs the right, not the laws themselves. Hypocrisy yet again. We could add those permanently bent over to get buggered by the right wing crowd to the hate crimes laws, but it’s hate that keeps them going so it wouldn’t be fair.
Comment by a different Dave — May 7, 2009 @ 5:23 pm - May 7, 2009
Sorry, but this is another GOP lie.
As Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) noted in her statement opposing the pedophilia amendment during an April 23 hearing, the term “sexual orientation” is already defined by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act as “consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality,”thereby excluding pedophiles, who engage in nonconsensual sexual relationships with children. Period. So every single attempt to add pedophilia or other fetishes or sexual attractions to the bill were done in bad faith by the GOP in an attempt to equate fetishes with orientation. (h/t media matters)
More hate by the right against us. Sad.
Comment by torrentprime — May 7, 2009 @ 5:25 pm - May 7, 2009
Yes it does leave me “speechless”. Of course I’m referring to your using a very distasteful talking point of the extreme Right (and yes, I do mean extreme Right as opposed to conservativism in general) in attacking the Dems rather than outlining a la Dan why this bill lacks merit. King was behaving like a typical politician, something both parties seem to have in abundance rather than leadership, which is why so many folks are disgusted with all of them.
You can do much better than this, Bruce.
Comment by John — May 7, 2009 @ 5:28 pm - May 7, 2009
@1:/gillie. They didn’t. They noted that veterans would be attractive recruits for extremists, given their training and expertise, but they never called veterans extremists. The right just wanted to label Obama anti-veteran. Not as “pro-veteran” as screwing up health care for our soldiers after they come back from fighting a war of choice, but we can’t all take care of veterans like the Republicans did.
Comment by torrentprime — May 7, 2009 @ 5:29 pm - May 7, 2009
oh, and I forgot that part. Anyone with the ability to read above a third grade level realizes that the DHS document didn’t do/say the things that the right claims. Funny, it’s ok for them to make broad generalizations and attacks at the left but when they think it’s happening to them it’s time to change the diapers again. It’s not a question of if the right will get violent it’s a question of when. And when that happens it will make the murderous activities of some leftists groups in the 60s/70s look like child’s play. I trust that the vast majority of vets would never be involved in such, they have more honor than the run-of-the-mill millitia wannabe.
Comment by a different Dave — May 7, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - May 7, 2009
*sigh*… I see that those folks of a more liberal bent couldn’t refrain from making a horse’s ass of themselves in response to Bruce’s post, such as the ending comments in #6.
Comment by John — May 7, 2009 @ 5:32 pm - May 7, 2009
Hey, the facts are the facts. The amendments were offered and rejected. It REALLY happened. What are you missing.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to imagine the ACLU taking up the case of a pedophile and suing someone who “hates” them.
C’mon. Get in the real world, guys.
Comment by GayPatriot — May 7, 2009 @ 6:05 pm - May 7, 2009
@7,8. “I’m going to ignore the facts that weren’t in my original post, the facts that reveal the GOP amendments to be hate-filled and
/orignorant, and pretend that pedophilia isn’t a crime in and of itself.”GP, the hate crime bill protects sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is defined as consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality. Everyone in the chamber knew these facts. Therefore, a pedophilia amendment isn’t necessary and is insulting by including it in a bill designed to protect against crimes against orientations. So why would you vote for the amendment, GP?
Comment by torrentprime — May 7, 2009 @ 6:40 pm - May 7, 2009
#1 – “How has the DHS declared veterans as “right wing extremists”?”
Uh, probably because of this unclassified document put out by DHS under the auspices of Janet Napolitano:
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
Here’s the pertinent segment that is definitely a slap in the face to all veterans:
“(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans
“(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.”
If you read through the entire report – that is, if you CAN read – it asserts with NO EVIDENCE that an unquantified “resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalizations activity” is due to home foreclosures, job losses, and…the historical presidential election.
There’s no hackneyed left-wing stereotype of conservatives left behind in this DHS intelligence and analysis assessment.
In the meantime, be aware of this from the report, p. 8:
“(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States, with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization.”
I see. So Big Sister (aka Jan Napoleon) is watching me?
Good. I hope she also sees the following bumper stickers I’m creating:
Honk if you’re a radicalized rightwing extremist!
Guilty of rightwing extremist chatter
Anti-government, pro-freedom: So sue me
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 7, 2009 @ 6:40 pm - May 7, 2009
Actually, since the gay community demands that gay sex be taught to five year olds, dresses up children as sexual slaves and takes them to sex fairs, and agitates against age-of-consent laws under the insistence that sex with children seventeen years your junior is “common” among gays, all while insisting that opposition to these things is “homophobic”, I fail to see why this is an illogical case.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 7, 2009 @ 6:43 pm - May 7, 2009
What I want to know after reading our trolls’ collective hysteria, is how any self-respecting gay man can even think about protecting pedophiles.
And why they think the Dhimmicrats are their best friends.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 7, 2009 @ 6:44 pm - May 7, 2009
The right just wanted to label Obama anti-veteran.
Given that Obama fully endorses and supports calling our troops “unwelcome and uninvited intruders”, pretty obviously the shoe fits.
Keep in mind, torrentprime, that most veterans do not indulge in self-hatred and military bashing to please the Obama Party. That’s just groups like SLDN and opportunists like John Kerry who endorse and support the Obama Party even as it embraces groups like Code Pink.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 7, 2009 @ 6:47 pm - May 7, 2009
#12: thanks for proving you don’t get it.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — May 7, 2009 @ 6:48 pm - May 7, 2009
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to imagine the ACLU taking up the case of a pedophile and suing someone who “hates” them.
Especially since it’s already happened.
The Manhattan-based public-interest law firm is defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association in a $200 million civil lawsuit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley. The Curleys claim that Charles Jaynes was driven by the literature and website of NAMBLA, an outfit that advocates sex between grown men and little boys, reportedly as young as age 8.
Jaynes did not simply read NAMBLA’s materials and ponder its message. He and Salvatore Sicari actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They picked 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts. They lured him into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy’s body across state lines to Jayne’s apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, whereupon they tossed Jeffrey Curley’s remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 7, 2009 @ 6:49 pm - May 7, 2009
Finally, a point; the gay community spins and tries to explain its refusal to ban pedophilia by claiming that children are too young to understand and consent to sex………but then demands that sexual techniques and pleasures be taught to five year olds in school, dresses up toddlers as sexual slaves and takes them to sex fairs for an “educational experience”, and argues that age-of consent laws prevent children from exercising their right to have sex.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 7, 2009 @ 6:52 pm - May 7, 2009
Such as….?
The hypocrisy is that liberals can again pretend to give a sh*t about gays. The fact that they pick and chose who gets protected from violent acts shows that they’re merely pandering. They’re in deep because they haven’t done squat for gays and the libs have to do something to shut them up.
So is it that you didn’t read Bruce’s post, or is it that you can’t read Bruce’s post?
So now it’s Republicans who tried to charge our soldiers and veterans for their healthcare? I’m sure your beloved Il Douche will be delighted to hear that.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 7, 2009 @ 7:19 pm - May 7, 2009
#5: “The right just wanted to label Obama anti-veteran. Not as “pro-veteran” as screwing up health care for our soldiers after they come back from fighting a war of choice, but we can’t all take care of veterans like the Republicans did.”
You’re absolutely right, torrentprime. Instead of “screwing up” the healthcare provided to veterans, Obama’s preference is for the government NOT TO PAY FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED INJURIES AT ALL.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/obama.veterans/
And he had the nerve to propose the plan as a way of generating $540 million for the government. So, if you’re a lazy, entitlement-addict that chooses to buy flat panel TVs and Sea-Doos instead of medical insurance for your family, Obama wants to give you free healthcare at the expense of taxpayers. But if you happen to get your legs blown off by terrorists while defending the country, Obama would prefer that you look to your private insurer to pick up the tab.
Keep in mind, US taxpayers paid for a TERRORIST at Gitmo to be fitted with a $75,000 prosthetic leg, but Obama wants injured US soldiers brushed aside.
Comment by Sean A — May 7, 2009 @ 11:02 pm - May 7, 2009
No reply from the drive-by commenters. Hmmm.
Not only do the liberals throw veterans under the bus, AGAIN, but they also toss the homeless and seasoned citizens, AGAIN.
Where’s Levi’s hysterics on the left treating veterans like the BS he posts here? The silence is deafening.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 8, 2009 @ 3:40 am - May 8, 2009
What evidence is there that veterans need or have requested protection from hate crimes?
Comment by Magic Dog — May 8, 2009 @ 3:51 am - May 8, 2009
#20 – Oh, just a 30 year history of American liberals saying that they should be shot, spitting upon them and defacing military property.
Again, get a grip and get into the real world.
Comment by GayPatriot — May 8, 2009 @ 6:02 am - May 8, 2009
Interesting to see what will happen – once the pedophiles win protection under the hate crimes law – to all the cases against the priests and Churches, awaiting review….
It seems to me that the gay community (incl Man Boy Love type groups) has to decide where it draws its moral boundaries. If Man Boy love is a good thing, why should it be criminalized under any circumstances? If being gay is “normal”, why such outrage over “outing” people? There is a lot of confusion in this camp – and it seems to me that the community has some internal issues to work out…
Comment by suze — May 8, 2009 @ 9:54 am - May 8, 2009
1. At 5:22 pm-May 7, gillie is the first to comment.
2. One minute later, a different Dave comments. (#2)
3. Two minutes later, torrentprime comments (#3)
4. At 5:28 pm (6 minutes) John comments. (#4)
5. At 5:29, old torrentprime is back answering #1 gillie. (#5)
6. At 5:30, a different Dave returns with an addenda to this 5:23 comment. (#6)
7. John returns at 5:32. (#7)
8. GayPatriot makes a comment at 6:05: “Get in the real world, guys.”
9. torrentprime is back at 6:40 – - – 71 minutes after his comment at #5.) (#9)
10. Finally, bob shows up at 6:48. (#14)
11. It takes until 3:51 am on May 8 for Magic Dog to heist his leg. (#20)
Patterns. The world is full of patterns.
Comment by heliotrope — May 8, 2009 @ 10:31 am - May 8, 2009
#23 – Bravo, Helio! Well put.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 8, 2009 @ 10:52 am - May 8, 2009
Oh, just a 30 year history of American liberals saying that they should be shot, spitting upon them and defacing military property.
If you weren’t simply constructing another wingnut strawman, you could show us requests from military or veterans organizations to expand hate crimes legislation to include attacks on the basis of military status or affiliation. As for the “pedophile” canard, show us any case in which an attack on a pedophole has been deemed a “hate crime” on the basis of a sexual orientation section of a hate crimes law.
Come on, “gay patriots,” come up with the specific evidence. Of course, you won’t do that because it doesn’t exist. So you’ll continue to attack the strawmen you’ve erected. Fortunately, no one other than your fellow wingnuts are buying it.
Comment by Magic Dog — May 8, 2009 @ 12:49 pm - May 8, 2009
LOL…Magic Dog, you make this far too easy.
A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded yesterday.
That’s right, silly boy; you and your fellow screaming lefties are yelling that it’s “homophobic” to investigate child molestation by your fellow liberal gays.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 8, 2009 @ 1:15 pm - May 8, 2009
And guess what? You and your fellow gay libbies have also screamed that investigating and punishing your need to demand sex from your coworkers and retaliate against those who refuse to provide it is “homophobia and sexism”.
Got anything to say about the behavior you and your fellow gay-sex liberals support in the workplace, Magic Dog? Ever think that the fact that you’re “discriminated against” in the workplace is because you insist that demanding sex from coworkers is a normal part of being gay and that punishing it is “homophobic”? We know your Obama Party fully supports and endorses that.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 8, 2009 @ 1:21 pm - May 8, 2009
As I predicted, another strawman from “North Dallas Thirty,” who has an obsession about pedophilia that is as odd as it is fierce. I aksed for an example of pedophiles ever falling under the protection of hate crimes laws, and he comes up with something else. And nothing about any requests from military or veterans organizations to include military members in hate crimes legislation.
Keep building those straw men, “gay patriots.” This is actually sort of entertaining.
Comment by Magic Dog — May 8, 2009 @ 1:24 pm - May 8, 2009
And as for veterans, perhaps you missed this above, but there is demonstrated proof that Barack Obama and the Obama Party fully support and endorse governmental resolutions demanding that our troops be treated as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” and support groups that vandalize and attack them.
There’s a prime reason for DADT; gays overwhelmingly support this antimilitary bigotry and endorse politicians like Obama who brand our troops as “intruders” in their own country. Why should the military be forced to allow people who, because of their sexual orientation, are driven to attack, harm, and berate our troops?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 8, 2009 @ 1:24 pm - May 8, 2009
Once again, more srrawmen and evasion from “North Dallas Thirty.” Some antiwar group doesn’t like the USMC recruiters in Berkeley, and some wingnut website thinks that the group’s founder was a bundler for Obama. Therefore, the Obama administration is fully supportive of everything that group does.
In any case, I asked for two items. First, a single case where hate crimes laws were invoked to protect pedophiles, and second, evidence that any military or veterans group has requested that military service or status be included in hate crimes legislation.
When I asked those questions, I predicted that the wingnuts of “gay patriot” would dodge and weave and distract, which is exactly what you’ve gone. Congratulations on your utter predictability.
Comment by Magic Dog — May 8, 2009 @ 1:42 pm - May 8, 2009
Why should the military be forced to allow people who, because of their sexual orientation, are driven to attack, harm, and berate our troops?
“North Dallas Thirty,” you support the exclusion of gays from the military, then. I wonder how common that feeling is among the “gay patriots.” Judging by this site’s support for Carrie Prejean, the latter-day Anita Bryant, it wouldn’t surprise me if your feeling is widely shared by the so-called “gay patriots” here.
Comment by Magic Dog — May 8, 2009 @ 1:44 pm - May 8, 2009
In any case, I asked for two items. First, a single case where hate crimes laws were invoked to protect pedophiles, and second, evidence that any military or veterans group has requested that military service or status be included in hate crimes legislation.
Actually, Magic Dog, before you asked this:
What evidence is there that veterans need or have requested protection from hate crimes?
Now you’ve changed and tried to rewrite history because you were provided evidence of how your Obama Party supports and endorses groups that commit acts of vandalism and violence against military members and how your Obama Party supports government resolutions branding military members and veterans as “unwanted and unwelcome intruders”.
You and Barack Obama openly call for violence against and government discrimination against veterans and military members. Why is that?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 8, 2009 @ 1:58 pm - May 8, 2009
“North Dallas Thirty,” you support the exclusion of gays from the military, then.
Of course. Our military doesn’t need people like you and your fellow gay liberals, Magic Dog, who demand sex from their subordinates and retaliate against people who won’t give it to them or who they find unattractive.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 8, 2009 @ 2:01 pm - May 8, 2009
“North Dallas Thirty,” like the other “gay patriots” here, you can’t provide any evidence on the hate crimes issues, so you branch out to extraneous issues, hoping to deflect attention away from the issue at hand. It’s sad and funny at the same time!
Comment by Magic Dog — May 8, 2009 @ 2:02 pm - May 8, 2009
Now, to this:
First, a single case where hate crimes laws were invoked to protect pedophiles
There is no hate-crimes law that protects pedophiles; hence, none can be invoked.
However, since the gay community screams, as I pointed out above, that being opposed to teaching sex to children, taking children dressed as sexual slaves to sex fairs, and stopping children from having sex with adults seventeen years their senior is “homophobic”, it is clear that having sex with children is a natural part of the gay community and gay behavior.
After all, you don’t see gays like yourself going after the gay pedophiles and trying to attack them like you do Carrie Prejean, Magic Dog. It amuses me to no end that faggots like yourself and Perez Hilton will throw fits over people who oppose gay marriage, but not over gays who have sex with children. Why is that?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 8, 2009 @ 2:06 pm - May 8, 2009
Indeed. Yet why were they offered, Bruce? Is it because this proposed legislation offers legal protection to pedophiles or military soldiers are regularly victims of “hate crimes”? No. This was political theater of the most unsavory kind, based on lies from the extreme Right about 30 so-called sexual orientations. You rightly despise this when it comes from the extreme Left, yet when the extreme Right does the exact same thing you parrot their talking points. Why is that? Dan laid out a thought-provoking case in multiple posts on this blog why this bill was unnecessary, ill-advised, unconstitutional, etc. You, on the other hand, just repeated the despicable lies of CWA, FoF and other soc-con groups. I thought that the purpose of Gay Patriot was to bring forth a reasoned case for conservatism, especially among gays, and not to champion the ridiculous nonsense from petty politicians.
Oh wait, I can hear the excuse now: “Well the Left does this all the time!” Yeah. That’ll pass muster when you claim to be trying to raise the level of debate. Hypocrisy doesn’t suit you, Bruce.
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 4:44 pm - May 8, 2009
#10: Of course not, because the extreme Left is being mollified by this Administration by being given plumb assignments, like DHS. Did you expect any different from Napolitano? I didn’t. This “report” is nothing more than a leftist screed put onto official U.S. letterhead.
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 4:47 pm - May 8, 2009
#11: Of course you “fail to see why this is an illogical case”, NDT, because you are no different than the extreme Left in your outlook. You hold the same basic prejudices and appeal to the “group-think” mentality when it suits your purposes. Why else would you use material from the UK, Canada and a fringe hedonistic group in California to tar all American gays who step outside what you’ve decided is the only way to think?
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 4:53 pm - May 8, 2009
I would like to know the answer to this as well. Of course, since this legislation offers no such protection to pedophiles and you are peddling the tripe that King passed along from his extreme Right masters, this is but a mere straw man on your part.
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 4:56 pm - May 8, 2009
#15: Yet again you are trying to subtley pass along a lie dressed up as truth, NDT. The ACLU’s position on free speech may be extreme at times, especially in this case, but that is all that liberal group was defending. To infer that they were defending NAMBLA’s position on molestation is bunk. Stick to the merits of what they were actually defending instead of accusing them of something else, or is that too difficult for you? Must be since you do this all the time. Pity really, since the ACLU and other liberal groups do indeed have much to legitimately take issue with that gets ignored because of bullshit nonsense like this.
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 5:02 pm - May 8, 2009
John,
Were the ammendments proposed? Yes/No
Were they voted down? Yes/No.
Please answer the questions, then we’ll talk.
Comment by The_Livewire — May 8, 2009 @ 5:02 pm - May 8, 2009
#18: For which the President has been rightly skewered.
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 5:03 pm - May 8, 2009
#22: If pedophiles “win” such protection it won’t be under this proposed legislation but will take another bill, which will ignite the firestorm such an idea deserves.
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 5:06 pm - May 8, 2009
#23: Cute, helio, and expected from you. Thanks for playing…
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 5:06 pm - May 8, 2009
#26: So shall we start holding all heterosexuals responsible for the crimes committed in the UK? Surely we must since this seems to be your line of reasoning when it comes to gays…
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 5:09 pm - May 8, 2009
#27: FINALLY. The first article you’ve posted in this thread that acutally shows the problem of politically correct bullshit run amuck in AMERICA. Bravo.
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 5:11 pm - May 8, 2009
Yet another example that NDT is no different than the extreme Left…
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 5:13 pm - May 8, 2009
#31: You obviously know nothing of this blog because if you did you’d know that NDT’s views on this subject is not shared by those who post here.
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 5:14 pm - May 8, 2009
#41: Certainly. Right after you tell me the purpose for offering these amendments and where in this proposed legislation protection for pedophiles can be found. Mind you, I’m not asking why you think this bill is a bad idea.
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 5:18 pm - May 8, 2009
In other words, John doesn’t want to admit that 1) Yes they were proposed and b) they were voted down.
Thank you for playing.
Comment by The_Livewire — May 8, 2009 @ 5:22 pm - May 8, 2009
#50: I do not recall giving you the right to set the parameters of this “discussion”, Livewire. I use the quotes, of course, because such is obviously not what you are interested in. Instead, it appears setting up straw men to burn them down and declare “victory” is what you’re after. You got it champ, now celebrate!
Such is obvious since you are asking me to “admit” to what are clear facts that require no such “admission”. So let me ask you: is the sky blue? Is the Pope Catholic? Now that those are out of the way, tell me the purpose for offering these amendments and where in this proposed legislation protection for pedophiles can be found.
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 5:41 pm - May 8, 2009
Since the ammendment wasn’t added, all it takes is a court somewhere (championed by the ACLU no doubt) to make them a ‘protected class’.
Just like specifically adding veterans would make them a protected class. So, the Democrats don’t want to be proactive in excluding a group, or in adding a group for fear of Code Pink being beat with their own pistols.
Nowhere in the post does it say that pedophiles are specifically protected, that’s your straw man. You’re hiding behind it even thought it’s burnng bright.
Comment by The_Livewire — May 8, 2009 @ 6:49 pm - May 8, 2009
Indeed. Of course, a court somewhere could also declare that the moon is made of green cheese but I see no rush to prevent this oddball court from taking such a drastic step. Yet, perhaps you have a point as everyone knows that Gouda is the best kind around. As for your quip on the ACLU, while there is much to disagree with that group on I’ve yet to see them advocate pedophiles as being a protected class or even hint as such. Yet I understand, they are the Devil incarnate and rather than deal with the merits of issues at hand ad hominem is so much easier. Tell me again how such mindless partisanship on the Right differs from that on the Left?
So if I understand you, you desire to have “hate crimes” protection for military personnel even though no such need has been shown and despite your own opposition to such laws? Ok. Or is it, perhaps, a cheap political stunt to unujustly tar the opposition when they have given us so much more of substance to go after them on? No wait, that require a level of reason that conservatives claim to have over liberals yet just like their foes toss to the wayside in the heat of partisan exchange.
Perhaps you missed the title of this charming lil’ post: “Congressional Dems Protect Pedophiles, Demean Military In Hate Crimes Bill”.
You were saying, Livewire?
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 7:41 pm - May 8, 2009
Maybe you need to read. The democrats did protect pedophiles by voting against an ammendment that would have made sure the law would exclude them. And then did take steps to insure the military couldn’t be defended with it, w/o the above mentioned tampering.
Try to read it again, I promise no one will laugh while your lips move.
Comment by The_Livewire — May 8, 2009 @ 10:09 pm - May 8, 2009
I see. So then by your logic, Republicans sought to protect rapists by failing to ensure they were not included in this bill means that they favor the sexual exploitation of others. The GOP is “obviously” against police officers, firefighters and emergency workers, who despite the sacrifices they make in service to others weren’t even worthy of being included by Republicans in these amendment attempts.
Or could it be that Congressman King and his sycophant allies, of which you are apparently one, made asses of themselves with a pathetic stunt that had more to do with trying to score cheap political points rather than substantive argument about the merits of the bill.
You defend this crap and actually wonder why the GOP’s fortunes are so bleak? This is what conservatism has come to? Dan at least is able to give a reasoned opinion why this bill is wrong, while folks like King engage in cheap stunts defended by rabid fans like you. Pity that the GOP leadership seems to have more Kings and Livewires than Dans. That’s unfortunately good news for the Dems, very bad news for the country.
Comment by John — May 8, 2009 @ 11:19 pm - May 8, 2009
Before I get attacked by the libtards who are responding here, I am a straight woman and non-USA citizen. I believe that the issue of pedophilia goes beyond the gay community.
I do not believe that there should be any form of protection for these men and women who are willing to abuse a child for the sake of having sex. This is a crime in both the heterosexual and homosexual communities.
However, what I have observed and North Dallas Third more or less concurs, is that leftard liberal homosexuals seem intent upon poisoning the lives of little children. That kind of sex education should not be given in schools.
There most definitely are some very predatory homosexuals out there and the Curly case is one of many that have been reported over time. It happened to the son of a former neighbour. The boy was snatched when he was with his brother going to the shops. His body was found several days later and he had been raped before he had been murdered.
Any legislation that protects the types that would do that type of thing to a child, whether it is a heterosexual crime or a gay crime is bad legislation. These people should not receive any form of cover.
It is not grandstanding to make a stand to prevent that type from being covered in “hate” crimes legislation.
Put it this way, in the prison system (at least it used to be like this) someone guilty of a crime against a child ended up dead or badly beaten. If these pedophiles are given protection under the legislation and some future incident happens, and as a result of that incident, the pedophile then sues either the parents of the victim of his own crime, or the prison inmates who meted out a bit of their own justice, then that legislation has served the worst type within society.
This is an issue that should not be Dem vs GOP, it is one where people should see common sense and exclude pedophiles.
As for the statement about the military, I just want to know what planet the dingbat known as Mad Dog has been living, because the military and ex-military over a period of years stretching back to the 1960s have been attacked for being in uniform. Those attacks are hate crimes. It is just that military personnel normally do not go crying saying that they are victims of the vicious libtards that exist all over the world.
Comment by thestraightaussie — May 9, 2009 @ 3:07 am - May 9, 2009
Straightaussie: Where EXACTLY are pedophiles given “cover” in this proposed legislation? The fact remains that regardless of the merits of this bill it does nothing of the kind and to make such claim is to assert a bald-faced lie, something Congressman King knows something about. Attack the Dems and this bill because of their flaws, not because of trumped up bullshit that only makes the GOP and conservatives in general look like asses.
Comment by John — May 9, 2009 @ 11:24 am - May 9, 2009
John, if you were thinking clearly on this matter, you would realize that supporting these specific exclusions would make a powerful argument towards separating pedophilia from homosexuality and calling out the idiots like Baldwin who are covering up for the gay community’s embrace of child sexualization.
But you’re not thinking clearly. Instead, you’re merely making rationalizations for Republican-bashing and providing a prime example of the inability and unwillingness of liberal gays to condemn stupidity in the gay community. Your hatred of Republicans is such that you’re actually trying to explain why condemning pedophilia among gays is homophobic.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 10, 2009 @ 2:08 am - May 10, 2009
NDT, you are so absorbed with attacking liberals that you have become exactly what you criticize them for, especially through dehumanizing your opponents by adopting as fact even the most scurrilous of accusations. Instead of criticizing legitimate flaws among Dems you focus on bullshit that not only cheapens your position but ironically allows Dems to escape scrutiny on their flaws because of the outrageousness from folks like you. King didn’t propose this amendment with noble intentions and you damn well know it. He did so because he knew that he could an anti-gay chord among some and mine their prejudice for political gain. This had nothing to do with stopping pedophiles and everything to do with King’s anti-gay bias and King’s political fortune.
You are truly an ass so steeped in hatred for anything and anyone who doesn’t toe your partisan line that such an absurd statement as this really isn’t surprising. If this is what you truly think I was doing than your hatred and partisanship have blinded you completely to reason, let alone common human decency.
Comment by John — May 10, 2009 @ 7:56 am - May 10, 2009
John:
I am interested to know if you are interested in separating pedophilia and homosexuality. Do you favor child sexualization? Do you have an erotic impulse in this? Do you feel that homosexuality should be a no holds barred concept?
You may leave political parties out of your answer. Just lay out your version of moral relativity for all to see.
Comment by heliotrope — May 10, 2009 @ 8:31 am - May 10, 2009
Oh please, helio, quit insulting my intelligence. You know my answers are “no” without even asking. The only reason you do ask these questions is precisely why King raised the issue: to use a lie that homosexuality and pedophilia are inherently connected (hence why you ask me about “separating” them), not because they are but instead to appeal to naked prejudices. That is despicable and a tactic that the extreme Left excels at, followed by the extreme Right. Using the most unsavory tactics while feigning innocence even though the whole world can see what you are doing takes quite a bit of gall but doesn’t win you any friends to your position. By taking this approach, unlike Dan in his reasoned posts, you completely alienate folks repelled by this nonsense. Can you handle making a reasoned argument why hate crimes legislation is the wrong way to go or like King do you prefer to continue being an ass getting nowhere?
Comment by John — May 10, 2009 @ 11:20 am - May 10, 2009
Well, it seems a raw nerve has been plucked.
I do not equate homosexuality and pedophilia as a universal truism. However, NAMBLA presents a bit of a public relations problem in the “naked prejudices” department.
You have failed to make clear to me why the activists with the homosexual “rights” agenda would not be specific in who they include under their big tent. Are pedophiles and people who dress up little children in sexual fetish garb in or out of the “naked prejudices” tent?
Just a little clarity would go a long way toward dispelling any notions that you would harbor a side show of freaks and perverts in order to enhance your political clout.
Moral relativism is not an insurance policy for always getting a pass. Sometimes you actually have to stand for something.
Comment by heliotrope — May 11, 2009 @ 10:14 am - May 11, 2009
Helio: You may play innocent and feign confusion all you wish but you aren’t fooling anyone. Perhaps I should encourage you and all nutjob soc-cons to continue this tripe because ultimately you guys will shoot yourselves in the foot as you alienate more and more Americans. I consider such an outcome a definite plus. Yet unfortunately you’re dragging down all other cons with your antics which makes have a viable opposition to the Dems very difficult.
Comment by John — May 11, 2009 @ 1:26 pm - May 11, 2009