Democrats Protect Pedophiles But Not Veterans
| Let's Look at the Evidence: Protecting Pedophiles Okay; Protecting Veterans Not Okay! In a Judiciary Committee hearing Democrats voted against excluding pedophiles from protection in the new crime bill bill. In the same hearing Debbie Wasserman Schultz verbally attacked Republicans for trying to add protections for Veterans in the same bill. |
Tags: Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hate Crime Bill, pedophile, veterans To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 5:02 PM - Post Link
6 Comments:
Congratulations! Because of the hateful nature of this article, I just called Senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, and urged them both to vote YES on the Matthew Shepard Act. I was ambivalent about this legislation until I read your ad. Justice WILL prevail over fear and hate.
When did it become hateful to show the actual video footage (government transparency) of Congressional Representatives in action refusing to support an amendment removing Pedophiles as a protected class and rejecting outright that veterans should be also be protected?
You may read the Hate Crimes Bill at the following federal government site: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:3:./temp/~c111BZ5gqh::
The critical changes went to the addition of the words "sexual orientation, gender identity," and the words: "For the purposes of this chapter, the term `gender identity' means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics."
"Sexual orientation" is not defined in the bill. However, a widely accepted legal definition for sexual orientation comes from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM-IV) https://ssl.search.live.com/health/article.aspx?id=articles/wp/pages/d/s/m/DSM-IV_Codes.html&q=Dsm-IV#Sexual_and_gender_identity_disorder . The term "gender identity" is defined as meaning actual or perceived gender related characteristics."
In reviewing this document you will find a list of
Paraphilias
302.4 Exhibitionism
302.81 Fetishism
302.89 Frotteurism
302.2 Pedophilia
302.83 Sexual masochism
302.84 Sexual sadism
302.3 Transvestic fetishism
302.82 Voyeurism
302.9 Paraphilia NOS
------------------
The term pedophilia or paedophilia has a range of definitions as found in psychology, law enforcement, and the vernacular. As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is specified as a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.
The disorder is common among people who commit child sexual abuse; however, some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia.
In strictly behavioral contexts, the word "pedophilia" has been used to refer to child sexual abuse itself, also called "pedophilic behavior.
In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent).
Of all the listed items, protecting pedophiles is absurd and every member of the committee should have concurred in its removal as a protected class of people.
As for veterans, there is documented evidence of people attacking veterans, insulting, assaulting, injuring or killing veterans. Often the attacker is doing so out of anger toward their own government.
So the people that serve their country come home, are abused solely out of hate for their having been a veteran (be they gay, straight, black, white or brown, male or female) and having served and risk their life in the service of the country and the people of the country who sent them into harms way.
A rather warped way of thinking that veterans should not be considered as special group under the Hate Crimes bill but pedophiles, adults who pray on children, should be included.
As for Matthew Shepard what happened to him was a heinous crime worthy of full prosecution under the law. However, using his horrible death to aid in promoting actions to established protected classes of people is not right. Anyone who rapes, aggravated assaults, murders, sexually molests children , kills a child while in the process of actually being born,etc are all evil and are committing heinous crimes. Assessing the motive should not be the issue; determining the facts of the crime and then assessing the proper punishment is the issue. Although most liberals would not agree, I find the death penalty valid in many of the above situations.
It is interesting that it appears that many of the advocates for protected classes, do not see pedophilia as wrong nor do they see that killing a baby in the process* of being born as wrong. Both are truly "hateful" acts against children.
[* For the above comment, the "process of being born" is not addressing the pros or cons of abortion during pregnancy. The term refers the murder of a fully developed child as it is being delivered at the conclusion of a pregnancy, euphemistically called "late term abortion."]
The country is at a major divide....there is no turning back. We are being torn apart and Obama and his leftist ilk are the enemy, every bit as much as Islamic Terrorists.
There is nothing at all in the Matthew Shepard Act that even addresses pedophiles and you darned well know it.
It's not the video footage that's hateful; it's your association of pedophilia with homosexuality that's hateful. It is nothing short of pure fear-mongering by re-introducing an old false stereotype. Ninety-seven percent of pedophiles are heterosexual.
http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31
The reason why "sexual orientation" is not defined in the bill is because it already has a standard definition, and there are only three forms of it: homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality. Every major mainstream mental and medical health organization agrees on this.
So your rather long explanation of what constitutes "pedophilia" serves no useful purpose at all. The American people are tired of all the Republican fear-mongering and can see right through this current nonsense of equating homosexuals with pedophiles.
As to your assertion that veterans should be included under the jurisdiction of this bill: do veterans congregate and live together in communities like the other affected groups? Are there established instances of assaults or murders against them for the purpose of terrorizing these communies? If so, and your statements of violence and murder against veterans are substantiated, then I'm all for including them into the legislation. Just provide me with the evidence, and I'll present it to our legislators and ask them to vote it in.
Hate crime is particularly heinous because the intent of the perpetrator is not just to harm an individual, but to terrorize and entire community. This is what differentiates it from other crimes. For this reason, it is deserving of special legislation.
And the bill does not punish "thought crime." Criminal courts have used the concept of "intent" for years in determining the severity of certain crimes; ergo, first, second, and third degree rape and murder laws. They are basically applying the same concept to a different set of criteria.
And by the way, since a requirement for submission of comments is that they be suitable for children, how do you justify your inclusion of DSM paraphilias?
Points of Clarification on prior comment.
My prior comment addedcomments meant to address "gender identity" not "sexual orientation."
Per http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/text the hate crimes bill further states:
"‘(2) For the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘gender identity’ means actual or perceived gender-related characteristics."
The reference provided in the prior comment was from another sources.
While numerous people both agree and disagree about the bill in question, we are left with the fact that majority of the House of Representatives did us no favors by failing to clearly define both the terms involved and the intent of the bill.
If it is true an many including my self believe that the "sexual orientation" means: homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality then this definition should have been clearly defined and the term "gender identity" removed from the bill.
Also one still must consider if one murders a homosexual is that a "hate" crime. If one murders a heterosexual is that a "hate" crime? And to be inclusive, if one murders a bisexual is that a "hate" crime. In at least two of the three above, we are clearly addressing males and females regardless of orinetation.. In the third, we have yet to have a clear definition of what is meant by a bisexual. If it addresses sexual conduct (thus orientation) or sexual change then it does not merit consideration since sexual conduct is not the issue unless one is assaulting a person of one sex or another.
So what is the purpose of establishing a bill to included sexual orientation as a hate crime? What was the intent of the bill which in testimony gives preference to one class of sexual preference over another.
If homosexuals "physically assaulted" while clearly evidencing a hateful belligerent attitude toward a heterosexual who would not accept their choice of sexual orientation by having stood on a public sidewalk reading Bible verses and saying repent, should the homosexuals be charged for a hate crime or just with assault? The same can be said by reversing the terms homosexual and heterosexual. What if a heterosexual female biker from a gang that doesn't allow homosexual members in their gang then beats a homosexual biker from another gang? Is this gang violence and assault or should it also be a hate crime? Where do all the scenario stop? They don't. They just become a trial lawyer's bonanza and a public citizen nightmare regardless of their sexual orientation -- unless preference is realy being given specifically to one class of sexual orientation over another or to one race over another or to one sex over another.
With respect to the term "pedophilia, " the courts are addressed it under "gender identity issues" using the above referenced document. Pedophlia goes to the issue of an adult's desire to have sex with children. It may be perpetrated by any adult regardless of sexual orientation on a child regardless of their sex. Men having sex with boys would be homosexual pedophilia (and of course child rape) regardless of the "real sexual orientation of the adult male. The same would be said for adult women having relations with female children. When the identified sex (not sexual orientation) of the adult is opposite that of the child then it would be heterosexual pedophilia regardless of the adults normal sexual orientation with other adults.
Organizations like NAMBALA (promoting man-boy relationships) use their free speech to promote the lowering of the age of consent and advocate for homosexuality by adults males with male children. Then there is the sexual abuse by adults with anyone of the opposite sex regardless of their age which does not get labeled as pedophilia If a person does not have a preference for children they are not in the classical definition of pedophilia but their action are no less onerous. The facts show this later situations out numbers clinically defined acts of pedophiles.
Are the above described actions now a hate crime? Is a 30 year old female teacher has sex with a 14 year old (female or male) a hate crime and / or rape? Is a 30 year old male teacher has sex with a 14 year (female or male) old a hate crime and / or rape? Society seems to be confused.
A can of worms has been opened when one tries to create definitions for any hate crime. Because the final purpose is not addressing the abuse, rape, assault, etc.; the end result is trying to define the motives of an individual verses their looking exclusively at the actions.
"Senator@DeMint.senate.gov"
To:. . .
Dear Ms.P ,
Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to federal hate crime legislation. I appreciate hearing from you, and I completely agree.
Current hate crime law already includes stiffer penalties for federal offenses when the attacker is motivated by actual or perceived race, religion, or ethnic background. The text of new hate crime legislation adds sexual orientation, gender, and disability to the list of crimes facing more severe punishment. This would expand the number of felonies classified as hate crimes and allow harsher penalties to be attached.
I believe all violent crimes are hate crimes and that these criminals should be severely punished. However, I also have concerns that a federal hate crimes law would turn almost any crime involving willful, bodily injury into a federal felony. This would potentially remove local and state control over most crimes and make prosecutions more difficult, leading to increased federal intervention in state law enforcement.
While we can all agree that hatred is damaging to society, I do not believe passing another law is the answer. We must enforce existing laws so that all violent criminals know they will pay for their actions.
Thanks again for sharing your concerns with me. Please feel free to contact me in the future about any issue important to you or your family. It is an honor to serve you and the people of South Carolina.
Sincerely,
Jim DeMint
United States Senator
Post a Comment
<< Home