SEN. REID: HATE LAW WILL FAVOR MUSLIMS
By Rev. Ted Pike
3 Aug 09
Sen. Majority Leader Reid agrees with Attorney Gen. Holder
that the federal hate crimes bill will not protect most Americans.
Instead, he says it will give a small minority, including Muslims,
preferential rights and protections. An
NPR story following hate bill passage quotes Reid: "This bill
simply recognizes that there is a difference between assaulting someone
to steal his money, or doing so because he is gay, or disabled, or
Latino, or Muslim."
Reid's statement is an official admission that the United States--like Canada,
Holland, England, France, and Australia--will enforce at least triple penalties
against anyone who commits a hate crime against a Muslim.
Lovers of freedom hope the Brownback amendment, passed by the Senate on July
17, will help protect those whose public speech might be accused of influencing
someone to commit a violent hate crime. Yet free speech could still be lost under
federal hate law jurisdiction in a number of ways. The existing federal law already makes
free speech very vulnerable. Title 18, Sec. 2a of the federal hate bill's 1969
parent legislation says anyone whose speech influences a violent hate crime will
be prosecuted alongside the active offender. Also, judges, legislating hate law
from the bench, could set judicial precedents that would protect favored groups
not only from physical, bias-motivated violence but also "verbal" violence.
In hate law countries this means simply criticizing members of federally protected
groups--including Muslims! (Watch, Hate
Law Jihad: How Hate Laws Make Criminals of Islam's Critics video)
In addition, a federal hate law will stimulate what is already happening throughout
America in cases too numerous to list: State and local prosecutors, with little
regard for Constitutional restraint, criminalize and even jail individuals for "hate
speech" alone -- speech with no hint of performing or encouraging violence.
Thus, as happens in all hate law countries, speech historically considered free
becomes hate speech -- isolated in a heinous category. Under the banner
of "No tolerance for intolerance!" this is taking place in America
despite seeming protections of the First Amendment. It occurs on the social and
cultural level primarily as a result of decades of "anti-bias" and "respect
for diversity" propaganda incessantly proceeding from the Anti-Defamation
League of B'nai B'rith and Jewish-dominated big media. (See, Who's
Behind the 'Pedophile Protection Act'? and Jews
Confirm Big Media Is Jewish)
Outlawing Unpopular Speech
Society has increasingly come to believe racist or homophobic speech should
be criminalized, just as libel, slander, incitement to riot or shouting "Fire!" in
a crowded theater are not protected. Such epithets, usually uttered in the
heat of anger, while offensive and bigoted, have always been the imperfect
part of the verbal free-for-all especially guarded under the First
Amendment. America's Founding Fathers knew that repressive regimes
throughout history have imprisoned people for criticizing government, not
addressing nobility respectfully, profane or bawdy language, etc. Realizing
man's proclivity to err in speech, the Founders determined, through the First
Amendment, to especially protect such coarse and erring speech. I view
the fringe around the American flag as standing for protection of those "fringe
elements" in every period of American history whose irregular, unconventional,
unpopular but non-criminal thoughts and words especially need protection.
Yet, the public now raises no protest when state or local magistrates jail "hate
speech" offenders, sometimes for months. Under ADL's federal hate
law, the government will endorse and endlessly repeat the ADL maxim that any
form of "bias" is intolerable. This will stimulate local prosecutors
to take punitive, unconstitutional action, primarily against racists or Christian/conservative "haters."
With Muslims added to the already long list of those Americans might offend
or have offended, what can we do to be safe? Is it sufficient to never criticize
Not necessarily. Attorney Gen. Holder testified that the Senate version of
the hate bill intends a statute of limitations of seven years. This would
allow government to search seven years back into public records to see if a
person made any "Islamophobic" statements that may have incited violence
against a Muslim. The Brownback amendment would restrain federal empowerment
to indict us for having unintentionally incited anti-Islamic violence. But
it was earlier rejected in the House Judiciary Markup hearing. If Democrats
strip off the Brownback amendment in conference between the House and Senate
this fall, literally millions of Americans, including high public officials
who have uttered vehement public criticism of Islam over the past seven years,
could be indicted if a hate criminal claims he acted under their influence.
Most hate law countries prosecute retroactively. David Irving was imprisoned
under ADL's Austrian hate law for a comment he made a decade earlier questioning
the sufficiency of gas chambers to effect the deaths of six million Jews.
Legislation of Secrecy, Unanswered Questions
These are only a few of the unsettling possibilities which federal hate crimes
law enforcement will hasten in America. No one knows exactly what will happen
in the U.S. context because the hate bill is intrinsically conspiratorial,
deceptive, stealth legislation. ADL designed it to entrap and persecute honest
citizens, end freedom, and subject America to Jewish supremacist rule under
their anti-Christ, one world government.
As a result of its Constitutional, ethical and even rational weaknesses, the
hate bill had to be passed by the Democrats through deception and circumvention
of legislative due process.
All spring I encouraged pressure on Judiciary heads Rep. John Conyers and Sen.
Patrick Leahy to submit the hate bill to normal Congressional scrutiny. They
were very resistant. About a week before final passage in the Senate, I called
Sen. Leahy's Judiciary office seeking assurance that, since S. 909 was to be
submitted as an amendment, Leahy would not omit legislative due process. Judiciary
assured me that the hate bill would be given complete public exposure through
a Mark-up session and following Rules session. Republican Senators would have
complete freedom to voice objections and propose amendments. I relayed that
assurance to tens of thousands by e-alert and radio. It never happened. Judiciary's
promise was like Stalin's proverbial pie crust, meant to be broken. There
were no hate bill Mark-up or Rules sessions. The same end-run around free inquiry
occurred on the floor of the Senate when a quorum finally assembled. In contrast
to Senate hate bill action in the previous Congress, when approximately two
hours of debate and invitation for amendments were provided, this time the
Democrats successfully called for a cloture vote to end debate before it had
We have not seen the last of surprises from this devious legislation. One of
the most obscure of the hate bill's assertions is found in its initial statement
of purpose: "To provide federal assistance to states…to prosecute
hate crimes and for other purposes."
What are these "other purposes?" Could they include mandatory
pro-homosexual education in public schools beginning in kindergarten? Concentration
camps for Christian "haters?" Eventually, intradermal computer chips
identifying and locating all citizens?
"Other purposes" were never discussed. Meanwhile, Congress has approved
massive federal legislation giving a green light for government to do virtually
anything it wants under the mandate of hate crimes prevention and jurisdiction.
How far will the long arm of the coming hate crimes gestapo reach? ADL
and the Democrats aren't saying. Maybe the Marxist Democrats, who boast
of encouraging "openness and transparency in government," will someday
From behind the barrel of a gun.
Let the Anti-Defamation League teach you how they have saddled 45 states with
hate laws capable of persecuting Christians, and spearhead attempts to pass the
federal hate crimes bill: http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp.
TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject.
Call (503) 631-3808.
The freedom-saving outreach of Rev. Ted Pike and the National Prayer
Network is solely supported by sale of books, videos and your financial
support. All gifts are tax-deductible.
National Prayer Network, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas,