Daily Dolt: Illinois Review

Stupid or lying—who knows at this point.

Now we know what last Friday’s national public school “Day of Silence “ was really all about. It was to get us all prepared for intellectual duct tape over our mouths when it comes to certain topics.

A Congressional vote is expected this week that would eventually silence any and all criticism of sexually-controversial behavior by making the exercise of free speech about the issue a “hate crime”.

A markup vote on the Local Law Enforcement and Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 is expected in the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. The measure (H.R. 1913) is sponsored by Representatives John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Mark Kirk (R-Illinois), and would add 30 sexual orientations (as defined by the American Psychiatric Association) to the list of classes federally- protected from the so-called “hate crimes”.

Criticizing incest, for example, would be a federal crime with the passage of HR 1913. Incest would be added as another federally-protected sexual orientation.

It’s hard to imagine the level of idiocy to write this in relation to this bill.

Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-

(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person–

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if–

`(i) death results from the offense; or

`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(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), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, 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–
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that–

`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim–
`(I) across a State line or national border; or
`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)–
`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

IR’s fundamental problem is that they don’t understand the concept of aggravating circumstance in the law.  No speech is outlawed by this law, motivation as demonstrated potentially through speech can be an aggravating circumstance to an already existing violation of the law.

The utter stupidity of claiming that this law leads to criminalizing speech is so staggering it’s hard to comprehend.

All that said–go IR, go–circle ’em up and keep firing at your best candidate.