The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: tombogan03884 on October 28, 2009, 09:11:59 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091029/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_defense
WASHINGTON – Trumpeting a victory against careless spending, President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed a defense bill that kills some costly weapons projects and expands war efforts. In a major civil rights change, the law also makes it a federal hate crime to assault people based on sexual orientation.
The $680 billion bill authorizes spending but doesn't provide any actual dollars. Rather, it sets guidance that is typically followed by congressional committees that decide appropriations. Obama hailed it as a step toward ending needless military spending that he called "an affront to the American people and to our troops."
Still, the president did not win every fiscal fight. He acknowledged he was putting his name to a bill that still had waste.
The measure expands current hate crimes law to include violence based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to the must-pass defense policy bill over the steep objections of many Republicans.
The White House put most of its focus on what the bill does contain: project after project that Obama billed as unneeded. The bill terminates production of the F-22 fighter jet program, which has its origins in the Cold War era and, its critics maintain, is poorly suited for anti-insurgent battles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates targeted certain projects for elimination, putting them at odds with some lawmakers. The same spending items deemed unnecessary or outdated by Pentagon officials can mean lost jobs and political fallout for lawmakers back in their home districts.
"When Secretary Gates and I first proposed going after some of these wasteful projects, there were a lot of people who didn't think it was possible, who were certain we were going to lose, who were certain that we were going to get steamrolled," Obama said. "Today, we have proven them wrong."
(Tom notes that Congress has not voted on this yet, it is merely BO's wish, he hasn't won shit )
In another of several examples, the legislation terminates the replacement helicopter program for the president's own fleet. That program is six years behind schedule and estimated costs have doubled to more than $13 billion.
(Another note, I hope he dies in the crash of one of the old ones )
Yet the legislation still contains an effort by lawmakers to continue development — over the president's strong objections — of a costly alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Air Force's fighter of the future. A vague White House veto threat about that never came to fruition.
"There's still more fights that we need to win," Obama said. "Changing the culture in Washington will take time and sustained effort."
Obama signed the bill in the East Room, adding some fanfare to draw attention to his message of fiscal responsibility and support for the military.
He spoke more personally about the new civil rights protections. A priority of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., that had been on the congressional agenda for a decade, the measure is named for Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student murdered 11 years ago.
Obama acknowledged Shepard's mom, Judy, and remembered that he had told her this day would come. He also gave a nod to Kennedy's family. Going forward, Obama promised, people will be protected from violence based on "what they look like, who they love, how they pray or why they are."
"This is a landmark step in eliminating the kind of hate motivated violence that has taken the lives of so many in our community," said Jarrett Barrios, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
The expansion has long been sought by civil rights and gay rights groups. Conservatives have opposed it, arguing that it creates a special class of victims. They also have been concerned that it could silence clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality on religious or philosophical grounds.
(Another note, Aren't the laws against assault that are supposed to protect the rest of us good enough for Gays, if not then why do perverts get special treatment ? )
On the military front, the legislation approves Obama's $130 billion request as the latest installment of money toward the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The far-reaching law also prohibits the Obama administration from transferring any detainee being held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba to the U.S. for trial until 45 days after it has given notice to Congress. Guantanamo prisoners could not be released into the U.S.
-
Shepherd was killed by 2 drugged up meth freaks looking for a rich-looking kid to roll for his cash. They did.
And they did not know he was gay and didn't care when they found out - he had cash and stuff to pawn and that is what they were after. The hanging him on a fence in the winter was part of the drugged up part.
Or so his killers admitted from their prison cell.
-
"This is a landmark step in eliminating the kind of hate motivated violence that has taken the lives of so many in our community," said Jarrett Barrios, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
The expansion has long been sought by civil rights and gay rights groups. Conservatives have opposed it, arguing that it creates a special class of victims. They also have been concerned that it could silence clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality on religious or philosophical grounds.
So, gays are not protected under the same laws as hetero folks anymore?....
And therefore need extra-special legislation to protect them above and beyond normal laws already on the books?
Well isn't that special. :-X
-
I have always railed against hate crime legislation. All it is, is a way for the government to police thought. Hate is a motive, not a crime.
-
I have always railed against hate crime legislation. All it is, is a way for the government to police thought. Hate is a motive, not a crime.
And there you have it. There probably are more crimes motivated by homophobia than racism today, but so what? Assault is assault. If it was motivated by something, than it becomes a motive that makes it pre-meditated. This should be the aggravating factor, not the category the victim falls into. The only exception to this I can see is if there were an organized group, like the KKK say, that was pushing for this type of violence. A law to go after leaders and funders would be useful. But wait, we have those with anti-terrorism and RICO laws. I am all for putting gay bashers in jail (where they will be safe from contact with homosexual behavior ;D ) but we sure don't need laws that create thought crimes to do it.
FQ13
-
And there you have it. There probably are more crimes motivated by homophobia than racism today, but so what? Assault is assault. If it was motivated by something, than it becomes a motive that makes it pre-meditated. This should be the aggravating factor, not the category the victim falls into. The only exception to this I can see is if there were an organized group, like the KKK say, that was pushing for this type of violence. A law to go after leaders and funders would be useful. But wait, we have those with anti-terrorism and RICO laws. I am all for putting gay bashers in jail (where they will be safe from contact with homosexual behavior ;D ) but we sure don't need laws that create thought crimes to do it.
FQ13
Wrong. Sorry, but it is motive. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not constitute and "aggravating factor". An aggravating factor would be the use of a weapon. People will always be the victim of a crime. Not a motive, and it is not even required to show a motive in order to convict a person of a crime.
The real issue with this type of legislation is that if the victim fits into some category, and who doesn't in our PC world today, then every crime can, and will be tried as a hate crime. In the end, you simply convict a person on thought, and not on the crime.
-
Wrong. Sorry, but it is motive. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not constitute and "aggravating factor". An aggravating factor would be the use of a weapon. People will always be the victim of a crime. Not a motive, and it is not even required to show a motive in order to convict a person of a crime.
The real issue with this type of legislation is that if the victim fits into some category, and who doesn't in our PC world today, then every crime can, and will be tried as a hate crime. In the end, you simply convict a person on thought, and not on the crime.
You misunderstand me JC. What I meant was that PRE-MEDITATION should be an aggravating factor. Not what caused the pre-meditation. A gambling debt, skin color, sleeping with your girl friend, beating you up in the sixth grade whatever. If you target someone deliberately ahead of time, the penaly should be increased. I don't care why you trgeted them. Sorry I was unclear.
FQ13
-
You misunderstand me JC. What I meant was that PRE-MEDITATION should be an aggravating factor. Not what caused the pre-meditation. A gambling debt, skin color, sleeping with your girl friend, beating you up in the sixth grade whatever. If you target someone deliberately ahead of time, the penaly should be increased. I don't care why you trgeted them. Sorry I was unclear.
FQ13
Fair enough, but pre meditation simply makes it a first degree crime. Which in of itself carries a stiffer penalty. And to show pre meditation you have to prove actual planning. Not just thinking hateful thoughts. What I fear with this legislation is that, the next logical step is to start prosecuting people for making inflamitory comments. Like the ones that many of us make here daily. It's legislation like this, that ignores the physical crime in favor of punishing the motive. If you start down this slope then it inevitably leads to thought police, restrictions on free speech, and then Tom goes to jail for saying that congress should be shot. Followed promptly by the rest of us for agreeing with him.
-
Not to worry. Hillary is the new protector of free speech. Believe it or not. ;)
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091027/clinton-denounces-defamation-of-religions-proposals/index.html (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091027/clinton-denounces-defamation-of-religions-proposals/index.html)
-
Not to worry. Hillary is the new protector of free speech. Believe it or not. ;)
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091027/clinton-denounces-defamation-of-religions-proposals/index.html (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091027/clinton-denounces-defamation-of-religions-proposals/index.html)
I think I fell through a looking glass some where along the way ???
Who on this planet would have EVER visualized Hillary as the "Moderate ? :o
-
Did you read where it states the only religions that would be protected are Islam and Muslims?
Gee, now there's a big surprise! ::)
-
Even if it were a good law, (which it isn't ) it does not belong in the Defense bill.
-
Canceling the F-22 was bho's gift to the Russians and Chinese. Now they don't have to invest so much to keep up with us.
Way to go Congress - it's bad enough when the military is always prepared to fight the last war (insurgency). Now you have prevented them from fighting the next war successfully.
-
We have never been prepared for a war yet, why start now ?
If we were prepared the war would not happen.
-
Canceling the F-22 was bho's gift to the Russians and Chinese. Now they don't have to invest so much to keep up with us.
Way to go Congress - it's bad enough when the military is always prepared to fight the last war (insurgency). Now you have prevented them from fighting the next war successfully.
Remember Rumsfeld cheerfully killing off new artillery for the army in 2001 saying something along the lines of "There will never be another Desert storm"? They never learn. Although in fairness, we are miles ahead of Russia and China now in air superiority and improving our mechanized infantry and the means to deploy them, as well as maintaining naval superiority does seem to make more sense. The price tag for the F-22 was pretty scary, but I have no doubt that some day we will be saying "if only...". Thing is, thats true of any weapons system we don't buy.
FQ13