30 May, 2005 By Rev. Ted Pike

S 1145 IS

109th CONGRESS
1st Session S. 1145 To provide Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes.

This bill grants the government jurisdiction, not just in violent hate crimes, but for general "hate crimes."

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 26, 2005

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. SMITH, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. BAYH, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. BOXER, Ms. CANTWELL, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. DAYTON, Mr. DODD, Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KERRY, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. LEVIN, Mrs. LINCOLN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. REED, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. PRYOR, and Mr. ROCKEFELLER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL

To provide Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2005’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or [1] perceived [2] race, color, religion, national origin, gender [women], sexual orientation [homosexuals/transvestites], or disability of the victim poses [3] a serious national problem.

[1] What does “perceived” mean? This section asserts that if you expressed bias against women while assaulting or attempting to rape a transvestite (a male) you would still be punished for a hate crime against women. Your error in perception does not absolve you from punishment for the great evil of “bias motivation.” Thus, thought is equally punished with action. Federal law requires triple penalties (Sec. 280003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994).

[2] In Canada, after 35 years of hate law protection of homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, Indians, etc., whites and Christians to my knowledge have never been afforded the same defense.

[3] When was the last time you heard of a truly “violent” hate crime in America -- the murder of Matthew Shepard six years ago? Of course, violent hate crimes do occur, yet the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, originator of this legislation, creates the illusion of an “epidemic of hate” crying out for drastic federal takeover of local law enforcement. S.1145 is thus a "solution" in search of a "serious national problem" which is largely imaginary.


(2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive.

Yes, during post-Civil War lynchings, but such terror is not going on today.

(3) State and local authorities are now and will continue to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority of violent crimes in the United States, including violent crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance.

This confirms that government “assistance” means jurisdiction over at least a “minority” of violent hate crimes prosecutions.

(4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem.

Federal law was never meant to adjudicate this “problem.”

(5) The prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim and the family and friends of the victim, but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.

The federal government is allowed to intervene in states’ law enforcement if crimes involve interstate commerce. ADL below wants to provide as many pretexts as possible for such federal intervention.

ADL creates the fantasy that “violent hate crimes” are substantially affecting interstate commerce and the economy. This gives the government a green light to take over jurisdiction of bias crimes within states, intervening at will.

(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including--

(A) by impeding the movement of members of targeted groups and forcing such members to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence; and

(B) by preventing members of targeted groups from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity.

(7) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

(8) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.

(9) Such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce.

Below, ADL argues that “slavery” still exists in the states in the form of bias-motivated violence. Hence, government is entitled to invade states again, as in the Civil War!

(10) For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.

(11) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States were adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious and national origin groups were and are perceived to be distinct ‘races’. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of real or perceived religions or national origins, [Under S.1145, the federal government prohibits and punishes assaults in states motivated by perceptions (thoughts).] at least to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

(12) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local authorities to work together as partners in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.[This is a definitive statement affirming the purpose of S.1145: Federal jurisdiction over states.]

(13) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as to warrant Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions. [Nonsense! Even if we allow the bogus ADL/police figure of about 7,500 “hate crimes” every year, that amounts to only 1/20 of one percent of actual crimes committed annually in the U.S.. Such is hardly a pretext for takeover of states’ rights by creation of a federal anti-hate bureaucracy.]

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this Act, the term `hate crime' has the same meaning as in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note).

Apart from the word “perceived,” this is a reasonable definition. Yet ADL’s working definition, enforced against the “Philly 11” Christians on October 10, 2004 is that “hate” equals bias against federally protected groups, especially homosexuals and Jews. If that bias motivates a crime, small or great, it becomes a “hate crime” deserving of triple penalties. Such will be the practical federal criteria for a hate crime if S.1145 becomes law.

SEC. 4. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS BY STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

(a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance-

(1) IN GENERAL- At the request of a law enforcement official of a State or Indian tribe, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of [1] any crime that--

This empowers the federal government to invade states’ jurisdiction at the request of a state law official or an Indian tribe. The government has no constitutional right to accede to such a request.

(A) constitutes a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code); [The government may prosecute any [1] assault (not just a hate crime) in states! Unprecedented.]

(B) constitutes a felony under the laws of the State or Indian tribe; and [The government may prosecute any [1] felony (not just hate crimes) in states! Unprecedented.]

(C) is motivated by prejudice based on the race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the hate crime laws of the State or Indian tribe. [The government may prosecute any [1] bias crime (not just a violent bias crime) in states! Unprecedented.]t

(2) PRIORITY- In providing assistance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than 1 State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or prosecution of the crime. [This affirms the pervasive role of federal jurisdiction to prosecute assaults, felonies, and bias crimes in every corner of every state.]

(b) Grants-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General may award grants to assist State, local, and Indian law enforcement officials with the extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

S.1145 wants to make states financially indebted to the government and its hate crimes agenda.

(2) OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS- In implementing the grant program, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely with the funded jurisdictions to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through the local infrastructure developed under the grants.

(3) APPLICATION-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each State that desires a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or containing such information as the Attorney General shall reasonably require.

(B) DATE FOR SUBMISSION- Applications submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall prescribe.

(C) REQUIREMENTS- A State or political subdivision of a State or tribal official applying for assistance under this subsection shall--

(i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant is needed;

(ii) certify that the State, political subdivision, or Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or prosecute the hate crime;

(iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement the grant, the State, political subdivision, or tribal official has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and [ADL/B’nai B’rith]

(iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for activities funded under this subsection.

(4) DEADLINE- An application for a grant under this subsection shall be approved or disapproved by the Attorney General not later than 30 business days after the date on which the Attorney General receives the application.

(5) GRANT AMOUNT- A grant under this subsection shall not exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction within a 1 year period.

(6) REPORT- Not later than December 31, 2006, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report describing the applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant amounts were expended.

(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007. [$5,000,000 annually for starters, to facilitate ADL’s federal “anti-hate” jurisdiction in states.]

SEC. 5. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authority to Make Grants- The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice shall award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.

ADL has been defining "hate" and training Justice Department, FBI and local police since 1990. It will continue to do so if S.1145 is passed.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 7.
Open-ended funding for the creation of a vast “Big Brother” hate crimes bureaucracy like Canada’s.

SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`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, [1] 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, OR DISABILITY-

[2] `(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, or disability of any person--

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

[3] `(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 [4] an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

[1, 2, 3, 4] Attempting or succeeding in the rape of a woman, transvestite, or homosexual, involving “bias” language against the victim, can result in imprisonment “for any term of years or for life”!

---

Under S.1145 federal government has authority to prosecute and imprison those who, out of bias, assault or attempt to assault women, transvestites, or homosexuals. If involvement with interstate commerce can in any way be discovered — or if a violent bias crime interferes with the victim’s own economic activity — then the government can prosecute. This is a virtual green light for federal jurisdiction!

`(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)--

[1] `(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

[1] Any victim of a bias crime can easily claim that they were commercially/economically affected by it. Result: invitation for federal jurisdiction.

`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

[2] `(b) Certification Requirement- No prosecution of any offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General specially designated by the Attorney General that--


[2] ADL inserted the above to allay congressional fears that hate crimes enforcement contains no checks and balances. Actually ADL dominates the U.S. Justice Department, having been granted authority, under ADL's Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, to teach the U.S. Justice Department, FBI and local police its hate crimes dogma.


The Attorney General or his underlings may initiate federal investigation and prosecution in a state if:

[1] There exists an alleged crime morivated by bias.

`(1) he or she has reasonable cause to believe that the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged conduct of the defendant; and

`(2) he or his designee or she or her designee has consulted with State or local law enforcement officials regarding the prosecution and determined that--

[2] `(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not intend to exercise jurisdiction;

[3] `(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

[4] `(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government assuming jurisdiction; or

[5] `(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.

The above (D) means that if the government does not like the outcome of a state hate crimes trial it may intervene, possibly re-trying it. “The federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence” must be “vindicated,” the federal way.

Since when can states be without jurisdiction to prosecute violent crimes, or “not intend to exercise jurisdiction,” or request “that the federal government exercise jurisdiction,” or “not object to the federal government” assuming jurisdiction? Jurisdiction over violent crimes by the states is mandated by the Constitution. It is the sovereign right and duty of the states.

What this bill is covertly referring to is the possibility that the states might not want to cooperate with an alien new “thought crimes” legal system, designed to probe and punish “bias motivation” and “eradicate” hate crimes at their most formative level — in our minds.

In such case, Sec.(1)(2)(A, B, C, D) make it clear that the government will not tolerate refusal to cooperate. It will invade the state which is reluctant, upholding “the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.” Clearly, all states will be required, not only to pass federally approved anti-hate laws, but enforce them to the government's satisfaction. Alternative: the government will invade and do the job itself.

`(c) Definitions- In this section--

`(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the meaning given the term in section 232 of this title; and

`(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given the term in section 921(a) of this title.'.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The analysis for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`249. Hate crime acts'.

SEC. 8. DUTIES OF FEDERAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.

(a) Amendment of Federal Sentencing Guidelines- Pursuant to the authority provided under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall study the issue of adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes and shall, if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements (in addition to the sentencing enhancement provided for the use of a minor during the commission of an offense) for adult defendants who recruit juveniles to assist in the commission of hate crimes.

(b) Consistency With Other Guidelines- In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall--

(1) ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other Federal sentencing guidelines; and

(2) avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense.


SEC. 9. STATISTICS.

Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting `gender,' after `race,'.

SEC. 10. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

END

Breaking News

Hate crimes laws may make you a lawbreaker! Such laws, while claiming to promote tolerance, actually lead to the end of free speech! Powerful articles and NPN’s video exposé of hate crimes laws in Canada and the United States provide you with the vital tools necessary to combat this imminent threat to freedom. This video is especially important as acts of terrorism extend the power of "Big Brother" to monitor what you do, say, and think.

4 Jul 2020 - EMERGENCY ALERT
White House sources have revealed that President Trump regrets following the left-conciliating advice of his son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner regarding police reform.
They say he has abandoned Kushner’s advice on this issue, returning to his previous assertion that “systemic racism” in American police is a virtual non-issue compared to the magnitude of protection and fair play which the vast majority of police provide all citizens.
More…

17 December, 2019 - EMERGENCY ALERT - Trump Supports Jewish Claim: Christianity is Antisemitic.
President Trump’s recent Executive Order IS THE TEXT of the Jewish ADL’s “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, S852, recently rejected by the US Senate for Committee consideration.
More…

24 Sep 2019 - EMERGENCY ALERT
“Anti-Semitism Awareness” Bill Worse than “Equality” Bill! Good news! The Christian-threatening, LGBT- promoting “Equality Act” could not face confrontation with hostile Senate Judiciary Republicans this spring. It went nowhere. Yet Democrats could still try to get it through the Senate Judiciary. NPN will sound the alarm at Truthtellers.org if it starts to move forward.

18 May 2019 - EMERGENCY ALERT - Senate New Forum for “Equality” Bill Debate
Call the Congress Hotline at 1-202-224-3121 and ask for a Senator’s office. I suggest you say: “Please don’t vote for the “Equality Act” S788. It will help end free speech for Christians making them criminals if they criticize Homosexuality”.
More…

01 May 2019 - EMERGENCY ALERT - “Equality” Bill Hastens Babylon the Great - Part Two
If Jews acquire full protection as a “protected class” in America it will mean that if a Jew complains to the government that he has suffered “acute emotional trauma” as a result of “anti semitic” discrimination or criticism of his race or religion he may prompt a federal investigation. If the government agrees, the defendant will have to retain the best lawyer he can find.
More…