May 5, 2009
H.R. 1913 was approved by the U.S. House on April 29 and is expected to come to a vote in the full Senate very soon. Please copy and circulate this document to as many people as possible.
Short and official titles of bill H.R. 1913:
“Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009”
“To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.”
Shawn D. Akers, a Policy Analyst with Liberty Counsel and Adjunct Professor of Law and Director of Academic Support with Liberty University School of Law, writes this analysis of the characteristics of the proposed law:
A. This bill would create a federal offense imposing federal criminal penalties — potentially in addition to criminal penalties imposed under state law — on any defendant who chooses his victim in whole or in part because of the victim’s “actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin” or “actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” Violations would be punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment of up to
10 years, or imprisonment for life if the offense results in death or “includes kidnaping [sic] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.”
B. The bill includes the terms “Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity” — ambiguous terms that the drafters of the bill have refused to define. It places those descriptions on par with race, color, religion and nationality.
C. As a matter of mechanics, the bill provides financial grants to state and local entities, provides additional personnel for investigation and prosecution, creates new federal criminal offenses, and creates a new evidentiary rule (no evidence of speech or associations is admissible to prove motive of defendant unless the speech or association is “specifically related” to the “hate crime”).
D. The bill is couched in terms of providing assistance to state local and Indian governments but it reserves the right to act if they fail to exercise their jurisdiction, or leave “demonstrably un-vindicated the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.”
Citizens for Community Values President Phil Burress provides this insight on the phrase “sexual orientation.” What does it mean?
“In 1993, Charlie Winburn, then a Cincinnati City Councilman, became the first in the nation to raise this question — because it had been used in piece of local, special rights legislation. Winburn found that the term could include a variety of bizarre sexual behaviors. Here are just a few:
• Incest — sex with one’s offspring (a crime, of course)
• Necrophilia — sexual relations with a corpse, also a crime
• Pedophilia — sex with an underage child, another crime
• Zoophilia — bestiality, a crime in numerous states
• Voyeurism — a criminal offense in most states
• Fronteurism — which involves a man approaching an unknown woman and rubbing up against her buttocks
• Coprophilia — sexual arousal from feces
• Urophilia — sexual arousal from urine
Proponents of H.R. 1913 refuse to define sexual orientation in the bill. Consequently, these bizarre behaviors will become protected classes! In fact, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), offered an amendment that would have at least excluded pedophilia as a sexual orientation covered under the bill. Surely, King thought, the proponents would not want men sexually molesting children to become a protected class under this bill. King’s amendment was defeated.”
And just what do they mean by gender identity? Americans for Truth President Peter LaBarbera says that “You would practically need a PhD., to keep up with the ever- expanding array of gender identities that fall under the ‘T’ umbrella in the ‘GLBT’ (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) equation.” A survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality lists 16 choices, including “Transgender”, “Transsexual,” “Genderqueer” and “Third Gender.”
commission of a crime, making them ‘punishable as a principal.’”
Title 18 — Part 1 — Chapter 1 § 2. Principals:
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
Congressman and (former judge) Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, pointed out in the House
Judiciary Committee that the bill “is going to put pastors in prison.”
In her WorldNetDaily column on February 17, 2009, Janet Porter wrote the following:
That means if you “counsel someone,“ or write a book, or read from the Bible (such as what Obama says is an “obscure“
passage in the first chapter of Romans), you could be found guilty of “inducing“ someone to commit a crime.
The Homosexual Triangle Foundation’s executive director, Jeff Montgomery, told the Saginaw News back in April 2005: “Vocal anti-gay activists should be held accountable as accessories to these crimes because, many times, it is their rhetoric that led the perpetrators to believe their crimes are OK.“
That’s the same thing the San Francisco Board of Supervisors said back in 1998 when we ran the “Truth in Love Campaign“
featuring ex-homosexuals expressing hope for change:
It’s not an exaggeration to say that there’s a direct correlation between these acts of discrimination, like Matthew Shepard, such as when gays and lesbians are called sinful, and when major religious organizations say they can change if they try, and the horrible crimes committed against gays and lesbians.
By the way, despite the massive effort to make Matthew Shepard the poster child for hate crimes (with more than 13,500 total news stories, not including the massive TV coverage and two major Hollywood specials), according to the killers, Shepard wasn’t killed because he was a homosexual; he was killed for money to buy drugs.
But whatever case they can exploit to silence free speech, they will.
Liberty Counsel’s Shawn Akers states this: “Indeed, if the bill’s drafters and supporters are to be believed, the bill only becomes relevant after a criminal has committed an already illegal act. On closer analysis, the bill does not merely provide stiffer penalties for certain crimes but, rather, represents a substantive and fundamental shift away from the American ideas of free speech and God given immutable equality and toward the European ideas of state approved speech, state endorsed morality, state-given egality.”
He lists the following as major concerns with this legislation (details can be found on the websites of Liberty Counsel and Americans for Truth and from a link at our website f2a.org or faith2action.org):
A. Unequal protection of laws under the 14th Amendment.
B. Punishes Thought (Potentially Religious or Political Thought) rather than mere intent to commit a crime. C. Wider immediate action than claimed.
D. Federal Power Grab.
E. Trend of Nationalization of State and Local Law and the Internationalization of Federal Law; And a Corresponding rise in
Anti-Semitic and Anti-Christian activity.
F. Incremental Move Toward Making Speech a Federal Crime.
Please call your two U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121. Make some calls to their district offices as well and e-mail them, stating your opinion about this bill that punishes thoughts as well as actions and implore them to vote “NO” on H.R. 1913.
Pray that God will work in the hearts and minds of all of our Senators to show them what they should do regarding this bill!