Unbelievable

Words fail.

Advertisements

~ by WriterRand on April 30, 2009.

9 Responses to “Unbelievable”

  1. How ignorant can one person be? If I lived in that state I would vote her out… was that recent?

  2. Recent? Yeah, try *yesterday*. Boy is she gonna get a mouthful…

  3. She simply speaks the truth no matter who thinks it is off. The arresting officers and the prosecutor are the ones who say it was because of a robbery. Only afterward was there an effort to get more exposure by bringing up the homosexuality.

  4. She is not speaking the truth. She later claimed to take into account a recent ABC report by John Stossel (who is to journalists what Jeffrey Dahmer is to child care) suggesting that the motive was robbery instead of attacking a gay man. The sheriff of the country where it happened later came out and provided documented evidence, including testimony by the girlfriends, that this was not the case.

    It’s not so simple.

  5. Boy, now who do you believe? She is not the only one saying this and neither is John Stossel (not so sure about your characterization since I have very little confidence in any journalist. Suffice to make the simple argument that I don’t need to spend one more day in jail because the person I killed was homosexual. I should spend the amount due me for murder, period. So silly to make a ‘special’ law and them claim it isn’t going to be abused, like it is in the other countries where it has been passed.

  6. In the news today:

    The activist is Andrew Sullivan, one of the movers and shakers in the international homosexual movement. “The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that,” Sullivan writes on his blog, “and Matthew Shepard’s murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time.”

    Sullivan continues: “The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings. Just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money for [Human Rights Campaign], more gay human beings will be crucified on fences. It’s very, very powerful as a money-making tool — which may explain why the largely symbolic federal bill still hasn’t passed.”

    Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel read the blog entry and offers this take on Sullivan’s comments on Senate Bill 909.

    “He is to be commended for his candor,” says Barber. “He has admitted publicly now that the hate crimes bill…is, among other things, simply a money-making scheme drummed up by the organized homosexualist lobby.”

    Matt BarberS. 909 is called the Matthew Shepard Act to honor a young homosexual man who was tortured and killed in 1998 not because of his sexual orientation, but during the course of a robbery. As Barber notes, the murder has been used as a money-raiser, too.

    “Andrew Sullivan points this irony out and points out how ridiculous it is that they are using [Shepard’s] name, exploiting this poor young man’s horrible death to try to push a money-making scheme…a social ponzi scheme,” says Barber.

    “The cat’s out of the bag,” he continues. “Sullivan’s admission…is both refreshing and stunning at the same time.”

    The hate crimes bill, which has already passed the House, would add sexual orientation to other protected classes.

  7. Your choice of “documentation” is interesting; I read your news piece and thought, “She doesn’t cite her sources, but this smells like World News Daily” and sure enough, under today’s “stories,” there this is.

    That it would use Andrew Sullivan, a conservative gay author’s, disgust with the bill is not an earth-shaking revelation. That it would equate Sullivan’s personal belief with fact is not surprising. But that WND continues to push the astonishing lie that the bill protects pedophiles, gives them all the credibility they deserve in this situation. It does not, and pediophilia is specifically excluded from protection.

    Look, enough. Obviously you hold your opinions and there’s going to be no worthwhile discussion here. The original post was just to show how people like Representative Fox can take the lies so often generated and make their own truth, whether it bears any reality to the truth or not. The facts are what they are, documentated at the time of the murder, and she is wrong. She later apologized beautifully to Andrew’s mother, and that should end the story.

    BTW, to counter another lie from its opponents, the bill SPECIFICALLY PROTECTS religious speech; pastors do not have to be afraid of being arrested for preaching the truth about homosexuality.

  8. Not trying to narrow minded. Truly wonder who to believe. You sound so confident in what you believe are the facts and yet I’m left with what is published. Huh? How about that. So I have to go to the source or just disregard almost everything published because of authors biases. It is really tough to know who to trust these days.

    So I get it that you are all for the hate crime bill. Are you a recovered homosexual? Do you think that this legislation adds something that is missing? Do you think it is being used for monetary gain?

  9. Oops, by the way, wasn’t meaning to avoid the source. (I’m very happy with the source.) I did include all the names of folks and thought that would be the pertinent info.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: