“The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!” – Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1.
“Hate crimes” is a wholly illegitimate classification of crime. It is a bogus legal distinction implemented for political purposes. It is an inherently flawed and biased category of pseudo-law. The implementation of these so-called “hate crime” laws poses a very real danger and threat to our Liberty – in particular our rights of speech and association – as so conspicuously guaranteed under our federal Constitution.
Though the term “hate crime” has been around long enough that everyone should be familiar with it, it might be helpful to start with a formal definition. Google defines a “hate crime” as “a crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds.” Right off the bat this definition makes the thinking person scratch his head and ask why we even need a special category of crime that deals purely with motivation. After all, don’t we already have laws on the books forbidding “violence” for any reason? Doesn’t our justice system already prosecute violent offenders and criminals, regardless of why they choose to abuse, harm, or otherwise violate the rights of another individual?
Does a murder suddenly become worse because it was motivated by “hate” of the victim’s religion, sexual orientation, or what have you? Isn’t taking a life in violence just as heinous and awful even if the murderer wasn’t motivated by hate? Why do those who are killed or abused because of their race, religion, etc., matter more than those who are killed or abused for any other reason? Why have we chosen to create an entirely new category of crime and punishment based on the perpetrator’s motivation? Isn’t doing so an inherently political and, thus, subjective, move?
Let’s be honest with ourselves: “Hate crimes” are actually thought crimes because their entire rationale for existing is based exclusively on the culprit’s inward motivation. While motive must obviously be taken into consideration when reviewing crimes and administering justice, a murder is a murder, an assault is an assault, a rape is a rape, a robbery is a robbery, and a violation of another’s God-given rights is a violation of their God-given rights regardless of the perpetrator’s motive.
Choosing to focus exclusively on the motive behind a violent crime, as if that fundamentally changes its nature, opens the door to the total politicization of the already overly politicized justice system. I thought the goddess of justice wore a blindfold because the law is blind. However, “hate crime” laws remove the blindfold and pave the way for a fully biased court system. Instead of being based on what crimes a perpetrator commits, punishment will now be based on the society’s perceptions and ever-changing definition of what constitutes “hate.” This is not the type of justice system honest people want, especially when we consider how easily-offended, vindictive, and self-centered our culture has become.
In his book Liberty Defined, retired congressman Ron Paul gave us this thought about “hate crime” laws:
“Passing legislation concerning crimes against minorities is supposed to show compassion and prove that our society does not discriminate. In fact, the laws do the opposite. Confidence that such efforts will help protect minorities causes a gross misunderstanding of individual rights. If all individuals should be treated the same under the law, providing greater penalties to those who commit crimes against certain racial or sexual orientation groups nullifies this effort. It means that the law provides lesser penalties to those individuals committing crimes against people without that favored orientation.
“A power given to government to place a greater penalty on someone, assuming they understand the motivation for the crime – always a subjective conclusion – is a consequence of the victims belonging to a certain group. If this can be done, the power is exactly the same power that once was used to excuse violence if it was against a black or gay person. The only solution is to insist that all rights are individual and unrelated to belonging to a particular group.
“The fallacy of this type of legislation has led to the routine misunderstanding of groups having rights rather than all individuals having equal rights. Too often, we hear reference to gay rights, minority rights, and women’s rights, etc., which undermines the concept of individual liberty.
“The idea that a crime can be judged as to whether it was motivated by hate for certain groups introduces the notion of a thought police. If someone is robbed, beaten, or killed, the penalty should be unrelated to what the perpetrator was thinking at the time. It hardly matters. The actions are the actions. Imposing preferential penalties endorses the concept of relative rights, which is of course a very dangerous, slippery slope. It implies that some victims have greater worth than others. The extra and arbitrary enforcement power mocks the principle of equal justice before the law. Why should the penalty for assault be different depending on race, sexual orientation, or membership in a particular group?
“Because some criminals have in the past been punished less harshly due to their victims’ belonging to a particular group is hardly a justification for a criminal to be punished more harshly for the same reason. It’s best we drop the whole concept of hyphenated rights and refer only to individual rights” (Ron Paul, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, 147-148).
Numerous insightful points were made in this statement. First, I draw your attention to the idea of group rights. Groups don’t have rights. There is no such thing as “gay rights,” for instance. We need to immediately cease using terms like “women’s rights,” “black rights,” and the like. They only divide us, pit us against each other, and prevent national unity. Indeed, this phraseology is quintessentially Marxist. It is the very essence of collectivist thought – an exhibition of their need to divide everyone into groups or “classes” in order to more effectively confuse and control them.
Opposing this Old World conception is Americanism. Our Founding Fathers taught, and codified in our national documents, that there are no group rights, but only human rights; rights that extend equally to all individuals. Belonging to a group or holding a particular belief cannot be used as a reason for either punishment or preference. So long as organizations and individuals are not guilty of violating the equal rights of others, and are not subversive of our Constitution and Liberty (such as the Communist Party USA which I believe should be immediately outlawed), they cannot be suppressed, singled out, or punished.
Additionally, Dr. Paul hit upon something very important. Those who promote “hate crime” laws are working from a very specific set of assumptions; namely, that American society has traditionally been repressive, bigoted, and intolerant – especially against non-Christians, those afflicted by homosexuality or disorders like transgenderism, people of color, women, etc. To hold this view of American history is to hold the demonstrably false, Marxist-concocted view. If this gross misunderstanding of history is false, which it is, then the entire impetus for “hate crimes” legislation falls flat.
Contrary to the toxic lies shoved down our throats by the controlled media day in and day out, America is the least racist and least oppressive nation in world history. No other society has been a “melting pot” of nationalities, creeds, and races like we have. You need only travel or live abroad to see how institutionalized and accepted racism is in most other societies.
America is and has been far too tolerant. We’re so absurdly tolerant that we allow harmful perversions and self-inflicted mental illnesses to be paraded about – and even taught to our children – as “healthy” and “normal.” Our tolerance (i.e. permissiveness) is one of the great dangers to American society today. Yet, “hate crime” law proponents would have you believe that America is tormented by hate-filled hordes (i.e. whites, Christians, and constitutionalists) exercising intolerance, repression, and hate in violent or discriminatory ways wherever you look. It’s simply not true.
As touched upon, “hate crime” laws actually emphasize and exacerbate societal differences, fanning the minuscule embers of genuine tension into an artificial blaze of hate and resentment. Ironically, it is those of a leftist, anti-Christian, pro-LGBT, pro-racial minority political/religious/cultural persuasion – those who always boast of how “tolerate,” “loving,” “egalitarian,” and “progressive” they are – who are most likely to spew out and act upon hate.
This, the most hateful segments of our society, is that most likely to foist its perceptions upon the rest of us via unjust “hate crime” and “hate speech” laws. They have perverted the law and use it as a means to silence their opposition. They want to, whether consciously or unconsciously, criminalize dissent to their point of view. Their unstable mentality prevents them from tolerating opposition – especially when it is coherent, articulate, and sourced. Instead, they plug their ears, lash out, and attempt to silence those who would disturb them in their cozy cocoon of lies with facts, data, and truth.
Among other things, the communists want us to believe in the myth of “white privilege.” Yet, I – a straight, white, gun-toting, Christian, constitutionalist man – have been on the receiving end of hate, discrimination, and threats too many times to allow myself to swallow that lie. For instance, I’ve been banned from Facebook too many times for alleged “hate speech” to be ignorant of the fact that the term “hate speech” in reality refers to anyone speaking truth or sharing a facts that conflict with the Establishment’s narrative on everything from history to current events to religion. To be accused of being “politically incorrect” simply means that you have decided to not go along, like sheep to the slaughter, with the Marxist Establishment’s party line.
The fruit of the “hate crimes” mentality is, inevitably, hate. By unduly emphasizing race and other factors as alleged motivations for crime, the authorities have stoked the flames of resentment, revenge, and hate, whether race-based or otherwise. Promoting the idea that there is an increase in crimes that are motivated by racism, homophobia, and the like, creates hostility and contempt – even hate – in the minds of those gullible enough to fall for the propaganda against those said to be perpetrating the crimes. The hate extends to the groups that the alleged perpetrators belong to – whites, Christians, etc.
“Hate crime” designations are so dangerous precisely because they create false perceptions in the public mind that stir up unnecessary and artificial strife. They emphasize divisions and differences and drive an emotional wedge between groups, whether between blacks and whites, those afflicted by homosexuality and normal heterosexuals, and so forth. It’s no wonder that “hate crime” legislation factors prominently in the Elite’s divide-and-conquer strategy.
An inconvenient fact many people don’t know is that the number of hate crime hoaxes outnumbers the number of actual hate crimes! And most of these ridiculous hoaxes are perpetrated by minorities in an attempt to frame whites. So ubiquitous are “hate crime” hoaxes that a website has been set up to document them (http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/).
We all know the obvious hate crime stunt pulled by Jussie Smollett earlier this year. Smollett, a black actor, went to the police to report an alleged assault by some white men. He walked into the police station still wearing the noose that had allegedly been put around his neck to lynch him with. The only problem is that Smollett is a liar. He hired two black Nigerians, who have confessed their involvement, to perpetrate the hoax. Because of the racially-motivated Marxist “justice” system in Chicago, Smollett never faced the trial that he rightly deserved.
A great article from RealClearPolitics titled “The Hate Crimes of Jussie Smollett” contains a great overview of Smollett’s hoax:
“The cops concluded this “attack” was also a sham — one orchestrated, staged, and financed by Smollett, who managed to convince two hapless Nigerian-American brothers to play the heavies. Police soon found a link between Smollett and the brothers, Ola and Abel Osundairo, who were caught on camera buying the rope and ski masks used that night. Confronted with this evidence, the brothers confessed and said it was all Smollett’s idea, and that he had paid them $3,500 to carry it out. . . .
“In the real world, it must have taken some effort by the street-wise detectives who took Smollett’s original statement to keep a straight face. How is it, they surely wondered, that two racist, homophobic Trump supporters happened to be wandering around a toney Chicago neighborhood at 2 a.m. — in zero-degree weather — rope and Clorox at the ready, waiting in ambush for a B-list actor from a black soap opera? Why did Smollett wait 40 minutes to call it in? How did he manage to hold onto – and keep intact — the sub sandwich he was carrying with him? And what’s with the “This is MAGA country!” battle cry – in Hillary Clinton’s hometown, a city she carried overwhelmingly in 2016 against Donald Trump?
“Ah, but I have corroborating evidence, Smollett told the cops: I was on the mobile phone with my manager when I was attacked and he heard the whole thing. Great, said the detectives. Can we have the phone? Not gonna happen, replied the alleged victim. When Smollett finally consented to provide a pdf file of his call logs, he’d tampered with them, presumably to delete the calls to his accomplices. The most obvious tell was that when police arrived at his door, Smollett was still wearing the rope he claimed the attackers wrapped around his neck. Jussie Smollett was still in costume, in other words, wearing the prop he thought made his self-created character — a hate crime victim — more believable to the audience. . . .
“Although it’s a story line that only the conservative media seem to be following, it turns out that racial hoaxes are disturbingly commonplace in this country. Worse, the mainstream media often stokes them, or in some cases, takes the lead in pushing them. Their very frequency suggests a couple of disquieting deductions: First, in our victimhood culture the demand for such outrages may now exceed the supply. Second, it turned out that Jussie Smollett may have understood the political zeitgeist far better than those outraged by his scam.
“This became clear Monday when the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office dropped all charges against Smollett without bothering to offer any explanation to the court and then joined his defense lawyers in offering a series of deceitful, contradictory, and specious explanations to reporters. Adding to the perception that the fix was in, the prosecutor then stood mute as a judge acquiesced to a defense motion to seal the entire matter.”
Jussie Smollett and the socialist media are the real perpetrators of hate and “hate crimes” in the United States of America. And those who promote this garbage, support the lying media outlets, and subscribe to this perverse ideology, are accessories to the crimes. I won’t stand by silently as normal Americans – who, if guilty of anything, are guilty of too much tolerance – are falsely accused, smeared, and ramrodded for “hate crimes” they didn’t commit against minorities who have taken leave of their senses. I won’t stand by mute as whites are accused of racism despite the fact that it was whites who ended institutionalized slavery throughout the colored world that had practiced it for millennia before erring Europeans got involved. And I won’t stand silently by as my fellow Christians endure demonic verbal abuse from those “tolerant” liberals and Social Justice Marxists who accuse us of hate simply because we have the sense to obey and follow God’s laws.
Think of what Smollett and others have done by perpetrating their plethora of “hate crime” hoaxes. They’ve increased hatred between whites and blacks, increased mistrust of the justice system, and emboldened others inclined to lie about being victims of “hate crimes,” to name only three. If we lived in a world of true justice, Smollett and his Nigerian patsies – and all other perpetrators of these hoaxes – would be sitting behind bars and every American would know them as the traitors they are.
The percentage of Jews and blacks who have been caught spray-painting swastikas on walls to scapegoat whites and conservatives is truly astounding. So typical is it that you often see memes floating around depicting a rabbi furtively defacing his own synagogue in the black of night. Many of you might recall an incident that happened at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs in 2017. At that time, a number of black cadets reported racist slurs appearing near their dormitory. The alleged act of racism drew forth a fierce speech from Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria denouncing racism. As it turns out, the “targets” of the crime were not really the victims they were made out to be. One of the “targets,” a black cadet, was caught and later admitted to being the one behind the “racist” slurs.
This sort of thing happens over and over from coast to coast. The hoaxes are a dime a dozen. Yet, because the media is controlled by Marxists who want to demonize white America as racist, they pick up and run with these stories regardless of the damage they may cause to race relations, unity, and brotherhood in our country.
Retired police officer Doug Traubel, in his phenomenal book Red Badge, discussed the absurdity of suggesting that white America is racist and violent against black America. The statistics and raw data actually confirm the exact opposite; namely, that black-on-white crime is exponentially higher than white-on-black crime. And this is very telling considering that only 13% of the population is black. But crime statistics are a discussion for another day. The key thing to focus on now is the way the powers-that-be hijack our language and promote the myth that white, Christian, conservative America is “oppressive” and “hateful.” The bogeyman of “racism,” if you didn’t know, is yet another Marxist creation. Traubel explained:
“The black-on-white crime wave in the U.S. is not a reaction to real injustices blacks are suffering at the hands of the white majority. Furthermore, social justice is not tied to righteousness, but a revolution and opportunism. The terrorist change, “No Justice, No Peace!” is born of fiction not virtue. Offender-victim demographics over fifty years prove the Dirty War is the reality. White Americans have long suffered from black predatory tribalism. Nevertheless, speaking truth on race and crime necessarily brands one a racist.
“Recognize the label for what it is. Do not run from it; that is what the Marxists want. Push through it. The patented use of the words “racist” and “racism” are a Marxist construct. These words did not exist in the English language prior to the 1930s. They are the product of the Frankfurt School.
“The creation of the words racist and racism in essence replaced the words “kind” and “kindred” with a negative connotation. They are applied selectively to whites for the intended purpose of pushing tradition back on its heels. Labeling whites “racists” intimidates them into silence from promoting order and defending standards, expectations and tradition. Ultimately, this created the moral relativism and identity vacuum we see today” (Doug Traubel, Red Badge: A Veteran Peace Officer’s Commentary on the Marxist Subversion of American Law Enforcement and Culture, 336-337).
This selectivity – based on political motives – is the danger inherent in all “hate crime” laws. When you have laws on the books that punish people based on the thoughts, motivations, or ideology behind their actions, which is all “hate crime” laws do, it empowers whatever faction is in charge of the justice system, or whatever group can most effectively manipulate public opinion, to define what is “hate” and what is not. Nowhere is this more noticeable than in the Establishment’s incessant use of the slurs “anti-Semite,” “Nazi,” and “white supremacist.”
The anti-white racist radicals and de facto domestic terrorists at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are leading the charge in promoting the false legal category of “hate crimes.” With decades of mass public conditioning on their side – conditioning that paints whites and constitutionalists as “Nazis” – the Jewish ADL are beating us over the heads with hysterical cries of “anti-Semitism!” Few things irk me more than to hear people falsely accused of being “anti-Semites,” “Nazis,” and “white supremacists.” I’ve been on the receiving end of these ludicrous slurs more times than I can count.
In my book A Century of Red, I wrote the following about alleged “anti-Semitism”:
“It is a sad commentary on the stunted intellectual capacities of our society that I have to waste space telling folks I am not an anti-Semite. Yet, it is necessary because the slur “anti-Semite” is hurled at anyone who opposes the Establishment and brings to light their heinous crimes, their treason, and their Satanic plots. Because of mass social conditioning, the average person rejects anyone or anything that bears the “anti-Semite” label, no matter how preposterous and unfounded that label is.
“The term “anti-Semite” has been so grossly overused that it has lost all meaning. The same goes for slurs like “Nazi” and “white nationalist” (though I fail to see what’s wrong with being white or being a nationalist). These days, if you dare question anything the powers-that-be do, you’re automatically an “anti-Semite” who probably has a gas chamber in his basement just ready to throw the poor Jews into. The use of this ridiculous slur has become so habitual that even Semites have been charged with “anti-Semitism”!
“I will be so bold as to say that if you have not been smeared or had your character assassinated, you probably haven’t been effective in the fight against Satan’s despotism. Communists and their ilk have always used character assassination to discredit their opposition. Ezra Taft Benson explained this principle in these words:
““The smear seems to be the most widely used and effective tool of the Conspiracy to discredit and weaken any effective anti-communist effort. The smear of any individual or organization by the Communists, their dupes and fellow-travelers is certain evidence of effectiveness. If any of you are affiliated with patriotic organizations reportedly opposed to the Communist Conspiracy, which are not extensively smeared, you can rest assured your opposition is largely ineffective. You had best look for a more fruitful affiliation.”
“By the same token, when you are called “ant-Semitic” these days – fear not, you are in good company. Indeed, you are likely in the company of those who have struck a nerve with the conspiracy and who have hit them in their exposed underbelly and, thus, are nearest to the truth.
“As when Lenin declared so-called anti-Semitism “counter revolutionary” and made it a capital offense, so, too, the tyrants of our day call the opposition of their iron rule “anti-Semites” and bring their forces to bear to assassinate the character of true patriots. Don’t be intimidated by these despots – that’s exactly what they’re counting on.”
The last part is key. To the communists, anything that was “counter revolutionary” – that is, anti-communist – was labeled “anti-Semitism.” It is no different today in our country. Anyone who bucks the Establishment, disobeys the party line, or speaks out against the conspiracy, is automatically an “anti-Semite,” “Nazi,” or “fascist.” Because we’ve been fed a totally warped view of WWII history, the words “Nazi” and “anti-Semite” sting like the crack of a whip. It is the fear of this proverbial whip that is designed to cow us into submission and self-censorship. Ultimately, that is the purpose of “hate crime” laws – to create an environment of fear of speaking out against the truly hateful agenda of Marxism.
We’re hyper-sensitive in an appalling way to the misapplied use of the terms just noted. Our brainwashing and conditioning has ensured this. Academia, Hollywood, the media, and public school teachers are guilty of presenting such a bastardized version of history that if anyone, for instance, has the audacity to cite the mountain of research that demonstrates nowhere close to six million Jews died in the “Holocaust,” you are hysterically singled out as a “Nazi” and “anti-Semite” and accused of “hate speech.” Numerous individuals currently sit in prison in North America and Europe for doing nothing other than questioning the Establishment’s official version of events; that is, for having unsanctioned thoughts that are considered “hate crimes.”
It’s curious that the historians, curators, and archivists who work at the Auschwitz labor camp can officially lower the presumed death toll by three million and yet the mainstream media throughout the world demands you still rigidly believe that six minus three equal six! Getting away with these monstrous lies would be utterly impossible were it not for our culture of fear which ostracizing you if the Establishment brands you a “Nazi.”
So horribly misused are the slurs “Nazi” and “anti-Semite” that I not only reaffirm what I wrote two years ago about being in good company when you’re singled out as a one, but I emphasize it more firmly: Being called “Nazi” and “anti-Semite” is a badge of honor these days. There is no true enemy of the global conspiracy that has not been derogatorily labeled a “Nazi.” And you can rest assured that those who have escaped this label are not really effective in their fight.
The fact that the Establishment loves to name-call is yet another reason why all “hate crime” legislation should be promptly repealed. How can one expect to receive a fair trail when the Establishment press brands him a “Nazi,” “anti-Semite,” “racist,” “homophobe,” or “transphobe”? In our conditioned society, someone who bears the “Nazi” or “racist” label – regardless of whether it is true or false – is automatically considered guilty of hate. Having the stigma “Nazi” or “racist” or “homophobe” attached to you almost ensures a conviction in a court prosecuting you for “hate crimes” because, again, “hate crime” laws deal exclusively with motive. If you’re a “Nazi,” of at least if the controlled press can make it appear you are, then it is assumed your underlying motivation is hate and intolerance regardless of whether there is even one scrap of evidence to prove it. Truly, “hate crime” laws are a slippery slope!
It should perhaps go without saying that I don’t consider “hate crime” laws constitutional and just, regardless of what the Supreme Court thinks. I’m not the only one who holds this view, however. The Heritage Foundation said that Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 “is based on serious analytical and constitutional flaws and would actually be counterproductive to prosecuting violent crime. They additionally noted:
“This amorphous standard would federalize almost all incidents of violent crime, even those that have nothing to do with bias, prejudice, or animus toward the victim because of his or her membership in a particular group. Virtually every sexual assault, for example, is committed “because of” the gender of the victim, the gender of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator’s gender preferences. Many criminals target women or those with real or perceived disabilities, believing that such victims may offer less resistance. It is even possible that a defendant could be deemed a “hate crimes” offender if he engaged in the violent conduct “because of” his own religion, gender, or national origin in some way. Thus an enormous proportion of local violent crime would become federal “hate crimes.””
I further extract two paragraphs from George Will’s article “The federal hate crime law is both unconstitutional and wise.” He explained:
“Hate crimes (usually vandalism, e.g., graffiti, or intimidation, e.g., verbal abuse) are a tiny fraction of 1 percent of all reported crimes. Almost all states have such laws, and a federal law duplicating them merely serves two disreputable purposes. It allows Congress to express theatrical indignation about hate. And it exposes to double jeopardy, under a federal law, defendants who are acquitted in politically charged state trials, especially ones involving race or religion.
“Even though states, unlike the federal government, have police powers, states’ hate crime laws also are problematic on policy grounds. They mandate enhanced punishments for crimes committed as a result of, or at least when accompanied by, particular states of mind that the government disapproves. The law holds us responsible for controlling our minds, which should control our conduct. The law always has had, and should have, the expressive function of stigmatizing particular kinds of conduct. But hate crime laws treat certain actions as especially reprehensible because the people committing them had odious (although not illegal) frames of mind. Such laws burden juries with the task of detecting an expanding number of impermissible motives for acts already criminalized. And juries must distinguish causation (a particular frame of mind causing an act) from correlation (the person who committed the act happened to have this or that mentality). So, even if the HCPA were not unconstitutional, it would be unwise.”
Theatrical indignation is a great description. “Hate crimes” are political theater. They rarely happen and when they do – or even when they don’t really, such as in the case of Jussie Smollett – the media seizes the opportunity to put them on the front page to promote the myth of angry, hateful America. The courts, the government, the media – they all combine to promote their delusions as “reality.” Don’t fall for it.
What’s more, there is no evidence that “hate crime” laws actually reduce crime or prevent alleged “hate crimes.” In the article “Cops Have No Idea If Hate Crime Laws Stop Hate Crimes,” Robby Soave gives us this great insight and some food for thought:
“The event—“In the Name of Hate: Examining the Federal Government’s Role in Responding to Hate Crimes”—began with Lhamon’s introductory remarks. Then she yielded the floor to Heriot, who took a few minutes to explain why she was dissenting from the day’s proceedings.
““Let me say that I am not really a fan of most hate crime laws, which I believe have a tendency to fuel identity politics at a time when the nation needs to come together,” said Heriot. “In particular I oppose the federal hate crime statute passed in 2009.”
“The 2009 law added gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability status to the list of protected classes, and it established that a person no longer needed to be involved in a federally relevant activity (like voting) in order to be deemed a victim of a federal hate crime. This was a vast expansion of the federal government’s ability to prosecute people for hate crimes, and it poses significant “double jeopardy” concerns, because it gives federal officials the opportunity to re-try defendants who survived state-based prosecutions. . . .
“. . . In my remarks, I urged public officials and the media to avoid blurring the distinction between hate crime—leveling additional penalties against people whose criminal actions impugned a special class—and hate speech, which is protected expression under the First Amendment. I also stressed that while we hear many pundits asserting that hate crimes are on the rise, this fact is not clearly supported by the available data. The hate crime rate has remained essentially unchanged over the last decade; moreover, the purported “Trump effect” in American schools is difficult to parse and possibly overstated. (Consider, for instance, the number of unsolved or outright hoax bias incidents on college campuses.) . . .
“While the other panelists seemed more enthusiastic about involving federal authorities in hate crimes prevention, they provided ample reason to doubt everything we think we know about the prevalence of hate crimes. Several panelists conceded that 88 percent of the police departments that bothered to submit hate crime information to the feds in 2016 reported zero hate crimes. Four municipalities that include more than 250,000 people apiece didn’t report any information whatsoever. Baltimore County—population: 831,000—reported just one hate crime.
“Some of the panelists conceded that they are often dealing with very low numbers, and with degrees of subjectivity. . . .
“Probably the best argument against strengthening federal hate crime prevention efforts was articulated by Commissioner Kirsanow, who asked just two questions during my panel. He directed his questions to all of us, and invited anyone who possessed the information to answer.
““Are you aware of any data, studies, or other evidence, that shows designating a crime a hate crime deters, prevents, or reduces that crime, and second, whether designating a crime a federal hate crime reduces, deters, or prevents incidents of that crime?” he asked.
“Neither I nor any of the other panelists were aware of such information, and so the panel fell silent.
“Kirsanow continued. “Then, one other question: are you aware of any databases, study, or other evidence that shows designating a crime a hate crime, whether a municipal, federal, or state crime, assists in the resolution of that crime or the apprehension of the perpetrator?” he asked.
““Thank you, Madame Chair,” he said, yielding the floor.”
As you can see, not only is “hate crime” a dubious legal category, but there is zero evidence that this type of politically-motivated legislation works. What’s more, Soave confirmed what I have already stated and quoted; namely, that the number of “hate crime” hoaxes is extremely large. From Smollett to the Air Force Academy, with hundreds of examples in between, “hate crimes” are clearly not a problem in the United States of America. Certainly white-on-minority “hate crimes” are very low indeed.
It is a travesty that both the domestic and international press – both of which are controlled by the same evil entities – have portrayed America s a racist, violent, hate-filled powder keg. To anyone reading this from overseas, trust me when I tell you that that image of America is utterly false. Apart from the black and Latino gang-ridden neighborhoods in the inner cities, America is an exceptionally safe place. Demonizing America, however, is part and parcel of the Elite agenda. We are, despite all our flaws, the “main enemy” of the worldwide communist conspiracy.
Ladies and gentlemen, all we are doing by tolerating “hate crime” legislation is allowing the Elite to erect Soviet-style kangaroo courts that will one day ramp up their persecution of everyday Americans who exercise their right to speak out against corruption, moral decadence, and treason. People like me will be increasingly hauled before these courts to answer for “hate speech” and any “hate crimes” that can be trumped up. These show trials will be used as further “evidence” of how “hateful” white, Christian America is and how we need to adopt a new way – the socialist-communist way of “tolerance.”
I pray that we will stand on our feet and not allow the intolerant, hate-filled leftists to silence us. Never self-censor for any reason, and especially not to appease the government or the mindless mob. Dare to be politically incorrect. Political incorrectness is where you’ll discover the truth. Don’t be afraid of labels like “racist,” “homophobe,” and “Nazi.” They’re meaningless. Wear them as a badge of honor and know that you’re hitting a nerve that the Establishment doesn’t want you to hit. Be real men and women who care more about their Faith, Families, and Freedom than about what the mainstream media, Hollywood, your neighbors, your teachers, the government, or anyone else says.
“Hate crime” laws are the real hate crimes. They represent a total departure from the tried-and-true methods of justice practiced by our forefathers. They represent the infiltration of traitors into the legal apparatus and government. Their existence evinces the reality of the mass conditioning of our People. If you are fortunate and discerning enough to have woken up, it’s time to do your utmost to wake up others. It’s not a time to be delicate; it’s a time to use every last breath in your lungs to trumpet the truth. And the truth, as far as our present subject goes, is that “hate crimes” are a travesty of justice, a slippery slope towards persecution, a departure from healthy law and order, and a device employed by our enemies to divide our People, suppress dissent, and stir up hate. Have the courage to reject this monstrous system of tyranny and those who are trying to herd you into a GULAG of the mind.
October 28, 2019
I never really thought of it in that aspect, but looking at it in that way I can definitely see your view point as being valid.
Pingback: Things They Don’t Allow You To Say | The American Citadel