“Congressional leaders, who have disappointed frequently this year, have done it again. This time, the House leadership has failed to find a way to get a bipartisan law against hate crimes passed and signed into law. Racial, religious, sexual and other minorities have waited long enough. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has to do more than just express her support for the bill; she must find a way to make it the law.”– from a New York Times editorial, Dec. 10, 2007

Those who may not understand what hate crimes legislation is really about can thank the New York Times for inadvertently spelling it out: “Racial, religious, sexual and other minorities have waited long enough.” In other words, if you’re a member of the “majority”–aka, white, male, Christian, heterosexual, or any combination thereof–this legislation is not for you.

Actually, that’s not entirely true. This legislation IS for you–on the “receiving” end. If the libs get their way, you can be charged with a hate crime for any altercation which does not involve another white, male, Christian heterosexual. However, if anyone from one of the “aggrieved” sub-groups attacks you, no charge of hate will likely be added to the original warrant.

Some people think it’s a great idea to give the government the power to criminalize “certain” types of thought. The word “hate” however, casts a pretty wide net. Wide enough to catch almost anybody, if the enormous power of the state–in combination with political correctness–is brought to bear.

atahlert@comcast.net

Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here