On April 2, Rep. John Conyers (D.-Mich.) and 42 cosponsors introduced H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 in the House and the legislation was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. As we write, the bill has 120 cosponsors and the House has scheduled action on it for April 29, when it will be considered and considered and debated on the House floor. An April 29 vote is likely.

While the stated objective of H.R. 1913 is “to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes,” this legislation, if passed, would open the door to a wide variety of abuses. Among the “trouble spots” with this proposed legislation:

• “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.”

The legislation attempts to categorize crime according to the “motivations” of the perpetrator. As a writer in The New American magazine once noted:

Hate crimes legislation creates a new body of laws based on the underlying motivations behind criminal acts. When penalties are enhanced, then the thoughts themselves are criminalized. This approach is essentially totalitarian, no matter how repugnant the motivating beliefs, since it requires the state to prove what is in the mind of a defendant and (in the case of enhanced penalties) to punish his beliefs.

Furthermore, when the bill proposes that local law enforcement authorities be given federal assistance, the end result will be federal control over all law enforcement.

• “Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.”

The reason federal law is supposedly inadequate is because crimes that would most likely be committed out of hate, such as assault, battery, and murder, are already being prosecuted by state and local government. Federalizing such crimes (even by definition) creates a redundant layer of law enforcement that can only lead to the aforementioned federal control of all law enforcement.

• “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.”

Again, the legislation attempts to ascertain and criminalize motivations, coming dangerously close to creating a category of “thought crimes” as depicted by George Orwell in 1984.  And the establishment of federal jurisdiction over crimes traditionally prosecuted at the state level is an infringement upon states’ rights.

• “The term `local' means a county, city, town, township, parish, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State.”

Such language raises the potential for federal interference of law enforcement matters into the tiniest hamlets of America. Even a fight between neighbors of different ethnic or philosophical persuasions might be labeled as “a hate crime.”

• “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….”

Not content to cite “sexual orientation,” the legislation includes “gender identity,” meaning that, theoretically, a bouncer who exerted an indiscreet amount of physical force in ejecting a disorderly cross dresser from a nightclub might be charged with “a hate crime.”

While H.R. 1913’s original sponsor, John Conyers, attempted to reassure the reluctant that “The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way,” another cosponsor, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) signaled her intention that the legislation would apply not only to attacks with sticks and stones, but also with words: “We also need to protect those potential victims who may be the recipients of hateful words or hateful acts, or even violent acts.”

Attempting to ascertain an assailment’s motivations is a difficult assignment, and sure to create more problems than it solves. Our state and local authorities have protected their citizens against violent crime since our nation’s founding. All violent crime is hateful. Motivations are irrelevant. There is no need to complicate the prosecution of crime any further, or to invite federal agents to interfere in local matters.

Urge your representative and senators in Congress to oppose passage of H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

Follow this link to an alert that allows you to email your representative and senators now, urging them to oppose  this dangerous legislation.

To read more about this threat to states' rights and traditional values, read this message posted by the Traditional Values Coalition: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3627
 

In the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court ruled that all state laws prohibiting abortion were unconstitutional. Ever since the Roe v. Wade (and the less publicized Doe v. Bolton) decision, the primary strategy among pro-life people has been to overturn Roe by electing so-called pro-life Republican presidents who will appoint strict constructionist justices to the Supreme Court. Theoretically, this strategy will eventually lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

However, despite the best efforts of members of the pro-life movement, it is 35 years and an estimated 50,000,000 deaths in the womb later, and abortion — for any reason and at any stage of pregnancy, is legal in every state and territory in the United States. Federal courts have also rendered other decisions contrary to traditional family values, as well, including negating state laws mandating school prayer.

As to why the best-laid plans of armies of pro-life people have not ended abortion or returned prayer to our schools, a compelling explanation was made by Chuck Baldwin (a Christian pastor from Pensacola, Florida, and the 2008 presidential candidate of the Constitution Party) in an address before the National Committee of the Constitution Party on October 25, 2007 in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Dr. Baldwin asked: "So, please tell me why, after having control of both houses of Congress and the White House for six years, did these ‘pro-life’ Republicans in Congress and a ‘pro-life’ President not pass [U.S. Rep. Ron] Paul’s bill? Why? Because they really do not give a hoot about abortion, but only use pro-life rhetoric to dupe conservative voters.”

The legislation referred to by Dr. Baldwin was H.R. 300, which had been introduced in the 110th Congress as the “We the People Act,” to limit federal courts’ right to rule on matters related to religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This bill has been re-introduced in the 111th Congress as H.R. 539 by Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas) and initially cosponsored by Reps. Walter Jones (R.-N.C.) and Ted Poe (R.-Texas).

Article III, Sections 1-2 and Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution give to Congress the authority to rein in an abusive judiciary and remove abortion (or school prayer, or homosexual marriage, or fill in the blank) from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all other federal courts. This means that should Congressman Paul's bill become law, state abortion laws would be removed from the apellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all other federal courts, and Roe v. Wade would no longer be "the law of the land."

Passage of H. R. 539 would not only remove federal courts from life and family-related issues that should best be settled at the state level, it would also help restore the proper balance of power between the states and the federal government as envisioned in the Tenth Amendment and help prevent judicial travesties such as Roe v Wade from occurring in the first place. Through our previous well-intentioned, but misguided practice of transferring the authority to oversee equal protection of the laws from the states to the federal government, we have inadvertently also given the federal courts the converse power to abolish those rights! In this case, the most fundamental right of all — the right to life!

Click here to urge your representative to vote yes to Limit Federal Courts' Right to Rule on Abortion. Utilizing the powers found in Article III, Sections 1-2 and Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is the most effective way to prevent federal judicial tampering with matters related to personal morality that are best left to the states.

If ever there was a prime example of the federal government creating a problem and then offering a solution that will never work, besides the bailouts of course, it’s the newest: “A Guide to Getting Through Tough Economic Times,” set up by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The federal government, which includes a Congress that simply no longer represents the people and appears bent on making us all crazy with their latest policies, wants us to know that they will be there for us when we all go insane.

Wanting all of us to stay hopeful and striving for better attitudes whilst they bankrupt the country, sentencing the next five generations to economic slavery and tyranny, they are offering tips on how to stay mentally healthy, and how to recognize as possible mental health problems, on their new website.

After elaborating a bit on the effects stress can have on a person’s health and the warning signs — like drinking, overuse of medications, anxiety and crying (already there), they then go on to give ways to manage the stress. Unfortunately, alleviating the economic situation via limited government isn’t one of them.

Of course, they want you to know that you can seek help from a number of federal and state agencies, or a local spiritual leader if need be. The proletariat is reminded that “strengthening connections with family and friends” will be essential (for sheer survival), and developing “new employment skills” is bound to make anyone feel better, even though there are no jobs to be had.

The parting suggestion? “Work together to help all members of the community build their resiliency and successfully return to healthy and productive lives.” Because having all hands on deck and serving the state is going to be a must. How else could they keep the regime going?

Oh, and as an aside to the news media: Please don’t glorify or report in detail any suicides that might be attributed to the economy. They wouldn’t want the general public to know just how many people have been driven to it, and besides there might be copycat suicides credited to the economic disaster that would mess up the real numbers.

Just another day of your fed-gov at work.

While almost everyone has read about President Barack Obama’s signing of an executive order on March 9 that overturned the August 9, 2001 executive order banning human embryonic stem-cell research issued by President George W. Bush, few are aware of the new legislation introduced in Congress to more permanently protect such research.

On February 4, Rep, Diana DeGette (D.-Colo.), introduced H.R.873, “To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.”

“I want to pass legislation as quickly as possible to codify this so it doesn’t become a ping-pong ball going back and forth between administrations,” said Rep. DeGette. The congresswoman was referring to the fact that Obama had reversed the previous executive order issued by Bush. Bush’s order did allow for limited embryonic stem cell research, but only for 21 cell lines derived from embryos destroyed previously. Congress twice passed legislation attempting to bypass Bush’s order and implement funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but he vetoed it both times. Rep. DeGette had sponsored or co-sponsored both bills.

It is important to remember that not all stem cells are derived from embryos. An AP report dated April 11, 2001 noted:  “A biotech company said [today] it has developed technology for extracting large quantities of stem cells from placentas, offering a rich new source of tissue that could be used to treat a variety of diseases.” A January 9, 2007 Daily Telegraph (London) article reported that Dr. Anthony Atala of Wake Forest University stated that the fluid surrounding the fetus has been found to contain stem cells, that, when utilized correctly, "can be differentiated towards cell types such as fat, bone, muscle, blood vessel, nerve and liver cells.” In November 2007, two separate teams from Japan and the United States announced that they have been able to get adult human skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells. And a report posted on the website of the University of Utah lists several stem cell therapies that are routinely used to treat disease, including:

• Adult Stem Cell Transplant: Bone Marrow Stem Cells
• Adult Stem Cell Transplant: Peripheral Blood Stem Cells
• Umbilical Cord Blood Stem Cell Transplant

Those who oppose human embryonic human stem cell research for ethical reasons do so in cases involving the creation, usage, and destruction of human embryos. An AP report of August 2, 2001 observed that the three largest churches by membership in the United States: the United Methodist Church, Roman Catholic Church, and Southern Baptist Convention, all opposed research that destroys human embryos. On July 23 of that year, the 2.6-million member Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod sent President Bush a letter opposing embryo-destructive research. Many independent evangelical Christian churches have taken similar stands.

As we write, H.R.873 has 86 cosponsors. Oddly, it has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Though, once born, babies exhibit lots of energy, it is rather chilling to think that the leadership of the House regards embryonic human life as a “commercial” entity.

Senator Tom Harkin, (D-Iowa) has sponsored S. 487, the Senate version of DeGette’s legislation. S. 487 has eight cosponsors and has been referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Click here to take action by sending an email to your representative and senators in Congress telling them to oppose passage of H. R. 873 and S. 487 in both Houses of Congress.