PHB Mobile



News Tips? Calendar Info?



"If you're gay, lesbian, or bisexual, would you sacrifice for your trans neighbors and siblings? If you're trans, would you sacrifice for your gay, lesbian, or bisexual neighbors and siblings? It's something worth knowing about yourself and those around you."
--Autumn Sandeen, 4/19/2010, the night before GetEQUAL's DADT repeal protest at the White House


Public Calendar

Press/media, organizations, and individuals send your time-based event info to: calendar@phblend.net

Full size PHB Calendar


About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Blend

Snail mail:
Pam's House Blend
105 West Hwy 54, Suite 265
Box #113
Durham, NC 27713









The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.



Oklahoma state senate passes bill to opt out of fed hate crimes law

by: Pam Spaulding

Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:00:00 PM EST


Here we are, back to the land of Sally Kern, where the hot bigoted wind comes sweepin' down the plain.

The latest piece of legislative bigotry is from State Sen. Steve Russell (R-Oklahoma City),and it's about as low as you can go. States' rights, peeps -- let's opt out of federal hate crimes protections!

In an amendment presented on the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma City, gutted a bill that had been filed to create a task force to study the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association, and inserted language to make changes to the state's hate crime statutes.

Under the new provisions of Senate Bill 1965, reports that were collected during investigations of possible hate crime that did not end in a conviction would be destroyed or kept by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.

Russell said the bill is meant to prevent the federal law enforcement officials from taking over a case and applying different standards when local law enforcement has already investigated a case.

Only a few senators questioned Russell about the contents of his proposed amendment. The measure passed 39-6 and now heads to the House for consideration.

When Russell introduced this concept to his peers, he stated that he had a problem with "sexual orientation" as a protected class...it's like, you know, necrophilia.

Russell said because the government has decided to intervene on issues of morality, he is worried that religious leaders who speak out against any lifestyle could be imprisoned for their speech. "The law is very vague to begin with," Russell said. "Sexual orientation is a very vague word that could be extended to extremes like necrophilia."

...When asked about whether the state of Oklahoma should reject the $5 million in federal funds that the federal government would give to law enforcement agencies to help prosecute hate crimes, Russell said he thought about finding a way to pass his law while taking the money, but said it would be a compromise in the values of his bill.

Yes, that's how much he hates teh homoseckshuelz.

You're doin' fine, Oklahoma!

Oklahoma O.K.

L - A - H - O - M - A

OKLAHOMA!

Yeeow!

UPDATE: The reaction by Oklahoma's The Equality Network (TEN):

The Equality Network (TEN) is outraged by the Oklahoma State Senate's 39-6 vote in support of SB 1965, a bill that forces state law enforcement officials to obstruct the provisions of the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Protection Act that protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Using an amendment to gut the language of a bill that had been filed to create a task force to study the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association, Senator Steve Russell (R-Oklahoma City) inserted the original text of SB 2165, a bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee had declined to pass on to the floor.

The new SB 1965 leaves LGBT Oklahomans no legal recourse if they are victims of hate crimes. Not only does the state hate crimes law exclude sexual orientation or gender identity, but SB 1965 also prevents law enforcement officials from asking for federal assistance in enforcing the LGBT-inclusive federal hate crimes law. The bill does not seek to repeal federal or state hate crimes protections accorded on the basis of race, national origin, religion, or disability. Instead, it intentionally excludes only hate crimes perpetrated on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity, two categories added to federal hate crimes law by the U.S. Congress in October 2009.

"Senator Russell's bill is truly terrifying in its implications." warns Kathy L. Williams, Ph.D., president of The Equality Network. "This legislation sends the message that violence against LGBT Oklahomans is acceptable. It also sets a chilling precedent that Oklahoma will only enforce certain federal laws and cooperate only with selected federal agencies. We believe this unconstitutional and blatantly discriminatory bill will harm all Oklahomans, regardless of their identity and regardless of whether they are victims of hate crimes." SB 1965 will now be considered by the Oklahoma House of Representatives. If the measure passes the House and is signed by Governor Brad Henry, it will become state law.

Pam Spaulding :: Oklahoma state senate passes bill to opt out of fed hate crimes law
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Well, if you can't call a cop, it's time
every LGBTQ in OK joined the pink pistols...http://www.pinkpistols.org/

Down with the DNC/DSCC/DCCC incumbent protection racket. Down with Gay, Inc.  

Not sure I can do that.
I'm not willing to support Pink Pistols-level red-baiting; some of us would be better served by a generally progressive gun group, if preferably one with a strong LGBT (or at least anti-homophobic/transphobic) presence.

[ Parent ]
This Steve Russell
looks like Charlie Crist's cracked-out albino cousin.

"... forces state law enforcement officials to obstruct the provisions of the federal ... Hate Crimes Protection Act
Is it treason yet?

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

I hope the FEDS come down on those crazies
they will be putting judges and LEOs in jail for obstruction of justice.

[ Parent ]
The answer is simple
Deny Oklahoma all Federal funding.  

Wow. So it looks like the State of Oklahoma is a wealthy state . . .
. . . and their police agencies have all the properly trained and equipped personnel they need and believes it won't ever need any monetary or other assistance from the federal government in order to investigate any crime that is aimed at terrorizing any entire minority community.

I wonder what local law enforcement agencies and local governments, the organizations whose access to federal monetary and other assistance would be barred by this ignorant and poorly-conceived bill, might think of this bit of wrong-headed jackassery?

Oh well, I guess no one expects the people of a state that elects the likes of a Sally Kern to public office, to have any degree of intelligence or morality.


Totally illegal!
If this were to pass the OK House and did become law, it is the state employee that destroys the first such files that are indeed violations of the Federal Hate Crime statutes that goes to jail. Plain and simple. The Feds will be all over them.
Oklahoma is asking to be placed under the microscope with this bill. Idiots!  

[ Parent ]
The parts of the federal law that mandate data collection and reporting . . .
. . . can't be nullified by state action.  State officials who don't comply can and should wind up in federal prison.

About the only part of the law that might pass muster, and only if the State of Oklahoma is refusing federal funding or assistance for local law enforcement across the board, is the refusal of federal money or assistance in state investigations.  If Oklahoma doesn't want federal funds, that leaves more for the other states.


[ Parent ]
I must apologize.
When I wrote the "Wow" comment above, I had not read the actual bill - the actual bill only deals with the parts of the federal law that mandates data collection and reporting, not the parts that provide monetary and other assistance to local government.  My bad, there - and I tried to make up for it in my later top-level comment that refers to the way the bill will turn local law enforcement officials into federal felons if they obey the state law.

Sorry about shooting from the hip!


[ Parent ]
How is this not OK Senate mandated obstruction of Justice?
Destroyed or filed to prevent access by federal prosecutors?!? Nuff said!

Always thinking about it...

Can they do this?
Didn't this country fight a bloody civil war precisely to require states to meet their obligations under Federal law? Do they just get to pick and choose which laws they like and those they don't? Can I do that? Or did the Obama Administration sell us out again with some fine print exception that allows states to simply opt out? Is there a lawyer in the house?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. - The U.S. Constitution Article IV.Section. 2. Clause 1

To be specific:
One of the causes of the Civil War was South Carolina's attempt to "nullify" federal laws.  I can't see that this differs in any way.

As for the Obama administration, it'll be very interesting to see whether God's in this mix, too.  Since they seem to be doing everything they can to increase federal power, it's hard to imagine them letting this go.  But it's a cinch that Barry's five "spiritual advisers" won't want him to meddle with Christians' right to bash LGBT people.

Americans suffer from an ignorance that is not only colossal, but sacred.  --James Baldwin


[ Parent ]
another one.....
...severe case of GAYFACE....another self-loather....anyone out there have any info on this wackjob?  OUT HIM!  

What I find so disturbing
Is that a hateful law like this passed with such a large majority. Is Oklahoma really so homophobic that only six senators had the decency to vote no?

Frightening.  


In a word: YES.


Americans suffer from an ignorance that is not only colossal, but sacred.  --James Baldwin


[ Parent ]
Can someone fax/email this idiot....
Romer v. Evans 517 U.S. 620 (1996)

You know...
you know this piece of dung of a state senator wouldn't do this if there were TLBG gangs going out and committing hate crimes against straights, right?

Listen to "TransTalk" every Monday from 4-5pm ET on http://falconradio.org

We need your help to pass two referenda in Bowling Green, Ohio!! Find out how you can help by going to www.onebowlinggreen.org


"combinations too powerful to be surpressed"
Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in (insert state/s), by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,

Now therefore, I, (insert president), President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

Oklahoma, this has been tried before. It is called nullification. It was declared a dead topic in political theory at a place called Appomatax Court House in 1865.

Do you people read the history of your nation?



I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid


Actually
Nullification isn't a dead issue.  It just depends on the issue.   For instance, Medical Marijuana.   As far as the Feds are concerned, regardless of what your state government says, you are technically still a criminal in the eyes of the Federal Government.  

The State of Montana passed last year, a law concerning ATF regulations on firearms, basically stating that as long as the firearm remained an intrastate issue (i.e. sold, and used within the borders of the State of Montana), and never taken across state lines, that the BATF, and by extension, the federal government can go piss up a rope...   Hasn't been challenged yet, but the Federal Government also hasn't done anything to try to get Montana to reconsider...

So there is still precedent, recent precedent for letting states do things that the Federal Government says is a no-no.

I doubt this thing would pass muster in federal court, which can, and will happen, I'm sure, should it become law, but lately here it really looks like the boys and girls in D.C. give the states a pretty free hand in things, at least to me...


I just looked at the bill and it is a stinker!
In my earlier comments, I was under the misimpression that Oklahoma was turning down federal money in addition to attempting to force local officials to obetruct justice.

Now that I have actually taken a look at the bill. it's a real stinker.  The following, and similar language, should, if implemented, permit federal prosecutors to go after any Oklahoma public official who attempts to obey the statute, on federal obstruction of justice charges.

Any data collected and reports received on an individual charged with a crime pursuant to this section that are later determined by a state or local law enforcement agency, investigating authority, or a court to be not guilty or are otherwise acquitted or improperly charged and dismissed as an incident of crime pursuant to this section shall have such data and reports permanently deleted from the database required by this subsection and any hard copies associated with the data destroyed.  All other existing data and reports shall remain the property of the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation and the Director shall have the authority to retain and protect from additional disclosure any data or record pursuant to Section 150.5 of Title 74 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

If the destroyed information is the subject of a federal inquiry, the official who destroys or orders the destruction of the records will be in serious breach of federal law.

In addition, law enforcement agencies shall deny access to law enforcement records to any federal agency when such request is made relating to a case handled and completed by a law enforcement agency of this state and the purpose is to attempt to investigate or prosecute the individual or individuals pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 245, except for records of any individuals convicted pursuant to Section 850 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes and for those records listed in subsection A of this section.

For the destruction, or even the mere denial of access. the local yokels can get up to twenty (20) years under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, which provides:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

I note that the people who enact and enforce a state law that requires local officials to violate the federal law and incur the hefty penalties, are not necessarily to be held liable for their obstruction, unless one wants to creatively interpret the federal statute.  

As to the poor local official who does not resign rather than break either the state or federal law (assuming they actually enact SB 1965), no one is going to successfully challenge the constitutionality of the federal obstruction statute in this context - the first Oklahoma officials who obey their Senate Bill 1965 as amended, if enacted, will likely become squealing guinea pigs with a serious chance of ending up doing hard time for their efforts.

When one deals with corrupt local law enforcement, and local courts that will not protect federally recognized minorities in these circumstances, the federal government must step in with the full weight of federal law.  In the 1960's the feds started using "violation of civil rights" as a means to prosecute terrorist murderers, of African-Americans and civil rights workers, who slipped through corrupt local procedures or in cases where local officials looked the other way, or where local murder prosecutions ended up with "jury nullification" by the white-sheeted peers of the defendant who were siting on the jury.

In the current situation, the State of Oklahoma will be creating another level of bad guy ripe for prosecution, mandating that local officials actually obstruct justice.


Seriously, if this could actually fly…
Then couldn't Alabama pass a state law to invalidate the 14th Amendment just so long as it keeps the slaves within its boarders?

...*sigh* guess I may as well go start picking cotton.  


You know, a SCOTUS that follows a Scalia-like philosophy . . .
. . . might be likely to uphold state laws and reinterpret the bill of rights and the 14th Amendment as being applicable solely to federal laws and federal action.

Here is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The "privileges and immunities" of a United States Citizen might be reinterpreted:

a. being able to vote in a state election as a citizen of that state may not be guaranteed  - federal voting rights may still be guaranteed.

b. if state law and state due process of law permits, it may be possible for a citizen to place himself or herself voluntarily into an indentured servitude.  It may be possible to create a condition of personal involuntary servitude under state law, for those who violate state criminal laws and are convicted and sentenced to such servitude, and there is no reason that the state might not be able to sell "involuntary servitude contracts" of convicted felons.

c.  Imagine citizens arrested for the felony of some variation of "driving while black" being sentenced to ten years of "involuntary servitude."  Imagine the SCOTUS upholding such a law.  We already have incarceration in state prisons - certainly a denial of liberty, but under due process of law.  It is only one more step to reimposing a variation of slavery on some people.  Of course, the condition of such servitude would not be hereditary - but imagine making it a requirement for children raised under state auspices to repay the state for the cost of raising them.  Making state laws that would make it easy to take chioldren away from their parents where the parents have been convicted might be a way to ensnare the children into a state of involuntary servitude as they work off the state cost of their "care" as children - at a rate that would make them "another day older and deeper in debt" for each day they actually work - so they can never actually repay the state.  What is worse, if the SCOTUS could provide for "separate but equal treatment" by overruling Brown v. Board of Ed., a lot of other things could be "gotten away with" under state laws.

Imagine slaves who could vote, but only for congress and the President.  Slaves whose condition would not be inherited, but the law would make it impossible for the children of slaves to be brought up by anyone other than the state, with a crushing financial burden they could never pay off, resulting in their own servitude.  And with "Separate but equal" treatment permitted to the states, the result would be that only minorities might find themselves on the wrong end of the servitude stick.

This is a much broader issue than merely the attempt to nullify the Matthew Shepard Act.  Imagine states with an official state religion, in which state legislators, judges, the governor and local officials are required to be members of the Official Church.  After all, the "establishment clause" might be interpreted as applicable only to the federal government, not the states.


[ Parent ]
I think that since OK wants to opt out of the
Federal Hate Crimes Act, that the FED should opt out of giving them any federal tax dollars for anything:  highways, medicare/medicaid, police protection, FBI assistance, landgrant college assistance, etc.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Days left for Joe Solmonese's promise to donors of DADT repeal in 2010 to be fulfilled
Leave your comments here.


The President's State of the Union promise to repeal.



Report TOS Violations

Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox