The Hate Crime Bill - Barack Obama's Assault Upon "Equal Justice for All"
While America's attention is focused on the Sotomayor hearings, the Senate Democrat leadership, at Barack Obama's behest, is about to sneak through another brutal assault on small-d democratic sensibilities even more insidious than the "wise Latino woman," herself. The highly charged "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009" (S. 909) would make it a federal crime to violently attack anyone you hate. Unless, of course, the anyone you hate happens to be a white heterosexual.
That's right, S. 909 -- aka, the "hate crimes bill" -- being pushed through by the Obama Administration as one of its highest legislative priorities would make it a federal crime to commit a violent act against anyone based on race or gender orientation -- unless the race was Caucasian and the orientation was towards the opposite sex.
Lest anyone have any doubts about Mr. Obama’s primary intention to target those who don’t share his pigmentation or gender orientation biases, the President’s own Attorney General journeyed to Capitol Hill on June 29 to set the record straight. Here, in fact, word for word, is how AG Eric Holder described the intent of the Obama hate crimes bill when put to the test by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“We are talking about, if in fact the person, we are talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of their skin color, sexual orientation, that is what this legislation is designed to cover.”
Later in the same hearing, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) -- apparently trying to give Holder an opportunity to at least ameliorate his stated intention to override the 14th Amendment’s “Equal Protection” provision – asked the AG if the recent murder of Army recruiter Pvt. William Long by a radical Muslim constituted a “hate crime.” Nope, proclaimed Holder; Mr. Long was the wrong color. Here’s the actual quote:
“What we are looking for here in terms of expansion of the statute are instances where there is a historic basis. See, groups of people who are singled out for violence perpetrated against them because of who they are. I don’t know if we have the same historical record to say members of our military have been targeted in the same way that people who are African American …”
So, let’s get this straight: If Messrs. Obama and Holder have their way, the United States government – once fondly known as the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” -- will begin prosecuting some of “the people” and protecting others among “the people” solely based upon said people’s skin color and sexual orientation?
Precisely. For you see, under S. 909, certain members of our society, primarily determined by the color of their skin and the lusts in their hearts, are what Obama and Holder call “protected classes.” So, under legislation now before the U.S. Senate, if you cut them, they apparently bleed more … if you hit them, they apparently bruise worse … and if you do either of the aforementioned after calling them a nasty name … well, it’s off to the federal penitentiary for you. Which isn’t precisely what the words “Equal Justice Under Law” were intended to mean when engraved upon the façade of the United States Supreme Court Building in 1932.
Let’s get down to the brass tacks here: If the American people – of all pigmentations and orientations – do not rise up as with a voice in the next several days and scream bloody murder about the horrific hate crimes bill (S. 909), we will have just handed Barack Obama and Eric Holder the deadly weapon with which to bludgeon any and all who dare defy their bigoted ideas about who is more equal than others among us. There is simply no other way to put it.
The bill has already been brought to the floor of the Senate. So, if we are not soon to cease being what John Adams termed a “nation of laws” – and descend, rather, into becoming a “nation of – some – men,” all men and women of good will had better speak up now, or forever lose their peace.
PBS whitewashes American Indian thuggery
A group calling themselves The Wounded Knee Victims and Veterans Association (WKVAVA) has issued a scathing letter to Paula Kerger, president and CEO of PBS. The letter, faxed to PBS headquarters on May 10, accuses the organization of fronting what the group says is a distorted film on Indian history, the last in the American Experience "We Shall Remain" series. The film, entitled "Wounded Knee," describes the occupation of the historic village in 1973 by members and supporters of the American Indian Movement (AIM). Wounded Knee, the site of an Indian massacre in 1890, sits near the southern border of the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota. The FBI and the U.S. Marshal Service erected roadblocks around the small town after AIM members looted a store, set fires, and shot at responding emergency crews. The militants held 11 residents hostage. The occupation lasted 71 days as government lawyers tried to negotiate a peaceful end to the hostilities. Two occupiers were shot to death, although rumors persist that several victims were murdered behind the scenes during heated arguments and interrogations ordered by AIM leaders. The conflict left the village in shambles.
The group charges PBS with failure to hold "Wounded Knee" to PBS standards for editorial integrity, fairness, and historical accuracy. Many of the association's complaints center on the film's lack of information about the Wounded Knee villagers. "The real victims of Wounded Knee were the people who lived there," said Joe Trimbach, author of the book, American Indian Mafia (americanindianmafia.com). "Most of the residents were Indians. They lost everything they owned and yet they are invisible in this film. It doesn't even show the devastation." Upon learning that PBS had omitted his book from their bibliography, Trimbach contacted their legal department. PBS has since added Trimbach's book to the list. "We call Mafia, 'The history book they do not want you to read.' Well, here's a good example. We try to tell the truth about what happened and some people don't want to hear it."
JoAnn Gildersleeve Feraca, daughter of Wounded Knee residents Clive and Agnes Gildersleeve, recalled what it was like to watch the steady demolition of her community while the media appeared oblivious to the destruction. "The reporters did one of the worst disservices to real news gathering that I have ever seen. The media wanted to film a western. They created the good guys and the bad guys, and never even had to pay for ruined property and lives. And now we have a film from PBS that pays homage to the perpetrators all over again. My parents suffered greatly at the hands of their assailants. They were taken hostage. Their trading post store was burned to the ground. They even stole my mother's wedding ring and gold bracelet. My parents lost everything they had spent a lifetime building."
Among the signers of the letter are Saunie and Romona Wilson, daughters of Tribal Chairman Richard Wilson who is criticized throughout the film. The sisters plan on writing a book which they say will tell a different story about their father and about Wounded Knee. "I am upset how this film exploits historical issues painful to all of us as natives, like the boarding school era," said Romona Wilson. "My father was whipped and forced to chew soap for speaking Lakota in school. He was fluent and would speak it when he chose to. This film demonizes him by distorting his record and misreporting the facts. We intend to change that."
Paul DeMain, editor of News from Indian Country (IndianCountryNews.com), said that parts of the film "take us to a well-charted fantasyland" because it fails to hold AIM accountable. "AIM leaders Dennis Banks, Russell Means, and Madonna Thunderhawk [all featured in the film] are named co-conspirators in several murders, like that of civil rights worker Perry Ray Robinson." Robinson, a colleague of Martin Luther King, was said to be the only black man inside the village during that period of the occupation. AIM is believed to have buried his body near Wounded Knee Creek in an effort to keep his death a secret. Added DeMain, "These same AIM leaders were involved in the execution of Annie Mae Pictou Aquash. They killed her because she evidently knew about Robinson's death. Several people tried to warn producer Stanley Nelson and PBS about this. They chose to ignore us." The group has called for justice for Robinson and for Pictou Aquash who was murdered in 1975 because AIM leaders mistakenly thought she was a government informant. Pictou Aquash was a prominent figure at Wounded Knee but does not appear in the film.
Richard Two Elk, a former AIM member, was not interviewed for the film partly because of his first-hand account of the Robinson shooting. "I witnessed the incident when Robinson was shot in the leg and carried away after an argument with some of the leaders. Carter Camp knows that Robinson died after bleeding to death and he has lied about even meeting him." Camp, an AIM leader who appears in the film, defends his actions as an instigator of several gun battles during the occupation. Two Elk laments that PBS now appears to be a part of the effort to cover up the Robinson murder in order to "glorify" AIM leaders. "AIM hijacked the legacy of Wounded Knee and exploited it for their own gain. They cashed in and left their fellow Indians behind, homeless and destitute. That should have been part of the story. Now it appears that PBS has helped them get away with it. Another fact not mentioned in the film is that most of the invaders were from outside the reservation. They were not local people with local grievances."
Shawn White Wolf, CEO of White Wolf Media Group (native-view.com), judged the film to be little more than vintage AIM propaganda. "I am disgusted with this film. Producer Nelson has done nothing more than propagandize in favor of the murders, terror and violence committed by members of the American Indian Movement. This film only adds more salt to the wounds of the true Wounded Knee victims. And I ask the public schools to stop teaching our Native youth that AIM is a legitimate organization."
The group is asking PBS to make amends for shortcomings in the film. "We want equal time to dispel the myths and correct the damage done to the historical record by this documentary," said Trimbach. "We cannot let PBS or any other entity dismiss the hardships and horrors endured by the villagers and the victims. PBS owes it to the American public to get it right. In the interest of historical accuracy and fairness, they should take another look at this." Patrick LeBeau, professor of Indian Studies, Michigan State University, added that the PBS-endorsed curriculum reflects the film's distortions. "I will not brainwash my students with the AIM litany of lies promoted by these leading questions. I will teach my students how to distinguish between factual history and propaganda. And I'll use the PBS study questions as a prime example."
Ray Robinson's widow, Cheryl Buswell-Robinson, wrote a letter that accompanies the group letter to PBS. In it, she wrote, "Ray was able to connect with all sorts of people more than anyone I have ever known....I am saddened to learn that the whole history of Wounded Knee, where my murdered husband rests in an unmarked grave, was suppressed." She added that Anna Mae Pictou Aquash was an important figure at Wounded Knee. "It would have been a positive addition to the historical record to finally document other aspects of Anna Mae's life, particularly her role during the occupation of Wounded Knee. Anyone's death is a tragedy, but not to have the death acknowledged is a double tragedy."
The group plans to launch a media campaign to voice their concerns and to persuade PBS to either change or challenge the Wounded Knee film. They want PBS to have a panel discussion about how to accurately portray Indian history. Members of the Wounded Knee Victims and Veterans Association can be reached at WKVAVA@cs.com. They would like to hear from people who were inside Wounded Knee during the occupation or who would like to share information. They assure confidentiality to all those who ask for it.
Should kids be criticized?
Children tend to be cosseted much more than they once were and that does extend to sport. So some old-fashioned sports motivation directed towards a team of young Australian footballers has been much criticized -- but it worked! The team are now top dogs in their division
A FOOTY team of nine-year-olds has been branded greedy and hopeless in a scathing match report by its club. The blast was posted on the club's website after the Preston Bullants under-10s lost by just two points. The report upset many parents, while footy greats including former AFL premiership coach Ron Barassi said the comments were shocking at junior level, the Herald Sun reports. "I've followed my own son and grandson in football at those levels and I've never seen or heard anything like that," Barassi said. "That's very, very wrong. I wouldn't be doing that to under-10s." The four-time AFL premiership coach said football coaches and managers at junior levels should encourage young players and use constructive criticism.
In the Bullants blast written by coach Tim Rentos and team manager Edward Hore, the boys were roasted for what is meant to be a fun game. "Our skill level was hopeless ... we were greedy in the forward line," parents and club members were told. Bullants president Dennis McNiece last night distanced the club from the comments, saying the report was "not what Preston Bullants Junior Football Club is about". But the tactics appear to have worked, with the team undefeated since the spray, which came after a round 6 loss to Doncaster.
In their report, Mr Rentos and Mr Hore wrote: "A day of unfortunate mishaps. It all began at 9am with miscommunication and disorganisation ... a coach that wasn't organised to win the game, a manager stressed to the eyeballs and a team that depends on a certain few players to win the game week in, week out. "Our skill level was hopeless. There wasn't any kicking or handballing going to our players, our tackling, bumping and shepherding wasn't in the game."
Former VFA coach Phil Cleary, who now coaches West Coburg under-16s, said the "carping" attack was "awful" and unnecessary. "It's too negative," he said. "At under-10 I can't understand why you would want to send out a carping, negative document. It doesn't blend criticism with praise."
Adolescent psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg said as long as individuals weren't singled out the tactic appeared warranted and would help the boys deal with the real world, something too many parents were not doing. "Basically it was tantamount to a psychological grenade and it lifted everybody," he said. "I do think we shelter our kids a lot. I think that this is a good, gentle introduction into the reality of this world."
Family psychologist Renee Mill said such methods were a great way for boys as young as four to bond and be motivated. She said too many parents were afraid to demand improvement from their children, and expected boys to suppress their urge "to be boys". "There needs to be a place where men can just be raw men," she said. "We have to step back as mothers and say fathers are actually the role models for our boys to be male."
Mr Hore admitted yesterday some parents were initially upset but the boys took it on the chin and lifted their game. Mr Hore, whose son Terance plays in the team, said no child was singled out and the players were deemed mature enough to take the criticism. Since the spray his team had knuckled right down. "They play as a team, they listen to each other, they pat each other on the back, they talk to each other," he said.
Mr McNiece said the report should not have been published and refused to allow about 12 boys to be photographed by the Herald Sun. "The person who wrote this was not the coach or team manager at the time," he said. "He has been sanctioned by the committee and will not be allowed to write any more articles on our newsletter."
The Bullants now top the Yarra Junior Football League under-10 blue division ladder with a percentage of 272.73.
Former British magistrate cleared of rape sues his accuser for £300,000
False accusers deserve imprisonment, not monetary penalties but in this case a damages claim seems the only option. The matter should certainly be tried in court. Claiming non-consent after an interval of 7 years should never have led to a conviction in the first place
A former magistrate cleared of rape has launched a landmark legal claim for £300,000 damages against his accuser. Anthony Hunt, 66, was jailed in 2003 for after a jury found him guilty of raping a woman in her home after they both attended a flower show. He spent nearly two years on a prison sex offender's wing before his conviction was overturned. Now in a legal first, Mr Hunt wants to 'vindicate his reputation' by bringing a claim of malicious prosecution against the woman who alleged rape.
Critics say that if the bid succeeds, it could have far-reaching consequences as to whether rape gets reported to the police. They argue it will deter rape complainants from giving evidence - out of fear they may be sued if their alleged attackers are found not guilty. Mark Warby QC, representing Mr Hunt, however, said the move offered a vital legal remedy to those wrongly accused of rape. Mr Warby said: 'It is 14 years ago to the day that my client had sex with the defendant with her consent at her home at the age of 52.
'It was nearly seven years afterwards that he was arrested and first learned of her allegation of rape. 'He was prosecuted and, on a majority verdict, convicted, but his conviction was held unsafe by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division and was quashed.' 'He's brought this action to vindicate himself, not only because the conviction was unsafe. 'It was a miscarriage of justice and he is suing his accuser for damages.'
Mr Hunt - who was jailed for four years - did not face a retrial as he had served 23 months and 18 days of his sentence in prison - nearly the full amount required before release. His conviction was overturned after the Appeal Court ruled the trial judge had misdirected the jury.
Claims of malicious prosecution are normally brought against public bodies such as the Crown Prosecution Service which prosecute in the vast majority of cases. But Mr Hunt argued that, by giving a witness statement to Hampshire constabulary in May 2002, Mr Hunt's accuser was effectively responsible for the prosecution - and should stand trial in a civil court. The argument was rejected last year at the High Court, but now three Law Lords at the Appeal Court are deciding whether to give the go-ahead to a trial for malicious prosecution.
Mr Warby told Lords Justices Sedley, Wall and Moore-Bick that Mr Hunt was entitled to a fair trial of the issues - whether AB effectively brought the prosecution - and whether she lied. He argued that Mr Justice Blake in the High Court had wrongly ruled against Mr Hunt by taking into account 'public policy' issues - that the 'floodgates would open' if those cleared of rape could bring malicious prosecution cases against their accusers. Mr Justice Blake also wrong considered whether rape was actually committed which Mr Warby said was a matter for a jury rather than a High Court judge.
But Roger ter Haar, for AB, said: 'On the one hand if Mr Hunt's story is true, he has been subject to an enormous injustice. 'He's been to prision in circumstances where he should not have been. 'On the other hand, from my client's point of view, she's not only been the victim of rape, and had to deal with the psychological consequences of that, but she has also had to deal with the police investigation, which in the circumstances of this case cannot have been easy.'
Mr Ter Haar added that if the judges were to find in Mr Hunt's favour 'It would be a massive in road into the principle of witness immunity. 'In any case where it is one person's word against the other, witness immunity will be removed.'
At Mr Hunt's Winchester Crown Court trial for rape, jurors heard that the complainant, a special constable, had invited him into her home for a cup of tea after the Fordingbridge Show in 1995. Mr Hunt, whose civilian job was as a senior traffic warden, claimed he could not have raped his accuser as his manhood was 'abnormally small' and he could only have had sex with consent. But the jury convicted him by a majority of 10-2.
The court heard that Mr Hunt's wife, Lynn, had suffered acute embarrassment working at her antique shop near the couple's home in Blandford St Mary, Dorset. The case, listed for two days, will continue on Friday.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.