Chaplain Violates Obama’s ‘Hate Crimes’ Law by Quoting Bible?

Today President Barack Obama signs the “Hate Crimes” Amendment contained within the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which adds “sexual orientation” to the list of federally protected classes. This new law provides for federal prosecution and enhanced penalties to violent criminals (and their so-called co- conspirators) whose “motive” or otherwise invisible heart-intention is somehow proven in a court of law as intended to incite or commit an act of violence against a person “because of” their sexual orientation.

Conservatives call this bill the “Pedophile Protection Act” because it may now offer federally protected status to 547 classes of sexual deviants, including child molesters, who are now more protected than heterosexuals, violating the principle of equal protection. It further endangers free speech by pastors who quote illegal Bible verses from the pulpit, including Romans 1:32 or Leviticus 20:13, (which I’m about to quote below), which by merely quoting pastors may be accused of “conspiring” to commit violent crimes, should anyone in the church hear their speech and later commit such violent acts against homosexuals.

My organization, The Pray In Jesus Name Project, has collected and delivered approximately 400,000 petition faxes to the U.S. Congress against this new law, which the Senate could not pass as a stand-alone bill, so Democrats hijacked the Pentagon budget to enact the homosexual agenda. In response to our petitions, the Senate adopted the good “Brownback Amendment” (R-KS) to the hate crimes bill, by 78-13 vote to add special protection for pastors to ensure the bill does not “substantially burden any exercise of religion…speech, expression, association, if such exercise of religion, speech, expression, or association was not INTENDED to:

1. plan or prepare for an act of physical violence; or
2. incite an imminent act of physical violence against another.”

But Senator Leahy (D-VT) added a bad side-by-side amendment diminishing some First Amendment protections for pastors, by including this new statement: “The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.”

In other words,

• A) pastors may quote the Bible publicly if their “intention” is the free exercise of religion or speech, but
• B) pastors may not quote the Bible publicly if their “intention” is to conspire with listeners to commit an act of violence.

This begs the question, if the pastor never announces whether the unspoken “intention” of his heart is A or B, how can any prosecutor, judge, or jury know whether the pastor’s secret thoughts intended A) free exercise or B) conspiracy? Without revealing the secret intention of my own heart, whether A or B, I hereby publicly quote both Romans 1:32 and Leviticus 20:13:

Romans 1:32 — “Men with men working that which is unseemly…who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death.”

Leviticus 20:13 — “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

I further invite President Barack Obama, as the chief law enforcement official of America, to discern the secret thoughts and intentions of my heart, and to prosecute me for conspiracy or inciting the violent crimes of others who might read my words and act upon them, if he dares to think he knows or can prove my motives were not pursuant to the free exercise of religion or speech.

Bloggers Could Be Jailed For Their Opinions

(Updated)

Democrat Linda T. Sanchez and 14 others are proposing a House of Representatives bill (H. R. 1966), that could be interpreted to put bloggers and others in jail for voicing their opinions. Here is the relevant text:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both….

["Communication"] means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; …

["Electronic means"] means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.

The measure, H.R. 1966, is labeled the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act. It’s intention is to prevent the behavior that led to last year’s suicide of the 13-year-old Meier who was harassed on MySpace.com.

Despite the good intentions, the language can be interpreted by any person or lawyer to fine or jail bloggers if someone believes they are caused “emotional distress.” A blog like Ft. Hard Knox or others could be imprisonment under this loose interpretation. The problem with the bill is not its intent, but its vague wording that can be used by any liberal group who thinks they are being harassed, intimidated, or distressed. It is cause for concern that our First Amendment rights could be violated.

---

Also see: TechDirt – What is Cyberbullying Anyway?

 

No Hate Speech Allowed: This Blogger’s Declaration of Independence

For the second time since I began blogging, I’ve decided not to publish a comment [on Chesler Chronicles], not because the writing is illiterate or filthy with curses, (I’ve jettisoned some of those in the past), but because, like Israel, I’ve decided that “Enough is enough.” I am tired of putting up with the written equivalent of screaming street corner hate speech at my own blog.

I have had enough of those commentators who sound like Norman Finkelstein or David Irving, who cloak their Big Lies in sarcastic, intellectual sound-bites or who imperiously drone on for hundreds, even thousands of words. Often, they sound “logical.” Sometimes, like Finkelstein, they pretend to great scholarship by presenting many footnotes.

A footnote does not a scholar make…Continue reading on Chesler Chronicles >>