US Congressman Responds To A Constituent Letter Regard Hate Crimes Bill

Dear ****:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1913, a bill that would provide assistance to states and localities to better prosecute hate crimes. I appreciate hearing from you.

On April 2, 2009, Representative John Conyers (D-MI) reintroduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. On April 29, the House of Representatives debated this legislation, passing it with a bipartisan majority of 249-175. H.R. 1913 is also supported by more than 300 organizations, including law enforcement groups, religious groups, civil rights groups, disability groups, and numerous other associations. It is currently awaiting consideration in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I supported the bill because I believe crimes based on the ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual preference, or disability of the victim must be met with an adequate response from law enforcement agencies. State and local authorities currently prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crimes and would continue to do so under this legislation. The special attention these crimes require can stretch local law enforcement resources beyond their capacity. Oftentimes, states and local police departments do not have the expertise, manpower, or financial resources to investigate and prosecute such crimes. This bill would enable the federal government to provide crucial federal resources to state and local agencies to equip local officers with the tools they need to prosecute hate crimes. This legislation would also authorize the Attorney General to make grants to state and local law enforcement agencies that have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

Additionally, H.R. 1913 would extend existing protections to more Americans. The current federal hate crimes statute provides for federal assistance in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes in the cases of a violent crime committed against persons because of their race, color, religion, or national origin. This bill would close the current gaps in federal law to also provide federal assistance in the cases of a hate crime committed against persons because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

Some critics have a misplaced fear that any federal assistance in investigating or prosecuting hate crimes will lead to the prosecution of thoughts and beliefs. This is untrue. H.R. 1913 only applies to bias-motivated crimes of violence and does not impinge freedom of speech or religious expression in any way. Others contend that with passage of this bill, individuals may be arrested for speech and spoken words. This, too, is false. H.R. 1913 does not prohibit thought, speech or expression protected by the First Amendment.

Again, thank you for being in touch. For news on current federal legislative issues, please visit my website at; you can also sign up there to receive my e-newsletter. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me again if I may be of assistance with this or any other matter of concern.

With every good wish,

Sincerely yours,

John Dingell
Member of Congress

1.) Note the second paragraph. The implicit idea that is communicated is that Dingell’s vote is justified because the world is filled with so many other idiots who likewise support this legislation. No idiot ever need fear being exposed as an idiot as long as he is standing in a crowd of idiots.

2.) Note paragraph 3 sentence 1. Now let me get this straight… we are contemplating passing a law so that if a parent commits a crime against someone else because that someone else is a pederast and just fondled their 8 year old son or daughter that parent is going to be prosecuted more heavily? We are creating as scenario where the parent could be charged with a greater crime then the lech.

Secondly, touching paragraph 3 sentence 1 what we are doing is establishing that some crime victims are more important then other crime victims. Also, you can take it to the bank that the only criteria for pursuing a hate crimes prosecution will be the very fact that the victim of the crime is a pervert. Remember, in order for a prosecution to be successful on this matter it is going to have to be proven what was going through the criminals mind the very moment he committed the crime. Since, that is virtually impossible what will result is both an increased politicization of the court process as prosecuting attorneys try to make a name for themselves by convicting people for hate crimes, and the reality that a hate crime, since intent can’t be established, will be pursued simply because there was a crime against somebody in a protected class.

3.) The rest of paragraph 3 establishes that we are incrementally moving towards nationalizing and federalizing our local police. Keep in mind that dollars are following this legislation. What always happens at that point is that more hate crime cases have to be discovered in order to justify the flow of money from the Feds to the state and local police enforcement. Money flows to the local police and the local police have to show that the money was well spent. Remember the principle … what you subsidize (in this case resources for hate crimes prosecution) you always get more of (in this case increased hate crimes in order to use the subsidized resources).

4.) Paragraph 4 establishes that we are giving extra protection to people who love to copulate with dead people, people who love to copulate with cows, adults who love little boys, and other assorted perverts, queers, and general social deviants.

5.) Paragraph 5 is merely an opinion. Dingell has no idea the way that courts will interpret this legislation. One can easily foresee this legislation against hate crimes being used to rule against hate speech as clever prosecutors will connect the dots between the hate speech that putatively provokes hate crimes. At such a point a “hate crime” will include speaking that allegedly leads to violent acts.

Dingell is an idiot and as such he is the perfect man to represent Americans.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

3 thoughts on “US Congressman Responds To A Constituent Letter Regard Hate Crimes Bill”

  1. Perhaps even more disturbing is how exactly one is able to prosecute a hate crime as such. Is it a hate crime simply on the basis of the victim being of a certain race, orientation, religion, etc.? No, because that would lead to stricter penalties against crimes not motivated by “hate” against such categories. It must rest then upon proving that the motivation of the crime was specifically this hatred of category as opposed to treating motive as a proof of plausibility that the actor committed the act, or to qualify the degree of crime in which the act was committed. By specifying a degree based upon what amounts to prejudicial beliefs, we now legislate the mind as well as the actions. Totalitarianism, welcome home.

  2. Dingell is a complete ass. His canned replies are so disgusting and offensive that every letter he gets from me now closes with “and please spare me a canned response as each one simply confirms your stupidity.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *