“We shall seduce your sons…. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.”
Those shocking words come from a manifesto published some years back by Michael Swift, a radical gay activist.
Swift’s manifesto goes on:
“All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men…. If you dare to cry faggot, faggot, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies…. There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings…. The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence – will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated…. All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men.”
“Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.”
Swift claimed the manifesto was nothing more than satire. An expression of his “inner rage”… an attempt to ridicule, through exaggeration, those who stood up in opposition to the radical-homosexual agenda.
But now, the United States Senate may vote within days (or even hours by the time you read this letter) on so-called “hate crimes” legislation that many are calling “The Pedophile Protection Act.”
Several weeks ago, Democrats were able to sneak HR 1913 (S. 909 in the Senate Version) through the Pelosi-controlled House of Representatives. And before it came to the floor, Congressman Louie Gohmert tried to amend the bill to exclude a variety of sex crimes, including pedophilia, and liberals in Congress went ballistic.
According to Gohmert: “When we tried to get the term sexual orientation narrowed down to where it didn’t include something like a pedophile… that was voted down on party lines… there are about 30 different types of sexual orientations, and they can include exhibitionism and voyeurism or things that are so offensive such as pedophilia or necrophilia. The problem is that the supporters of this bill did not want to exclude any of those and even voted down the amendment that would have excluded pedophilia.”
And now, we are hours away from passing a law that could actually make pedophiles and exhibitionists and voyeurs members of a protected class.
Gohmert gave an excellent real-world example, describing what could happen if a woman retaliated against a flasher: “The one who did the flashing committed a local misdemeanor. The one who hit with the purse singled him out because he’s an exhibitionist, and therefore she has now committed a federal hate crime and is looking at felony time.”
Say Hello To The Orwellian State.
John Whitehead, writing for Dakota Voice states: “On the whole, hate crime laws unnecessarily blur the distinction between what might be constitutionally protected, albeit deplorable, speech and criminal behavior. Eventually, this will spill over into criminalizing any kind of speech that any official in the echelons of government deems to be hateful or distasteful. Thus, hate crime laws … open the door for a whole new realm of prosecutions, namely thought crimes.”
Kevin Theriot with the Alliance Defense Fund says: “So-called ‘hate crime’ laws actually serve only one purpose: The criminalization of citizens based on whatever thoughts, beliefs, and emotions they have that are not considered to be ‘politically correct.’ No one should fall for the idea that this bill does anything to bring about greater justice for Americans.”
Mathew Staver with the Liberty Council reminds us: “In and of itself this law can be applied to speech. The nature of assault – putting someone in fear of their safety – what will that mean for someone preaching against homosexuality?”
Connie Hair with Human Events called the House passage of this bill, “yet another Democrat move toward the doubleplusungood Orwellian state” and even President George W. Bush fought this legislation on the grounds that it could be used to prosecute those whose views are out of line with those of the radical gay movement.
In 2000, a conservative clergyman sat in the Supreme Court gallery, listening as opposing sides argued a New Jersey case challenging the Boy Scouts of America’s exclusion of homosexuals. Thinking the clergyman who was sitting nearby was a fellow liberal, Bill Clinton’s liaison to the homosexual community leaned over and whispered: “We’re not going to win this case, but that’s OK. Once we get ‘hate crime’ laws on the books, we’re going to go after the [Boy] Scouts and all the other bigots.”
Now, 9 years later, the radical gay rights movement is very close to getting that wish. Make no mistake, this legislation may lay the foundation for the persecution of any and all people who simply oppose the radical gay agenda or believe that marriage is between one man and one woman … orthodox clergy, scientists concerned about infectious diseases and people of faith.
And what does that mean?
It means you better learn to keep your mouth shut. Because affirming your beliefs is about to become very, very dangerous.
The stated purpose of S. 909, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 is to “provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.”
And S. 909 prescribes penalties for any person who, “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.”
So what’s the big deal? Hate is a bad thing, isn’t it? Willfully causing bodily injury to another is already a crime, isn’t it?
What would cause a radical homosexual rights activist to gleefully proclaim; “Once we get ‘hate crime’ laws on the books, we’re going to go after the [Boy] Scouts and all the other bigots.”?
It sounds like much ado over nothing… or does it?
Ask Ake Green, a 63-year-old minister and pastor of a small church in the southern town of Borgholm, Sweden who simply stated in a sermon that homosexuality was “a deep cancerous tumor in the entire society” and denounced the government’s plan to promote domestic partnerships.
He was hauled into court, indicted, convicted, and sentenced to 30 days in jail. The prosecution asked for six months.
While reporting the on the Ake Green incident, CBN News made an interesting observation: “The hate speech law used to convict Green was first intended to protect Jews and other ethnic minorities from Nazi sympathizers. But in more recent times the law was amended to also protect ‘sexual orientation.'”
This will become the slippery-slope and why Bill Clinton’s liaison to the homosexual community so gleefully proclaimed: “Once we get ‘hate crime’ laws on the books, we’re going to go after the [Boy] Scouts and all the other bigots.”
Remember The Philadelphia 11?
Make no mistake, the leaders of the radical gay rights movement know that this so-called hate crimes bill is really a stepping-stone. If this sick bill becomes law, American society will see an unprecedented uprising of militant homosexuals, demanding that anyone who speaks against their agenda or lifestyle be hauled off to jail and charged with a “hate crime.”
It has already happened as Whitehead recounts the strange case of the Philadelphia 11: “Protesters exercising their free speech rights by carrying signs have been charged with felonies for the messages on their signs, which have been interpreted as ‘hate speech.’ In one instance, a group of Christians were prosecuted under a state hate crime law for ‘singing hymns’ and peacefully ‘carrying signs’ while attending a homosexual fair in Pennsylvania. Because the signs challenged the morality of homosexuality, these Christians were charged with three felonies and five misdemeanors and faced 47 years in prison for attempting to preach at a homosexual street fair. Incredibly, a state judge determined that the prosecutions could go forward. His rationale was that the Christians’ speech constituted so-called “fighting words.”
Bob Knight – one of the nation’s leading authorities on the radical gay rights movement – put it this way: “Homosexual activists have redefined any opposition to homosexuality as ‘hate speech.’ Laws already criminalize speech that incites violence. It’s easy to imagine a scenario in which any incident involving a homosexual can be blamed on people who have publicly opposed homosexual activism.”
Jennifer Riley, writing for the Christian Post, says: “Critics of the hate crimes legislation fear that if passed, the legislation would inhibit pastors from speaking about homosexuality as a biblical sin and be interpreted in a way that bars speech … Christian leaders have pointed to hate crime laws in England, Sweden and Canada, where Christians have been prosecuted for breaking these laws.”
But not to worry! Congressman Barney Frank says the bill “does not infringe on free speech in any way.” As if anyone can believe anything that Barney Frank would say!
Standing Falsely Accused …
According to the FBI only 1,460 out of 1.5 million violent crimes reported in the United States in 2007 were reportedly based on sexual orientation – that’s under one-tenth of 1%. And yet, there is a compelling reason to believe that the mere existence of hate crimes legislation actually generates bogus reports – In most cases, by individuals desperate to become victims or self-righteous ideologues hoping to promote “change.”
If you build it, the allegations will come.
A Family Research Council report cites just a few examples of phony attacks:
“In Houston, a homosexual mugging victim was left for dead in a traditionally ‘straight’ section of town. The press initially covered it as a hate crime, but investigators soon found that the man had been assaulted elsewhere and transported there, ‘to make it look like a hate crime.'”
“In Salt Lake City, a homosexual teacher at first thought bias offenders had put signs in her yard to intimidate her, but some of her own homosexual students later confessed to doing it.”
“In South Carolina, a lesbian was charged with giving false information to a police officer for saying that she was beaten; police contend she hired a man to beat her and then she reported it as a hate crime.”
Examples from John Leo, a columnist for U. S. News and World Report, has reported on bogus hate crimes for years:
“Jerry Kennedy, a gay resident assistant at the University of Georgia, reported he had been the target of nine hate crimes over a period of three years, including three acts of arson. But during questioning, Kennedy admitted that he had set the fires.”
“Two weeks after the murder of Matthew Shepard, a lesbian student at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota said two men shouted antigay slurs at her and then slashed her face. Outraged students raised nearly $12,000 as a reward for information about her attackers. Then the student confessed she had made up the story and cut her own face.”
“[A] lesbian student at Eastern New Mexico University said she had been attacked after her name was included with the names of seven professors on an antigay ‘hit list’ posted at a local Laundromat. Police arrested her after a surveillance camera at the Laundromat showed her posting the list.”
Is There Really An Epidemic?
In spite of the evidence, radical gay rights activists and their supporters in Congress still wildly and outrageously claim that there’s an epidemic of attacks that only federal law can address saying …
(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.
(B) Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
(C) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
THE PROBLEM IS THERE ARE NO SPECIFICS. NO STATISTICS. JUST VAGUE ALARMIST DESCRIPTIONS.
Does anyone really believe that vast hoards of people are moving to other states to avoid the hostility of hate-driven townsfolk with pitchforks? Or that these same townsfolk are crossing state lines in hot pursuit. Or that anyone is preventing people from shopping in the local grocery store?
All this rubbish is thrown into the bill for one reason only: to justify federal intervention.
Barack Hussein Obama said on his website he would extend federal “hate crimes” protection to sexual orientation, but no such epidemic exists… then why? It is to appease the homosexual organizations and voters who he owes for their votes!
We must act today, because time is short and Barack Hussein Obama will most certainly sign this Orwellian legislation.
When the Pelosi-led House of Representatives passed this legislation, your actions … your righteous cries of moral outrage stopped Majority Leader Harry Reid from fast-tracking this legislation through the Senate. You exposed this legislation to the light of day and liberals in Congress put it under wraps and waited for the heat to die down.
Now that the liberals in Congress believe the heat has died down. Remove from them the notion that they can sneak this bill – which Barack Hussein Obama will most certainly sign into law – through the Senate before you are any the wiser. You stopped them before. You can do it again.
Liberals are accelerating their push to pass federal “hate crimes” legislation. In a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) made no bones about his plan to fast-track the bill after the July 4th recess, bypassing the normal process. 
leaders are on the hot seat for burying a report on global warming. Days after the House passed an expensive Cap-and-Trade bill to reduce greenhouse gases, even the EPA’s own employees saying it is unnecessary. In a deplorable cover-up the agency hid a report disputing the threat of climate change. EPA Analyst Alan Carlin wrote 98 pages deconstructing the global warming phenomenon, only to have it concealed by the EPA’s leadership. Carlin told Fox News that his boss told him to stop working on the project, which found that global temperatures are actually cooling.