Skip to content

[Video] Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder Admits: No Equality Under Hate Crime Bill

June 29, 2009

What happened to equal justice under the law?!

Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified July 9 1868

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Eric Holder testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, June 25. Eric Holder the Attorney General of the United States (MIND YOU) openly and freely admits that all American citizens are not equal in the eyes of the law.

Unequal justice under the law

LEAHY’S HATE BILL HEARING A SHAM – Free Republic

By Rev. Ted Pike
26 June 09
Today Sen. Patrick Leahy delivered on his promise to hold a federal hate bill hearing. Yet it was meant to only further his agenda, strongly slanted against opponents of the hate bill.

Attorney Gen. Eric Holder and three other hate bill witnesses chosen by Leahy had a four-to-two advantage over opponents of S. 909, the Matthew Shephard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The two pro-freedom witnesses surprisingly included Gail Heriot, one of the six members of the US Commission on Civil Rights who have publicly opposed the hate bill. Leahy’s time restrictions (little more than two hours) forced these outnumbered patriots, led by the excellent arguments of Sen. Jeff Sessions, to severely narrow their objections. An issue of such danger and complication demands at least three days of hearings, with more than just two witnesses permitted to object!

Here are some of the arguments which Judiciary Democrats, Holder and Leahy’s three witnesses gave:

• Hate crimes are an increasing “serious national problem that devastates entire communities.” The federal government doesn’t want to take over all hate crimes enforcement but should be empowered to provide “backstop” intervention in case the states can’t or won’t prosecute hate criminals.

• The hate bill will never threaten freedom of speech. It is only directed against violent hate crimes.

• It will not enforce “double jeopardy” (empowering the government to retry an individual acquitted by the state of a hate crime the government thinks he committed).

• Pro-hate bill testimony was heavily woven with the assertion that the Holocaust Museum shooting is a wakeup call, proving the need to legislate against prevalent and increasingly violent racism.

Most Judiciary Republicans were absent or called away from the hearing by debate over healthcare reform on the Senate floor. Yet Sen. Orrin Hatch, before having to leave, expressed the dominant question of Republicans through the hearing: Can Holder or anyone else give examples of how US states currently fail to enforce the law against hate criminals? Repeatedly, Holder was asked this question and couldn’t answer.

Republican Senators and their two witnesses attacked the hate bill, saying that FBI statistics show hate crimes are actually declining. They asserted that the hate bill is “overly broad” and gives the Attorney General, a political appointee, the right to pick and choose whom he and the government want to indict. These defenders of freedom also correctly stated that the hate bill empowers the government to retry individuals acquitted of a hate crime by the states. They said the hate bill gives Americans no equality before the law—a fundamental privilege of being a citizen.

Under questioning, Attorney Gen. Holder was surprisingly forthright in admitting that the hate bill is not intended to protect everyone, or even the majority. He said only historically oppressed minorities were to benefit. This means Jews, blacks, homosexuals, women, etc. Holder made it clear that if a white Christian male, including a serviceman or police officer, was the victim of a violent hate crime by any minority he would have to find redress from traditional law. He could not avail himself of the triple penalties and rapid government/justice system response given a protected minority.

There was no time for discussion of other major problems with S. 909, such as the following:

• S. 909 gives at least initial preferential rights and protection to homosexual pedophiles—any homosexual who screams “Hate crime!” This problem was repeatedly expressed by House Judiciary Republicans seven weeks ago but omitted today.

• Terms such as “actual or perceived sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” etc., are the conceptual pillars of the hate bill. But Democrats can offer no precise definitions of these amorphous terms.

• Similar “anti-hate” laws have destroyed free speech in other countries of the Western hemisphere. There was no mention in the hearing today of hate laws in the outside world.

• The specific text of the 1968 hate law needs to be cited and examined. Title 18, Sec. 2a says anyone whose speech “induces” a hate crime may be punished “as a principal.” The dangers of this federal statute were repeatedly emphasized by House Republicans earlier, especially Rep. Gohmert, but left out today.

• This bill blatantly violates the 14th Amendment. Holder repeatedly admitted S. 909 gives preference to a minority over the majority. Yet he was not challenged on the way this violates the 14th Amendment, which forbids legal preference.

• S. 909 violates the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Democrats argued today that it is a good thing to establish a “uniform, seamless” relationship between federal and local police by abolishing at least six major barriers to federal takeover of state law enforcement. There was no time for significant rebuttal.

The above are only some of the enormous concerns to which Leahy denied a hearing by limiting time and witnesses. If the hearing today had allowed at least one more opposing witness, such as hate law authority Robert L. Knight, or another day’s testimony, these issues and more might have been addressed. This was truly a kangaroo hearing, meant to give only the illusion of due process. It was acted out on a steeply slanted playing field; Leahy intended to move the outcome in one direction: passage of S. 909 by a similarly biased Senate.

Senate Hate-Crimes Bill [Peter Kirsanow]

Excerpt

The following letter regarding the proposed Hate Crimes Prevention Act was sent by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to Senate leaders:

Dear Mr. President and Distinguished Senators:

We write today to urge you to vote against the proposed Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) (“MSHCPA”)

We believe that MSHCPA will do little good and a great deal of harm.  Its most important effect will be to allow federal authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of defendants who have already been acquitted by state juries—as in the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases more than a decade ago Due to the exception for prosecutions by “dual sovereigns,” such double prosecutions are technically not violations of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution  But they are very much a violation of the spirit that drove the framers of the Bill of Rights, who never dreamed that federal criminal jurisdiction would be expanded to the point where an astonishing proportion of crimes are now both state and federal offenses.  We regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties.  There is no better place to draw the line on that process than with a bill that purports to protect civil rights.

While the title of MSHCPA suggests that it will apply only to “hate crimes,” the actual criminal prohibitions contained in it do not require that the defendant be inspired by hatred or ill will in order to convict.  It is sufficient if he acts “because of” someone’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Consider:

*Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their victims.  They are virtually always chosen “because of” their gender.

*A robber might well steal only from women or the disabled because, in general, they are less able to defend themselves.  Literally, they are chosen “because of” their gender or disability.

Exactly!

Attorney General Holder: Whites Not Protected by Hate Crime Laws -A Race Against Time

On the night of June 1, 2008, a mob of nearly two dozen black teenagers stormed through the streets of Mount Clemens, Michigan, robbing and beating any white person who crossed their path (see article here).

One white man was talking on a payphone outside a gas station when he was accosted by the mob. He tried to run into the gas station to safety, but the attendant had already locked the door when he saw the mob approaching. As the man desperately pounded on the locked door, he was surrounded by the mob and savagely beaten. Workers would later have to wash the victim’s blood from the front of the door. Read it all >>>

S. 909: Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Summary | Full Text

Bottom line — A crime is a crime regardless of motivation. We do NOT need special legislation to protect certain groups over others.  Murder, assault etc. are already covered under existing laws.

Related:
Hey Obama! Haven’t You Heard! An American Soldier was a Victim of Jihad on US Soil [Update2: Terror mosque ties?-WH finally issues a statement]
New Black Panther Philly Polling Station Intimidation Thug Jerry Jackson Official Dem Party Rep.
Obama’s DOJ Eric Holder Lapdog of the ACLU and MALDEF
H.R.40 – White Guilt Bill
Is Justice Blind in the Eyes of Obama SCOTUS Nominee Sonia Sotomayor?

Advertisements
4 Comments
  1. fatch permalink
    July 4, 2009 12:01 am

    Obama must be stopped from installing his marxist administration as it effects every aspect of our Country he is chang our laws, going to rigg the Supreme Court with racists like sotomayor, they believe the whiteman must pay back the African Americans and he will get his pound of flesh, because African Americans are only 12% of America they must wright laws and base them on a bell curve ahainst the anglo, just like this hate bill.

    The most efficent way of ousting Obama is to call for the producing of his fake birth certificate, it is the belief of many that Obama made a deal with the Republicans and that is Obama promise he will not prosecute any Bush adminastration people in return for Republicans notr bring up his birth certificate.

Trackbacks

  1. Ironic Surrealism v3.0 » The Left’s “Weapons Of Mass Distortion”
  2. Bombshell! DOJ Official Resigns Over Dismissal of New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case at Ironic Surrealism v3.0
  3. Bombshell! DOJ Attorney J. Christian Adams Resigns Over Dismissal of New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case – Blows Whistle « The False Oswalds 3.0

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: