Expansion of Hate Crimes Bill Passed in the House of Representatives
April 30, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Civil Rights, General, Politics
On April 29, 2009, the House of Representatives passed an expansion on the Federal Hate Crimes Bill that was previously vetoed in a weaker form by former President George W. Bush. The bill passed by a vote of 249 to 175, almost exclusively along party lines, with only 18 Republicans voting for the bill, and only 15 Democrats voting against it. The expansion of the bill broadens the protected groups of people by “classifying as “hate crimes” those attacks based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity or mental or physical disability.” The bill formerly included the categories of “a victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, [or] gender,” and allows the Federal government to prosecute these crimes with a greater punishment than crimes that are not based on “hate.”
The House debated the bill for hours, with passionate arguments on both sides. Here is an account of a few of the arguments presented:
Hours of debate preceding the bill included a stirring account by Rep. Jim Jordan of his attempt to add “the unborn” to the list of protected persons on the bill, with the amendment being voted down because the unborn were “not persons.” Contrasted with this were libelous and vacuous declarations by those for the bill, including one representative who quoted from the Ten Commandments as he accused those against the bill of “bearing false witness” in their attempts to raise warnings about the possible use of this law to muzzle and/or prosecute religious leaders when they attempt to speak negatively about homosexuality, and a declaration from another congressman that thinking the Hate Crimes Bill was about thought-crimes was like believing anti-lynching laws were about knot-tying.
The “political correctness” of the hate crime laws and punishments are more about thought and motivation than about the actual crimes being committed, which is the reason many of the Republicans opposing the bill quoted Animal Farm in making the argument that specifying categories for “hate crimes” would simply mean that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Here is what one Denver lawyer has to say about Colorado’s hate crime law, which is very similar to the bill which has just been passed in the House:
Colorado’s so-called “bias-motivated crime” law does nothing but provide government prosecutors nearly unchecked power to stop you from thinking certain thoughts. The politically correct categories that politicians have carved out for imprisonment — i.e., “race, color, ancestry, religion, national origin, physical or mental disability, or sexual orientation” — beg the question as to why crimes motivated by any other irrational category, such as political affiliation, are not similarly deserving of extra cage time.
The House did indeed vote down including “amendments [that] also seek to expand the applicability requirements to include age, status as a current or former member of the Armed Forces, or status as a law enforcement officer beyond what is currently contained in the bill.”
Are these groups of people any less valuable, or violent crimes committed against them any less reprehensible than the groups who were included in the amendment? All violent crimes could be considered “hate” crimes, and ought to be treated equally, as all violence is absolutely wrong and unjustifiable.
Obama’s Stimulus Package Cause of Specter’s Switch
April 30, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Economy, General, Politics
In a statement released by Senator Arlen Specter, he stated that the last straw dividing him from the Republican party was his decision to support Obama’s stimulus package of almost $800,000,000,000, one of only three Republican senators to do so. His Pennsylvania Republican constituency was outraged, and in the next election it appeared that he would be defeated in the primaries if he ran as a Republican, ending his 5 term reign as Pennsylvania’s longest-serving senator in its history. Here is what he had to say:
When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.
Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.
Was the stimulus package really worth supporting, anyway? All the government bailouts and stimulus package have essentially done is increase the national debt, and will continue to increase inflation. The stimulus package Specter voted for was about one-third tax cuts, and two-thirds new spending. Where is the government going to find all this money? Are they really going to provide tax cuts, or increase taxes for the more affluent portion of society in what is very close to socialism? Or will they inflate our national debt and decrease the value of the U.S. Dollar? Will they simply print more money to cover their costs? All of these solutions are dubious, at best, and reprehensible, at worst. The stimulus bill was rushed through Congress in a record three weeks, and passed almost exclusively along party lines, with Republicans almost without exception voting against it. None of the Congressmen and women likely even had time to read what they were voting for, considering the bill was over 1,000 pages long, and it was pushed through so quickly. What are the long term effects of this bill? That remains to be seen, but trying to fix an economy that is crippled by debt by the government going further into debt itself doesn’t inspire a lot of optimism.
Democratic Filibuster-Proof Majority: Senator Specter Switches Parties
April 28, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, Politics
Today on April 28, 2009, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter announced his decision to leave the Republican Party and join the Democrats, giving them a 60 seat, potentially filibuster-proof majority. Obama himself joined the ranks of rejoicing democrats, calling Mr. Specter personally just seven minutes after he was told the news. Here is the account from the New York Times:
President Obama was handed a note from an aide at 10:25 a.m. on Tuesday during his daily economic briefing. The note, according to a senior administration official, said: “Specter is announcing he is changing parties.”
Seven minutes later, Mr. Obama reached Mr. Specter by telephone. In a brief conversation, the president said: “You have my full support,” according to the official who heard the phone call. The president added that we are “thrilled to have you.”
What does it mean to have a potentially filibuster-proof majority? This means that a Republican filibuster (an attempt to talk a bill down or delay the process of voting on it) would be fruitless, and that the Democrats can potentially pass any bill they want to if they are united in their voting. This could mean a no-holds-barred pushing through of some very liberal legislation, and a major change in the direction of the country without checks and balances.
This issue of the lack of checks and balances is something that concerns us all. Here is what Senator Mitch McConnell had to say regarding Mr. Specter’s change in affiliation:
The switch posed a “threat to the country.” The issue, he said, “really relates to … whether or not in the United States of America our people want the majority party to have whatever it wants, without restraint, without a check or balance.”
Although Specter has insisted that he will not be an automatic sixtieth vote for the Democrats, I believe it is only a matter of time before some of the legislation brought before the Senate begins to take an increasingly liberal turn with this huge encouragement for the Democrats. The liberals who were largely responsible for funding and promoting Obama for president will want their legislation passed, and now their prospects for doing this look brighter than ever, much to the chagrin of the conservatives in the country.
Overly Intrusive (and Counterproductive) Cybersecurity Bill
April 28, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Civil Rights, General, Politics
A bill intended to dramatically change the way the government regulates cybersecurity has been proposed in the Senate by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV and Sen. Olympia J. Snowe. According to this bill, the regulations for cybersecurity would not only be increased in the governmental sector, but also require new government access to the Internet security systems, as well as information belonging to privately owned business and corporations that are considered to be part of the nation’s infrastructure, such as banks, electricity, and water. Provisions of this proposed bill would give the President power to shut down all Internet traffic regarding these systems in the case of a national cybersecurity emergency, without specific language defining what would constitute such an emergency, as well as waiving all existing privacy laws to allow the Commerce Department access to all kinds of private information if it is deemed necessary or “relevant.”
Here is the direct wording from the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (emphasis mine):
SEC. 14. PUBLIC-PRIVATE CLEARINGHOUSE.
(a) DESIGNATION- The Department of Commerce shall serve as the clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information to Federal Government and private sector owned critical infrastructure information systems and networks.
(b) FUNCTIONS- The Secretary of Commerce–
(1) shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access…
(3) shall report regularly to the Congress on threat information held by the Federal Government that is not shared with the persons primarily responsible for the operation and maintenance of the networks concerned…
SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.
The President–…
(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network…
(5) shall direct the periodic mapping of Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks, and shall develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the mapping process;
(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security
Do we really want any part of the government to have power to operate in the private sector “without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access”? How is this different than wiretapping individuals without warrants, and other similar breaches in privacy which have raised such an outcry in the past? Why would it be a great idea to tell Congress information regarding threats to systems without informing those who are “primarily responsible for the operation and maintenance of the networks concerned”? Shouldn’t those responsible for operating the security systems be the first to find out, so that they can redouble their efforts and maintain the security themselves?
The Internet is not simply limited to the USA. If the President were to shut everything down in the case of a cybersecurity emergency, it would have worldwide repercussions, and severely affect the operation of the businesses that have international contacts. The ramifications of such an action would be unprecedented. Certainly the need for Internet security is essential, and possibly laws could be passed setting standards for testing the security of privately owned businesses that make up America’s infrastructure, but any “mapping” or access that would allow the President to shut these connections down may actually backfire and create a LESS secure Internet environment! If a hacker could break into the new system, he/she would have access to all the information and systems at once, instead of having to break into each private system one at a time!
The privacy and safety ramifications of this bill are looming over our heads. Should we let this pass unaddressed?
Obama and his Teleprompt
April 27, 2009 by Steven Ting
Filed under General
Obama seems to have a special relationship with his Teleprompt. He depends on it and it depends on it. In many online forums, the President of the United States is abbreviated as POTUS for short. The Supreme Court of the United States is also abbreviated as SCOTUS. The Teleprompt has gained so much attention that it now has it’s own abbreviation, TOTUS. You can guess what that stands for. Since Obama has been in office, POTUS and TOTUS have now become one. The use of one term invokes the other, and vice versa.
In another story relating to POTUS and TOTUS, both were caught chatting with each other on television. In this case, Obama being the confident person, began speaking ahead of TOTUS. As in any relationship, if you don’t have respect for the other, something will go wrong. This time, when POTUS started introducing people he had already introduced, he told TOTUS to “Go Ahead. Move it up.” If you don’t listen to TOTUS or follow it’s lead, it will embarrass you, just as in this case.
Every time POTUS tries to go on without TOTUS, POTUS is reeled back in. There’s a lesson to be learned from all of this. One must have humility. The Great One, the Osamassiah, doesn’t know everything. He is not the end-all and he is not our saviour.
Obama may exude confidence, but he comes off as arrogant, and in many cases, just plain dumb. What would Obama be like without his TOTUS? I be he’d be just like George W. Bush.
