News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


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

Contact the Baristas

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.



Rhetorical Attack Of The Anti-LLEHCPA White Guys

by: Autumn Sandeen

Wed May 09, 2007 at 13:01:46 PM EDT


The white, middle-aged men are out in force today (May 9, 2007) arguing against LLEHCPA. Today's group seems to be arguing almost in lockstep that hate crime laws are "thought police" laws. The articles:

Ed Feulner, president of the Herritage Foundation:
Thought police on patrol in D.C.
Ed Feulner

Syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum:
Looking for Hate in All the Wrong Places
Jacob Sullum

Southern Baptist Convention Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission's Richard Land:
Hate Crimes, Thought Police, and Religious Freedom
Richard Land

Congressman/Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (R-TX):
Unconstitutional Legislation Threatens Freedoms
Ron Paul

It seems kind of strange to me that today's spokesmodels arging against hate crime legislation are all white, middle-aged men -- not a minority individual in the bunch.  This isn't to say there aren't people who belong to minority groups that oppose LLEHCPA, but it appears that the loudest group arguing against this legislation are middle-aged white men. 

Looking at this small sea of white, middle-aged male faces speaks loudly to me about the lack of empathy that these folk who aren't likely to be victims of hate crimes have towards hate crime victims.

John IrelandFortunately, John Ireland has put out some talking points out as to why a national hate crime law is needed. In his article Defining Hate in the United States, he points out that Hate crimes are underreported, nineteen states fail to include sexual orientation in their hate-crimes legislation, data collection for the FBI's annual hate crime report is inconsistent, and that the "thought crime" law enforcement perspective needs to be contrasted against the benefits that hate crime laws provide as a crime prevention tool. I recommend reading Mr. Ireland's piece.

--
Further reading from Findlaw Writ: The President's Disingenuous Arguments Against Expanding the Federal Hate Crime Law

Crossposted to: http://abnormalheights.org

Autumn Sandeen :: Rhetorical Attack Of The Anti-LLEHCPA White Guys
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Reason Magazine posting on this diary entry.

*****Update*****

Jacob Sullum responed to this blolg entry in Reason Magazine posting.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau


Misguided, I'm afraid
Autumn, I agree with Mr. Sullum and others on this issue.  It is important to me that you understand why.

First of all, the several states are quite capable of defending life and limb themselves in this case.  The federal government has no business legislating on the matter.  The constitution specific denies to it any powers that it does not specifically grant to it.  I have not heard a convincing argument that this proposed law fits within the consitutionally-granted regulatory powers granted to the federal government. 

Yes, consitutional matters, all very exciting, aren't they. :-)  But I very strongly feel that Washington has for years been acting outside of its mandating, and that it is to the continuing and increasing detriment of our welfare.

Perhaps more importantly, it seems clear to me that hate crime laws are attempts to legislate morality!  It is unfortunate that some people have bigotry in their hearts.  But I don't believe that it is right to use the power of the law to coerce them into acting as if they were not bigots.  I don't think it's right, and I suspect that doing so brings unintended consequences, driving bigotry underground, granting the bigots a sense of victimization that draws them together and earns them sympathy with others, and inciting bitterness against the targets of their intolerance, who don't need more people against them.

It frustrates me that those who care so passionately about the well-being of the various unfairly persecuted people of the world are so wiling to dedicate themselves to lobbying governments to legislate their way.  There's nothing liberal about it.  I am a liberal, my friend, the old-school kind, and I know that there's rarely anything liberal or freedom-loving about passing laws to make life harder for those people you disagree with.

To summarize: lives are already sufficiently protected.  The federal government doesn't have the right to do this.  It's not right to legislate morality like this.  It backfires, too.  Liberals should know better, dammit!


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Join the Blend Chat Room



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