"There's no question this is an attempt to sneak the bill in under the most shameful circumstances because they are attaching it to the defense of our military troops," Mat Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel told LifeSiteNews.com.Politically speaking, when you are dealing with self professed Republican obstructionists, this strategy makes sense. Plus this is what they always have done and will do. That's how it works in DC. Yes it sucks.
Sens. Kennedy and Smith's strategy, Staver said, forces the President into a terrible dilemma: President Bush must either approve "hate crimes" legislation or veto the entire spending bill thus leaving US troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan without new support and dwindling resources. Since the President has no line-item veto, approval of the defense bill is an all or nothing deal.
"This is an underhanded ploy by liberals in the Senate to try to force Bush to sign dangerous hate crimes legislation into law," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America (CWA). "I would suspect that [Bush] would send this back to the Senate and say 'quit playing games with the lives of our troops' and have them send a clean bill to his desk to get these troops taken care of."
Conservatives and freepers are beside themselves over this ploy by the libruls. The comments from the freepers are so off the mark though and it's funny to see how when the shoe is on the other foot, they freak out. Join the club, freepers. I can see why people are perturbed about how far the "hate crimes" legislation would reach, but I don't see how being an anti-abortion advocate would be threatened. Furthermore, I take exception to conservatives blaming liberals for legal abortions. For years, the Republicans had enough of a majority to ban abortion and they didn't. Blame your own Republican party for the failure to ban abortions, not the liberals. And even furthermore, what on earth does the "genocide of fetuses" have to do with this hate crimes legislation?
In another article at lifesite.net which is used to show that hate crimes legislation is evil, this example is used to demonstrate suppression of religious freedom:
Well that's just ridiculous. Many Republicans support this legislation and the Democratic agenda is not to remove religious freedom from the Constitution. I may have a problem with the hate crimes bill but not because of that.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) asked, “If a minister was giving a sermon, a Bible study or any kind of written or spoken message saying that homosexuality was a serious sin and a person in the congregation went out and committed a crime against a homosexual would the minister be charged with the crime of incitement?”
Chairman John Conyers and Congressional Democrats kept evading the issue, providing reasons why they could not accept the amendment until Rep. Lundgren demanded, “What is your answer? Would there be incitement charges against the pastor?”
At that point Democrat Congressman Artur Davis from Alabama candidly said, “Yes.”
“By refusing to accept this amendment the Democrats on this committee have proven their purpose, to remove freedom of religion from the U.S. Constitution,” concluded Rev. Lou Sheldon, Chairman of TVC, who attended the day-long proceedings with TVC CEO Andrea Laffert
What constitutes religion anyway? Especially Christianity which is supposed to advocate love and forgiveness? But what about the issue of religious leaders inciting the flock to commit atrocities against homosexuals? Why are there so many crimes against homosexuals anyway? Where do people get this animosity? If it comes from a so-called person of god, why shouldn't that person be held somewhat responsible for inciting someone to hurt someone else? After all, people of faith are not expected to use reasoning when it comes to religion. Who should be held responsible if a person who is acting on faith, not reason, commits a crime against another person? God himself? Why does God create homosexuals if he hates them so much?