HATE BILL PASSES JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Liberals Refuse to Exclude Gay Pedophiles from Federal Protection!
By Rev. Ted Pike
April 24, 2009
In a shocking conclusion to the second day of hearings on the federal hate crimes bill, HR 1913, House Judiciary Democrats rejected the final amendment of Rep. Steve King (R, IA) that "sexual orientation" in the bill specifically be defined as not including pedophiles. Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D, WI) objected, saying King's amendment was "unnecessary and inflammatory." She asserted that "sexual orientation," as defined by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990, means consensual heterosexual or homosexual sex. That definition, she claimed, is sufficient to exclude pedophiles.
Before any Republicans could respond in support of this bold and essential amendment, Judiciary Chairman Conyers cut off debate, calling for an immediate vote, which upheld Baldwin. When Republicans objected, Conyers said he had not noticed them wanting to debate Baldwin's position, an absurd, unbelievable lie!
The truth is that a large percentage of homosexuals, especially males, are actual or potential pedophiles. From at least the time of the ancient Greeks, their ultimate sexual prize has been underage boys who "consent" to have sex with them. (In homosexual jargon, gay men are "chicken hawks," boys "chickens.") The liberals promoting HR 1913 are determined, at all costs, to protect the entire homosexual community as the primary beneficiaries of the hate bill. As we saw today, they were terrified of allowing Republicans to fragment federal protection of homosexuals into "protected versus unprotected" members. Such fragmentation would destroy their hate bill, dedicated to special protection of all homosexuals, regardless of degree of perversion. They do not want the pedophile members of NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) to be deprived of the same perks and protection under federal law enjoyed by "respectable" homosexuals who cohabit only with adults. Homosexuals as a specific "class" must remain inviolate.
On the other hand, "straight" pedophiles who have heterosexual sex with little girls would remain without specially protected status, punishable under conventional law.
Rep. Gohmert in his remarks during the last several minutes of the hearing protested the committee's highhandedness. He objected to Democrats' denial of all of the large number of reasonable and constructive Republican amendments, but also the outrage of not allowing the distinction in the bill between child-molesting homosexuals and "law-abiding" ones. He reiterated that "sexual orientation" can have the widest possible connotations within the term "homosexuality." Yet Judiciary liberals rejected such demand for specificity. They voted to pass the hate bill with such built-in ambiguity concerning sexual orientation that any homosexual can claim special protection for his aberrant brand of the perversion.
Clearly, the House Judiciary Committee has now sent a powerful message that all deviant brands of homosexuality are welcome on the federal hate crimes bandwagon. No homosexual, whether he be into sado-masochism, bestiality, transvestism, necrophilia (sex with the dead), or pedophilia, should consider himself outside special protection.
An irate Gohmert now predicts that any parent who physically assaults a homosexual pedophile attacking his or her child will become a federal hate criminal. Any young man who hits back against a homosexual hitting on him will become guilty of the "hate crime" of "bias-motivated assault."
Surely, if the hate bill threat has not moved you to pick up your phone and
protest to Congress, the fact of HR 1913's implicit protection of all deviant
members of the gay community, including pedophiles, should cause you to react