Off Topic- Equal Protection Under the law?

[blahblahblah]

This is a necessary piece of a larger puzzle. Once this legislation is in effect, what you will see is that members of the “more equally protected” groups will be placed as pitchmen for new policies (expanded police state powers, more bailouts for the banksters, more wars on 3rd world countries, etc…) When anyone speaks out against these policies, the pitchman will be considered “threatened” and the critics will be silenced.

Everything’s going according to plan…

[Zeitgeist]

“No matter how cynical I get, I just can’t keep up.” – Lily Tomlin

[Zeitgeist]

“No matter how cynical I get, I just can’t keep up.” – Lily Tomlin

[Zeitgeist]

“No matter how cynical I get, I just can’t keep up.” – Lily Tomlin

[Zeitgeist]

“No matter how cynical I get, I just can’t keep up.” – Lily Tomlin

[Zeitgeist]

“No matter how cynical I get, I just can’t keep up.” – Lily Tomlin

[Eugene]

The original federal hate crime statute was passed specifically to address the issue of whites using force or intimidation to keep minorities from voting, attending public facilities (e.g. schools), applying for federal jobs. That was back in 1968. It was not intended to address all interracial crimes regardless of circumstances, or all incidents where one person assaults another because he “hates” that specific person (as the title might imply).

So, technically, Holder is correct.

[Eugene]

The original federal hate crime statute was passed specifically to address the issue of whites using force or intimidation to keep minorities from voting, attending public facilities (e.g. schools), applying for federal jobs. That was back in 1968. It was not intended to address all interracial crimes regardless of circumstances, or all incidents where one person assaults another because he “hates” that specific person (as the title might imply).

So, technically, Holder is correct.

[Eugene]

The original federal hate crime statute was passed specifically to address the issue of whites using force or intimidation to keep minorities from voting, attending public facilities (e.g. schools), applying for federal jobs. That was back in 1968. It was not intended to address all interracial crimes regardless of circumstances, or all incidents where one person assaults another because he “hates” that specific person (as the title might imply).

So, technically, Holder is correct.

[Eugene]

The original federal hate crime statute was passed specifically to address the issue of whites using force or intimidation to keep minorities from voting, attending public facilities (e.g. schools), applying for federal jobs. That was back in 1968. It was not intended to address all interracial crimes regardless of circumstances, or all incidents where one person assaults another because he “hates” that specific person (as the title might imply).

So, technically, Holder is correct.

[Eugene]

The original federal hate crime statute was passed specifically to address the issue of whites using force or intimidation to keep minorities from voting, attending public facilities (e.g. schools), applying for federal jobs. That was back in 1968. It was not intended to address all interracial crimes regardless of circumstances, or all incidents where one person assaults another because he “hates” that specific person (as the title might imply).

So, technically, Holder is correct.

[meadandale]

[quote=Eugene]The original federal hate crime statute was passed specifically to address the issue of whites using force or intimidation to keep minorities from voting, attending public facilities (e.g. schools), applying for federal jobs. That was back in 1968. It was not intended to address all interracial crimes regardless of circumstances, or all incidents where one person assaults another because he “hates” that specific person (as the title might imply).
[/quote]

Holder is seeking to expand current hate crime legislation..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/25/holder.hate.crimes/

[quote]
“Perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the God to whom we pray or the person who we choose to love. …,” he said. “The time is now to provide justice to victims of bias-motivated violence and to redouble our efforts to protect our communities from violence based on bigotry and prejudice.”[/quote]

Apparently, in Holder’s mind, ‘color of our skin’ implies NON WHITE only. He’s obviously a hypocrite and a bigot. That’s the problem.

[meadandale]

[quote=Eugene]The original federal hate crime statute was passed specifically to address the issue of whites using force or intimidation to keep minorities from voting, attending public facilities (e.g. schools), applying for federal jobs. That was back in 1968. It was not intended to address all interracial crimes regardless of circumstances, or all incidents where one person assaults another because he “hates” that specific person (as the title might imply).
[/quote]

Holder is seeking to expand current hate crime legislation..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/25/holder.hate.crimes/

[quote]
“Perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the God to whom we pray or the person who we choose to love. …,” he said. “The time is now to provide justice to victims of bias-motivated violence and to redouble our efforts to protect our communities from violence based on bigotry and prejudice.”[/quote]

Apparently, in Holder’s mind, ‘color of our skin’ implies NON WHITE only. He’s obviously a hypocrite and a bigot. That’s the problem.

[meadandale]

[quote=Eugene]The original federal hate crime statute was passed specifically to address the issue of whites using force or intimidation to keep minorities from voting, attending public facilities (e.g. schools), applying for federal jobs. That was back in 1968. It was not intended to address all interracial crimes regardless of circumstances, or all incidents where one person assaults another because he “hates” that specific person (as the title might imply).
[/quote]

Holder is seeking to expand current hate crime legislation..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/25/holder.hate.crimes/

[quote]
“Perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the God to whom we pray or the person who we choose to love. …,” he said. “The time is now to provide justice to victims of bias-motivated violence and to redouble our efforts to protect our communities from violence based on bigotry and prejudice.”[/quote]

Apparently, in Holder’s mind, ‘color of our skin’ implies NON WHITE only. He’s obviously a hypocrite and a bigot. That’s the problem.

[meadandale]

[quote=Eugene]The original federal hate crime statute was passed specifically to address the issue of whites using force or intimidation to keep minorities from voting, attending public facilities (e.g. schools), applying for federal jobs. That was back in 1968. It was not intended to address all interracial crimes regardless of circumstances, or all incidents where one person assaults another because he “hates” that specific person (as the title might imply).
[/quote]

Holder is seeking to expand current hate crime legislation..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/25/holder.hate.crimes/

[quote]
“Perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the God to whom we pray or the person who we choose to love. …,” he said. “The time is now to provide justice to victims of bias-motivated violence and to redouble our efforts to protect our communities from violence based on bigotry and prejudice.”[/quote]

Apparently, in Holder’s mind, ‘color of our skin’ implies NON WHITE only. He’s obviously a hypocrite and a bigot. That’s the problem.

[Author]

Posts