Quick Links to Posts By Category

,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Coleman Helped Justify Obama's Threat of Prosecution for Bush Admin. Lawyers

A couple of years ago, I sent an e-mail to Sen. Norm Coleman's office expressing my disgust at his decision to vote in favor of expanding the federal government's role in prosecuting crimes, to include stepping in where certain classes of "hate" crime had been committed. The new special victims entitled to greater protection through the threat of heavier punishment for their harm included those selected due to the perpetrators' supposed hatred of the victim's transgendered state or homosexuality. The provision, which had been attached to a defense spending bill, died during negotiations to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions.

Sen. Coleman's reply was lame. He said that as a Jewish person, he understood what it was like to be in the minority, targeted for hatred and violence. In other words, Jews and gays are the same--we can ignore all the issues surrounding choice and behavior versus blood lineage and status. And we should also ignore the total lack of evidence for any need of the federal government to meddle in the entirely adequate State prosecution of violent crime, and the fact that 45 or 46 States already have hate crimes legislation. And we should also overlook the Republican Party's long-standing and entirely reasonable opposition to eroding the even more long-standing tradition that we only punish people for actions, and not for their thoughts, ideas, opinions, or beliefs.

Wherein we reach the current day. First off, John Conyers has introduced a sweeping new version of the defeated federal hate crimes legislation that is predicted to work its way through committee rapidly. It would be well, though perhaps fruitless if you live in my State of Minnesota, to call your Reps and Senators and urge them not to vote for any hate crimes legislation, and especially not John Conyers's HR1913.

Even more ominous, however, is that our historic president today indicated his willingness to entertain the possibility of considering prosecuting Bush administration lawyers who prepared the interrogation memos, finding some torture techniques to be legal. Now, this is unlikely to come to anything. The Teflon Liar, as usual, leaves his statements fat with uncertainty: whether to bring charges "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," and "there are a host of very complicated issues involved." These statements are a lame attempt to placate the slavering far Left, but I suspect they are also intended as a sinister warning to those on the Right.

The link to Norm Coleman is this: instead of defending the only sane policy of prosecuting people only for actions, he helped move us to this day, when we see the President of the United States deliberately planting
the possibility in people's minds that they could be held criminally responsible for their professional legal opinions, and by extension, that non-lawyers could be prosecuted for their beliefs or opinions expressed in other areas of life. This is intended as a shot across the bow, a very oblique way of letting conservatives know that they'd better not get involved in public life; their opinions are so objectionable as to merit criminal prosecution.

So it's hard to mourn Coleman's likely ultimate loss of the Senate seat, except to the degree that it indicates that something very close to half the Minnesota electorate thought Al Franken a suitable person to hold that seat instead. Coleman was a symptom of the disease that's debilitating the Republican Party; all we can do is vigorously oppose the tyranny sought by our historic president (and his party) and dose the GOP with real conservatism, hoping it's enough to save the body politic.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What can I say? Insightful to say the least.

I saw a T-Shirt at the T-Party last Wednesday that said "Who Is John Galt ..." across the front.

I wonder if this was a reference to the Boots On author rather than the character.

Whatever you do, John Galt, keep it up!

4/22/2009 12:24 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 

MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger