Both Sides of His Mouth

Yesterday, President Obama had this to say on the occasion of his signing legislation extending federal hate crime protection to gays:

“After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we’ve passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are [.]

You’d think if the President was sincere about protecting Americans from violent people who want to kill us because of what we look like, how we pray and who we are, he’d stop dithering on Afghanistan, attempting to negotiate with Ahmadinejad and delegitimizing Israel.

Is there any more obvious example of a group wholly dedicated to perpetuating hate against US citizens than radical Islamic terror organizations like al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and the corrupt regimes which encourage them like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria?

Yet internationally, his every move for the past 10 months has been to coddle those who openly proclaim that we should die because of who we are, what we look like and who we pray to.

A little consistency would be nice, wouldn’t it? Especially if you’re going to include this ‘hate crimes’ legislation in a defense spending bill.

Stay classy, Mr. President.

Shortlink:

Posted by on October 29, 2009.
Filed under Congress.
Tagged with: .


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • http://www.wizbangblog.com Michael Laprarie

    Bingo. Good post, Albert.

  • _Mike_

    we’ve passed inclusive thought crimes legislation

    Corrected.

  • Weegie

    Another essentially meaningless legislation that does not help the American people, but is a sop to special interest groups.

    “Hate Crime” laws are stupid and do nothing except punish thought and motive, which is not the purpose of law. The purpose of law is to punish certain actions.

    Freedom allows people to spew hate all they want; it’s part of the messiness that is liberty.

  • JustRuss IT1(SW) USN [retired]

    If I take a baseball bat to someones head, I am guilty of Assault.

    What the hell does it matter if A) He slept with my wife, B) I don’t like his politics, C) He pissed me off any other way, or D) He is gay or black or mexican etc…

    I am still guilty of Assault and should be punished for Assault. YOU CANNOT punish someone more harshly for what they are thinking while commiting a crime. You punish the crime and leave it at that.

    Empathy has no place in judging guilt or innocence. You are either guilty or innocent (with possible circumstances like temporary insanity, self-defense, etc). You are not MORE guilty just because you didn’t like the way someone looked or loved. Hate is not against the law, nor should it be, only actions that hate leads to.

  • Alfonso Paulista

    This is parody, right? No-one is this stupid and naive, surely?

  • Constitution First

    Everyday another example surfaces of how monumentally unqualified Barry H.O. was to have been shuttled from ACORN money-waster to TOTUS in less than ten years OMFG.

    Will the real George Soros please step out from behind the curtain?

  • 914

    “Will the real George Soros please step out from behind the curtain?”

    No, the puppet show must go on.

  • JLawson

    Maybe so, 914, but I’m not throwing anything into the tip bucket if I don’t have to…

  • 914

    I used to have a “Danny O’Day” puppet. Wish I knew where that dummy went? I paid big bucks for the priveledge. (Not the dummy in the Whitehouse), just sayin. I think My brother threw him out the upstairs window and smashed His pumpkin.

    Just sayin. Next time “IF” evah I fork outbucks for a dummy, I want Him to be a truthful dummyass. Not some useless mmmm piece of lying phenolic pretender..

  • GarandFan

    This bill was so important that it had to be passed by riding on the coattails of a defense appropriations bill.

    Class act.

  • Dee

    This is pure political theater. And a token bone to the Human Rights Campaign. But this piece of legislation is immaterial to anything that really matters when it comes to someone getting hurt or killed because they are gay. I think a prosecutor should be able to tell the jury such a crime was perpetrated because of someone’s sexual orientation and the jury should decide if that warrants a greater penalty. But that’s it. No federal sentencing mandates. I would find it more compelling if a jury of my peers decided to send someone to death row based on facts presented than being forced to do so by the federal government. That would be progress.