June 25, 2009

Eric Holder: That 88-year-old kook will be our Marinus van der Lubbe

Obama's attorney general Eric Holder continues to use that 88-year-old nut who shot the poor security guard at the Holocaust Museum as his personal Marinus van der Lubbe in pressing for new federal Hate Crimes legislation.

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Eric Holder urged Congress Thursday to pass a new hate crimes law which would allow the federal government to prosecute cases of violence based on sexual orientation, gender or disability.

Holder, who testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, cited the recent killing of a security guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. The alleged assailant is a white supremacist.

Yeah, we desperately need a federal statute because, apparently (if I'm understanding Holder's logic correctly), murder is currently legal in most states and the District of Columbia. That's why that 88-year-old maniac was just let off with a stern warning. We must plug the murder loophole now!

As far as I can surmise, the point of this legislation is to get around the Constitution's ban on double jeopardy by giving prosecutors two tries at politically unpopular defendants: first at the state level, then at the federal level. (Recall the fate of the cops who beat up Rodney King.)

Lawmakers at the hearing debated the possible impact of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The bill - named after a gay man killed in Wyoming in 1998 - would allow federal prosecution of violence committed because of the actual or perceived gender, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity of the victim.

For more than a decade, Democrats have sought to update the hate crimes law, which already makes it a federal crime to attack someone because of their race, creed or color.

Republicans at the hearing questioned whether the change would expand federal power unnecessarily into cases already being prosecuted by state and local officials. They also questioned why certain victims of violence should be singled out for particular types of protection.

"That's part of the problem. Some are protected groups and get special protection under this law," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. "You argued your case. I've listened to it and I'm not persuaded." According to FBI data, the number of hate crimes per year is relatively unchanged in the past 10 years. In 1998, the FBI reported 7,755 hate crime incidents, and in 2007 the bureau reported 7,624.

About half of all hate crimes are motivated by racial bias. The other two most frequent hate crimes are those motivated by religion or sexual orientation.

Holder said the statistics show hate crimes against Hispanics have increased four years in a row.

You know, that just might have something to do with the overall number of Hispanics increasing four years in a row. Also, there has been an increase in Hispanic-on-black gang violence lately, so black retaliation shows up as a hate crime against Hispanics.

Does the government even track hate crimes committed by Hispanics, or do they get lumped in with whites, which is the practice with most crime statistics?

Sessions and a Democratic lawmaker, Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, both voiced concerns that the bill could be used to prosecute a church leader who speaks out against homosexuality, if a member of their congregation then assaults a gay person.

"This is a bill to hold people accountable for conduct, not for speech," Holder insisted.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer


Anonymous said...

"This is a bill to hold people accountable for conduct, not for speech," Holder insisted.

Which is simply not true, as Steve alluded to.

Seems to me that if you shoot someone dead they are just as dead whatever your motivation. Its murder that you've committed.

Of course motivation might be relevant as an indication of premeditation but to make 'hate' a separate category is madness.

Of course everybody here already knows the arguments about this.

Dennis Mangan said...

Steve, you're officially on the government's shitlist now.

Vernunft said...

I'm just wondering how this regulates interstate commerce.

Seriously, in how many ways is this unconstitutional? I count two so far.

Cat Patrol said...

"Does the government even track hate crimes committed by Hispanics, or do they get lumped in with whites, which is the practice with most crime statistics?"

There is no hate crime perpetrator category for hispanics. When hispanics commit hate crimes, it is listed as a White hate crime.

Anonymous said...

I predict the 88-year-old will be tried and executed in record time. He won't get to die a natural death.

eh said...

Holder is harder to take seriously than most bureaucrats/politicians, which is saying something. He regurgitates conventional wisdom with an almost comically intense sincerity. So actually he's pretty much a perfect fit for the Obama administration.

Beastmaster said...

Are you up to date on the banning of Max Blumenthal's Jerusalem video? First, the Huffington Post banned it from their website. Then Youtube deleted it. Then Max posted it on Vimeo were it was later deleted as well. All attempts to rectify this have been stonewalled. Read the Orwellian comments by Jewish bloggers who supported Blumenthal when he was going after non-Jews, but now support the actions taken by Youtube and others. Read how they (seemingly psychotically) attempt to make a censorship issue into a case of whether the speech was "correct" or not. "They were not as bad as Muslims would have been!," the commenters exclaim. But, of course, events like this don't embody long-term political consequences. It's just some good-old harmless ethnopolitics.

McVickers said...

Steve, it's obvious that...

1) A white christian population (same background as the founding fathers) is liable to toss our constitutional principles onto the trash heap if enough time (multiple centuries) goes by.

2) A non-white or non-christian population is going to throw the constitution into the trash that much faster. Witness jewish group and black group contempt for the founding principles. Theirs is open contempt for the bedrock principles like free speech, gun ownership and equal protection under the law. Yes there are jewish and black individuals who would not discard the constitution. But the group feeling is obvious.

Dennis Dale said...

"Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!"
--General Turgidsen, just before the doomsday device went off.

Henry Canaday said...

Much of American criminal law was redefined by the Supreme Court during the 1960s with the essential aim of righting historical wrongs against blacks. Thus the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures was expanded into the exclusionary rule against using evidence obtained in improper searches by state officials, a practice thought to be used more frequently against blacks in major cities. The Fifth Amendment's prohibition against coerced testimony was applied against the states, strengthened and turned into the Miranda system, again because pressured confessions were said to be used more frequently against blacks,

These were novel interpretations of ancient protections, properly extended to meet modern conditions, according to the Court. But the Federal government wanted the ability to prosecute simple crimes, like the murder of civil rights workers in the South, when Southern governments were insufficiently eager to pursue these cases. So the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy was given a very ancient interpretation and confined to its meaning under an 1185 Statute of Westminster in England, which allowed the king to prosecute crimes that had already been tried unsuccessfully by local authorities.

In the liberal mind, with respect to race, America is forever not only Mississippi Burning in the 1960s; America still lives in the 12th Century Middle Ages.

Victoria said...

As far as I can surmise, the point of this legislation is to get around the Constitution's ban on double jeopardy by giving prosecutors two tries at politically unpopular defendants

This is exactly what it's about. It's designed to shut down all unconventional political dissent, as these laws have done in Europe. You can be sure the ADL, SPLC and their cronies, the most persistent promoters of these laws, have been breaking out the champagne and celebrating ever since the museum killing. What an unexpected gift has landed in their laps, and they will be certain to make the most of it, as they push through this "hate crime" bill that they've been working on for years.

Paul Craig Roberts is probably right when he says that such a law will expand beyond its initial scope, as prosecutors cleverly use it for other purposes -- as in the case of RICO.

Anonymous said...

>"This is a bill to hold people accountable for conduct, not for speech," Holder insisted.<

Exactly the opposite of the truth.

People are already held accountable for their conduct. It's called the criminal law.

What does this "hate" crimes bill add to that?

It adds extra punishment for opinions. How are opinions largely expressed? Speech.

He claims this will not morph into a "chilling effect" on opinions not approved by the government. But how could it fail to do so? What are the unintended consequences of any law? Was Ted Kennedy's promise kept that the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act would not change America's racial composition?

The alternative to persuasion is force. If words are outlawed, only bullets remain.

Anonymous said...

this is the same justice department that freed the black panthers who intimidated voters outside polling places, holding clubs and saying 'obama's in charge now craka'?

Anonymous said...

beastmaster, do you have links to these comments (i don't doubt you just curious to see it)

Certainly at least, sensible jewish and non jewish liberals have to be seeing through the charade by now.

Anonymous said...

ps beastmaster not just that video:


Old Pete said...

If a Honduran gangbanger kills a Mexican kid for going into the wrong neighborhood, is that counted as a hate crime?

Rudolf Diels said...

"...will be our Marinus van der Lubbe."

This has been a fantastic conservative tactic over the years - 'We don't like anything those Germans did, ANYTHING, so we're just like you in that respect, heh heh, we're not bad guys, just misunderstood, heh heh.'

It's clearly paid off. Your paleocon credentials remain intact. Sure, your people slave away and die, with not a single state in the world to protect them or advance their interests, but at least you get to document it, thanks to the overly loud reassurances.

Anonymous said...

The supporters of "hate crime" legislation have a particular worldview: they see America as being riddled with hatred -- in particular hatred by whites against minorities. The true purpose of hate crime legislation is to validate and enshrine this worldview, by having the government weave it inextricably into our laws. It isn't important what the actual penalties are; what is important is that the government, speaking on behalf of us all, must be made to acknowledge that this country has a really serious problem with hate!!!!!

Dutch Boy said...

It was George H. W. Bush who sicced the feds on the LA cops in the Rodney King fiasco (the Republicans love double jeopardy too).

El Caudillo said...

"Under questioning, Attorney Gen. Holder was surprisingly forthright in admitting that...

"...the hate bill is not intended to protect everyone, or even the majority.

"He said ONLY historically oppressed minorities were to benefit.

"This means Jews, blacks, homosexuals, women, etc.

"Holder made it clear that if a white Christian male, including a serviceman or police officer, was the victim of a violent hate crime by any minority he would have to find redress from traditional law.

"He could not avail himself of the triple penalties and rapid government/justice system response given a protected minority."


El Caudillo said...


Corrected Link to above "Hate" Bill Quote:


John Anello said...

“Hate crimes” legislation is a perpetual issue on Capitol Hill because powerful special interest groups, i.e. American Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA) and the ABA, have had it on their Christmas list for quite some years. Under Holder’s plan, hate crimes would fall under federal jurisdiction. A person convicted of a crime under state law would have to face separate hate crime legislation in federal court. That means more legal work, and of course more money for trial lawyers. Every thought criminal would be like having two clients. Meanwhile, our already clogged judicial system will grind to a halt. Ambitious prosecutors will be jockeying for position as to who will have the first crack at the accused.

It is also unclear exactly what constitutes a “hate crime.” If it is defined as victimization based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation than would not ever rape a hate crime? Rapists do consider the gender of their victims before they commit their heinous crime. I find it baffling that the same defense lawyers who for years told us that we could not determine a defendant’s state of mind are now supporting legislation that will attempt to do exactly that.

Furthermore, the UCR and NCVS indicate that black on white crime is much more prevalent than white on black crime. Under this legislation will minority hate criminals be prosecuted as aggressively as their white counterparts? With Eric Holder and his ilk calling the shots, I doubt it.

Anonymous said...

Under this legislation will minority hate criminals be prosecuted as aggressively as their white counterparts?
see links above, Eric Holder was 'remarkably candid' in his testomonial on the hill - whites would NOT be protected under hate crime laws.

Anyone familiar with how they have been 'enforced' in states like NY is aware of this

stari_momak said...

Heck, according to state assembly speaker Karen Bass, even opposing raising 'revenue' (i.e. taxes) is bordering on hate speech.

[How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature's work?

The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: "You vote for revenue and your career is over." I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair.]

Svigor said...


Here's a fun thing I worked out about interracial rape: it's a worse crime than regular rape.

Interracial rape leads to the victim disproportionately fearing men of the perpetrator's race. AKA, racism.

So on top of whatever else rape causes, interracial rape causes racism, which is a sin (crime? Coming soon to a neighborhood near you!), so it's worse. Liberals can't escape this one by blaming the victim because, even if it is the victim's fault for reacting that way (even subconsciously), the precipitating event was the interracial rape.

Svigor said...

John Anello said

Oh you poor, poor man. You don't know the half of it, if I'm reading between your lines correctly.

I've read several times how blacks choosing victims because they're white ("and therefore automatically wealthy") is not, NOT a "hate crime."

Tim Wise (AKA, Tim "white just like the rest of you guys; me, Mike Wallace, and you guys" Wise) even says as much in his screeds. See, it's the goal that matters, which in this case is taking money, not hurting whitey.

See how that works? Presumably, this would change instantly if a white targeted a black for an economic crime "because blacks are stupid and won't figure out the scam" or somesuch.


Repeat that until it sinks in. It really is what matters.

El Caudillo said...

~Talk Show Hosts May Be Accomplices Under Hate Bill~

"The most dangerous part of the Bill which is a direct assault against the First Amendment is that it allows for the prosecution as accomplices in a hate crime for talk show pundits that the person who commits the alleged crime claims to influence their actions.

"Here is the essential text:

"Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] 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. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)"