And a few things seem to be missing (from CNN)
After years playing defense, liberal advocacy groups see the Democrats' takeover of Congress as a long-awaited chance to convert some of their goals into law. Their wish lists include workplace protections for gays, a broader hate-crimes law, and a multi-pronged push to reduce unplanned pregnancies.
This certainly mirrors what Congressional Democrats and the larger base want, which doesnt seem to include any measures for protecting the US of A. Are there any liberal activist groups which promote national security? I'm sure not familiar with them. How about you?
Democrats have been yammering about protecting the ports and borders since we went to war in Iraq. Does anyone think that Dems will offer any legislation on these subjects? Would mean less money for all their other progressive projects.
Democrats have complained about the cost of health care, yet they want to increase the cost by forcing companies to cover things like birth control. How about teaching your kids to be responsible when having sex?
I know, I know, that is counterindicated by the liberal owners manual.
"Hate Crimes Laws." They used to have political police in Nazi Germany, too, whose main focus was to arrest people who weren't doing exatly what the government wanted. How much do you want to bet that "hate crimes" will not include Jews, Christians, or Southerners, but will include Muslims?
Liberals have been railing against the loss of their Constitution Rights since 9/11, without being able to pinpoint exactly which ones they have lost, of course, yet, their legislative agenda og "hate crimes laws" infringes specifically on Free Speech Rights. Typical liberal hypocrisy.
And here's an important, and hypocritical, idea: " NOW President Kim Gandy said her organization's legislative wish list includes…tightening controls over silicone breast implants…"
Whatever happened to "keep your laws off my body?"
In essence, the decision to ban silicon breast implants was a political one, which forced Dow Corning to file bankruptcy, with no medical evidence proving they were harmful
Miss Angell, executive editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, warned that "there was almost no reliable scientific information at the time of the ban" by the Food and Drug Administration. Instead, FDA head David Kessler made a purely political decision, one that was ably exploited by entrepreneurial attorneys.
The debate has been reopened, with the FDA approving use of said implants. cBS is correct in their headline, regarding lingering safety concerns. Those concerns being worries over hopped up trial lawyers looking for a fast buck over junk science, like they did before.
Anyhow, many might think "hey, these are just a few fringe groups. They have no real power." Au contraire. They are very powerful in liberal circles. Their lobbyists excert extreme power over Democratic representatives. And they will be listened to.
Linked to: Basil's Blog,
[…] Pirate’s Cove (William Teach) Liberal Advocacy Groups Make Their Wish Lists — “This certainly mirrors what Congressional Democrats and the larger base want, which doesnt seem to include any measures for protecting the US of A. Are there any liberal activist groups which promote national security? I’m sure not familiar with them. How about you?” […]
It’s disgusting. Next thing you know these g@damn libruls will be wanting to reinstate habeas corpus and the rule of law.
Any hate crimes law most certainly includes crimes based solely on a person’s religion (or perceived religion). And under the Constitution, discrimination based on religion is, ummmm….unconstitutional!
A crime motivated by ones membership (for lack of a better word) in a group (christians, jews, muslims, black, white, gay etc) is different than a guy getting shot at an ATM. When someone drags a black person behind a truck until they die, for no other reason than the color of their skin (as opposed to killing someone who owes them money or just because they want to kill for the sake of killing), that sends a message to every single other member of that particular group (in that example, african americans) that the same could happen to them- it is meant to intimidate and terrorize not only the individual being harmed, but the whole community of people who belong to that group.
In the south, unfortunately the state govt used lynchings to send a similar kind of message to blacks.
And no, it doesn’t criminalize “thought”- it focuses on motive and intent. As do most other crimes. You can still THINK that gay people will bring about the end of civilization, you just cant go take a baseball bat and kill a gay person simply because you think a gay person deserves that sort of treatment. And no, the already-esistant crimes of murder and assault etc. are not adequate to deal with “hate crimes” despite the political Right’s arguments to the contrary- hate crime laws are meant to not only punish for the crime, but also send a message to others who intend to try to intimidate groups of individuals whom they believe should not breathe the same air as they do- it sends the message that the government will not tolerate it. Of course, that may preclude bigots on juries from falling back on the “oh, but they were gay and they deserve it for their evil lifestyle” rationalization. But hey, you can always try to get the case heard in state court. And what happened to being “tough on crime”? Dont you like the death penalty as a means of sending a message? I bet you do.
And by the way, your nazi germany references are a bit disingenuous. They hypocrisy is amazing. You could get dragged out of a Bush rally for wearing a pro-democrat t-shirt, you can get hauled off a plane for having brown skin and a book about islam and the Qu’uran, the government can invoke the Patriot Act to spy not on people believed to be potential terrorists but to spy on political opponents ala J. Edgar Hoover- anti-war, vegan and gay groups– but hate crimes laws remind you of Nazi Germany? Germany rounded people up based on group inclusion/identification- jews, catholics, gays, so-called “gypsies”, etc. I think you’ve got your historical references a bit mixed up.
How about a little consistency?
And aren’t you guys tired of the “white christians are so oppressed” meme yet? I mean, come on.
To the 2 comments above: Apparently you have a severe lack of knowledge of history. The fact that you cannot see history repeating itself in the hate speech of Islamofascists is stunning. These people want us dead and you see some kind of equality between race and religion? That’s absurd. That is oh so liberal and some sort of moral equivalency that does not exist. Since when did either of you understand that the rule of law is not being observed by you. The Constitution is not a changing, transitional document open to interpretation by liberal judges. This is the reason we have a court system that has decided by personal preference how to intrepret the law. This indeed leads to chaos, perhaps something that most liberals appear to want. I live in Connecticut where all this conversation began with abortion, 5th amendment rights (Kelo case) and are being remisinterpreted by liberal judges and apparently changing to reflect their personal biases. Liberal Democrats are the ones who live in the world of childhood, the what if world. Racism, sexism, bigotry and homophobia are the bailiwick of choice and the wrong choice. Liberals are the ones who insist on living in their own fantasies because of their own personal guilt trips and imagine they are intellectually and ethically superior to all and ask themselves why doesn’t everyone else see it? And what a good person am I for bringing it up. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton come to mind. These frauds have financially enriched themselves off the backs of their own people by perpetrating such racism themselves. You want to talk about the rule of law, You better sit down and read what is in the Constitution before you start pontificating. I carry it with me; the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, for easy referencing. It mentions God nine times in the Declaration of Independence. Get used to it. You haven’t got a leg to stand on except for your racism, sexism and homophobic bigotry which you engender yourself to make yourself look caring i.e; Michael Moore; the biggest sack of excrement out there.
Blood, I would to know exactly which America or American’s have had Habeus Corpus suspended for them. Cuase enemy combatants aren’t American citizens, and are not entitled to it.
Stacy, hate crimes do criminalize thought, and they do it only for certain segments of the population. They are applied discriminately. Read the whole story, and you will see that NOW wants to extend Hate Crimes for offenses against women. It is PC run amok.
Kristen, VERY well said.