Vile and Hateful

A number of liberal commenters, several of them claiming to be conservative, have used rather direct language to point out that my rhetoric is hateful, vile and dangerous. One, slightly more politic than the others wrote this:

---

“Gallup Poll’s show that a substantial majority of the American public favors the expansion of federal hate crime legislation to include crimes against people based on their gender, sexual orientation and gender identity; 68 percent in favor, 27 percent oppose and 5 percent no opinion. Now that President Obama has signed the Defense Bill that includes the Hate Crimes measure into law that was named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped, robbed and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to his death in Texas the same year. Worried about losing your freedom of speech? Worry only if you or someone who hears your hateful rhetoric and acts on it, should you be concerned.”

I ran over my previous columns and not once have I even suggested that someone act violently, but you see, to the mushy-brained ones any opposition to their imposing special rights and treatment and creating a protected class with privileges over those of us who used to be equal citizens...that is considered hateful, vile and dangerous. Butch wrote this (I find the name “Butch” to be intriguing considering the topic under discussion): “My name is Butch and I am very conservative, although I am not perfect, as none of us are. I was reading the above subjected article. I did the research and found that HR 1913 would be helpful to the victims and families of the Fort Hood incident of last week. The way that I read the transcript, which you quoted, is as follows: "The term sexual orientation”, does NOT include apotemnophilia...” I did indeed notice the word not in the statement. What “Butch” failed to notice was the core message in the column. The media and the Washington bureaucracy, not the homosexuals was the target of my rapier wit. I believe I did mention what Washington has done in the past where certain rights have been extended to certain groups over others? Apparently Butch and Sundance are quite happy with that state of affairs. Remember Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean? The drug smuggler they intercepted and wounded in a gun battle is still free. The 743 pounds of marijuana he was smuggling was obviously not enough evidence for the Mexican Cartel-friendly George Bush. The agents remained in jail. How about the above mentioned Matthew Shepard? He has a bill named after him. Does anyone remember13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising? The mainstream media has virtually said nothing of this case in Arkansas where 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising was raped and murdered by Joshua Macabe Brown and Brown’s lover, Davis Don Carpenter. Brown confessed to having abused Dirkhsing with various objects after binding and gagging him. This was in every sense of the definition a hate crime; every definition except those imposed by the media, gay rights groups and the Obama administration...and certain commentors to this column. As far as the black man in Texas, what about the several conservatives, black and white, who were beaten and abused by Obama supporters over the past few months, not for the color of their skin but because of the color of their opinion, red vs. blue? The liberal obviously considers only one side to be capable of being a victim. I have read the text of the so-called hate crimes bill. It is only a bit over 2000 words and to an experienced legislator not all that arcane. The end effect is that it will establish certain protections toward homosexuals over those of heterosexuals. Just as so-called “equal housing” legislation passed in Nevada has made it almost impossible for a landlord to evict a destructive tenant if that tenant claims homosexuality as an excuse, so will this law extend those protections to people like Brown and Carpenter. You don’t believe me? Read the law. Check out the definitions and then take a close look at the clause that allows the Feds to step in if they “think” the states have not gone far enough in their prosecution against someone who had a dispute with one of the protected classes. Based on the language of the law, proof is not needed. All the feds need is a “belief” that the intent was there to commit what they consider a hate crime. According to the media, 13-year-old Jesse deserved what he got because he was a white heterosexual. No, this is not over the top. Consider this, if it was good journalism to report on the murder of Matthew Shepherd – and it was – then why is it not equally good journalism to report on this murder? Hmm? No, for today’s journalist it is good reporting to not show the world that the new protected classes have the same foibles, weaknesses and errors in their makeup as any other human being. If you are a liberal, homosexuality is preferred over heterosexuality, especially that disgusting monogamous type. Criminals such as Mao, Che, Pol Pot, and Gacey are vastly more deserving of life than the unborn. The underachieving should be given what the hard working have achieved and if you are old enough, you should die and make room for a more deserving liberal to take your place. Who are the real haters here? Who is spewing the real vile and dangerous rhetoric? What group has beaten the opposition at demonstrations? What group has sent out moles to create violence during gatherings so their opposition could be blamed? It has not been the conservatives. And yet, the media continues to ignore the facts. Every column I have written has been a push for true equality, that common sense variety that the mushy-brained find so repulsive. Real equality is not easy to achieve because it also engenders effort and liberals do not like effort. They want things to be easy. Obama’s speeches all point to this. Well, doing the right thing is rarely easy. A significant amount of the liberal agenda would disappear if real equality was mandated as law. A tenant who destroyed his rental property would be held liable, regardless of any internal or external factor. A man and wife would have to be a male and female couple because that is the meaning of the term. If two men or two women want to be a couple, let them, but they would have to be called something else, not "man and wife". Job advancement and hiring would depend upon your ability to actually do the job, not because you make up the missing part of a quota. So, this column is dedicated to the memory of Jesse Dirkhsing, not because he was more deserving than Matthew Shepherd, but because they were both innocents and they should both have been treated equally.