Hate Crimes Legislation
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
- Congress makes the following findings:
- (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.
- (2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.
- (3) 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.
- (4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.
- (5) A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.
- (6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:
- (7) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.
- (8) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct `races'. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
- (9) 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.
- (10) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes.
- (a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
- (2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
- (A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person--
- (i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
- (ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
- title, or both, and shall be subject to the penalty of death in accordance with chapter 228 (if death results from the offense), if--
- (i) death results from the offense; or
- (ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed or applied in a manner that infringes on any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or substantially burdens any exercise of religion (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), speech, expression, association, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not intended to--
- (1) plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or
- (2) incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.
- (3) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.
- (4) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
- (5) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration.
|
The Second Bill of Rights
Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union:
"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
*The right of every family to a decent home;
*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
*The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."
The Rape Amendment
If there was ever an indicator that the republican party is indeed the party of "no" and has literally lost it's collective ability to reason and use sound judgement, then it has to be the recent vote on the Franken amendment in the Senate. All 30 republican senators voted against this amendment which was a simple, straight forward, honest, and morally correct amendment that would prevent the US government from doing business with any contractor that requires it's employees to sign a waiver preventing them to sue if they get raped while on the job. One cannot help but wonder why anyone would oppose and vote against such a common sense amendment. The answer, of course, is for political ideology. Politicians who vote for an ideology over common sense has already checked their brains at the door and has resigned their duty of doing their job. Enough said by me - watch the video to get the full story and Jon Stewart's humorous take on the matter.
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Rape-Nuts Daily Show
Full EpisodesPolitical Humor Ron Paul Interview
Ambigrams
Ever since watching the movie "Angels & Demons" based on the Dan Brown novel, I've become interested in the art of "ambigrams". These were featured in the movie and on the cover of the novel by the same name. For a more precise definition for what an ambigram is I will turn to Wiki for assistance:
"An ambigram is a typographical design or artform that may be read as one or more words not only in its form as presented, but also from another viewpoint, direction, or orientation. The words readable in the other viewpoint, direction or orientation may be the same or different from the original words. Douglas R. Hofstadter describes an ambigram as a "calligraphic design that manages to squeeze two different readings into the selfsame set of curves." Different ambigramists may create completely different ambigrams from the same word or words, differing in both style and form."
Amused with the whole concept and wanting to attempt my own ambigram, I turned to a website called "Wordplay" by John Langdon to learn a bit more about the technique and constructing an ambigram. After getting familiar with the concepts I began sketching out my first attempt and I'm fairly happy with the results of my first endeavor at "ambigramology". Here it is:
"An ambigram is a typographical design or artform that may be read as one or more words not only in its form as presented, but also from another viewpoint, direction, or orientation. The words readable in the other viewpoint, direction or orientation may be the same or different from the original words. Douglas R. Hofstadter describes an ambigram as a "calligraphic design that manages to squeeze two different readings into the selfsame set of curves." Different ambigramists may create completely different ambigrams from the same word or words, differing in both style and form."
Amused with the whole concept and wanting to attempt my own ambigram, I turned to a website called "Wordplay" by John Langdon to learn a bit more about the technique and constructing an ambigram. After getting familiar with the concepts I began sketching out my first attempt and I'm fairly happy with the results of my first endeavor at "ambigramology". Here it is:
This ambigram reads the same positioned now or upside down. I based it off a friend's pen name he is using for writing a book. In case you're having difficulty focusing in on it, the name is "A. Raven". This was a lot of fun and it came together realitively quick. I hope to produce some more ambigrams as time permits. If you'd like to give it a go, the Wordplay website is a great place to start.
CEO's Have No Intentions of Hiring
Yet another article today outlining the fact that some of America's CEO's have no plans to increase hiring despite the fact that the economy appears to be on the upswing. No, they say that even if their sales increase that it will be at least a 12 to 18 months lag before they would make any comittments to start hiring people. CEO's of companies and corporations can just increase the work load on their already under-staffed employees and get them to produce more output without the expense of re-hiring displaced workers.
Personally, I have just about lost all faith in our current system. CEO's are charged with keeping their companies healthy, turning profits, and providing ever increasing wealth for their stockholders and investors. People and employees are only a means to an end to achieve this and they are as expendable and worthless as a loose collection of nuts and bolts and odds and ends needed to temporarily patch something together. The problem, and I am generalizing, is that CEO's of major corporations and businesses today have lost sight of the human factor and have no sight of a moral compass whatsoever. They've lost sight of the fact that one of the main reasons their businesses are not growing and have slow sales is because their customers (their employees) have been kicked to the gutter so they can maintain their ever increasing profit margins with as little discomfort to them as possible. How do they expect sales to begin growing again if people continue to get laid off? Do they not understand that by providing a job to those out of work that it will in turn provide increased sales and activity to their own businesses? Has our society and our culture become so corrupt and greedy that we have now rationalized and accepted the costs of the human suffering and despair as simply the means to an end of keeping our capitalist empires in place? For what gain or purpose does this serve except for the very privileged, wealthy few? What more do businesses want in terms of incentives and perks from the government to encourage them to do business? No taxes at all? Free reign with no regulations or rules of any kind to make an extra dollar by any means possible regardless of the moral or legal ramifications trampled in the process?
As a hard working American professional who has worked my entire life and have strived for the American dream and the desire to provide for my family and my retirement, I am truly disgusted by what I currently see in this country in the form of corporate America. Their inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for the country and the people is disturbing. They rail and complain against any moves by the government to control their actions as unfair and as socialist, yet they are the first ones in line seeking "socialist" handouts for themselves when they fail. They are hypocritical and their only interest is making more money for themselves- at any cost or expense - no matter what they might have to do to obtain it. They have kicked the American worker to the gutter one too many times and many of us are being forced to survive outside the walls of their gleaming ivory towers and I am beginning to care less if those towers crumble. We have truly lost our way if we can't see that there is something wrong with this picture.
Evil (c)ommunism
As the health care reform debates have heated in this country, I have heard repeated usages of both the words "socialist/socialism" and "communist/communism" to describe the health care reform that President Obama is trying to enact. As if socialism and communism were somehow inherently evil systems but capitalism is completely pure and good. I have also heard those denouncing the plan saying it is "forcing" them to help people against their will and that it is unfair because it increases the tax burden on those who work and redistributes it to those who don't (i.e. lazy people is what is implied). And then I see comments by those who are religious and attempt to use scripture to denounce the health care reform legislation. Namely, the one that I've seen used is 2 Thessolonias 3:3-14 which instructs Christians not to associate themselves with people who are "idle" (i.e. lazy people who refuse to work is implied by those who use this scripture).
You have to be careful when you start trying to use scriptures to back one particular theory. I suppose there is a scripture somewhere that can be pulled to represent almost any ideology or principle you can think of. I do find it interesting that quite often those who protest the loudest against socialist or communist ideals are also the ones who claim to be either religious or Christian. They seem to make such claims as though they are totally unaware of the principles and values that founders of the Christian religion embraced. These values were practiced by the apostles and the early church. According to the book of Acts, the early Christian church clearly practiced a form of communism (that is with a small "c" not a capital "C" - there is a big difference between the two). The apostles established a system whereby all early Christians sold their possessions and wealth and gave it to them for redistribution to the community for the common good of everyone. This was also consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the examples he used to suggest followers should give up their personal wealth and give it to the poor. This was obviously not a Marxist form of Communism which promoted class warfare, but it was an economic form of communism that was based on communal and equal ownership of those in society for the common good of every man - not just the poor.
Acts 2:42, 44, and 45:
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)
The theme is reiterated in Acts 4:32-37:
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version)
I find it peculiar how people tend to conveniently overlook this bit of history and are so quick to label the idea of programs designed to use tax money for the common good of society as something that is evil and should be abhorred. I am not trying to promote communism. Neither am I trying to blur the lines between separation of church and state by suggesting that government should engage in health care reform because it is a Christian principle. I am only pointing out the fact that communistic, socialistic and capitalistic principles are not inherently evil in and of themselves. They become evil when people begin to abuse the power and allow corruption to dictate the policies. Corruption happens in all systems and occurs with the abuse and misuse of power. But the idea of everyone giving generously to help the whole community is clearly a value and a principle that was practiced by the early Christian church. I would also note that even though our Constitution requires a separation of church and state, this only applies to sectarian considerations. That is to say, it is to prevent the government from showing favortism to one particular sect of religion over another. It in no way requires a divorce of morality from government. A government must be moral if it is to do good, but it does not have to promote a particular religion in order to be moral. The US is the only industrialized rich nation in the world that does not have a system in place to provide for and take care of it's people's health care system. To me that speaks volumes of where our priorities have been misplaced.
You have to be careful when you start trying to use scriptures to back one particular theory. I suppose there is a scripture somewhere that can be pulled to represent almost any ideology or principle you can think of. I do find it interesting that quite often those who protest the loudest against socialist or communist ideals are also the ones who claim to be either religious or Christian. They seem to make such claims as though they are totally unaware of the principles and values that founders of the Christian religion embraced. These values were practiced by the apostles and the early church. According to the book of Acts, the early Christian church clearly practiced a form of communism (that is with a small "c" not a capital "C" - there is a big difference between the two). The apostles established a system whereby all early Christians sold their possessions and wealth and gave it to them for redistribution to the community for the common good of everyone. This was also consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the examples he used to suggest followers should give up their personal wealth and give it to the poor. This was obviously not a Marxist form of Communism which promoted class warfare, but it was an economic form of communism that was based on communal and equal ownership of those in society for the common good of every man - not just the poor.
Acts 2:42, 44, and 45:
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)
The theme is reiterated in Acts 4:32-37:
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version)
I find it peculiar how people tend to conveniently overlook this bit of history and are so quick to label the idea of programs designed to use tax money for the common good of society as something that is evil and should be abhorred. I am not trying to promote communism. Neither am I trying to blur the lines between separation of church and state by suggesting that government should engage in health care reform because it is a Christian principle. I am only pointing out the fact that communistic, socialistic and capitalistic principles are not inherently evil in and of themselves. They become evil when people begin to abuse the power and allow corruption to dictate the policies. Corruption happens in all systems and occurs with the abuse and misuse of power. But the idea of everyone giving generously to help the whole community is clearly a value and a principle that was practiced by the early Christian church. I would also note that even though our Constitution requires a separation of church and state, this only applies to sectarian considerations. That is to say, it is to prevent the government from showing favortism to one particular sect of religion over another. It in no way requires a divorce of morality from government. A government must be moral if it is to do good, but it does not have to promote a particular religion in order to be moral. The US is the only industrialized rich nation in the world that does not have a system in place to provide for and take care of it's people's health care system. To me that speaks volumes of where our priorities have been misplaced.