Buh-Bye Freedom of Thought and Speech – Criminalizing The First Amendment

“Hateful Words” Will Be Prosecutable

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will end you up in prison.

That’s what the Marxists in Congress have just rolled out with the disingenuously titled “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1913)” that passed the Judiciary Committee on Thursday for a full House vote for passage next Wednesday.

In it, the Marxist tyrants have added gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list of protected categories under federal hate crimes law which in essence will criminalize the First Amendment and make anyone speaking out against Homosexuality or whatever else the government lists – a Federal felon.

Think I exaggerate?  

During the Judiciary Committee markup of the bill, Congresscretin Sheila Jackson-Lee (S-Texas) said that people could be prosecuted for having a particular belief by stating: “We also need to protect those potential victims who may be the recipients of hateful words or hateful acts, or even violent acts.”

Every attempt made to get the Marxists to exempt religious belief and speech from the bill was rejected.  Every attempt to get the Marxists on the Committee  to define terms of ‘orientation’ that are ridiculously vague, was voted down.

The juggernaut of tyranny is overpowering our ability to analyze them at the rate they are firing them out of this regime in Washington.

But then perhaps that is the idea, to keep even those who are watching, so bewildered that by the time the really big tyrannical crap comes down – we are so tired and numb from the Marxist onslaught, one more affront just won’t seem to matter.

Just this evening it is coming to light that Obama and the Marxist regime is planning to ram nationalized Health Care down our necks next week – with little debate allowed and no ability to filibuster, or hold up the measure before passage.

But then this is how the Soviet Politburo and most governments under dictators operate.

Perhaps we have already arrived at an Obama Marxist dictatorship and we don’t realize it yet.

Matt Barber has some interesting thoughts on this.

As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling “hate speech” laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle.

…Under the 14th Amendment, victims of violent crime are currently afforded equal protection under the law regardless of sexual preference or proclivity. If passed, H.R. 1913 will change all that.  It overtly and, most likely, unconstitutionally discriminates against millions of Americans by granting federally preferred status, time and resources to individuals who define their identity based upon aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., “gay” and lesbian “sexual orientation” or cross-dressing “gender identity”).
 
Of course, this entire concept flies in the face of the 14th Amendment. It inarguably codifies unequal protection under the law, creating a two-tiered justice system made up of first-class victims such as those who self-identify as homosexual or “transgender” and second-class victims such as the elderly, children, pregnant women, veterans, the homeless and others who choose not to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors.

…This creates both a sociopolitical and legal environment wherein traditional sexual morality officially becomes the new racism. Those who publically express medical, moral or religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle are tagged by the government as “homophobic bigots” to be treated no differently by law enforcement, the courts or larger society than the KKK or neo-Nazis.

 
In short, this bill places newfangled “gay rights” in direct conflict with our enumerated constitutional rights. It becomes the first step in the official criminalization of Christianity. It’s a zero sum game and someone has to lose. Ultimately, what we lose are our First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, religious expression and association.
 
But the threat is not just some shadowy phantom looming in the near future. It’s a clear and present danger. While debating the notion of “conspiracy to commit a hate crime” in the last Congress, Representative Artur Davis (D-Alabama) admitted that the legislation could be used to prosecute pastors for merely preaching the Bible under the concept of “inducement” to violence.

And some people have tried to excuse the DHS report on ‘Right Wing Extremism” to be a simple misunderstanding of this regimes intentions.

Right.  And Hitler never really hated Jews either.

The Doors of Persecution – State Says “Marry Gays Or Else”

 

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.  And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. Matthew 24:9-10

They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. – John 16:2

We must obey God rather than men – Acts 5:29

 

State threatens locals: Marry ‘gays’ – or else

Attorney general: ‘We must live by and follow what the courts decide’

 

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is warning the county recorders’ offices in his state that workers must process “marriage” licenses for same-sex duos or face possible charges in a court of law.

“If necessary, we will explore legal actions to enforce and implement the court’s ruling, working with the Iowa Dept. of Public Health and county attorneys,” he warned on his website.

In a series of messages on his website, he first “advised” recorders and registrars to provide “full access” to marriage.

Then he instructed: “A county registrar should furnish the forms in the same manner as in opposite gender applications.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision … does change state law: the decision expressly strikes from Iowa Code chapter 595 the language which limits civil marriage to a man and a woman,” he ordered.

Then came the warning that “legal actions” could be pursued.

“We must live by and follow what the courts decide,” he said.

However, a letter sent to county recorders by the Alliance Defense Fund says Miller is forgetting completely about “one of the most foundational rights and liberties we enjoy as Iowans” … “the right of conscience.”

That right, the letter says, is codified in Iowa Code 146.1.

“This right is based upon the simple truth that it is wrong to force anyone to violate his or her conscience,” said the letter, also from the Iowa Family Policy Council.

It cites the motto on the seal of the state, which reads, “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”

“This noble motto … is emblematic of the moral sentiments of Iowans from the banks of the Missouri to the waters of the Mighty Mississippi. … As citizens of the State of Iowa and thus, the United States, we enjoy the protections of this right guaranteed in the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions. This right of conscience protects individuals against coercion by the state authority, and serves as the first line of defense against the cancer of tyranny.”

The letter suggests counties adopt policies that ensure no one will be required to “issue or process a marriage license, or to perform, assist, or participate in such procedures, against that individual’s religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

The suggested policy continues: “A person shall not discriminate against any individual in any way, including but not limited to employment, promotion, advancement, transfer, licensing, education, training, or the granting of employment privileges or conditions, because of the individual’s participation in or refusal to participate in the issuance of a marriage license.”

If Miller does not like that, the ADF “will defend this policy language and will provide free legal review and defense if this policy is challenged on the basis of its content.”

“This policy would protect objecting employees from being forced to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if doing so would violate the employee’s conscience,” the ADF said.

Doug Napier, ADF senior legal counsel, said government employees who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs.

“This policy allows an employee who does not wish to violate his or her own conscience by issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple to abstain and allow the transaction to be performed by someone who is willing to do it,” he said. “Forcing them to participate in offensive acts contrary to their deeply held beliefs in order to remain employed is unconstitutional.

“Contrary to the threatening statement issued by Attorney General Tom Miller on April 21, the citizens of Iowa enjoy the protections of the right of conscience guaranteed in the U.S. and Iowa constitutions – the very constitutions that county recorders swore to uphold when taking office,” Napier said. “Mr. Miller conveniently omitted any discussion of their rights of conscience or the recorders’ duty to protect the rights of their employees.

“This right of conscience protects individuals against heavy-handed coercion by the state, including the attorney general,” he said.

Napier said the Iowa marriage law was settled and supported by Iowans, but then the court justices “stepped outside of [their] proper role of interpreting the law and has instead overruled the will of the people and created new law.”

Miller, on his web page, affirmed that the justices were creating new law.

Napier said the solution would be for the state legislature to allow state residents to vote on the issue. The Iowa Family Policy Council already has begun work on that effort at a website promoting a marriage amendment.

A spokesman for the state organization said it had been contacted by a number of recorders or their employees expressing concern that the state’s orders on a moral issue would violate their religious beliefs.

The same issue arose when a state court in California  last year ruled there that county offices must issue same-sex “marriage” licenses. Several county officials were in the position of developing a challenge to the orders when voters took the issue in hand and in November overruled the court.

The voters in California embedded in their state constitution the definition of marriage limited to one man and one woman.

In California then, as in Iowa now, state officials rewrote state forms and procedures even though the legislatures are the only agencies authorized to write state law.