More Change We Can Believe In

From an e-mail from Sen. Patrick Leahy:

"In July, I asked you to urge my congressional colleagues to pass the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, to tackle the scourge of hate crime in America. Thanks to the efforts of more than 10,000 LeahyForVermont.com activists, this long-overdue anti-hate crime legislation is finally law.


That's why I introduced the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act to strengthen federal anti-hate crime laws to cover crimes motivated by gender, disability status, or sexual orientation.

Last week the Senate passed it as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, and I was proud to visit the White House to witness President Obama signing it into law earlier today."

Thank you, Senator Leahy, and thank you, President Obama.

Anyone who thinks this would have happened under President Saint McCain, and Boehner and McConnell- well they're crazy.

Comments

magpie said…
I read about this...

Why was it associated with the Defence Authorisation Act?(which was also a good thing, by the way)

I don't quite understand that point of procedure.
October 29, 2009 at 4:09 AM
Green Eagle said…
The Democrats could only get the Republican pigs to vote for it by attaching it to a bill that they were afraid to vote against.

This is a trick the Republicans have used for years to get much of their slimy legislation passed. I didn't like it then, and I don't really like it now, but at least this time the result was good.
October 29, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Poll P. said…
The I ching says something like "Tie your wish to a bamboo shoot"--the point being that it helps to associate your cause with something that going to grow strong and fast--like a defense bill.
October 29, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Derek said…
Why don't people ever ask the question: "Is this constitutional?"

People need to realize that all crimes are committed out of hate, and that hate crime legislation does nothing but separate us further.

From a constitutional standpoint, hate crime legislation is unconstitutional as it lifts certain groups above others (equal justice under the law, what's that?). I wrote about this awhile back.

http://www.myuncommonsense.com/?p=100

Also, by punishing for "hate", the state starts to criminalize thought, a blatant violation of the 1st amendment.

exit question: If a gay kills a baptist anti-gay marriage activist, is this a hate crime?
October 29, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's Okay, Never Mind

Image
The woman in this picture, equipped with the weapons and ammunition shown, was found outside a National guard base. She is apparently a big Glenn Beck fan, and believed that the base was a FEMA concentration camp. Think she's the only one out there? You just know this sort of thing is not going to end well.
Read more

If a Tree Falls In the Woods

Image
 And nobody hears it, is it really running for President at all? First of all, a note about my absence lately:  My wife got me to sign up for an account at Threads, which is sort of like X without the assholes.  I've spent a little time establishing myself there, and I have to say, I do like the relatively immediate exchange of views, but I don't mean to give up my blog- there are still so many things that can't be dealt with in a couple hundred words, so, perhaps to your dismay, I am back. So, what motivated the above question is the fact that the Sunday New York Times today had seven articles about Trump, and absolutely zero about Kamala Harris.   The Republicans have a problem with Harris, in that virtually everyone who sees her likes her and immediately understands how qualified she is to be President.  They have tried mightily the last month to find some way to smear her, but have been spectacularly unsuccessful- the tactics of character assassination ...
Read more

Wingnuts Slightly Annoyed about that $83 Million

Image
How can you look like a decrepit old geezer and an out of control two year old at the same time? I thought it might be nice to look in on wingnut world to see how they are taking yesterday's $83 million dollar Trump legal loss.  You kind of know that they will decide it shouldn't affect their opinion of him in any way, but it might be helpful to see just how the Republican party has trained them to reject any fact they don't like.  Not that surprisingly, a lot of the usual wingnut suspects didn't touch this loss at all, preferring to just ignore anything that interferes with their hateful daydreams, but here are a few excerpts from an article at Gateway Pundit, along with a sample of the hundreds of comments it received.  Enjoy.  Or not. "Trump attorney Alina Habba WENT OFF after the crooked New York City court slapped President Trump with an $83 million judgment for speaking out against the disgusting lies of a crazed woman who said he lured her into a Bergdorf Go...
Read more