SD Chapter of Concerned Women for America Blasts Herseth on Hate Crimes Vote

The State Director of the Concerned Women for America just added to the dogpile of commentators blasting Congresswoman Herseth for her support of the selective hate crimes legislation that was just passed by the House. (This same legislation is also facing a presidential veto):

New Holland , SD - Concerned Women for America (CWA) of South Dakota regards the passage of "The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act" (H.R. 1592) as troubling for all citizens and for the integrity of the United States Constitution.

"Hate crimes" legislation would officially give homosexuals and cross dressers special elevated status in society based upon their sexual behaviors and/or wardrobe. "We find it disturbing that the U.S. House and Representative Herseth-Sandlin voted to elevate special classes of victims based solely upon their sexual preference and gender identity. With this legislation a perpetrator could receive harsher penalties for assaulting a homosexual man than for the same crime committed against a child," stated Linda Schauer, State Director of CWA of South Dakota.


Congress should protect our liberties by rejecting these fallacious reports and this assault on equal protection.
You can view their website here.

While I might not put it as bluntly, I think creating special classes of people creates so many problems we cannot begin to fathom. A crime is a crime, regardless if a person is black, red, white, yellow or green. Crimes are equally vile whether they are perpetrated against men wearing a military uniform, a suit, or a dress.

When you start distinguishing classes, you set people apart from one another. If the conflict over civil rights taught us anything, it's that breaking down those barriers and treating everyone equally is what brings acceptance. We don't have separate bathroom and lunch counters anymore. So why is there this push for unequal justice?

Preferential rights, preferential placement in education, and hate crime legislation only serves to emphasize the very differences that the people seeking acceptance want others to ignore.

One one hand, groups might say "ignore the difference when you hire me." But on the other, they're asking to be held out differently in the prosecution of crimes. Like it or not, I don't think you can have it both ways.
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
- Abraham Lincoln, The Gettysburg Address


Anonymous said…
I'm glad to see that we are not holding back any punches. As our only vote in the House, Herseth needs to be held accountable.

How embarrasing she will protect men in dresses, but not in uniform protecting her freedom.

We need someone else representing South Dakota, NOT Herseth.
Anonymous said…
Does anyone else think the Concerned Women for America hates gay people? Whenever they talk about homosexuality they just sound so full of hate.

I have no problem with them disliking homosexuality on religious grounds, even though I disagree with them. But the terms they use just seem like hate speech.
Anonymous said…
This post is about Herseth and her vote to give gays special rights. Just because someone chooses to be gay doesn't mean they should receive special treatment or rights, and that is what Herseth is trying to do.
Anonymous said…
So, how many hetero, fat white guys are being selected for hate crimes these days?

CWA is a hoax organization that is a carbon copy of the old KKK. If it were up to the CWA, there'd be no anti-lynching laws on the books below the Mason Dixon line either.
Anonymous said…
Concerned women for America is a fringe group populated with oddballs and malcontents. They always take radical positions on issues.

They're not concerned about the war's effect on America, including a trillion $$s spent, 3,500 dead soldiers and 20,000 wounded soldiers. I dare you to find a press release on that.

They're not concerned about the despicable conditions of Walter Reed and other military hospitals and the long waiting period injured vets have for benefits. Where's their press release on that?

They're not even concerned for crime victims. When have they ever done a press release sticking up for crime victims?

This group is not really "concerned". In the interest of truth in advertising, it should be re-named "Far Right-wing Republican Women of America"
Anonymous said…
What do you think?? Everyone knows Herseth is a flaming Liberal. Her true colors will keep on shining. She was allowed to vote like a South Dakotan for awhile but now she thinks she is "in" she will vote her beliefs.
Anonymous said…
As far as I'm concerned, take the mandatory sentences now in place for hate crimes and make them applicable to all cases. Harsher penalties all around.
Anonymous said…
I think punishment should be based on the crime - not the motive. If you beat up someone because he is gay, or because he is Hispanic, or because he is a veteran - it should not matter. We get dangerously close to the "thought police" if we do otherwise.
Anonymous said…
Concerned Women for America support discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, in fact they think that homosexuals do not suffer from discrimination, and that reports of bias crimes against GBLT people are typically fabricated.

They are not good or very intelligent people in my opion.
Anonymous said…
1:12 the press release was not "hate speech".
It was blunt and it could have been more so.

The bill is wrong.

People open your eyes and look where this could go and most likely will go.
Anonymous said…
3:13 that is NOT what the press release said.
Anonymous said…
Want a good example of hate speech? Just read what some of the liberals here are posting about Concerned Women for America!!!

How about you hate-filled libs giving us some quotes from CWA that back up your claims?

I'm not a member of CWA but I remember hearing one of their officers telling a reporter that as a Christian, she might hate the sin, but she loved the sinner. Doesn't sound much like hate speech to me....
Douglas said…
The idea of "hate crimes" is neither liberal or conservative but rather it is politically correct.

I tend to agree with PP that establishing special rights for anybody discriminates against others. Of course establishing special penalties has a similar effect. In the case of "hate" crimes, that operates both ways.

If local and state governments did actually prosecute crimes against members of any and all groups, and protected any and all groups equally, there would be no need for federal laws.

There is something of a chicken and egg relationship. The egg was the failure of local governments to do their duty to protect all citizens, and the chicken is the intrusive federal legislation that is hatched because the feds and our congress critters don't have a better idea.
Anonymous said…
The entire concept of homosexuals being a minority upsets me. I acknowledge that they are discriminated against, but why? The answer is that the majority of Americans think it's wrong, just that simple. Now then,given the fact that they have been established by our government as a minority, let me give you a comparison. I like to make love to my wife "puppy dog" style. That being the case, based on my sexual preferences, I should be able to establish a minority called the "Puppy Doggers." It sounds obsurd, doesn't it, but that's what's going on with homosexuals. What fool decided that one's sexual preferences should establish his/her right to special treatment????
Anonymous said…
Being "PC" is causing great harm in America's society.
All this bill will do is further the divide and fighting.
These so called smart people eg elected officials are not being smart.
Crime is crime treat it as such we do NOT need this bill or any like it. Enforce what is on the books.
Anonymous said…
The premise that people need different treatment because of WHY they intentionally caused someone else harm, rather than the fact that they caused the harm has always mystified me.

If I hit you, I hit you. If I kill you, I kill you. To whom, and why, does it matter if I'm a bigot, or merely a jerk?

Interestingly, under current "hate" crimes laws, those charged are, in significant majority, people of color.
Anonymous said…
Did Bob Newland just say something that made an inkling of sense?
Anonymous said…
Well, yes, Bob did say something.
He said if I read correctly.
If you hit, he hits back. If he kills someone he has killed.
Be it a jerk or a bigot it does not matter (the reason).
In other words what I think he said is a crime is a crime but I do think that he is saying "people of color" do more of the crime?????
Is this correct Bob?
Anonymous said…
Too much information?
Actually, there was a time when your preferred method was illegal, especially id your aim was a little off! : )
Anonymous said…
To all the I-want-my-mommymouses: I was saying that people of color are CHARGED with hate crimes at a much higher rate than the general population.

That's an indication that law enforcement, as usual, when given a stupid law to enforce, enforce it upon those whom have less power and less voice.

This, ironically, often works against the group the law was titularly supposed to protect.

Much like the indefensible laws against attempting to feel better, which, instead of "protecting" children, creates an atmosphere in which children are exposed to unregulated traffic of "feelbetter".

And that apparently makes PP feel better.
Anonymous said…
PP, et. al. you realize that you're using the same arguments here that were used to discourage passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right? Do you think that Law should be repealed or changed to include seniors, soldiers, vets, etc?
Angie said…
Hate crimes legislation (in general) doesn't create protected "classes" of people. It doesn't say that some people are more important than others; it says that some crimes are different than others, and should be treated differently.

The hate crime bill doesn't just cover racial minorities, religious minorities, "homosexuals" or "cross dressers." It includes crimes against all people who are attacked based on those characteristics; that means all races (including white people!), all religions (including Christians!), and all sexual orientations (including straight people!).
Anonymous said…
1:27, sorry but you are splitting hairs. How about fat people, rich people, midgets, etc. It's just silly. A crime is a crime. I say, throw the book at everybody, no matter who it is. If somebody attacks me (a pudgy middle-aged white woman) in a vicious way, why should that have a lesser penalty than a similar attack against someone with characteristics covered under this legislation?
Angie said…
It's not splitting hairs. I've heard numerous comments talking about "protected classes," which would imply that some people (ie, white men) are not protected if they experience the same sort of attack. That's just not true.

It also doesn't cover all crimes committed against racial/ethnic/religious/sexual minorities. If someone randomly mugs a black woman, that is not the same as beating her with clubs and chains and whatever else is around simply because of one (or both) of those characteristics.

The difference is that bias-motivated crimes do not just affect the victim of the crime; they are perpetrated to send a message to an entire community of people. That's why penalties for hate crimes need to be harsher than other violent crimes.
Anonymous said…
11:53, using that convoluted logic, radical Islamists should charged with hate crimes because they want to send a message to Americans that they hate them. True?
Anonymous said…
11:53, you are digging yourself farther into a hole. As the pudgy middle-aged white woman in 3:58, I guess I am going to have to be the victim of someone who wants to send a messsage to an entire community of middle-aged white women. Will you please just try to understand why this is discriminatory? Somebody viciously attacks me, and unless he has a message to send to a bunch of people, it is going to be treated as less of a crime. It just doesn't make sense. I want everyone to be treated equally.
Anonymous said…
This is a bad bill. It further divides people and does nothing to foster love instead of hate between different groups. When will people realize that such laws and political correctness itself do nothing but create more discrimination?

If a white mugger is lying in wait for the first available victim, and it just happens to be a black woman, will he be convicted of a hate crime? He really didn't care who he mugged; he just wanted some money and took the first opportunity whether black, white, yellow, or striped. But since it's white on black, it could be considered a hate crime, even though it can't be proven because no one can read another person's mind. Even though this law comes close to insisting that we can, and making it legal to do so.

Actually, I hope Herseth continues to vote in this manner as it will make it easier to defeat "Miss Cute and Perky" next time around.
Anonymous said…
Big Lib on your post 1:27p, i have a question.
Does your post apply to those who are against God and those who believe as Christians.
Christians are losing their rights and sometimes in rage!
Anonymous said…
I would agree that there should be no differentiation about who a crime is committed against. So, if one kills a person, be it a kid, an elected official, an adult, or a police officer, it should all be treated the same. No one group should be treated any differently than any other
Max Power said…
what special rights does the bill give gay people?

you can't answer the question because the bill doesn't give gay people special right.
Anonymous said…
Here's one for you. When Ann Coulter or the Minutemen are attacked BECAUSE OF THEIR VIEWS at an event to which they were INVITED, is that a hate crime? I'll be the libs would not think so. Get rid of this silly piece of legislation.
Anonymous said…
I see "Big Lib" is no where to be found!
Anonymous said…
ONe of the bigget problem is where is the common decency!
It has up and left a lot of Americans or has left America.
People who are trying to shut out one group is removing the rights of the next.
Such as the guy in of all places California who thinks God should be removed from everything. He is trying to invoke his freedom to remove the freedom of others.

By the way I am not sure here but has the Argus found information on this blog to write stories about? I just have this feeling that this is happening. I have not put my finger on it yet, but it is stiring. Okay no off color rumblings please. Just ponder the question please and your opinion is welcome by me.
Anonymous said…
Ask yourselves why Hate Crimes laws were created in the first place. Jurys and prosecutors in the south refused to convict murders. Then, read about a murder 3 years ago in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. A murderer was convicted of second degree manslaughter and given 5 years in prison after he brought a gay man back to his hotel room, strangled him, put his body in a suitcase, and threw him into the river. Based on their prejudice and because the case was not tried as a hate crime, the jury was able to reduce the convinction.

This kind of thing happens everyday. Hate crimes laws are not in place because of the motive of the criminal only, but also to protect victims from injustice inflicted by biased prosecutors and jurys.

BTW Concerned Woman for America is a single issue, anti-gay group, that should not be given the attention you are giving them.
Anonymous said…
11:56, is a bunch of traitors, and they should not be given weight either. Sounds ridiculous? That is what you are saying, in reverse.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.