<clip 01:44 - 01:49 Censorship>
<clip 02:05 - 02:25 Hate Crime Legislation>
You know, I've been wondering lately why all these anti-gay, anti-Islam websites have suddenly been shut down.
- Americans for Truth
- The Daily Reveille
- Dove World Outreach Center
- Focus On The Family
- ICW Seminary
- Mission America
- Oneness Pentecostal
- Westboro Baptist Church
While you search for such an example, consider this: the hate crimes legislation that President Obama signed on October 28, 2009 is known as the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act." It went through congress as HR 1913 and SB 909. Both documents have a section titled "Rule of Construction." The House's rule contains the following text:
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution.The Senate's rule contains the following text:
(3) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.I don't know, I'm no expert, but it seems pretty clear to me that this legislation reaffirms your right to bash gays, Islam, and anything else that gets under your skin. As usual, if you guys think that I'm interpreting this badly, please, let me know. I conclude that Boykin has grossly misrepresented the "Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act." Why?
(4) FREE EXPRESSION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.
<clip 02:57 - 03:15 Buy, Sell, Control>
Well, that's not anything like how I interpreted the intent of the treaty, which appears not even to exist yet. From what I can tell on the UN website, the whole idea is still under examination by a preparatory committee. More importantly, the charter for the committee is to examine the possibility of "establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms." The Reuters article on the matter says, "Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements". The Snopes article also points out that "in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties".
At this point, seeing how badly he has mangled the DHS memo, the hate crimes act, and now the proposed UN treaty, how can we accept anything he says? A few people have suggested to me that being a decorated war veteran, he is a very noble and trustworthy man. I can't find a way to agree with such claims. Even if he does believe what he's saying, he's deluded. Either that or I'm just completely wrong, which I wouldn't rule out. Again, please let me know if I'm missing something important.
That's Part IV. Thanks for watching.