Bachmann compares gays to pedophiles on hate crimes bill

Bachmann should be censured for this hateful comment.

I want to see pictures of her voters. I have to see what stupid looks like in it’s rawest form. This is unbelievable.

The last sentence of the piece above. Funny how disclaimers like that need to be added to pretty much EVERY statement she makes.

[...] walk. I mean, let’s just look at her output from the past forty-eight hours: Not only did she conflate gays and pedophiles, but she also tried to link swine flu to Democratic administrations (which is especially hilarious [...]

WHAT YOU CAN DO – FROM THE HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN:
Call Congress – Help Pass the Hate Crimes Bill

We’ve received word that the House will vote on the Matthew Shepard Act TOMORROW.

We need you to make a 45-second call to your Representative’s office – even if you’ve already called. Call 202-224-3121 and tell your member of Congress to vote YES on the hate crimes bill.

[...] no she didn’t: Rep. Michele Bachmann spoke out against federal hate crimes bill being considered on the U.S. [...]

What she really means by all that crap that came out of her mouth is “I’m a bigot.” I am hoping that her voters and contributors realize that they are really supporting a bigot. A true christian wouldn’t be this hateful towards specific groups of people. Jesus is disappointed by Michelle Bachman. New bumpersticker?

Because glbt people are never veterans, pregnant women, or, 85-year-old grandmothers.

Michelle Bachman’s many unintellegent comments along with the Coleman/Franken mess reflect poorly on the people of Minnesota.

” Not only did she conflate gays and pedophiles”

That’s McCarthyism! Do you want a list of gay organizations that do just that? The conflation was near universal with gay orgs in the 1960s, 1970s, and quite a few still do. The COC was promoting pedophilia & incest until a few years ago.

Thanks, Bethany–I wondered if anyone was going to point out this other huge hole in her (il)logic. Oh, Minnesota!

OMG SHE IS WACKED!!!!!!! AND DAMN SHE IS NOT BLONDE!

Impeach her before she can humiliate the state with her mouth again.

This is the story? That she compares pedophiles with gays? Shouldn’t the ^#%#!@*!!! story be about the audacity of legal protection for pedophiles! Good Grief.

Bachmann/Palin 2012!!
Bachmann/Palin 2012!!

Pedophiles are protected under the Shepard act. That is Bachmann’s point. What, you missed out on the rules for comma usage in basic grammar? Pedophilia occurs in gays and straits so get over it.

Michelle Bachman’s comments clearly demonstrate uninformed, illogical, irrelevant thinking.

It’s time to send Michell Bachman and Norm Coleman packing.

The honorable representative from New Jersey disagrees with Michele Bachmann.

Watch what New Jersey’s Rush Holt said:

Rep. Holt Speaks in Favor of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act
(video—about 1 minute)

What all of you F-tards fail to comprehend is that A VIOLENT CRIME IS A VIOLENT CRIME, REGARDLESS OF THE MOTIVE!!!!

This law, by it’s very nature, implies that it is somehow, not as bad(?) to murder someone, as long as you don’t do it because of their ______ (fill in the blank with the minority status du jour). Those of you questioning the logic of those that oppose this legislation… need to take a course in logic.

Why are all you sheeple so eager to give your free speech rights away? Baaaaa!

Bunch of lemmings!!!

Hey there, lay off the McCarthyism. I voted for Gene in ‘76. As for Bachmann, Huh? (as always)

I agree with William. Hate crimes bills only add to the severity of the punishment. If I beat up a woman, I get 15 years. If I beat up a GAY woman, I get 30. THAT is the problem with the bill. If we’re all supposed to be equal, why do we even need this bill at all? So if this bill is supposed to pass, quickly they need to rewrite the bill to say if the victim is any kind of minority at all, it’s a hate crime…period. So yeah, I’m all for it. As a morbidly obese person, I should be included in this bill, right? I mean, I’m too fat to fight back, so I should be protected. Point is…if we’re to progress in this country, NO ONE should be protected over another.

William,

In case you weren’t aware, motive is considered all the time in criminal statutes and is a factor in determining how we punish other crimes. If you understand the difference between manslaughter and first or second degree murder, it’s easy to see. I guess we’ll have to get rid of those distinctions too under your guidance.

What I also can’t get is why you, Mr. F-tard, (and a disturbing number of others) are stupid enough to believe the garbage you hear about this law taking away or somehow impeding free speech. Please show everyone how smart you are and prove me wrong by posting the text (verbatim quote please) of this bill that would allow someone to be prosecuted for speech alone.

I think you’ve just heard Rush and Hannity sending out the “free speech is dead” message and decided to regurgitate it like so many of your mindless friends. Who’s a lemming now?

The Homosexual community thinks that the Christian community is against them. God isn’t agains them, only their sin of Homosexuality. Do you know how hard it is to love a Homosexual but hate the sin? It’s hard, especially when the Homosexual community is so adamant about their actions. God DOES love the Homosexual, but abhors their sin. If they truly want to know a loving God and what He can do for them, then read the Word and open your hearts.

Doug, how do you know that “God DOES love the Homosexual, but abhors their sin.”. Does God speak to you? Jesus said nothing like about abhorring homosexuality in the Bible.

Anoka voters, doing their level best to help by hiring the handicapped

Hey everyone, I’m straight, and I know you will probably flame me for this, but I really don’t think “hate crime bills” are the answer to anything. Shouldn’t a crime against a fellow human being be a crime REGARDLESS of the victim’s race, sexual orientation, etc? Shouldn’t we punish those crimes rigorously & pro-actively, in the absence of prejudice of ANY type? I think everyone should be protected by the law equally, and that we don’t need “special” laws that leave out segments of the population. If someone commits a crime against you based on your sexual orientation, you can trust that I will be vigorously demanding that this crime be punished! But not more than a crime against someone else. Doesn’t this make sense?

Growing up black in America is very different than growing up white, and growing up gay is very different from growing up straight. The former, in both cases, is subject discrimination in all kinds of ways that the latter, in both cases, can never fully understand. I support saying that it is “extra” wrong to kill someone because of the color of their skin, gender, religion or sexual orientation. There is a need to recognize and confront – not ignore – hate and discrimination in this country. We won’t get past racism or gay bashing or misogyny by “treating everyone equal” because our society is inherently set up to favor whites, straights, men, and Christians. If we don’t recognize that, we fail, and by doing nothing, we are actually supporting and sustaining our current discriminatory practices.

God sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross for all mankind. I believe that with all my heart. But if I am to beleive that I am going to heaven on my own deeds or works and that God is going to give me a reduced sentence because of what I have done here on this earth, I am living in a fantasy. God is a Holy God. How can I possibly beleive that I could ever “get to Heaven” on my own deeds? Just because Jesus died on the cross for all mankind, doesn’t mean I am automatically going to heaven. Yes, He does condemn the sin of Homosexuality. Check out the New Testament. I don’t love you enough to die for you, but I love you enough to tell you about Christ. Christ loves you no matter what you’ve done, you just need to accept what He has done as fact to be presentable to God when the time comes to stand face to face with Him(God).

OK, I think several people are getting things wrong about the bill. The bill doesn’t say that if you do a crime against someone who is gay, black, or disabled that you get a higher punishment. If you kill someone you get one punishment. If you kill them BECAUSE they are different then you get something added because of the hate (racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, xenophobia, etc.) involved. That is entirely the way it should be. The bill says nothing about speech.

I’m not a big Bachmann supporter, but the cursory evidence seems to indicate that she may, in fact, be correct: I have a friend who is a college prof. at a “Big Ten” university (social historian) who spent about a year leaving in and researching the gay culture in SF.

He’s not an idealogue and he is, if anything, rather sympathetic to gays in general.

His astounding conclusion was that essentially all male homosexuals have, at the very least, a serious propensity towards pedophilia, if not being actual practitioners of it. This would certainly seem to be evidenced by the youth cult that pervades so much of the gay culture.

I’m not saying that I either agree or disagree with his conclusion, but I do hope that both sides of the issue are wise, mature, educated, and honest enough not to let their emotions and/or political agendas get in the way of objective facts and reality.

Isn’t the freedom of speech wonderful; she provides us with more evidence that she’s nuts and the majority of the voters in her district can’t be far behind

@Bill: Unless I am mistaken, everyone _is_ protected equally by this language. That is the larger point Bethany was making above.

For example, if someone attacks or kills me _because_ I am Caucasian (racism), the Hate Crimes language comes into play. It is not the fact that I am any specific race, but rather, that the crime was committed due to my race, whatever it may be.

It is relatively easy to mistake the language as “special protection”, I suppose, but it is not, at least as written. If you are heterosexual, someone that harmed you due to your sexual orientation would be prosecutable under the law. The fact that certain groups are far more likely to suffer from such treatment does not indicate “special protection”… it indicates “special threat”.

@Jeff M

No, actually, this is how the law works (as written).

1) If you beat up a straight woman, you get 15 years.
2) If you beat up a gay woman, you get 15 years.
3) If you beat up a straight woman _because she’s straight_, you get 30 years.
4) If you beat up a gay woman _because she’s gay_, you get 30 years.

In other words,
5) If you beat up any woman _because of what you think her sexual orientation_ is_, you get 30 years.

The fact that no one can apparently imagine case 3 happening is not indicative of “special protection”.

To those who think pedophilia begins with gay people. Oh puh-leez. Learn to read and go do your research. Statistics have shown that pedophiles are heterosexual men and very often, married with children. I have never met a gay person who was into pedophilia. In fact they are turned off by it.

P.S…the bible is nothing more than a book of outdated and overrated fairy tales. God is for suckers.

Rebel 3,

You have un-biased “friend” who did a study suggesting that most homosexual men have a propensity for pedophelia? Ask for proof. Ask for the data. Ask for the study. Or better yet, go online and research the topic yourself to discover that there is no higher instance of pedopheia among homeosexuals than there is among “straight” people. This type of study has been conducted thousands of times with thousands of participants, and the result is ALWAYS the same: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CO-RELATION BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALITY AND PEDOPHELIA.

Please stop spewing lies and propaganda, and actually do a little research before making bold, offensive, misleading claims.

I can’t even believe that people are still as gullible as you in the new millennium. Grow up. Get educated. You embarrass yourself.

Right-wingers, get over it. The bill passed in the U.S House of Representatives by a vote of 249 to 175. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for opposing this legislation.

Please read the bill before you make all the lame talking point from Faux news comments.

It would give local law-enforcement extra funds when investigating, and prosecuting hate crimes.

The hate crime could also be called a terrorizing crime (not terrorist crime),, the crime is against an individual but also to terrorize a group of people.

I think we should boycott 6th district businesses till Bachman steps down or censured, or if possible recalled. Beyond being ignorant her comments try to incite hate and violence. She has said far worse things than what was on the RNC Welcoming Committee website and those member’s houses where raided at gun point and they face felony charges.

Why hasn’t Bachman been arrested ?

This bill is a joke that simply protects one class over another, period. It is no different than affirmative action. I have many friends who fall under the affirmative action law and it pisses most of them off because many people have the perception that they got ahead by special circumstance rather than hard work.
As for this comment:
David Comment posted April 29, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
I want to see pictures of her voters. I have to see what stupid looks like in it’s rawest form. This is unbelievable.
Hop on your bike and come out to Anoka, Wright, Stearns counties to name a few in her district and see what we look like.
And by the way, the Boy Scouts of America got it right.

Williamsadouche,

OK I’ll play. Actually I had no intention to revisit this small-time site, except I failed to close my browser session when I signed out yesterday. I will not be coming back as I have better things to do with my time than arguing on the internet. But nonetheless, I’ll answer you this one time.

Ha! Call me a douche… whatever. A douche is a personal cleanser, and if my job is to cleanse this discussion of ignorance, then fine. At least I had the courage to use my real name. You aren’t hurting my feelings any. In fact, you are making this too easy.

Are you truly so dense that you would reveal, on a public forum, that you don’t know the difference between motive and intent? Seriously. Because, there is a difference you know. I’ll break it down so a child can understand.

Intent is what establishes a charge’s degree. Example: A drunk driver kills an innocent pedestrian. This is manslaughter, rather than first or second degree murder. The murder wasn’t planned ahead of time. The killer did not set out to kill the pedestrian, but rather it was an ancillary result of the offense of DWI. Just thought I’d clear that up. I really wish I didn’t have to spell this out for you, but I’m glad to do it as part of the “douching” process.

As far as H.R. 1913 goes, I can’t show you anywhere in particular where free speech is abridged within the text of the bill, because it isn’t there. And that is precisely the point. The bill is worded in such a vague way, that we are really left at the mercy of the interpretation of the law. The summary of the bill reads: “To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.” It is the last phrase “and for other purposes” that makes my blood run cold.

Again, what is the point of this law? If you perpetrate a violent act against someone for ANY reason, it should not matter why. If you pre-meditated murder, it is first degree whether or not it was pre-meditated because the person was a black man, or a white man that slept with your wife. The murder was premeditated! It should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Where this law becomes a threat to free speech is, that it defines a crime based upon what someone thinks. It is saying, if you think a certain way about your victim, that you will have a more severe punishment than if you had not thought that. That’s what is scary.

This bill is the first step off of the slippery slope to no first amendment rights. Is that what you want? What happens when another extreme, right-wing crazy gets into office, and your liberal kookist ideas are deemed “intolerant”? You can’t have it both ways. Just because I don’t like the fact that a person believes differently than I do, doesn’t give me the right to legislate away their right to say it.

And no, I don’t listen to Rush or Hannity. But you must, since you seem to know what it is they are saying. There are still those of us who are free thinkers in this country, and aren’t spoon-fed our information by the media. Actually, it is possible for an intelligent person to extrapolate the consequences of this bill without the help of talk radio.

At any rate, I realize it is hard for the Obamatrons to critically think through these types of scenarios. It is even harder for you guys when you don’t have the truth on your side. You have to be more creative and use smoke and mirror tactics to try and hoodwink the average person into doubting their own basic common sense. Pathetic.

And to Erica, nothing is more anti-intellectual than pugilist atheism. Face it, your religious philosophy of evolution died with the mapping of the human genome in 1999. You’re just a little late to the party. Sorry. Hello, it’s a software program!!! Raise your fist at the Bible all you want, but contrary to what you stated, the Bible, actually has archaeological and historical provenance. So “do your research”. Feeble-minded, hit-and-run attacks on the Bible are quite frankly, laughable and lame, and have nothing to do with this discussion. You can no more prove there is no God than I can prove there is. So save it. It all boils down to statistical probabilities. You just need to do the math.

You know what math is?

I’m sorry if I seem a bit pissed. I’m a middle-aged, bleach-haired punk rocker, and I still have a bone to pick with state-control. So yeah, I resent this bill and it’s nanny-state intrusion.

[...] (C-Span via Minnesota Independent) [...]

In response to:

Glynis
Comment posted April 30, 2009 @ 9:20 am
Doug, how do you know that “God DOES love the Homosexual, but abhors their sin.”. Does God speak to you? Jesus said nothing like about abhorring homosexuality in the Bible.

Jesus the Son is GOD. That is identified in 1John, and other places. So I’m afaid that you have to actually read the Bible, Old & New Testament before you spread more confusion, and lose souls… In the Old Testament, GOD the Father, was speaking; He said Homosexuals will be punished (Sodom & Gomorrah was an example)Homosexuals will never see life, they will burn. Thats why Christians are hated because we speak truth due to reading it all, and not reading just what we want to read.

Homosexuality is just as bad as being a liar, murderer, thief,etc… We’re all in trouble. That’s why we should seek Jesus as the final sacrifice (Lamb) to come into our hearts and lives, to be our personal Lord & Savior so we can have life forever more… Amen.

Pedophilia is not a “crime”, it is a “perversion”…as defined by Merriam-Webster. So one could see a short jump to defining it as a sexual orientation (see definition below) Notice the part: “a usually general or lasting direction of thought, inclination, or interest” ? Since a pedophile is “inclined” or “interested” in children as sexual objects; hence a “sexual orientation”.

Main Entry: ori·en·ta·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌȯr-ē-ən-ˈtā-shən, -ˌen-\
Function: noun
Date: 1839
1 a: the act or process of orienting or of being oriented b: the state of being oriented ; broadly : arrangement, alignment
2 a: a usually general or lasting direction of thought, inclination, or interest b: a person’s self-identification as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual

Main Entry: pe·do·phil·ia
Pronunciation: \ˌpe-də-ˈfi-lē-ə, ˈpē-\
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
Date: 1906
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
— pe·do·phil·i·ac \-ˈfi-lē-ˌak\ or pe·do·phil·ic \-ˈfi-lik\ adjective

God forbid anyone speak out against perverse sexual activity. I’ve watched the video and it’s pretty straight forward (oh, my is that wrong…to call some “straight”). Rather than discuss the issue bigoted liberals start the “gay bashing” mantra. No ones discussing homosexual proclivities here but whether to extend Federal protection to people who are sexual predators of children. But God help the kids if some democrats think that protecting them will in any way infringe on the territory of gay lesbian bisexual transgendered people. And the only voice we hear from the gay community is “bigotry”? Won’t they speak up to defend children? When they’re waving their Matthew Shepard flag around do they forget about 10 year old Jeffrey Curley? Abducted by pedophiles, raped repeatedly, tortured and finally gagged with a gas soaked rag that smothered him to death? Is this ‘gay rights”? Is this what you people want to protect? God help our children from people like you.

OK, let’s look at this pragmatically…

From what I’ve read of the bill, and which has been pointed out previously, is that this bill does not create “protected classes” of people – it essentially covers everyone from violence perpetrated upon them because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. As an example, a straight person will not receive a harsher sentence for killing a homosexual because he is a homosexual, when compared to a gay person killing a heterosexual because he is heterosexual – by the language of this bill, both crimes should be prosecuted to the same extent, with the same possible sentences.

Also, the bill spells out that “sexual orientation” is CONSENSUAL homosexuality or heterosexuality. Pedophelia when practiced (whether physical sexual acts, or obtaining of pedophilic pornography) is at it’s core a NON-CONSENSUAL act. Why? Because children have not reached the age of consent – it doesn’t matter if the pedophile says that “the child wanted me to do this, so it’s OK”, because the child does not legally have the ability to make that decision. The question of pedophiles being protected under this bill is simply a political ruse, an argument designed to give a dwindling political party something of a toehold against the waning of their power.

As far as “hate crimes” in general, I go back and forth on the idea, but what I’ve come to is that it all depends upon what it will take to “prove” a hate crime. If a prosecutor can simply point out that the defendant is ‘x’, and the victim was ‘y’, therefore it’s a hate crime, then yes, this bill is problematic at best, and shouldn’t become law. But, if a prosecutor must prove certain factors to a stringent requirement, particularly that the reason why the victim was attacked was because he was ‘y’ AND FOR NO OTHER REASONABLE MOTIVE, then I can support this bill. It comes down to the reasons why these types of acts are perpetrated – lynchings of black people were not only meant to kill the individual because of his skin color, but also to terrorize and “send a message” to the black community. Name the grouping of race, color, sexual orientation, religion, etc., and they are covered equally under this bill – there are no “protected” classes. But, for me, the real question is how will such a law be implemented within our judicial system.

Quick update to previous post:

Just did some more in-depth fact checking, and the bill S.909 itself does not specify consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality – but the Hate Crimes Statistical Act of 1990, a federal statute, makes that distinction. I guess there might be a very minor chance to argue that S.909 should have specified that more clearly… but I don’t think it would be too difficult for a prosecutor to prove that the Hate Crimes Statistical Act statute would directly affect the law written by the bill S.909.

But, if someone wants to say that Rep. King’s amendment was an attempt to do that, I will note that it was an extremely poor way to go about it. A better way would have been to write an amendment that clearly ties S.909 to the Hate Crimes Statistical Act’s definition of sexual orientation. In fact, by specifying ONLY pedophiles, such an amendment would then implicitly make the allowance for people with other sexual disorders (necrophelia, bestiality, incest, etc.) to successfully argue that their disorder is actually a sexual orientation, and therefore possible to be protected under hate crimes legislation – King casts too narrow a net in his amendment, so narrow that I tend to believe that his motivation was purely political (believing that the democrats would vote it down, giving a nice, prepackaged soundbyte to his republican cohorts), as opposed to actually wanting to improve the bill.

just three questions
are pedophiles (men molesting boys) homosexuals ?
-
shouldn’t pedophiles be locked up until a cure is found ?
imagine telling a normal person they MUST date children…..
would a normal person just start dating children – hell no !!!
but to a pedophile, dating adults is strange.
so society must make the adjustment……..NOT
-
is anyone who wants to change their sex mentally stable ?

Well- you consider a family rearing person a bigot because they don’t want pedophiles around their kids preying upon them? We have been conditioned to accept gays and lesbians, told we’re “bad” if we don’t. It started when people began cohabitating out of wedlock, had children out of marriage—-look at us now- a boatload of lost kids, unable to have a relationship of any importance, angry at everyone- I refuse to accept PEDOPHILES as “disabled” people- these perverted and child hurting people need to be kept at bay from their prey—I and most of the rest of AMerica are disgusted by hteir behaviour- the problem is, the minority has the most time to blog and twitter (you’re all on public entitlement anyway- that’s how “O” got elevted, promising the mass of welfare recipients more for nothing- Democrats have a standing voter base in the entitlement area!

Family, marriage and you individual faith are all that can help fix what is broken in America- (I care less if it is Judiasm, Maoism, Muslim or Christian—-just a personal faith in something BIGGER that you or your ego or perceived intellingence and superiority over everyone else!)