Liberals Dig Their Claws Into Another Dead Victim

We all know of the hate-crimes bill that Democrats in Congress are trying to get the President to sign. 

What we don’t know is what this means for justice.  When one digs into the guts of it a little, we see that if a crime is committed against someone because of their race or sexual preference, the consequence is then amplified by the suggested measure in the bill.  For example, the murder of Matthew Shephard would have gotten the criminals ten extra years in prison than of criminals who acted out the same crime against a woman (which happens a lot in this country by the way.)

It also means that a rape of a gay man would carry out larger consequences that the rape of a straight woman. 

Also, I am to understand that Christian ministers who cite the Bible on any issue could be grounds for criminal charges as well (particiularly if it denounces homosexuality).  I’d say we have found the true motive here.

Someone can please shed more light on this for me if they’d like.  But this is incredibly ridiculous.  Crime is crime and the best way to deal with criminals and to discourage their behavior is indeed by electing conservatives so that conservative judges are put on the bench.

Sadly an 18-year old committed suicide last week by jumping off of a cruise ship just one year after he was beaten and sodomized.  During the course of the year, the victim was used by Democrats on Capitol Hill to add a personal tragedy to the story to get the President to sign a bill that was ridiculous.  

I don’t suppose that some people – especially youngsters like David - are entitled to the ample amount of privacy needed to get through such a horrible ordeal.  Democrats with agendas didn’t care about David’s healing process and used him as they do with every other victim to browbeat common sense.

Now, they aren’t too interested in letting his family personally grieve.  Just days after his death, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D) was already using his death to promote a preposterous Bill that will; in the end, change nothing but the alteration of free speech of Christian ministers who read and interpret from the book of Leviticus.

The animals responsible for the beating of David Ritcheson are serving sentences currently.  One is serving life and the other is serving 90 years.

Because they shouted “white power” during the attack, Sheila Jackson-Lee wants to pass a bill that would have added ten years onto those sentences?

How ridiculous.  Once again the Democrats are shaming a victim of a horrible crime so that they can prove some useless point.  It just so happens that it would make it a bit more tough to surveil terrorists and for minsters to exercise their rights to free speech.

Talk about a weird coincidence.

If Sheila Jackson-Lee wants real justice for crimes then she should consider converting to the party that actually believes in delivering true justice for victims of crimes.  The party she belongs to is certainly not the one we can rely on to do that.

Comments

6 Comments so far. Leave a comment below.
  1. Shawmut,

    I appreciate your comments on this. But not stated, and equal to the degree of the crime itself, is the burdensome fine-tuning of the prosecution. Prosecutors have one bite at the apple (the double jeopardy factor) and if the parts don’t fit—it’s acquit. (Sound familiar, doesn’t it.) Aggrieved as society should be by a crime against any of our fellow citizens, too many moving parts can fracture the system.
    Another issue that can touch on effective process is the factor of incitement which can be read into a court proceding; especially when the voice is that of a public official. Granted, this can play to either side.
    But people have gone to the gallows based on the echoes of distant demagogues.

  2. All crime is derived from hate, jealousy, envy, greed what have you, and the term *hate crime* just wears at me. why is that crime any worse than any other violent crime? I suppose because it’s a nice thing to do? A nice thing to say? It sounds good? Hmmmm…..

  3. Shawmut,

    But, Jennifer, don’t you see? Every separate hate-crime legislation is another venue of fund-raising. And they don’t even have to deliver.

  4. Exactly Shawmut.

    I tend to think that any animal that would commit such a crime could do it to anybody and eventually will wind up hurting someone regardless of their biases.

  5. You are correct, Shaw. It’s still depressing, however.

  6. Shawmut,

    Steve,
    As I go back over these comments, I want to cite how well you’ve ‘walked the argument back’. As you have portrayed something as a biblical text could be interpreted to be ambiguous. The next liberal step would be to neutralize current ethical practices.
    I see their goal to be one of inuring a public, an ethical dumbing-down, I guess.
    Then, Watch-Out!

Add Your Comments

Disclaimer
Your email is never published nor shared.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tips

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Ready?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 332 other followers